Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[TwinBahamut]

While I dislike putting into such simplistic terms, I will say that 4E did not quite go far enough.

I will agree with Cadfan about the Wizards flavor/mechanics issue. I loved the "six wizardly traditions" concept, and I was all set to build parts of a campaign setting around it, only to find that it got completely removed at some point in development. I mean, I hated the name "emerald frost" as much as the next guy, but the concept was superb. I wonder if other such flavorful things that got dropped... Such a shame.


I would have much preferred to see Paragon and Epic characters be more epic. I have always disliked the idea that "mundane" characters should be limited to what is possible in the real world, and I was glad when the Book of Nine Swords challenged that, and happier to learn that 4E was going even further. But they simply didn't go far enough. 4E Epic-level Martial characters are simply not as awesome as they should be. They have finally caught up with other characters in terms of mechanical power, but they simply don't have the truly superhuman/mythical level of ability that I was hoping they would have.


I wish that I didn't have to worry about basic ability scores for monsters at all. They did so much to make monsters more workable, but I still have to give new monsters ability scores that are going to be factored into stats, and I don't think that is necessary.


I was hoping that 4E would get the game off the gold standard, so characters didn't have to spend ridiculous quantities of wealth in order to buy the weapons they need. Instead, we get magic items with gold prices in the millions. Most of the other rules about divying up wealth and the regulations for buying, selling, and acquiring items also bother me. I wish they would have gone further with some of the primary/secondary magic item concept mixed with the item level concept to create something where GP value was not so important. I was also hoping they would just drop pure +X items, or even the +X designation. More truly fanciful equipment and firearms would have been nice, too, but I guess that is what splatbooks are for.


I still don't quite like the terms "lawful good" and "chaotic evil", but at least the alignment system works a lot better.


I liked the hinted at "you need to have a destiny in order to be raised from the dead" concept a lot more than the "you must be willing to return to life" phrasing that bothered me so much in 3E.


There are a lot of other little things, really, but those are a few good examples. 4E would have been even better if it just pursued some of its own ideas a little more and stuck more to what it originally promised, but it is still good enough.

 

[firesnakearies]

I like all of the changes, pretty much. I'd say they could have gone farther in one area in particular, and that's the rest requirement issue. Yeah, they did a lot toward reducing the 15-minute-workday syndrome, but not enough. Moving even more towards a resource management model which allows for near-continuous adventuring without having to stop for 8-16 hours every few encounters would be excellent.

Also, doing away with the last tiny vestiges of Vancian power selection would be good, too. They almost eliminated it, but not quite.

Perhaps they did go TOO far on the quashing of multi-classing. I can concede that maybe 3.x was a bit ridiculous in that regard, when all was said and done, but they really took a pretty hard line against being more than one class in this edition.

 

[Lanefan]

Where 4e went too far:

- Sacrificing realism on the altar of efficiency (1-1-1 diagonals on screen, sir)
- Balancing classes to the point of homogenation
- Attempts to balance characters e.g. point buy, fixed h.p., etc.
- Enormous gap between minions/commoners and 1st-level monsters/characters
- Inconsistency between how things work when PCs are around and when they are not
- Too much information given to players e.g. magic item write-ups in the PH
- Combatants being able to force each other to move etc. without any sort of opposed check as it is built into the to-hit roll
- Too many levels in too short of (real) time - 20 was already more than bad enough, now there's 30 - the focus is on numbers and powers rather than story and imagination
- all sorts of minor things e.g. race and class changes, spell nerfing, etc.

Where 4e didn't go far enough:

- Roles vs. classes - if the roles are to be so important, why not scrap the classes entirely and just have 4 roles e.g. I'm a 10th-level Defender. Otherwise, scrap the roles. You don't need both.
- Skill simplification - you have fewer skills now but have to roll more dice to make 'em work. Better to just take out as many skills as you can and leave only those that can't be replaced with actual role-playing.
- Points of Light is nice and gritty...now make the rest of the system match it.

Where 4e got it right (so far, anyway):

- DM encouragement to wing it sometimes
- Vast reduction in buffs
- Less dependence on magic items
- A DMG that does its best to tell new DMs how to run dungeons
- Emphasis on set-piece combats with interesting terrain and tactical options
- Removal of prestige classes (and there was much rejoicing!)

Lanefan

 

[firesnakearies]

- Inconsistency between how things work when PCs are around and when they are not

What do you mean by this?

 

[Simon Atavax]

4e is the new 2e.

Well said, sir.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

4e is the new 2e.

Glad I am not the only one however...I came into D&D with 2e so I liked it 3e is just a much better game then 2e but has the same feel more or less

 

[Najo]

Where 4e went too far:

- Inconsistency between how things work when PCs are around and when they are not
Lanefan

If you don't mind, I would like you to be more specific about this point. Give some examples please how 4e is like this and what could be done different.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If you don't mind, I would like you to be more specific about this point. Give some examples please how 4e is like this and what could be done different.

Its simulationism, plain and simple. Or in reference to 4E, the lack thereof.

 

[Najo]

Its simulationism, plain and simple. Or in reference to 4E, the lack thereof.

That helps me understand what Lanefan is saying, although I like to hear it from him. I still like specific examples though, what is 4e lacking that 3.x or previous editions of D&D had that causes this?

 

[Shroomy]

- Inconsistency between how things work when PCs are around and when they are not

See, IMO, I don't really understand this idea either. IMO, "off-screen" events are not part of the actual game, since they are not adjudicated by the rules (well I guess they could be, but I don't know any DMs who actually do this), they're part of the larger narrative that encompasses the game and are essentially subject to DM fiat.