4e Annoyances for those who like 4e

[delericho]

"Having to read all that"? Unless they're DMing, they don't need to know anything in the DMG or MM. They don't even need to read everything in the PHB!

Sure, I know that, and you know that, but they didn't know that. As I said, I literally saw their enthusiasm die as soon as they saw the core rulebooks (3e, as it happened, but as it was the size of the books, the reaction would have been the same with 3.5e, 4e or Pathfinder). Once I explained that I would handle the rules, and so they didn't need to read even one word, the enthusiasm came back somewhat, but it was never quite the same.

It was a really instructive experience. It was also the moment when I shifted from my position of "the game isn't really all that hard" to "the game is hurting itself with core rulebooks this big".

A really good starter set can mitigate this, of course. However, too often starter sets use a "dumbed down" version of the rules, or rely exclusively on using pregen characters. Or, perhaps worst, they lose all value when you 'graduate' to the real rules - meaning that if you don't like the game then you've wasted the money on the starter set, and if you do like the game... then you've wasted the money on the starter set. (My ideal would be something like a lot of the Warhammer Fantasy Battles/40,000 starters, where the box includes quick-start guides and adventure material, the same core rulebook as everyone else uses, miniatures, spell effect templates, and so on. Still, this would require a much reduced core, would probably require some significant rules simplifications, and would probably cost a lot more to produce - perhaps too much more.)

Personally, I feel like the developers decided to create a well-balanced and understandable rules system that could easily be expanded later instead of a content-rich volume. You have to remember that the PHB1 is the introduction to an entirely new rules system they built from the ground up. They weren't entirely sure how players would use and react to the first classes, so the best thing to do would be to leave plenty of room to fix mistakes later on.

All true. And, as I said, I have no desire to start an edition war. Still, it is something that annoyed me, and still annoys me - I'll agree that that isn't entirely rational (especially in light of my first comment) .

 

[hero4hire]

Sure, I know that, and you know that, but they didn't know that. As I said, I literally saw their enthusiasm die as soon as they saw the core rulebooks (3e, as it happened, but as it was the size of the books, the reaction would have been the same with 3.5e, 4e or Pathfinder). Once I explained that I would handle the rules, and so they didn't need to read even one word, the enthusiasm came back somewhat, but it was never quite the same.

.

Next time you intro newbies to the game hide the DMG and MM, heck even hide the PHB give 'em the quickstart rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

- No robust "dramatic power" system for non-combat stuff. Some utility powers can do it, most are more relevant in combat. I think the Siloing idea failed here. There should have been combat utility powers and story utility powers, and they should not occupy the same slots. I think a role & power system for non-combat stuff would have been the ultimate solution. I am still hoping for a d20 Modern 2.0 doing that, but so far nothing seems on the horizon.

- Expertise feats. I would have preferred if they found a different way for handling that. And even if they settled for this approach, the feats should have existed in PHB 1. (I can live easier with the Masterwork armor spots that were "missing", by comparison.) It will never shake off the feeling of either a patch or as a kind of sales argument for the PHB 2.

- Paragon Multiclassing needs a small boost. There could have been a generic action point feature for paragon multiclassing in my opinion, and a 16th level feature for each paragon multiclass path. That would also have been a neat extension point - variant features based on class or role of the class.

- Where's the D&D 4 computer game? I want to explore the Points of Light or Eberron.

 

[Hellzon]

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...

Pretty much yes. The Shadowfell is a shadowy version of the normal world, and the Feywild is a fairy-themed version of it.

The Shadowfell is more "gloomy and inhabited by shades" than "full of badass monsters and rock music" like Zelda 3:s Dark World, though.

 

[NMcCoy]

The Shadowfell is more "gloomy and inhabited by shades" than "full of badass monsters and rock music" like Zelda 3:s Dark World, though.

Maybe in your games. I dunno, a race of people that have spiked chains as their traditional weaponry and bats that fly through you while on fire seem pretty badass to me.

And there is unquestionably some LttP-style fun to be had with portals between the worlds and parallel echoes of geography and structures. Sending my level 3 party to stop a supernatural blizzard in the Feywild that had frozen a mortal world village's well in the middle of summer was great fun for all, and being able to draw on classic fantasy tropes as idea fuel (a circle of standing stones that acted as the gateway during a full moon, and having three weeks pass during their 1-day stay in the Feywild - well before Manual of the Planes suggested some very similar ideas) made the whole adventure really come together.

Of course, the source of the blizzard being the Eladrin Medallion of Winter (that they can now use to execute a devastating ice attack once per day) is pure Zelda.

 

[avin]

Maybe in your games.

It's the way Wotc describes it, gloomy

 

[Joshua Randall]

I know others have pointed it out, but I love how the things that annoy some people are the same things that other people enjoy.

If I had to pick only one annoyance, I think it would be the keywording of attack bonuses.

Come on, guys, you had an entire edition to see this in play! yet 4e still has some confusion about what keyword an attack bonus should get. It seems like this should be simple: feats grant feat bonuses; powers grant power bonuses; etc. But there are enough exceptions that you can't rely on anything, and that leads to more mental bookkeeping than should be necessary.

 

[amerigoV]

Lame players - in older editions, the fear was bad DMs. In general, you could survive a group with one or two social players (people that show up more for the social interaction than the game). That is much harder under 4e in my opinion. The team/party emphasis and the sharpening of roles on both sides of the DM screen in 4e mean that:

1) Any DM that reads up on the basics will be running tougher encounters just due to better DM tools. Bad DMs are still bad DMs, but the encounters will have a more solid baseline.

2) Lame players that do not know their class will get the group killed or force other players to learn the Lame player's class in more depth than in past editions. In the older editions, you just gave them the Fighter, handed them the d20, and pointed them in the right direction. You then focused on your PC. Now there is a lot more "carry" in some groups than their used to be.

So if you have a strong group, 4e is fun to play. If a couple of social players, fun starts to decline. If I had to say here is where the MMO EXPERIENCE is starts to creap in for me in 4e, it is here - players that do not know their class make the game miserable for the rest of the group/raid (and risk wipes).

As for the game itself, I am still getting to know it. I like it so far and cannot point to much that I dislike yet once I get past it is different from before(although, PHB1 was a dry read).

 

[cmbarona]

My main problems are that they didn't go far enough with some of the new edition's features:

1. Balance. V-shaped classes, Wizard's spellbook, implements not working like weapons, etc. I rather like the fact that classes' baselines are similar enough that their distinctions are both easy to parse out and easy to adapt to new concepts. As a specific example, I would love it if implements worked exactly like weapons. Newbie player Bob figures out how a Fighter works. Bob the Fighter dies. Bob now wants to make Bob the Wizard. Had balance been an even stronger focus, he could simply look at the Wizard's implements and say, "Oh! These work just like weapons!" Alas...
2. Consistent terminology. As has been mentioned before, this is the same company who makes Magic: The Gathering. When I first took a look at the powers, they struck me as a very similar concept. I liked that. As long as I understand a core of mechanics, I can apply that understanding to any number of powers with little effort. For the most part, this works. However, there is a handful of corner cases where the mechanics get wonky. I fear that this number will increase.
3. Internal math. There have been enough threads about this that I would hope an article would at some point address the Expertise feats, etc. On a subtopic of this, I think Masterwork armor should have had a separate Masterwork bonus. This would make things just plain less confusing for new players.
4. Skill challenges are a strange mechanic.
5. Disease tracks are an awesome mechanic that is underused. See point 4.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Implements not working like weapons is an interesting point. I wonder if both shouldn't work differently. How about a proficiency bonus to attack and/or damage for both, and the power is that determines the dice size and number of dice.

House Rule Thread created: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...weapons-implements-work-same.html#post4991284