Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[Daniel D. Fox]

Forked from: Name one thing you love and one thing you hate about 4e D&D


To me, 4E is no longer freeform when it comes to decision-making on the DM's part. It doesn't have that old-school feel that 1e and 2e had. 3/3.5e put a lot of power in the player's hands, and 4e is the (seemingly) evolution of that same school of thought. While I do love the elegance of 4E in play, I do miss the "loose and fast" decisionmaking from previous editions.

What do you feel 4E is missing from previous editions?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Me being young.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well "missing" is a subjective term that may not apply to those who are actually getting everything they want from it already.

To others, the question of what is missing is simply a matter of time until supplements are released.

For some of us, what is missing is a feel that is hard to define, yet easy to recognize when we experience it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For myself it is as ExploderWizard put a "matter of time".

-Firearms: From Medieval to Victorian.

-Various contraptions and devices: So non-magical devices, like clockwork, or spring loaded, etc. Like the items that were in Complete Scoundrel.

-Beguiler: This will probably be covered in one form or another with one of the Shadow Power classes.

-Skill Tricks: Less an exact duplicate, but more simply I would like to see what a 4e version be like.

 

[Felon]

It's missing rules for disarming and pinning. It's missing exceptions that should prevent players from tripping oozes and grappling swarms. In general, it's missing a certain amount of thoroughness and flexibility.

 

[Markustay]

I'd have to agree with everything the OP said, and what others have said, and add-in classes (Bard, Barbarian, Monk, Druid) and races (Gnome).

But overall, I feel the rules are missing 'Heart'.

I've tried them, and I feel like I'm playing a 'supers' game, not a fantasy game. Everyone has powers and what-not, almost as if I were stuck in some Dragonball version of D&D.

Simply put, 4e is missing 'D&D'.

Its a great rules system, but it doesn't feel at all like the game I've grown to love.

 

[Remathilis]

Forked from: Name one thing you love and one thing you hate about 4e D&D


To me, 4E is no longer freeform when it comes to decision-making on the DM's part. It doesn't have that old-school feel that 1e and 2e had. 3/3.5e put a lot of power in the player's hands, and 4e is the (seemingly) evolution of that same school of thought. While I do love the elegance of 4E in play, I do miss the "loose and fast" decisionmaking from previous editions.

What do you feel 4E is missing from previous editions?

That is a relic of not having a definitive encounter-building system. 3e and 4e tried to structure the game so that every 13/10 relevant (= to PC level) encounter constituted a level. Therefore, a game could be measured by meaningful challenges, and (in 4e's case) after 300 meaningful encounters, the game ends.

This is stark contrast from the system of "eyeball based on HD" that older D&D used. Sometimes, you faces a weak set of foes (6 kobolds) next to a strong foe, (an owlbear), across from a non-encounter (12 skeletons, all turned), only to meet the master of the dungeon, a 5th level wizard (who proceeds to fireball the party and wipe most of them out). Perhaps that adventure was enough XP to level the thief, but the fighter need twice as many foes to level, etc.

The latter could easily be done, since there is no rhyme or reason to it other than "this monster entry says 1d6+1 kobolds in a combat" or "I want the master of the dungeon to be 5th level mage". Designing the same encounters in 3e would require EL/CR consideration (Is it a challenge?) and in 4e it would mean creating, and spending, an XP budget on foes of different types of foes (kobold wyrmpriest + 2 kobold minions + a kobold slinger...)

The trade off for balance is spontaneity. The trade off for flexibility in inequality. D&D has tried since 2000 to limit wild fluctuation on either side of the equation, but by doing so has introduced additional steps into the system, limiting "on the fly" creation. (While I applaud 4e for allowing a lot more flexibility than 3e in encounter/monster design, things like the treasure tables being replaced by parcels creates a more structured acquisition of treasure. Null sum gain.)

But I haven't answered you question. 4e is, for the most part, only missing options 3e once had (classes, races, powers/builds, monsters, items). WotC is more than aptly supplying many of these options in the coming year. I think 4e could take a step back though, and introduce some "non-killable" monsters (monsters mostly used as allies/NPCs, rather than cannon fodder) like metallic dragons, nymphs, and centaurs, as well as more "mundane" monsters (giant insects, lions and tigers and bears (oh my)). Things that could flesh out the world a bit more.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Simply put, 4e is missing 'D&D'.

Its a great rules system, but it doesn't feel at all like the game I've grown to love.

Then I'd have to ask... why aren't you *playing* your so-called "D&D"?

There was no law that said you had to switch editions. If 1E or 2E is "D&D" to you... then go play it.

And if you can't find anyone else to play them with you... perhaps there's a good reason that. Maybe 1E or 2E really aren't that great of games after all. Looking back in nostalgia / rose-colored glasses and all that, as they say.

 

[radferth]

The thing in I miss is role-playing in combat. In previous editions, I would choose may characters actions by asking myself what the character would do. In 4E, the combat decisions I make are rather obviously from a players point of view, not the characters.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The thing in I miss is role-playing in combat. In previous editions, I would choose may characters actions by asking myself what the character would do. In 4E, the combat decisions I make are rather obviously from a players point of view, not the characters.

Bua? How so?