D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

[avin]

This topic still have too much people trying to prove that other opinions are wrong... 4E is perfect for you guys? There's nothing you would change or make different? I guess this is the real point of the topic...

 

[Herschel]

In the hands of unskilled person, it's just an expensive accident waiting to happen.

This also applies to many cars I see on my morning commute.

 

[Turtlejay]

This topic still have too much people trying to prove that other opinions are wrong... 4E is perfect for you guys? There's nothing you would change or make different? I guess this is the real point of the topic...

Sure, except that most folks have taken the low road of "Here is my opinion, and this is why your opinion is wrong:" instead of looking at actual, factual defecits of the system. It is certainly possible to like or love something despite its errors (how does the quote go? Love is loving something despite it's imperfections, true love is loving something because of them?) and to propose ways to work around them.

For example, I became a big Star Wars geek when I was in High School. Now that I am older, and there are six movies, I have the choice of hating them because they are imperfect, or embracing them because they expand on the universe I love. Sure, I see their flaws, but as a whole I still like the movies (even jar jar. . .sorry).

Some folks get caught up in defending 4e from the *opinions* of others, which is fruitless, while others get caught up defending the right to express those opinions (and others like me get distracted by trying to examine that interaction).

So, Segrada 1 and 2: both your opinion. Neither point has basis in fact

Elder-Basilisk 1-9: all your opinion! Some of those opinions have some merit, but none of them really highlighted any real, obvious and universal problems with the system.

Jay

 

[ValhallaGH]

Finally something we can agree on.

Thank you for agreeing with or illustrating everything I said. It's nice to get support in-thread.

 

[Elric]

2. Skill challenges. By this, I refer to the rules for skill challenges in the DMG--either before or after errata. The mechanic for skill challenges is terrible and more often serves to gloss over story elements than to immerse players in them. I think after two years of play the, "DMs/authors just haven't figured out how to run/write good skill challenges" excuse has worn out. If the rules were any good, people would be using them well by now.

Needless to say, I agree here. If by "skill challenge" you mean in an abstract sense "roll dice to deal with problems according to what players tell the DM", it seems fine. If you mean the specific skill challenge rules in the DMG/updated by errata, it's not good.

For example, participating in a skill challenge is optional and the DMG says the goal of a skill challenge is not simply using Aid Another on one character with a really good bonus. However, “one expert, aided as much as possible; everyone else does nothing” is the strategy that gives the highest chance to succeed at a skill challenge!

Edit- note that even if your DM forces a character to roll a check, the advice to let the character use any skill the player wants means that the optimal strategy typically becomes "use your best skill, regardless of its relevance to the task at hand" (unless you know that there's an easy DC available for a skill you're not as good at, something you'll typically have no way of knowing).

To quote specific portions of the rules:

Step 3: Skills
Page 73: In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, replace “When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge” with “When a player participates in a skill challenge.”

When a player participates in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. If a player wants to use a skill you didn’t identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is usually moderate or hard. The use of the skill might win the day in unexpected ways, but the risk is greater as well. In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character more than once in a challenge.”
...
Group Skill Checks
Page 75: Add the following paragraph after the existing text. On checks that aren’t described as group checks, consider limiting the number of characters who can assist another character’s skill check to one or two. The goal of a skill challenge isn’t for the entire party to line up behind one expert but for the entire group to contribute in different and meaningful ways.

 

[Shazman]

1) Combat that doesn't take way too long.
2) Character customization, especially via multiclassing. It's better than at first, but still has a long way to go.
3) The Forgotten Realms
4) Magic itmes. Might as well call them "slightly less mundane items".
5) Immersive roleplaying. Everything about the game pushes metagame thinking and gamism to the hilt. Even skill challenges just end up being "everyone rolls their highest skill and lets move on to some more combat".
6) Even the slightest hint of realism (healing surges, the warlord healing people by just shouting at them, everyone regenerating like trolls after sleeping, etc.)
7) Classic archetypes. The paladin is no longer a knight in shining armor who is a champion of good. Now he's some guy that sort of worships a god, shoots laser beams at people for not attacking him, and occasional does some radiant damage with his weapon.

 

[segrada]

Sure, except that most folks have taken the low road of "Here is my opinion, and this is why your opinion is wrong:" instead of looking at actual, factual defecits of the system...

So, Segrada 1 and 2: both your opinion. Neither point has basis in fact

Jay

What, in your opinion, is an "actual, factual deficit" of ANY gaming system? I'd truly like to know an example of how you qualify this. We're discussing systems for role-playing gaming based 90% around peoples' imaginations. If you require numbers behind any argument someone makes, then we can only discuss the math behind the combat - in which case 4E must feel perfect for you since the math is (after a bit of errata) really consistent and solid.

For me, a gaming system should promote the fun of the players in it. Some might say this is the point of any game. If certain aspects of it don't contribute to that goal, then those are weaknesses. The point of threads like this are to discuss things like this (note: people's opinions) and, if enough people have the same opinion, to make decisions with the force of consensus behind these problems.

@Fan and Abdul: You're both right, potions aren't something I've really looked at - mainly because the cost is slightly prohibitive, and the alchemical items are useless for the most part. In regards to my example, the potions seem to have such a small impact on the outcome of the fight compared to Death Ward, Protection from Evil, magic weapons, etc from 3E. I'll definitely pay closer attention to the potions tab of the Char Builder from here on out, though.

 

[Zaran]

3) The Forgotten Realms

This is a good one. I hated what they did to the Realms. The new map lacks editting. And the content given is about half of what other editions had. Plus adding 100 years means that you aren't really in the same world as the books.

I haven't looked through the Eberron book much but I got the feeling the 4e version has the same issues with less useful content to draw ideas from than the orginal Eberron Campaign setting.

I have to say this was probably intentional so that they can sell the sequels like they are doing with the Core rule books.

 

[KarinsDad]

A +2 sword is five times as costly as a +1 sword for simple fact that in order to make a +2 sword, you need the same magic stuffs as you do to make five +1 swords.

This is a pretty funny argument.

Because the rules say that it costs 5 times as much, obviously, then it's because it costs 5 times as much "magic stuff".


In a "where are the rules weak" discussion, pulling out "because the rules say so" seems to be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Just because a designer said that 5^bonus * 72 GP equation is a good equation makes it no better than 3.5's equation of bonus^2 * 2000 GP.

These are just equations that some designer pulled out of his butt which do not seem to even come close to how real world, current or historic, supply and demand economics has ever worked for goods.

 

[Elric]

So, Segrada 1 and 2: both your opinion. Neither point has basis in fact

But this is just your opinion!

Elder-Basilisk 1-9: all your opinion! Some of those opinions have some merit, but none of them really highlighted any real, obvious and universal problems with the system.

Jay

This is again just your opinion!

Of course, what I've said here is just my opinion! Note that anything you say in response is your opinion of my opinion of your opinion of other people's opinions! In my opinion.