4e Annoyances for those who like 4e

[Wik]

How do you know what a horse or plate armor "would cost in the world"?

How is this different than any other RPG? In any RPG, the DM can either outlaw something because of common sense if that's what he prefers, or allow it because that is what the rules say. What makes 4e different than any other RPG in this respect? Is it simply that 4e has more "rules that contradict common sense"?

Well, of course I don't know what the item would actually cost in the real world. But I do know that Plate Armour is not going to be only twice the cost of leather armour. The amount of craft that goes into making it (and let's not even look at this in a "reality" context, but assume a sort of fantasy context in how plate mail is made... cue 1980s fantasy movie armourer montage!) far exceeds the craft that goes into leather armour.

In 2e, a suit of full plate armour was 1,500 G.P. Even the cheapest suit of plate was well out of reach of starting PCs. This was lowered in 3e, but it was still expensive armour. And yet in 4e, plate mail is functionally the same cost as Scale, simply so that paladins (the only class in PHB1 that can wear plate) can buy it as a starting character.

The reason I have a problem with the price of horses is because, in the real world, while they've always been expensive, they were not super expensive in medieval times. You needed horses to do things like farming, and if you were a freeman, they really helped in getting around (sort of like a car - cars are expensive, but most everyone can afford one with some scrimping). The super-expensive horses suggest to me that no one can afford to own one... unless they're a PC.

Every item in the game is based around the PCs using it. And that bugs me. It's not just equipment, but this "the game revolves around the PCs" really gets in my way, from a world-building standpoint. And I love world-building.

 

[hailstop]

Another one of my peeves that I've mentioned before:

Diseases that are trivially easy to cure once you get above about 13-15th level.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Big number of easily seen mistakes in the first printings of the books, which are still the only one i seem to get...

2. Most A - shaped classes and builds who focus on one main attribute. (having different main stats for melee and ranged for some classes would have allowed 3 builds for most classes from the get go)

3. Discussions about DPR

4. It is dangerous when mechanics become the focus in battles... it makes me sick when characters are played like chess pieces

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The reason I have a problem with the price of horses is because, in the real world, while they've always been expensive, they were not super expensive in medieval times. You needed horses to do things like farming, and if you were a freeman, they really helped in getting around (sort of like a car - cars are expensive, but most everyone can afford one with some scrimping). The super-expensive horses suggest to me that no one can afford to own one... unless they're a PC.

Or a noble/aristocrat of some kind. There are many types of horses. A plow horse has neither the training nor the build to carry your Fighter in armor, and isn't going to do a heck of a lot better carrying your 90lb weakling of a wizard if she has to do it all day (she'll do better dragging him behind her, though, if his wizardly dignity can handle that). I suppose there could be pricing there for various grades of farm horses, as well as rules for what happens when the plow horse gets blown the 2nd day out from town. But that might be a little TOO simulationist.

Sorry. I'm just being needlessly pedantic. I have no idea what the pricing structure looks like for a horse in 4e, but I'm usually inclined to laugh at the "economics" of D&D across editions.

People all seem to have different tastes for the appropriate level of hair-splitting that is enjoyable to them, and in what venues that hair-splitting is appropriate.

 

[Wik]

Fully agree. I'm just bugged by the 4e approach to economics, which is very much like those video games, where town 1 had gear suitable for your level, town 2 had new gear suitable for your new level, and so on and so forth.

as for horses, I get the difference. And I'm okay with that. But it still bugs me.

Actually, and I said this earlier, pricing for mounts is pretty screwed up. They are too expensive for your level.... a level 5 mount won't be affordable (ie, within your real range of GP on hand) until at least 10th level or so. My 9th level PCs don't have enough money on them in play, at any point, for them to each buy a warhorse (a 3rd level mount).

 

[Derren]

A plow horse has neither the training nor the build to carry your Fighter in armor,

In 4E even an elephant doesn't have the build to carry a fighter (paladin) in armour.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

If having horses would be useful from a story perspective, perhaps someone should gift them some. Wealth rules are more of a guideline than a rule. And they only apply if you think the characters are likely to turn around and sell the horses and use the cash to buy magic items or something. That's easily blockable. Maybe the guy who gave them the horses would be terribly offended if they did that and he's not the type of guy you offend. Leastways not more than once.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I find comments like this amusing as they illustrate the wide variety in 4E groups. We've just hit 6th level, and so far have had three characters die; two from three failed death saves, one from negative bloodied. We frequently have characters in the negative territory and have one or more characters run out of surges. Heck, we refer to Second Wind as Second Round.

I had a paladin go down 2 times in 3 sessions a few months back. Then I made a battlerager and he got turned to stone on the first session I used him in.

Definitely different atmospheres for different groups.

DS

 

[FireLance]

1. The implementation of skill challenges. I would have preferred a variety of failure conditions instead of the standard "failed skill check is a failure" and "three failures means failed skill challenge". WotC has come up with several variations to skill challenges, including "everybody makes the same skill check; a failure occurs if more than half the party fails", "a failure on this skill check does not count as a failure for the purpose of the skill challenge", "this skill can only score a maximum of X successes during this skill challenge", etc. but we still do not have guidelines on how these variations should change the XP award for the skill challenge.

2. The incentive to increase just two ability scores, so that many characters end up just increasing two ability scores by +8 over the course of their careers, while the other four ability scores increase by just +2. I am personally considering a house rule that at 8th, 18th and 28th levels, a character increases four ability scores by +1 instead of just two.

3. The PCs' non-AC defenses seem too easy to hit. I think there is scope for another type of item that functions pretty much like heavy armor in 4e: basically adding a flat value instead of an ability score modifier to a non-AC defense.

4. Ambiguous wording. I know that complete consistency is close to impossible and that the DM is supposed to interpret to suit the needs of his campaign, but it would still be nice to have some of the more common problem areas cleared up.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

This is one of those things that's definitely in YMMV territory - I was one of those that found the old cosmology vaguely interesting and vaguely goofy, but I totally dig the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos. But maybe that's because I grew up on Arthurian mythology and Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past.

I'm not getting the tie-in between 4e cosmology and the greatest video game to ever have graced this planet, can you explain? Granted, I know very little about the 4E cosmology, but what? Is the plane of shadow a dark, eery, distorted mirror of the material plane now? Cause...that's not so much different than 3E, then...