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

[Fifth Element]

4e doesn't straight-jacket you, and certainly gives nods to flexibiilty with retraining, but that feels more like a sop rather than a core game mechanic. 4e characters, though they may have many paths available to travel, have to choose a path and stick to it once chosen.

That's true to some extent (though multiclassing feats mess with it), but there's an important piece missing. In all 4E classes, whenever you are in line to gain a new power, you get to choose what it is out of several options. In 3E, you may have more flexibility in choosing to level up in another class, but any abilities you gain from that class are based solely on what level you're gaining. Very few 3E classes provide any choice of class abilities within the class advancement.

 

[Felix]

Very few 3E classes provide any choice of class abilities within the class advancement.

Ehh... yeah. Also true to an extent. But feats every 3 levels mitigates that. And if you want to stay within one class:

Barbarians don't have much in the way of choice. Paladins are pretty shoe-horned. These guys are the most restrictive.

Fighter gets his feats. Rangers get weapon styles and favored enemies. Rogues eventually have their special abilities. Monks have the one-out-of-two option that 4e has for all classes. These martial classes have more flexibility, but they don't compare at all to:

Bards get their spells known. Clerics, spells memorized. Druid, again, spells memorized. Sorcerer spells known. Wizards have a stupid amount of options. Spellcasters are supremely customizable.​

I count spells memorized, spells known, and spells added to spellbooks as varied options because that can greatly change how a character can approach a particular challenge on a level-to-level, and even a day-to-day basis. The effect this will have on the game is that sometimes these spellcasters will be horrifyingly effective at solving a problem with spells, and other days completely ineffectual. The new edition removes this possibility for game balance reasons while granting more of it to martial characters. Everyone is brought back to the mean, and the deviation from the mean of effectiveness in an encounter is drastically reduced. Meh.

 

[Fifth Element]

Everyone is brought back to the mean, and the deviation from the mean of effectiveness in an encounter is drastically reduced.

That's true. But your original comment was "4e characters, though they may have many paths available to travel, have to choose a path and stick to it once chosen." Which I think is a very unfair way of describing 4E classes, since it essentially uses the 3E concept of character advancement to judge 4E classes.

 

[Engilbrand]

I will echo horror as "missing". To a small extent, though. I really liked the Tome of Horrors for the ideas. I would like to see more things like that.
As it is, I love the article on Mordain the Fleshweaver and his happy forest of fun, and I love the Spellplague stuff from the Forgotten Realms. I've been able to mix these together in my game to create something dark.
I'm fairly new to DMing. I'm fairly new to "reskinning" monsters and ideas. It's working great so far, but I would love a book full of horrible things. The Mordain article references a small creature that's a mix between a hamster and a bunny, but it's also incredibly poisonous. I would love stats for that.
The Spellscarred powers are going to be great things to use for the darkness in the campaign. But I could use more.
Actually, while not missing anything, I could use more. Of everything. I will buy almost anything that they put out. If it would make sense for me. The flavor and mechanics of this edition have floored me. My players love the return of 1st edition feel. (Go figure.) More horror things for the campaign would be nice, though.

 

[Stalker0]

As Neo would say, "The problem is choice".

Compare the 3e and 4e rangers for example. In 3e if you want to play a melee ranger, you are encourage to use TWF. You get nice bonuses it in with feats for example. I would wager the vast majority of melee rangers out there were TWFs. But...you didn't have to be. You could take the bow side, get the bow feats for when you wanted to bust out the archery, and then use a greatsword and still be just fine in combat.

In 4e, if you are a ranger in melee you have to use TWF or you can't use the vast majority of powers. That's a bit more shoehorning then I like.

The same with the rogue and the forced use of light weapons. I can accept that sneak attack requires a bit more finesse than a greatsword can provide, and as such you can't sneak attack with big weapons. But why are all of my rogue powers limited to a small selection of weapons? Why can't I use blinding barrage with a bow just as well as a crossbow....heck even better?


Most of 4e I like, and I am in the camp that believes most of the missing stuff will be fixed with supplements. People talk about the beguiler and the bladesinger earlier in the thread. Well...it took time and supplements before those options were available. The druid didn't become a really good summoner until augment summons and spontaneous summon casting were available, etc. You can't get every option under the sun in the first books.

I think the other thing I miss is the ability to change powers or use the same power multiple times. That to me is the biggest difference between BO9S martial classes and current 4e ones.


And lastly, how about some cheaper, faster rituals. I don't have a problem with most wizardy things being put into ritual form. But they all don't need to have a 10 minute casting time, one minute is fine. And some rituals are crazy expensive for what they do. How about some other resources, healing surges, give me a penalty for an hour, or something. The wizard is our party is constantly draining the party funds for rituals. Now its fair, because we all benefit from them...but still, so expensive.

 

[BlackMoria]

What is 4E missing? Besides alot of good responses that I agree with already mentioned up-thread, it is missing a certain logic that the lack of, I find grating.

The fact that in 4e, you can trip a ooze, a flying creature, a titan or a collosal dragon with the same mechanic and ease. Beat the defence number and down the creature goes. Kobold, titan.... no matter. Really? Take a number of large 3 foot thick logs and build a huge dragon analog. Short of ramming a car into it, it is nearly impossible for a person to sweep out (aka. trip) one of the legs to make it collapse. Too much mass and weight.

A titan or collosal dragon gets cover from being behind a puny kobold. It is like saying the door on your house is sufficent to impede you from accurately hitting the side of your house.

How about the fact that you can knock a creature prone, the next PC can do something to push, pull or slide the creature any number of squares and the creature is still prone at the start of its turn because it has been prone all along. And on the silliness goes....

The design seems to be: Smply the rules, make the rules the lowest common denominator and apply liberally to all.

This is just few of a number of rules that might be simple for gameplay purposes but make no sense from a number of points of view. Logically, visually, etc.

Sure, all this can be houseruled and in my game it has. But it shouldn't have to be houseruled in the first place. What is missing, besides the other things people have pointed out, was simple common sense. Keep it simple went too far in that direction and for my viewpoint 4E suffered as a result.

 

[Midnight Dawns]

What is 4th ed. missing?
As mentioned before, spells that don't do damage. (Rituals don't count for this.)
Monster entries that talk about the culture/behavior of the monsters. ( I am a world builder so I always enjoyed this immensely as it gave me ideas.)
Attacks that make sense. Now I like the idea of martial "powers", they are simply detailed attacks, but how do you explain all of the sliding of enemies around?
Now this said, 4th ed. is what I currently DM. The first I let the players come up with, the second I do on my own, and the third I try to ignore. However I don't think I should have to have the players come up with none damaging spells or have to ignore mechanics that don't make sense. (I can deal with out the more detailed monster entries.)

 

[Engilbrand]

While the mechanics are the same, the reality of the game rule is different. Sure, you can "trip" the monster. That doesn't mean that you actually trip them. You find a way to incapacitate them in a very specific manner. It's up for you to decide how.

 

[Felix]

Which I think is a very unfair way of describing 4E classes, since it essentially uses the 3E concept of character advancement to judge 4E classes.

Ok: it's missing the 3e concept of character advancement, which I liked very much, and has substituted an alternate 4e method of character advancement, which I don't.

It's not fair or unfair: it's preference. Though I suggest that 3e had more of the flexibility at level-up within a class that 4e focuses on than 4e has the level by level flexibility that 3e pioneered.

 

[Ourph]

What is 4th ed. missing?
As mentioned before, spells that don't do damage. (Rituals don't count for this.)

I have no idea where this meme is coming from, as it's completely and utterly wrong. Just in the heroic tier we have...

Bless, Cure Light Wounds, Divine Aid, Sanctuary, Shield of Faith, Bastion of Health, Cure Serious Wounds, Divine Vigor, Holy Lantern, Astral Refuge, Knight of Unyielding Vigor, Mass Cure Light Wounds and Shielding Word for the Cleric...

Beguiling Tongue, Ethereal Stride, Fiendish Resilience, Shadow Veil, Dark One's Own Luck, Fey Switch, Shroud of Black Steel, Spider Climb, Ambassador Imp, Shadow Form, Shielding Shades and Warlock's Leap for the Warlock, and...

Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Jump, Shield, Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate, Wall of Fog, Arcane Gate, Blur, Mirror Image and Resistance for the Wizard.

None of these spells deal damage. Some of them restore HP, but even if you eliminate all of the spells that are pretty much only effective in combat (like Sanctuary), each class still has half a dozen or more spells that are useful in out-of-combat situations.

I don't get how someone could read through the utility powers for any of the spellcasting classes and come away with the impression that spells only deal damage in 4e.