Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?
- Thread starter Majin
- Start date
Neonchameleon
Legend
The 15 minute day is something that can not and should not be fixed. The way to fix it under the rules is to remove all resource management including hit points and healing surges. You start every fight on full of both and all other resources.
4e on the other hand strongly mitigates it. A wizard in older editions who has cast all his spells might as well be a commoner (actually I think the commoner's weapon selection is better). That's just not fun. It's a playstyle issue but one that is encouraged by some rulesets more than others - by narrowing the gap between nova and normal, 4e means that the gap is far narrower and there is far less incentive to play the 15 minute adventuring day.
delericho
Legend
Not quite. Suppose you had two pools of hit points, one representing luck/tiredness and the other genuine wounds. The first of these refreshes to full whenever you take a short rest, the other is a per-adventure resource - you essentially can't heal it. Likewise, instead of dailies, they may (or may not) have some powers that can only be used once per adventure.
Thus, characters have at-will and per-encounter resources, as currently, but instead of per-day resources, they have per-adventure resources. There's then no benefit to the 15-minute day, so it will quickly disappear.
Alternately, instead of having strict per-day resources, the character instead starts the day with no 'dailies' available. After the first, third... encounter, they get to choose one of their 'dailies' for use. Again, taking an extended rest doesn't replenish the character's resources, and there's no benefit of going nova.
There are ways to do away with the 15-minute adventuring day; they're just somewhat radical. It's also possible that they may not be worth the hassle, of course.
The commoner started with proficiency with one simple weapon; the wizard had a few. So, the wizard (just barely) had the edge. Additionally, you've discounted the wizard's ability to use a wide range of magic items. Above very low level, if the wizard ran out of wizard-y things to do, you're doing something wrong.
And also, as I mentioned up-thread, "not fun" for whom? If the wizard has used up his spells, that almost certainly meant he dominated the previous encounters, in which case this is now the fighter's turn to shine.
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
Then how do you know what I posted? Answer me that!
Well its either you didn't make my exclusive list
or I am reading your posts as quotes in someone else's 
.More seriously, while I don't always agree with what you say, you present your points civilly and I can live with that.
I am of the school that acknowledgement ≠ acquiescence of another person's point of view. It never hurts me to listen to an opposing or differing views, after all I might learn something (or dare I say it, change my mind).
Then there are the Jokers (the one played by Heath Ledger) of the interwebs that just want to see the forums burn...
Like I said, its a very exclusive list.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
No worries; I was just going for dah funny.
As was I in the first part of my response.
The rest was more an overview of how I activate the list...
Good gaming,
GregoryOatmeal
First Post
Man, I tried so hard to make that game work for years. I was really sold on it when it came out - I probably bought at least 12 hardcovers and hundreds of dollars in minis. If WOTC loses the business of customers like myself I can't foresee them lasting much longer.
I found the usual criticisms (too much like WOW, not enough role-playing, similar classes in presentation) to be pretty superficial and baseless. After playing for a few years I found a different set of issues to be much more aggravating
1) Combat length - This will be the downfall of 4e. I've tried everything to speed this up. The long boring combats make a combat-oriented dungeon crawl unplayable and seem to crowd out time for advancing the story and roleplaying.
2) Healing surges seem to take the edge off combat. In older D&D if you lost 8hp in a battle you feel it and fear the next encounter or the wandering monster that sneaks up on you while wandering. Now it's just onto the next slog, which takes even longer since everyone starts with full resources.
3) Managing powers and conditions - The Christmas-tree effect of this game is unprecedented, even at very early levels. As a DM it makes my head spin trying remember which orc has 45hp and is dazed, which one has 22 and used his encounter power...gah.
4) Monsters and magic items are too complex - Monsters and items now have elaborate stat-blocks that require a lot of page-flipping or careful notetaking. PCs need an additional two pages of character sheet to manage powers and items.
5) Published adventures are unreadable. Good riddance to the delve format.
WOTC deserves a lot of credit for balancing classes, resurrecting Dark Sun, streamlining many rules and numerous other accomplishments. Unfortunately combat is just too friggin detailed and long. After hopping from 2E to 3E to 4E I noticed character complexity and numbers in general ticked up dramatically - this has not helped the game. It sounds more glorious to kill an orc with 50hp in 4e than one with 6hp in 1e, but really it just takes longer to slog away at the orc and add all the bonuses up.
I concluded my best games were when I started at 12 in 2e and could generate a character on a half-sheet of 3-ring notebook paper. I switched to running Castles and Crusades with a lot of 1E and 2E material and couldn't be happier. I would recommend that system as it's very easy to incorporate material from 1E/2E (and also 3E to an extent). Combat is very fast allowing lots of time for storytelling, rping, and even more combat! The old modules are awesome and the settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, FR, Al Qadim, Dark Sun) are much better supported in older editions than in 4E with lots of flavor text.
It really seems like the older D&D games are more complex than 4E - that the modules will be dated, poorly written and filled with complex bizarre rules. They're actually really easy to play and tons of fun!
Sorry to contribute to the edition war, I just had to get that out.
I found the usual criticisms (too much like WOW, not enough role-playing, similar classes in presentation) to be pretty superficial and baseless. After playing for a few years I found a different set of issues to be much more aggravating
1) Combat length - This will be the downfall of 4e. I've tried everything to speed this up. The long boring combats make a combat-oriented dungeon crawl unplayable and seem to crowd out time for advancing the story and roleplaying.
2) Healing surges seem to take the edge off combat. In older D&D if you lost 8hp in a battle you feel it and fear the next encounter or the wandering monster that sneaks up on you while wandering. Now it's just onto the next slog, which takes even longer since everyone starts with full resources.
3) Managing powers and conditions - The Christmas-tree effect of this game is unprecedented, even at very early levels. As a DM it makes my head spin trying remember which orc has 45hp and is dazed, which one has 22 and used his encounter power...gah.
4) Monsters and magic items are too complex - Monsters and items now have elaborate stat-blocks that require a lot of page-flipping or careful notetaking. PCs need an additional two pages of character sheet to manage powers and items.
5) Published adventures are unreadable. Good riddance to the delve format.
WOTC deserves a lot of credit for balancing classes, resurrecting Dark Sun, streamlining many rules and numerous other accomplishments. Unfortunately combat is just too friggin detailed and long. After hopping from 2E to 3E to 4E I noticed character complexity and numbers in general ticked up dramatically - this has not helped the game. It sounds more glorious to kill an orc with 50hp in 4e than one with 6hp in 1e, but really it just takes longer to slog away at the orc and add all the bonuses up.
I concluded my best games were when I started at 12 in 2e and could generate a character on a half-sheet of 3-ring notebook paper. I switched to running Castles and Crusades with a lot of 1E and 2E material and couldn't be happier. I would recommend that system as it's very easy to incorporate material from 1E/2E (and also 3E to an extent). Combat is very fast allowing lots of time for storytelling, rping, and even more combat! The old modules are awesome and the settings (Planescape, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, FR, Al Qadim, Dark Sun) are much better supported in older editions than in 4E with lots of flavor text.
It really seems like the older D&D games are more complex than 4E - that the modules will be dated, poorly written and filled with complex bizarre rules. They're actually really easy to play and tons of fun!
Sorry to contribute to the edition war, I just had to get that out.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I don't agree that the older editions of the game are particularly better. I think they have their own strengths and weaknesses. Personally I find it a lot easier to build a story that makes sense and hangs together in 4e.
Combat in 4e is a way different thing IMHO than it is in old D&D. It really fills a different place in the game, or at least it fits into adventures in a different way. Unfortunately I don't think the people writing adventures for 4e generally understand this AT ALL. The result is slow sloggy boring adventures where even if they do have some interesting elements they get lost in endless melee rounds.
The question really is if this is a really big PROBLEM or just a DIFFERENCE. I DO find that tracking things in combat requires too much book keeping, but I like that combats are fairly tactical and it is really easy to drop in a lot of fun elements. Sure, a fight lasts an hour usually. If that hour is really fun and filled with thrills and spills and chills and some cool reversals and whatnot then it really doesn't seem ridiculously long or boring. The point is the old style dungeon crawl derived adventure style where you have a sort of maze of encounter areas you negotiate and there's a fight at most every juncture just won't fly with 4e. If on OTOH you rely a lot on exploration, skill challenges, etc with full-up combats relegated to the interesting situations then it works pretty well. You can also have a few minor skirmish kind of things along the way or even break things up with a plot-irrelevant super tactical rumble now and then. What you probably don't want are endless battles through a guardroom filled with orcs.
The more I run 4e the less I see it as really clearly catering to the same type of play as the name would indicate. I think this is the real issue people are having. If the game was called something else it would probably be winning awards for being the most innovative FRPG of the last 10 years. Instead people are mad because it isn't 1e or 3e or etc. It is not a perfect game, I think the things that bug you about it are legitimate. I just think they are amplified by the fact that everyone (understandably) thinks they're playing D&D when in a sense they're really not.
wlmartin
Explorer
I am sorry you feel this way, I have included some tips below and my own personal opinion as this may help
I agree, the game is what you make it... people with poor planning and bad motiviations and imaginations often blame the game rather than themselves.
I think this issue is tied in with your 3rd & 4th point, read on further and you will see how I can suggest a fix for this
I would say that it is a different system and hard to get used to since it is unlike any other system (most games of ANY kind have a simple system of either core HP alone or refreshable HP and a 2nd level of core hp (ie shields and hulls))
I do myself enjoy the idea of Healing Surges since it takes the need for a healer to, every turn heal... it is sometimes refered to as the healbot.
If the only answer to the problem is to do what old D&D did and limit the amount of healing that could be completed by allowing only a certain amount of healing spells per extended rest, then all you need to do is find a way to houserule that outside combat, a Cleric gets (insert number here) uses of a healing spell, and no player can heal without taking an extended rest.
The good thing about D&D is that it has a very versatile system, if you don't like something about it - feel free to change it.
It sounds like you seriously need a Combat Management Program. Whilst it might not be feasible to have a laptop to work from, not everyone can afford one... but if you can there are OOODLES of programs out there that do the job. You litteraly load up your monsters before the session begins and simply ACTIVATE them when the battle starts. You load in the characters and you are away.
You assign each combatant an initative, the programs and smart enough to allow readied or delayed actions. They will control HP for you for players and mons, they will show ongoing damage and effects... they are very smart.
Some of the programs are even linked into a database of monster abilities allowing you to see the statblock of the monster in question so you know what abilities to use, which ones are due a recharge etc etc.
Make up your own. I rarely have used adventurers in any edition because I am always worried a player at the table has either played it before or has read it up themselves.
What I do however is look at the way the adventure is scripted and devise my own plan.
To make a good adventure you need
a) A map of some kind that works like a progression for your players. They move to an area, do some stuff, more to an area, do some more stuff... if you want to make these maps complicated (where there is a key in one that is required to open a door in another) you can do, however if you want to make them simple, you can do that to
b) Some monsters to add in. It is advisable to keep to the same type of monsters if you are unsure. Your players may get bored of fighting zombies all the time but until you feel comfortable mixing them up with more monsters, it should do fine.
c) Some intrigue. It isnt good enough to just throw monsters at players, there needs to be a plot going on. I remember a good tip given to me a good time ago, that is make the adventure location a living breathing place.
If someone invaded a castle of Orcs, do you think they would all be ready to fight? Also - what are they doing in the castle? What do their plans have to do with the plans of the adventurers?
Do the group encounter a big bad wizard at the end room of the castle? If so did you just plonk him down because it seemed right... or was he working in the wings, directing his orcs to distract you whilst he finished casting his big spell to bring forth a Demon to aid him in a diabolical scheme.
Perhaps if the group are smart enough to disable some of the magical appartatus around the castle, they hurt the scheme entirely and bring forward the meeting with the Wizard. Perhaps they are poor in their job of defeating the Orcs and one of the Orc Captains rushes back to announce the invasion of the party in the castle to his boss who decides it isnt worth it and wants to escape.
Whatever happens, for it to feel like fun the players need to feel like they are living in an evolving story, their actions have consequences... it should never feel like a random encounter one after the other. Some people misread published adventurers and make it feel this way.
IMO if you want to build your own adventure, the content itself is not as important as the story.
The easiest way to accomplish a good story is make an adventure for the bad guys first... there is a group of bad guys doing something, it is their job to complete a task at their location (raise the dead, steal a magical sword, wake the dragon) and they themselves will have pitfalls to overcome (distracting a hoard of zombies, defeating a trap holding the sword or finding a way to wake the dragon up)
Now - add in the adventurers, their job is simply to (find a group of necromancers trying to raise the dead and stop them, liberate a magical sword, wake the dragon themselves)
The interests of both groups will clash, this will make the adventurers feel like something is going on apart from a simple FIGHT, FIGHT, REST, FIGHT, JUMP script
What would the bad group do if they heard someone else was after the sword?? Would they fight back or move quicker?? What happens if the bad group gets to the sword first?? What if the adventurers decide to work with the bad group??
The published adventures should be for inspiration only, you will feel better if you make your own story... be warned however, follow the guidelines in the DMG for Monster Group creation, aside from that - the dungeon is your oyster!
Again, I would recommend a combat management program, or look up articles online where DMs have posted articles detailing how to cut down the time it takes in combat. There are some pointers in these articles (google what you need) that take a 1 hour encounter down to half that time!
I think that the majority of your discontentment comes from the time it takes to run encounters, as I suggested try the tips online as well as getting a combat management program (if you can)
Some of my tips include
a) Give some of the responsibility to other players. Such as someone who tracks ongoing damage, someone who tracks HP
b) Ask the players to roll their D20 and damage rolls at the same time. This can cut out a lot of timewasting
c) Ask the players if there is anything you are doing wrong, or THEY are doing wrong to make encounters last too long, you may find that you are making mistakes they have picked up on but were too polite to point out
d) Half of the time spent in combat is in the players hands, if they are spending that time checking the PHB for tips on improving their game or chatting about the latest episode of True Blood or something... then either point it out to them or do the nasty (but useful) thing of impossing a timelimit on moves.... An egg timer or stop watch can do this for you and eventually if players think that their timewasting is going to cost them a round they will stop messing about
I find D&D combat in 4e much easier and quicker than the previous editions.
a) You have computers now that can do a lot of the work for you
b) Stat blocks are easier to read
c) Player powers are clearly defined. They don't need to take 5 minutes figuring out what their TO-HIT is on each type of attack they make with modifiers, the power card has it all there for them
There may be other people out there that have played all editions and can agree with me (that it is quicker) or with you (that it is slower) but if I am able to get through encounters quite quickly and you aren't, either I am doing something right or you are doing something wrong.
Don't get me wrong, D&D can get quite complicated but compared to previous editions, this one is almost something I can imagine teaching my 5 year old nephew to play!
Good luck, hope I helped
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
The weird thing is, 4e combat is both simpler and easier and at the same time it is longer, more complex, and in some ways tedious. Actually the thing is the more complex high level combats in earlier editions were easily as long and complex as any 4e combat. 4e combats also usually feature more elements than most of the ones in earlier editions (mainly because you can throw almost anything at this system and figure it out easily). So it is hard to generalize, but 4e's real weakness, or difference in any case is the old throw-away "4 orcs jump the party" kind of fight, which in the old days would be over in 15 minutes, and now takes the same hour as a boss fight.
Honestly though, tracking programs are a wonderful thing, but they do leave a lot to be desired. For one thing it is irritating to a lot of players to need to have a computer at the table. It is HANDY, no doubt, but also takes up space and can tend to become a time suck. Some of the tracking software is pretty nice, but none of it does everything, there's always that newfangled oddball wacky thing that doesn't fit in quite right and has to be done by hand. They also don't deal with the fact that players are faced with a large number of choices at the table, and many of them are fairly subtle tactical decisions. A LOT of players simply can't rush through that.
Lets say in the end that the game would be a LOT more accessible if the number of conditions and effects being tracked during a combat at any level averaged some small number, say 3, and if the number of things a player had to remember at any given time or decide between was also around 3. The human brain is good at focusing on 3 things. Once you go beyond that you're exceeding most people's ability to hold things in mind at one time. 4e REALLY REALLY could have used some human factors engineering.
