D&D 4E An Olive Branch to 4e Fans: Some Things 5e Should Take From 4e

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a huge fan of 4th edition. But there are quite a few things that I think it did right, and I'd like to see those good ideas pass on to the new edition. Here's some of the things I'd like to see:

- Combat Advantage: A simple +2 bonus for having combat advantage is easy and simple to keep track of compared of the myriad situational modifiers you could get in previous editions (flanking, prone, flat-footed, higher ground, etc etc etc). It's also easy for things like a rogue's sneak attack. Have combat advantage - can sneak attack.

- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits. Always hated that.

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.

- Standard, Move and Minor Actions: I liked this. No full-round actions. It's simple and straightforward while giving players enough flexibility to do the kinds of things they need to do.

- No "iterative" attacks. I hated that about 3rd edition. Likewise, monsters only tend to make 1 or 2 attacks also, not claw, claw, bite, wing, wing, tail slap, rake, rend, etc.

- AC that scales with attack bonus. I always thought it was ridiculous that characters got way, way better at attacking people, but not better at defending themselves without loading up on magic items.

- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points.

- At-Will Spells and Cantrips. It makes vancian casting much more bearable. I hope my wizard doesn't sit there twiddling his thumbs or pointlessly plinking things with a crossbow during all those rounds of combat where he wants to do something, but doesn't want to waste a good prepared spell. Likewise, cantrips, as the simplest of magic, should be able to be used at-will. Pathfinder likewise saw the value in that.

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.

- Spells that required Actions to "Sustain." This is a simple and effective way of balancing alot of the more "overpowered" spells, like fly, and preventing players from stacking too many buffs.

- Alignment is just fluff. No class alignment restrictions. No alignment-based magic. No detect evil. No smite evil. Alignment is there as a way of describing your character's morality, nothing more. There's probably alot of people that disagree with me, but I loved that about 4e.

- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.

- No Level Drain. Good riddance!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


mkill

Adventurer
Fully agree on all points. In fact, I'd play a 3E that implemented all these.

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.
True, but I always wanted to save at the start of the turn, not at the end.
At the start of the turn, you want to roll because you want to get rid of the attack and act. At the end of the turn, you're mentally done with the turn and forget to roll the save.

Now, I understand that rolling saves at the start of the turn is a big nerf for controllers and control-style powers because they now need to pass 2 checks to take effect (attack and first save). However, there are ways to counter that (create staged effects in which the first save reduces the effect, but does not negate; give an attack bonus; give a penalty on the first save; make the effect strong enough that a power with two barriers is still good)

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.
The idea was good. The big issue with implements though was that they didn't get a proficiency bonus to attack. Instead, implement powers were expected to hit Fort/Ref/Will, which was expected to be lower than AC (but often weren't). This created a number of annoying issues.

If 5E uses implements, make them exactly like weapons (including giving them a damage die). The only difference should be that some can't be used as melee weapons.
 

delericho

Legend
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a huge fan of 4th edition. But there are quite a few things that I think it did right, and I'd like to see those good ideas pass on to the new edition.

Time has blunted much of my initial distaste for 4e. While it remains my least-favourite version of the game, it had a lot of really nice ideas, and it would be a crying shame to just throw those out.

- Combat Advantage: A simple +2 bonus for having combat advantage is easy and simple to keep track of compared of the myriad situational modifiers you could get in previous editions (flanking, prone, flat-footed, higher ground, etc etc etc). It's also easy for things like a rogue's sneak attack. Have combat advantage - can sneak attack.

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.

- Standard, Move and Minor Actions: I liked this. No full-round actions. It's simple and straightforward while giving players enough flexibility to do the kinds of things they need to do.

- No "iterative" attacks. I hated that about 3rd edition. Likewise, monsters only tend to make 1 or 2 attacks also, not claw, claw, bite, wing, wing, tail slap, rake, rend, etc.

- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.

- No Level Drain. Good riddance!

Yep, I agree with all of these. No question.

- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points.

I don't mind rolling for stats (though I prefer point buy). I think 5e should support both, and that both should be close to equivalent.

I hate rolling for hit points, mostly because I never roll higher than a '1'.

- AC that scales with attack bonus. I always thought it was ridiculous that characters got way, way better at attacking people, but not better at defending themselves without loading up on magic items.

Sort-of agree. I like that the 4e defences scale with level, and agree in principle that AC should do the same. However, AC is a bit of an odd beast because of the huge roll that the armour itself plays in this. I haven't yet seen a good way to square the circle so that AC climbs with level, armour worn still has an appropriately significant effect, and yet AC as a whole remains fairly close to being on a par with the other defences.

- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits. Always hated that.

Again, I'm torn. 4e's system works, there's no doubt about that, and the "crit = max damage" thing is a really neat mechanic. However, the "confirm" mechanic also has a certain utility, especially if they were to generalise it out to skill checks as well.

- At-Will Spells and Cantrips. It makes vancian casting much more bearable. I hope my wizard doesn't sit there twiddling his thumbs or pointlessly plinking things with a crossbow during all those rounds of combat where he wants to do something, but doesn't want to waste a good prepared spell. Likewise, cantrips, as the simplest of magic, should be able to be used at-will. Pathfinder likewise saw the value in that.

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.

I'm indifferent to these.

- Spells that required Actions to "Sustain." This is a simple and effective way of balancing alot of the more "overpowered" spells, like fly, and preventing players from stacking too many buffs.

Agree, but...

This isn't really new; lots of spells have always required Concentration to maintain. 4e's only innovation here was in generalising the mechanic. (Which was, to be fair, a good step.)

- Alignment is just fluff. No class alignment restrictions. No alignment-based magic. No detect evil. No smite evil. Alignment is there as a way of describing your character's morality, nothing more. There's probably alot of people that disagree with me, but I loved that about 4e.

Disagree 100%. IMO, 4e did exactly the wrong thing with alignment. They should have either dropped it entirely (my preference, under the circumstances) or made it meaningful. As it is, it is just wasted paper.

I would like there to be rigorous, transparent and consistent math under the hood that's easy to bend to my will.

Agreed. Though 4e went too far in making a fetish of balance.

Other things that should be brought across from 4e:

- Action Points. I don't care for them (at all) as implemented in 3e's Eberron, but I really like them in 4e. Only thing I would do differently is give one per encounter and adopt a "use it or lose it" mentality.

- Skill Challenges, or rather the concept thereof. The implementation pretty much sucks (although it is apparently improved a lot in DMG2, and the SWSE "Galaxy of Intrigue" version is also really good). But the concept is genius.

- Monster roles. Coupled with monster levels and XP budgets, these made building interesting encounters really easy.

- Page 42. Or something like it.
 


avin

First Post
Yup, agreed, there's a lot of 4E stuff that should be on 5E.

In special saves at the end of turn and combat advantage.
 

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
Agree, but...

This isn't really new; lots of spells have always required Concentration to maintain. 4e's only innovation here was in generalising the mechanic. (Which was, to be fair, a good step.)

Not trying to nitpick here, but 4e's sustain mechanic is different from the concentration duration of spells in past editions, particularly in that many 4e spells only required a minor or move action to sustain, while concentration spells before took a caster's entire attention.

Disagree 100%. IMO, 4e did exactly the wrong thing with alignment. They should have either dropped it entirely (my preference, under the circumstances) or made it meaningful. As it is, it is just wasted paper.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't shed a single tear if alignment died in a fire. But since alignment is a classic part of D&D, and this is the "unity" edition, I find it highly unlikely that they would do something as controversial as dropping it entirely. As long as alignment is going to be there, I'm okay with it as long as paladins aren't running around with their evil-sensing radar that ruins roleplaying and plots.
 

Raith5

Adventurer
I really like the much broader sweet spot of 4th - although I would like a slightly less heroic starting point for 1st level characters. I quite miss that slightly awkward 'bums with swords' vibe of 1st level characters in previous editions. Especially I did not like the idea of 1st level character having plate mail.
 

Sammael

Adventurer
In full agreement with the following points (and have implemented them in my games a long time ago):

- Combat Advantage
- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits
- Standard, Move and Minor Actions
- No "iterative" attacks
- AC that scales with attack bonus
- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points
- At-Will Spells and Cantrips
- Spells that required Actions to "Sustain."

- Being able to save against a "save or suck" effect every turn in combat. 3.5 started this with hold person, 4e applied to all such effects. I didn't like the "coin toss" saving throws, but it's still a good idea. Nothing is worse than being nauseated, paralyzed, dazed, or whatever else and being unable to do anything for the entire battle.
I'm generally fine with this, but it should be on a case by case basis. For instance, Power Word: Stun and Lich touch should retain their potency.

- Implements: I liked that wands, staffs, etc improved a caster's spells in much the same way that magical weapons improve attacks. It makes much more sense for me for a wand or staff to serve as a focus for a wizard's powers than a spell battery.
While I don't disagree that wands, staffs, and such should add some flavor/power to a wizard's spellcasting, they should in no way be required.

- Alignment is just fluff. No class alignment restrictions. No alignment-based magic. No detect evil. No smite evil. Alignment is there as a way of describing your character's morality, nothing more. There's probably alot of people that disagree with me, but I loved that about 4e.
This one I don't agree with.

- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.
Sure. As long as the simplicity doesn't take away essential monster abilities, particularly non-combat ones.

- No Level Drain. Good riddance!
Level drain as implemented in 3.x sucked. I've instituted a penalty system that replaces it and it works well.
 

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
While I don't disagree that wands, staffs, and such should add some flavor/power to a wizard's spellcasting, they should in no way be required.

Didn't mean to imply that they should be. I don't think magic weapons should be necessary either. I just prefer a staff or wand that lets you supplement your spells rather than being 50 scrolls in the form of a stick.

Sure. As long as the simplicity doesn't take away essential monster abilities, particularly non-combat ones.

Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top