4e Annoyances for those who like 4e

[Henry]

In my 3E experience, your cleric spent the rest of his/her spells and some juice from a wand healing the party, and then everyone woke up the next day with full hp and full spells.

I know, but my suspension of disbelief still wants that "it's magic" crutch.

That said, I'm still on board with the idea that all your wounds don't have to be gone the next morning. Moving beyond the old abstraction that hp don't represent your physical integrity, I'm pondering a system for wounds that take longer to heal - maybe wounds that use mechanics similar to 4E diseases?

I can say that something like that in a DDI article or a "4E Unearthed Arcana" type book would definitely hold my interest, both for having some WotC designers having kicked it around their tables to shake bugs loose, and for it being of published quality. I still don't have a group right now comfortable enough with the 4E basics to experiment with it.

 

[the Jester]

I don't like the "heal to full every night" mechanic.

Speaking of healing, I think the value of healing powers is a little too high for my tastes. Pcs in my campaign often go from almost down to almost full in a single healing/inspiring word. The surge plus lots of bonus hps heal is a bit much imho.

Skill challenges need some work, but the biggest improvement that could be made is simply to allow pcs to pick the skills they are trying and how they are attempting to use them, and to have the dm adjudicate it based on the circumstances. You can already run them this way, but the way they are written often assumes the pcs use a specific approach ("Diplomacy: the pc flatters the duke and acts like a fond admirer"). What if the pc wants to use Diplomacy to straight up persuade the duke without flattery or obsequiousness?? (As a side note, the skill challenge in Keep on the Shadowfell where the pcs talk to the undead knight, as written, is atrocious.)

The continuing paring down of languages until now there are only a few bugs me- I prefer just the opposite, but with a mechanic that allows pcs to learn languages without spending scarce resources on them. I like dialects and linguistic complexity, though, and that is definitely not for everyone.

 

[Mouseferatu]

This is one of those things that's definitely in YMMV territory - I was one of those that found the old cosmology vaguely interesting and vaguely goofy, but I totally dig the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos. But maybe that's because I grew up on Arthurian mythology and Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past.

Yep, yep. I love the new cosmology, and find it to be far more interesting, inspiring, and (is this word still allowed anymore? ) fun than the old.

It's -25% hit points / +33% damage, if you want things to balance out mathwise. Although I doubt anyone would ever notice the difference.

D'oh!

 

[Mouseferatu]

My biggest annoyance is that extended rests recover a little too much in the way of resources for my tastes. Haling surges, I'm fine with, I get the "John Maclane" effect just fine, but I've got to believe John Maclane had a LOOOOONG rest after the end of each Die Hard, he didn't just take a shower, hit the hay, and was ready for "Die Hard X+1" the next day -- he was cut up, bruised, and running on adrenaline as much as anything, but when the adrenaline wears off, he's GOT to set those cracked ribs and sit down for a long while.

At the risk of tooting my own horn too much, there's an "extended wound" system, using a variant of the disease track, in the Advanced Player's Guide I wrote for Expeditious Retreat.

 

[Phaezen]

At the risk of tooting my own horn too much, there's an "extended wound" system, using a variant of the disease track, in the Advanced Player's Guide I wrote for Expeditious Retreat.

Let me toot your horn for you.

I am using the system in my current campaign, works quite nicely if you are looking for a long term wound system

 

[chitzk0i]

The core is too damn big. The original set of core rulebooks runs to 832 pages, which IMO is about three times too much. Having introduced D&D to various young people, and having literally seen the enthusiasm drain from them at the prospect of "having to read all that", I'm convinced this has to be a big barrier to entry.

"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! They don't need to know any other class' powers or any other race's information. Plus, they only need to know the text of magic items they have.

At the same time (and an odd complaint to put next to the first one), the 'core game' made up of the first three core rulebooks feels very... limited. (I'm not going to say 'incomplete', because that's really not accurate but yes, it is essentially that same complaint.) It feels to me like a rather nice 'starter set', but is almost crying out for "X Power" and at least "Monster Manual 2" to make it really sing.

(I have no idea how you could fix both those issues together, if it is even possible to do so. That's just the feeling I get.)

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.

I, too, felt like my options were pretty tightly restricted back in the PHB-only days, but I'm sure the designers were looking forward to the digital Dragon and Dungeon as well as the Power books when they chose the amount of powers to put in.

(Oh, and while I'm at it, I hate that they've redefined 'core' so that there's now no easy way to refer to "Players Handbook 1", "Dungeon Master's Guide 1" and "Monster Manual 1" collectively.)

I haven't needed to refer to them as a group.

Speaking of healing, I think the value of healing powers is a little too high for my tastes. Pcs in my campaign often go from almost down to almost full in a single healing/inspiring word. The surge plus lots of bonus hps heal is a bit much imho.

In my experience, hit point gains start to outstrip stat modifiers. By paragon tier, the cleric's wis mod won't be half a surge anymore

 

[Mouseferatu]

Let me toot your horn for you.

Not in public!!

Seriously, thanks.

 

[Cadfan]

I just don't like rules glitches. I don't believe that the designers of many powers that allow flight were fully aware of the incomplete nature of the existing flight rules. I don't believe that the designers of the swordmage were fully aware of the rules on changing your weapon grip. I don't believe that the designers of summoned effects fully thought out the details of how summoned effects move. There are a few others like these.

Most of the time they're not that big of a deal, or the DM can ad hoc them at the table. But the ones that deal directly with characters can be problematic.

I'm also a little less enthused about power sources than some people. Mostly I'm not sure I like the idea that characters who fight with weapons but who do not have the martial power source should be using some form of magic on every attack they make, forever. Like the Paladin, who's presumably invoking divine power with every blow of his sword. Aesthetically I'd probably have chosen to mix things up a bit, giving him largely martial at wills and magical limited use abilities. But that's an aesthetic thing and I know lots of people who like these classes as is, so I'm not going to kick up a fuss. The entire game wasn't designed just for me.

 

[Greg K]

At the risk of tooting my own horn too much, there's an "extended wound" system, using a variant of the disease track, in the Advanced Player's Guide I wrote for Expeditious Retreat.

if I were to run 4e, the Advanced Player's Guide would be one of the first supplements allowed, because the extended wound system would be mandatory.

 

[Mercule]

Lighting rules. I've got a rogue, a ranger, and a stealthy wizard IMC. The wizard is eladrin and totally frustrated by the binary nature of even low-light vision. There is no way to "hide in shadows" against low-light, you have to use cover. I'm seriously considering halving the radius of all light sources and adding the dim corona from 3e. I think I'll keep the dim-to-low-light corona as a +50%, rather than doubling the whole thing, though.

V-shaped classes (now that I know what that means). A-shaped classes are okay, I guess, but I think the builds should be I-shaped, with a tertiary clearly below the secondary.

Attributes that go to 20 at 1st level or up to 28 later. I liked my humans at 3-18 with the other races having some variation. I don't really mind non-humans having no penalties, because those were often crappy for some good concepts. I think I'd cut the number of stat bonuses by one for every race (one for most, zero for humans). I'd also kill the +1 to all at 11th and 21st levels. Not replace with +1 to two, but eliminate them. I'd also be fine with +1 to one at 4th, 8th, etc. and +1 to two at 11th and 21st. I kinda like increasing stats, but even 3e gave too much.

Multiple attributes feeding defenses. I like 4e defenses over 3e saves. The multi-attribute defenses gives some strange results, though. In my group, the Wizard (high int) has a better Reflex defense than the Rogue and the Rogue (high cha) has a better Will defense than the Wizard. The Wizard also has a better AC than the Fighter (battlerager == chain armor). I appreciate not forcing everyone to need three specific stats, but the results are wonky.

The mechanics are too similar between the power sources. I'm not saying a wizard feels like a fighter, or anything. I just want the sources to feel more different -- almost different sub-games. I think it'd be great if switching from a martial PC to an arcane PC felt very different. The Warlord should play more like a Fighter than a Cleric -- not in terms of responsibility, just the mechanical feel. Maybe a standard power advancement by source, rather than universal. I have some ideas, but I wouldn't say I have a definite solution. I think Psionics looks to be appropriately unique, though. Hopefully, WotC doesn't start passing that mechanic around.

The economy. I've made my peace with it, to an extent, as being completely fanciful above 10th level or so. No one actually has that sort of money. It's only a meta-game way of saying a Holy Avenger is as rare and valuable as owning a kingdom and a heroic king might have to forfit his throne for the opportunity to wield one. Things like the cost of mounts and armor, though, are blemishes and I'd don't like base equipment priced by balance.

Which brings me to Balance. There are a variety of issues that can be laid at the altar of Pure Balance. Some of the pricing definitely falls there. Disappearing artifacts, likewise. And a host of really minor, but pervasive bits. This is where the "board game" or "video game" arguments hold a thimble-full of water. A feat that lets you use Wisdom to attack with a sword -- WTF?

Treasure parcels. I don't have an issue with them as basic guidance, but it's become clear that the intent was to have exactly those ten parcels handed out for the given level. Give me a list of twenty and let me pick ten. They should be roughly interchangeable. Also, the money should be assumed to be split up more, rather than truly parceled. To freakin' formulaic. Also, give me a random table for generating items. Maybe mine are the only groups that played this way, but I'd be more inclined to walk on a DM who hand-picked every item than one who randomized everything. Sure, picking one or two a level is fine, but not everything. I have decide what useless crap to add to adventures, now.

Only getting 1/5 return on disenchanting magic items. Considering I hate hand-picked items and I hate magic shops, my players really need a way to exchange their items. It's still better than 3e, though, that practically forced you to have a magic item trade.

Fill-in-the-blank module parcels. Doling out items is one of the things I like least about building my own adventures. If the module authors aren't going to handle that, what's the advantage of using them. Yes, it's still less time I need to invest than doing it from scratch, but I actually enjoy building the encounters and one of the selling points of 4e was that it made encounter building easier. So, 4e modules do the fun, easy stuff and leave the crap work to me. Even if I subscribed to the hand-picked treasure idea, I'd still rather see the parcels explicitly distributed with money in room 17, and a fill-in-the-blank item in room 8. The treasure table at the front of modules ticks me off everytime I see it. And, because the encounter information says (if I'm lucky), "Treasure: parcel 3," I find myself forgetting to hand out treasure with some regularity.

And, yes, I did just complain about treasure three times, twice regarding parcels. It annoys me that much.

Feats can't seem to decide whether they are for tweaking concepts or tangible bonuses. Multiclassing is a good example. I didn't mind it, initially, because it looked like a lot of feats just did little things to help you define your character -- like stealthy wizards, fighters knowing some rituals, or a +1 in very limited situations. A steady stream of substantive feats have rolled in, though. Personally, I like feats as minor perks and powers as substantive capabilities. I could deal with feats granting some noteworthy effects, but don't use the same pool to buy personality tweaks.

I'd also rename "multiclassing" to "dual classing" and "hybrid class" to "multiclass". Asthetics only, but it carries forward the same basic meaning as 1e had.

Over all, though, I do actually think the base system is probably the most solid edition, yet. I just think that some of the... presentation, for lack of a better word, leaves something to be desired.