Particle_Man
Explorer
I liked that you could play "monster" races from level 1, with no ECL worries.
You don't play 4E, but what did they get RIGHT?
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
Philosopher
First Post
There are two main things I quite like about 4e:
1. Spells that can be cast at will.
2. Sticky fighters.
There are a couple of other things I like, but they come with drawbacks:
3. Rogues that are designed for combat. (The problem is that I also like the idea of a thief who doesn't focus on combat at all.)
4. Monster roles that make encounter design easy. (The problem is that I don't like how modifying monsters works in 4e.)
Aside from these, most features of 4e (more hp at 1st level, healing surges, the rest mechanic, all classes have powers, etc.) are things I don't care for. I think it's a very well designed game, just not quite suited to my tastes.
1. Spells that can be cast at will.
2. Sticky fighters.
There are a couple of other things I like, but they come with drawbacks:
3. Rogues that are designed for combat. (The problem is that I also like the idea of a thief who doesn't focus on combat at all.)
4. Monster roles that make encounter design easy. (The problem is that I don't like how modifying monsters works in 4e.)
Aside from these, most features of 4e (more hp at 1st level, healing surges, the rest mechanic, all classes have powers, etc.) are things I don't care for. I think it's a very well designed game, just not quite suited to my tastes.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, but I ain't gotta pre-add and pre-cast seven different AC, Attack and Resistance-boosting spells to make a viable combatant outta the critter. I just grab and go. There's a pile of stuff, but I've found that because I use heavily themed critters, a lot of them do kind of the same thing (a lot of ongoing damage and domination and movement-limiting currently). It's a lot easier for my improv-heavy style to just have the numbers ready without having to fiddle with them for 15 minutes before the session.
There's a good amount of things in 4e that are good, a few of them just fall into "good idea, bad implementation." I suppose this is from the view of someone who enjoys both 4e and Pathfinder 
1) Treasure parcels and reducing the players going "I loot the bodies" after every fight. I'm none to keen on wish lists, but having set places of treasure rather then chewing your nails over what kind of equipment every enemy has because of looting is a good move, and it helps encourage the more adventurous style of gaming. Neither Frodo nor Han Solo paused to loot the bodies. One thing that makes this go from good idea/bad implementation to just "good idea" is this rather handy website.
2) Vastly simplified monster creation. My god, I have so much time to do other things.
3) SSSOD. I've covered this extensively elsewhere.
4) Martial classes are cool. Know what I see when I read PHBs of each edition? The examples of fighters are all heroes and epic warriors who did clearly supernatural things. Go on, read through your 2e PHB and tell me what kind of warriors they talk about. . I've always had a disconnect with people who think fighting classes can't do anything extraordinary - that just seems so perversely against the spirit of the game.
5) Rituals. Rituals are a perfect case of "Good idea, terrible implementation." Axe the cost, axe the time needed to use them.
6) No buffs to track
7) Playable epic levels. 'Nuff said.
8) No iterative attacks makes the game so much simpler. I have my hang ups on the powers system, but killing the five-six attacks in one turn is a good thing.
1) Treasure parcels and reducing the players going "I loot the bodies" after every fight. I'm none to keen on wish lists, but having set places of treasure rather then chewing your nails over what kind of equipment every enemy has because of looting is a good move, and it helps encourage the more adventurous style of gaming. Neither Frodo nor Han Solo paused to loot the bodies. One thing that makes this go from good idea/bad implementation to just "good idea" is this rather handy website.
2) Vastly simplified monster creation. My god, I have so much time to do other things.
3) SSSOD. I've covered this extensively elsewhere.
4) Martial classes are cool. Know what I see when I read PHBs of each edition? The examples of fighters are all heroes and epic warriors who did clearly supernatural things. Go on, read through your 2e PHB and tell me what kind of warriors they talk about. . I've always had a disconnect with people who think fighting classes can't do anything extraordinary - that just seems so perversely against the spirit of the game.
5) Rituals. Rituals are a perfect case of "Good idea, terrible implementation." Axe the cost, axe the time needed to use them.
6) No buffs to track
7) Playable epic levels. 'Nuff said.
8) No iterative attacks makes the game so much simpler. I have my hang ups on the powers system, but killing the five-six attacks in one turn is a good thing.
There's only one thing 4th Edition got right for me: Multiple variant stat blocks for each creature type pre-statted in the Monster Manual.
Now that's just being silly. I could label 15th to 20th level in 3.5 "epic" and make the same claim.
4th Edition lopped off the low-end and the high-end of the power scale. I don't count that as a win. It's feature reduction.
Now that's just being silly. I could label 15th to 20th level in 3.5 "epic" and make the same claim.
4th Edition lopped off the low-end and the high-end of the power scale. I don't count that as a win. It's feature reduction.
No you couldn't, because 15th-20th is still pretty much hilariously unplayable.
It's not a feature reduction. Well ok, maybe to people who are needlessly negative and don't really understand how power gain in 4e works, it's a feature reduction.
But to those that don't fall under that category, it ain't.
There's been no "low-end" or "high-end" of the power scale lopped off, because there was no low end or high end of the power scale to begin with. There was "An orc attacks and you die, reroll, boy isn't this fun," and there's "Ok we're going to stop playing because the game no longer makes sense." What 4e did was say "Being level 1 sucked because of how stupid fragile and grubby you were, so that's gone. Being level 20 sucked because the game no longer functioned, so that's gone."
Pathfinder did the same thing, too, you know. And it's a better game for it.
bouncyhead
Explorer
1. 'Bloodied' - we carried the habit of declaring when monsters were on half hp across to Pathfinder when we stopped playing 4E.
2. Ditto passive perception.
3. Like the 4E simplified combat actions and if I could be bothered would prob import to PF, but PF has added new actions that a lot of class powers etc. depend upon so my brain hurts when I think about doing it.
4. Rituals are OK I guess.
5. Skill challenges - though we brought them across to 3e from Alternity. They make sense in some circumstances but where there's a social element I would always prefer to roleplay it out (and yes, I know you can roleplay within the skill challenge framework, it's just a matter of personal taste).
6. Err...
7. That's it.
8. Oh! Also static defenses, but like actions, I can't be bothered to do the math. What is it d20 + spell level + mod vs 10 + save mod? No, that can't be right.... my head is starting to hurt...
2. Ditto passive perception.
3. Like the 4E simplified combat actions and if I could be bothered would prob import to PF, but PF has added new actions that a lot of class powers etc. depend upon so my brain hurts when I think about doing it.
4. Rituals are OK I guess.
5. Skill challenges - though we brought them across to 3e from Alternity. They make sense in some circumstances but where there's a social element I would always prefer to roleplay it out (and yes, I know you can roleplay within the skill challenge framework, it's just a matter of personal taste).
6. Err...
7. That's it.
8. Oh! Also static defenses, but like actions, I can't be bothered to do the math. What is it d20 + spell level + mod vs 10 + save mod? No, that can't be right.... my head is starting to hurt...
meomwt
First Post
Apart from Skill Challenges (implemented in my 3.5E game), Trailblazer managed to work a bunch of stuff backwards from 4E which I thought were cool. I especially love the Elite and Solo Monsters mechanic, the latter of which scales to the number of combatants and really really provides a tactically aware party with a decent challenge.
Kaiyanwang
Adventurer
I continue relentlessly to do fine high level 3.5. Please, PLEASE explain what I do wrong.
I'm pretty much sick of statement like this. Not suitable for every taste? OK. Overcomplicated? Maybe. Unplayable? Hell, no.
Similar Threads
