11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[D'karr]

Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
Apologies to all!

No problem. I've had those days too.

 

[Fifth Element]

Easy. Each type of creature has the same counter associated with it.

That's in the rules, is it?

As a DM who uses minis, the first thing I thought when I was reading the minion rules is "I can no longer use the same mini to represent the various types of monsters, because it would be too obvious which ones are the minions." You have to mix it up a bit.

That's not a rules problem, that's a DMing problem.

 

[D'karr]

That's not a rules problem, that's a DMing problem.

I've noticed, and I might be completely wrong, that the majority of discussions in which complaints surface about minions, that the overarching problem seems to boil down to one of DM presentation and execution more than one of mechanics.

 

[Fifth Element]

Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
Apologies to all!

No worries. It seems you're not the only one to have made that mistake.

 

[LostSoul]

As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.

Yes, from a tactical stand point it was good to kill the minion. But it doesn't feel like an achievement, because the challenge of doing so was drastically reduced.

I really don't understand. Let me try.

In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail. The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.

I am not sure I should still answer to this, since you apparently posted in the wrong thread, but what the heck:

I think you are making a leap of thought here I can't entirely follow - just because it doesn't matter how much damage you do doesn't mean the task is meaningless or has no chance of failure. You might be right for the "mini-task" of dealing enough damage, but you're not right for the bigger tasks "taking down a minion" or the next bigger task "surviving the encounter".

If you brought down a Dragon to 1 hit points, that doesn't mean that you have no chance of failure. You haven't succeeded until the Dragon is dead and can no longer endanger you (an important qualifier - some monsters do crazy stuff when dying ).

 

[Fifth Element]

I really don't understand. Let me try.

In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail. The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.

Also, apparently the fact that the attack roll might miss is ignored as well. Even though with 4E minion rules, you have have a creature with a high AC that you can drop in one hit. In previous editions, if a monster was weak enough to drop in one hit, it generally had a low AC as well. And a low attack roll.

The minion rules allow one-hit monsters that are otherwise credible threats.

 

[Atreides]

However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track. I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet. Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen. Here is an example:

When a character goes to 0 hp or below, they take an "attack" to Fortitude equal to the damage caused by the blow that sent them down. If the attack misses, they were assumed to have just been KO'd or have various contusions or flesh wounds. If the attack "hits" they suffer a long-term wound, and we roll randomly on a table for the wound and location. Let's say the character suffered a broken arm.

Broken Arm
Endurance: Improve DC 18, Maintain DC 12, Worsen DC 11 or less
Check 1/x per 3 days
Healed <- Initial effect: -4 to any activities with the arm (including attacks or skill checks) character max of 75% of hp <-> Infection/bleeding: as above, plus max hp are 50% of normal, -2 healing surges until improve, DC to improve or maintain +2 -> Gangrene: amputation necessary

So far, this is working really well for us. We've also added several healing rituals that help set bones, mend tissues, etc, and if a magical healing Power is used, it adds a bonus to the roll equal to its level and allows an immediate check (max of once per day). I'll admit, I'm more of a simulationist DM, and even then I love 4e- I can make it work for us with far fewer mods than I could 3.x.[/quote]



By any chance are these rules typed up? Are they available for public consumption?

I would really love to see them as this sounds very much like something I would like to add to my Campaign - Thanks!

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Seriously. Why bother having exciting weapons when a pointy stick will do the same job? In previous editions this came up. You wore a creature down, or it was way below your level. You couldn't fail to kill it if you scored the hit. But that was few and far between. This is pretty frequent.

Higher to-hit bonuses? If you are unable to hit them, you won't be able to kill them. And the weapon proficiency and enchantment boni do make a difference...

 

[Zustiur]

In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail. The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.

I think you are making a leap of thought here I can't entirely follow - just because it doesn't matter how much damage you do doesn't mean the task is meaningless or has no chance of failure. You might be right for the "mini-task" of dealing enough damage, but you're not right for the bigger tasks "taking down a minion" or the next bigger task "surviving the encounter".

Also, apparently the fact that the attack roll might miss is ignored as well. Even though with 4E minion rules, you have have a creature with a high AC that you can drop in one hit. In previous editions, if a monster was weak enough to drop in one hit, it generally had a low AC as well. And a low attack roll.

Higher to-hit bonuses? If you are unable to hit them, you won't be able to kill them. And the weapon proficiency and enchantment boni do make a difference...

All of the above are valid points that I agree with. My issue is with the perceived achievement of killing a minion. AC and tactical advantage aside, killing a monster with lots of hit points has a great deal more kudos than killing a monster with one hit point. I do not find killing minions satisfying.

But, as it has been pointed out to me, this is not the whining thread, so in an attempt to return to the actual topic, here's what I like about 4E.

• Ability scores are handled by standard array or points buy as the default methods.
• Fixed starting money – not random like 3E
• Saves became defences like AC – rolling remains on the attacker’s side, rather than the defender’s side.
• Similar skills have been combined (although I feel they may have gone too far with this)
• Basic spells (cantrips/orisons) are not limited use per day.
• Natural armour is no longer a consideration for character sheets
• Passive senses are written straight into the rules
• Flat footed and touch AC are gone.
• Weapons are grouped by type (unfortunately proficiency is not)
• Monsters each have more than one example
• Weapon size has returned to the 3.0 system.
• Weight/carry system is simpler particularly in terms of how it affects movement.
• The disease system
• The concept behind skill challenges
• Fewer classes know how to wear plate mail straight off
• There are currently no splat books to consider
• Paladins are not restricted to lawful good.
• Critical/fumbled skill checks are +/- 5 instead of +/- 10.
• Low level wizards do not run out of spells too quickly.