4e Annoyances for those who like 4e

[Alex319]

They shouldn't be called "healing," since they aren't always healing you (e.g., the warlord's Inspiring Word)

With Inspiring Word, as well as most leader healing abilities, the creature who is healed is the one that spends the healing surge.

There are very few abilities (Paladin's Lay on Hands is the only one I can think of) where you spend one of your own healing surges to heal someone else.

There are lots of abilities where you "heal someone as if they had spent a healing surge" which means they heal their HSV in hit points but don't expend an HS.

Also worth noting is the Artificer's Healing Infusion, where you heal the target as if they had spent an HS, but then you have to recharge the healing infusion by having any of your party members spend an HS (without regaining hit points).

 

[Alex319]

:

Masterwork armor. I understand the reasoning behind this - it's to keep heavy armor from falling behind light armor as characters level up. But dear God, what a clumsy way to accomplish that! If you ask me, heavy armor should work like light armor, only keying off Str/Con instead of Dex/Int.

If you did that, you would completely screw over characters who have Wisdom or Charisma as their primary stat and have any intention of getting in melee, such as Wisdom based clerics or Charisma based paladins.

I think that the reason the masterwork items were confusing is because it was explained poorly, so it wasn't clear what their purpose was. What I would have done is the following:

1. Eliminated masterwork armor.

2. Reduce paragon tier monster attacks vs. AC by 1, and reduce epic tier monster attacks vs. AC by 2. This eliminates the need for masterwork light armor, and reduces the amount of "masterwork bonus" on heavy armor by 4.

3. Included the following text, or something similar under the description of magical heavy armor in the DMG:

As more experienced adventurers get better at dodging enemy attacks, armorers realized they needed a way to give heavy armor wielders a similar advantage. To that end, a technique was developed that could channel some of the magical energy of an existing enchantment into the user's body, giving users the ability to avoid enemy attacks rather than just absorb them. Any heavy armor with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater gives its user an additional AC bonus equal to its enhancement bonus minus 2. For example, a suit of +5 plate armor would provide a total of +16 to AC: +8 from the armor bonus of full plate, +5 from the enhancement bonus, and +3 from the additional bonus.

This would provide a fluff justification for the "masterwork" armor system, smooth out the curve a bit, and make it a little more clear what is going on. Also, I wouldn't have had all the different masterwork armors in AV - all that seemed to do was muddy the waters even more. If I wanted to include a way to accept a lower AC to get other bonuses, I would have just had that as a separate option (like some "construction option" that you can put on top of armor) rather than mix it in with a completely unrelated system.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

Yeah, generic names for concepts as broad as the Feywild and Shadowfell are better. Although why could they not simply have been called Faerie and Shadow?

Because Feywild and Shadowfell can be copyrighted...

My annoyance?

Skills are fixed to an attribute. I prefer free association of skills and attributes.

Multiple attack powers really getting grim due to static mods. (Just do them all as x[W]+mods with x being number of hits. One attack crits treat all as crits.)

Brutes terrible attack bonuses (maybe thats just my Paladins AC...)

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Oh, one other thing I thought of. I kinda wish that copper and silver pieces weren't largely ignored. I'd like it if the base currency in low Heroic tier was silver, gradually moving up to gold by the end of the tier, then shifting to platinum some time in paragon tier, and then moving to astral diamonds by the end of epic tier. I just miss the good ol' days where a silver piece was the order of the day. (I blame inflation )

 

[Alex319]

Quote from UngueuherLich:

It is dangerous when mechanics become the focus in battles... it makes me sick when characters are played like chess pieces

What do you mean by "mechanics becoming the focus"? What would a battle where mechanics weren't the focus look like, in comparison to a typical 4e battle? And what do you mean by characters being played "like chess pieces"?

 

[Skallgrim]

Oddly, despite agreeing with many of the criticisms here, I think my biggest three problems are something no one else has complained about:

Quest XP rushes the PCs through a level. What I mean by this is that, fairly often (especially in pregen adventures), the major quests involved are all going to be completed at the end (or near the end) of the adventure. This means that for an adventure that runs, say, from 11-14, the PCs spend a good bit of time at 11, a good bit of time at 12, and hit 13 and 14 fairly closely together. I really, really like the Quest XP mechanic (and it helps to keep my group focused on their story goals from week to week), but significant quests seem to produce this "Bam! You level up!" effect.

I think someone mentioned this one, but: The solid, well-structured mechanics of the rules (despite complaints, they are fairly robust compared to many systems, that may not even consider any attempt at balance), often mean that my players ONLY choose to use their powers. They have cool powers. They have cool cards for them. Thus, that is all they do. The accessibility of the rules, and the ease with which people can grasp the tactical implications of their powers and feats, has led them to ignore the "reality" underlying those rules. When the troglodyte casually kicked the sunrod into the underground river, throwing the whole party into darkness, my group just about freaked. It was like he suddenly manifested this ability to create a Zone of Darkness! They seldom bother with all of the tactical options given to them by terrain, environment, and objects in the game. Instead, it's all positioning and powers.

Too many Feats. Characters have a limited number of feat slots, and the existence of so many feats puts pressure on them to just select the 'most powerful' ones which will be available most of the time. In addition, the constant addition of more feats means that a player will often feel that a new feat does a better job of representing his character than an old one. Also, the complex interaction between multiple feats again forces a lot of hard choices and regrets. I think that feats should have been 'reigned in', and kept as consistenly minor bonuses, deliberately designed not to interact and trigger off each other so much, and not been such an essential part of many builds. The 'math fix' feats make this really bad, as they are putting even more pressure on limited feat slots, but they are also really bad feat design. +1 to three defenses? That's a feat? I thought that the feats were designed to be minorly useful especially when static. I would like to have seen feats been kept more minor in scale, and perhaps given out each level. That way, there would have been fewer "must have" feats, and more opportunities for feats to customize characters without penalizing or rewarding certain choices with awesome combat prowess or minor situational benefits.

 

[Skallgrim]

Quote from UngueuherLich:



What do you mean by "mechanics becoming the focus"? What would a battle where mechanics weren't the focus look like, in comparison to a typical 4e battle? And what do you mean by characters being played "like chess pieces"?

Given what I think "mechanics becoming the focus" means, I think I would agree. I would perhaps rephrase the complaint as "convenient mechanics become the focus".

Your character has stats for his magic sword, and his attack powers, and his utilities. There's no stats (you get easy access to) for the brazier in the corner, or the jar of oil on the shelf. If you walked by the brazier and the DM handed you a card that said 'Brazier: Attack Melee 1 Strength+4 vs. Reflex Hit: 2d6+3 Fire", and another when you spotted the oil that specified that as a standard action you could create a zone with the oil that would allow the brazier's attack to target every creature in the zone, then maybe the problem wouldn't exist.

When you have a hammer, all your problems look like nails. When you have a sheet (or even easier cards) with "all" of your attacks calculated out for you, many of us narrow our tactical choices down to those cards. This isn't always the effect of a bad DM. It may be easier, quicker, and less interruption of the game to just use your encounter power, instead of asking the DM what the brazier would do, and deciding whether to do it or not.

I can't fault WOTC for making a largely easy to understand combat system, but because parts of the combat system are so easy to grasp and use, those parts get used a little too much. Some systems, like GURPS, where almost everything in combat can be made more complex (do you grab him with one hand, or two? Where do you grab him? Are you grabbing him as a normal attack, or an All-Out attack (Strong, or Determined, or Double)?), it isn't 'slowing the game down' to use some other creative tactic (like pulling the wall hangings down over the guy instead).

 

[Festivus]

Having the Blind Condition but being able to run down a twisty corridor at full speed without penalty.

Well, in my game I'd say that you had better start making checks to avoid falling down, particularly if running there will be a penalty on that... and lord knows where you are going... oh yeah, the randomness of the dice do.

Just because it isn't spelled out in the book makes it something that CAN happen? I disagree.

 

[FireLance]

Well, in my game I'd say that you had better start making checks to avoid falling down, particularly if running there will be a penalty on that... and lord knows where you are going... oh yeah, the randomness of the dice do.

I've pretty much taken the opposite approach in my game, in that I've toned down what it means to have the "blinded" condition narratively. Since mechanically, "blinded" characters can (usually) still pinpoint where their opponents are and move around without too much difficulty, I tend to narrate it as extreme blurred vision, possibly to the level of Mr Magoo.

 

[hero4hire]

I've pretty much taken the opposite approach in my game, in that I've toned down what it means to have the "blinded" condition narratively. Since mechanically, "blinded" characters can (usually) still pinpoint where their opponents are and move around without too much difficulty, I tend to narrate it as extreme blurred vision, possibly to the level of Mr Magoo.

In our game we have rationalized it as a "clouding of the senses" as well as opposed to complete blindness.

Nonetheless it was extremely annoying to do so.