To all D&D fans - what are the top 3 specific changes 4e needs in your opinion

[Plane Sailing]

3. get rid of per encounter/dailies or have in combat recharging mechanics. I liked the idea i read earlier where powers migrated to at will as the character advanced.

Thank you!

 

[pukunui]

Thank you!

I like that idea too actually.

 

[Zustiur]

...But 4E Drow do have darkvision, according the FRPG...

Not in the monster manual they don't.

 

[justanobody]

Not in the monster manual they don't.

Aren't they in the same section as the gnome for use as a player character?

 

[Raven Crowking]

4e is an attrition-based model. Healing surges are extremely limited. Biggest factor in a party stopping that I've seen.

What it doesn't have is attrition-between-days; extended rests may well be too good; what would it be like if you only gained back 1/4 of your healing surges (FRU) with every extended rest?

Cheers!

Healing surges are problematic in and of themselves, to me. I would prefer that the entire mechanic be redesigned from the ground up.

RC

 

[SlyFlourish]

My three things

Here are my three things. Like others, I really think 4th is superior to previous versions but these are the things that stick out:

1. Shorter battles.

2. More refinement for skill challenges.

3. A closer tie between dungeon tiles, minis, and published adventures.

 

[Dykstrav]

I certainly miss necromancy and illusion-type things, not to mention the monk, bard, and druid, but I'm sure that more content will be added as supplements roll out. I'll focus on what I think needs to change about the core rules.

1) I've definitely got to voice my support for reducing hit points. Past a certain point, battles drag on into the DM and the player's rolling dice for a few turns until the critter is defeated. I'd reduce hit points for player characters too--I've seen two character deaths because the ranger and the warlock rushed ahead of the party, "no worries, I'm not even bloodied yet," then suffer a lucky crit or two and be too far away for the rest of the party to help them. Reducing hit points by 25% or so seems reasonable.

2) Make some class abilities that aren't dependent upon being in combat to be cool. There's the Ritual Caster feat, and the rogue has a few movement and stealth-related ones, but outside of combat, most characters can only use skills to try to do something cool. I really dislike how the focus on most class abilities and a good chunk of the racial abilities focusing on what you can to to kill monsters.

3) Do something to encounter and daily powers so you don't get the suck factor if you blow your attack roll. There was a big hoopla made about how you always have something interesting to choose between in 4E, but if you miss with your encounter and daily powers, you go from a list of choices down to two options. In the 4E games I've played so far, nothing sucks the fun out faster than missing on your dailies and encounter powers and leaving you with at-wills.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Quite a bit of that art has actually found its way into the books, believe it or not. For instance, my favorite piece - the one of the female elf warlock conducting a ritual in a swampy forest area - is now one of the chapter headers in the DMG.

A lot of the preview character sketches and things are in various places as well.

I imagine that some of the more planar pieces will reappear in the upcoming Manual of the Planes.



My complaint, though, is the fact that much of the content mentioned in the preview books did not make it into the final product. I'm finding that the actual 4e game is a pale shadow of the 4e that WotC marketed to us, both via the two preview books and the various online items ... which is, of course, very disappointing. I don't think they should have been previewing the game while they were still making major changes to it. The way WotC marketed 4e (and continues to market it) is another of my beefs actually ...

True, I suppose some of those pieces are being held back. I guess I should have said that I wish the same style of artwork appeared more often. Some of the chapter openers are very cartoony and not very impressive (with some exceptions...like Raven Mimura's piece with the Tiefling Skeletons).

I have to agree with you on the content and marketing.

 

[doctorhook]

Aren't they in the same section as the gnome for use as a non-player character?

FIFY. The info in the Monster Manual appendix is acceptable but not ideal for player characters. Whenever creating a player character from a MM race, it is better to use any player character race write-up than the info from the appendix. Thus, as of this point it time, if you have access to DDI, one shouldn't use the appendix for Drow, Gnoll, Minotaur, or Warforged PCs. By next Spring, one also shouldn't use it for Gnomes or Shifters, either.

The MM appendix is always acceptable for NPCs, however.

 

[justanobody]

FIFY. The info in the Monster Manual appendix is acceptable but not ideal for player characters. Whenever creating a player character from a MM race, it is better to use any player character race write-up than the info from the appendix. Thus, as of this point it time, if you have access to DDI, one shouldn't use the appendix for Drow, Gnoll, Minotaur, or Warforged PCs. By next Spring, one also shouldn't use it for Gnomes or Shifters, either.

The MM appendix is always acceptable for NPCs, however.

So does it agree with the FRPG or not? Do drow have darkvision in the MM?