D&D 4E 4E is the Right Direction for 5E

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've introduced quite a few people to 4e as their first rpg experience, and I always offer to give them a pregen or help them during their first chargen. But almost universally, they insist on making their own character; and so far we haven't had any major problems. The basic rules are simple, and the rest they learn as we play.

There needs to be a full page devoted to the DM altering monster stats so that a 1st level or 30th level monster can be used in a 4th level adventure. This would make Orcs relevant threats and Dragons not too strong to destroy the entire party in just a few rounds.

Marvelous Monsters comes in handy for just this. (See Upper & Lower Castes.)

 

[darkwing]

I like 4e but it's not easy enough. Mostly this has to do with how attribute scores are treated (both with ability to hit things and feat pre-reqs). You need to plan your character out several levels in advance just to back factor in which starting attributes you need to hit the feats you want. This is pretty lame.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I like 4e but it's not easy enough. Mostly this has to do with how attribute scores are treated (both with ability to hit things and feat pre-reqs). You need to plan your character out several levels in advance just to back factor in which starting attributes you need to hit the feats you want. This is pretty lame.

Kinda depends on both what sort of build you're playing and just how worried you are about getting that last bit of oomph out of your character. Nobody I've played with extensively is really an optimizer, though a certain percentage of players will work at it a bit in the end they're not going to spend THAT much time at it nor worry that they didn't end up with the best feat there is. Honestly 4e, like most RPGs, plays best in that mode. You play your concept and pick up what works with that concept and pass on stuff that won't work well for you, and your character will hit the expected numbers. If the rest of the table basically does the same it clicks right along.

I do really agree though that there are two many powers and feats, and some of the ways things interact are a bit obtuse. Often I'll point out some finer point of this or that, or some slick way something can work that isn't obvious unless you really look at it hard. I think that kind of thing really should be rare or non-existent and player options should be more obvious and more closely associated with the concept they support. The number of powers could easily be 1/3 of what it is now with a bit of redesign and that would be quite beneficial too (I mean total numbers of powers, each PC could probably be ramped back a bit too, there's been a bit of option creep there too).

 

[darkwing]

The number of powers could easily be 1/3 of what it is now with a bit of redesign and that would be quite beneficial too (I mean total numbers of powers, each PC could probably be ramped back a bit too, there's been a bit of option creep there too).

Don't forget items. Many times the items compliment a character build so well that they almost seem necessary (well, the same build without the items would be sub-par).

And frankly, I don't mind options, its just that they should be introduced slowly over time and the way D&D is set up makes that hard (you're expected to think of a build and stick to it). Other games handle this much better with power trees and such so you kind of choose as you go what you like playing the best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Don't forget items. Many times the items compliment a character build so well that they almost seem necessary (well, the same build without the items would be sub-par).

And frankly, I don't mind options, its just that they should be introduced slowly over time and the way D&D is set up makes that hard (you're expected to think of a build and stick to it). Other games handle this much better with power trees and such so you kind of choose as you go what you like playing the best.

Never been much of a fan of trees myself. It seems more like that nails you down to a concept pretty fast, as once you've invested in a couple layers of choices you're narrowed down to only whatever choices follow on from that. It certainly means any given player has limited (at least good) options at any given time of course.

I actually like the way 4e lets you combine various things in a rather 'toolbox' fashion. I just think they were actually a bit TOO limited. Things should be fewer in number but more generalized. Powers are a prime example. Push most of them up to the power source level. That means you have smaller lists but more meaningful choices for each class and can eliminate similar powers on different lists and combine them. Similar approaches can work for feats where if they're cleverly defined the same feat (5e may have a slightly different mechanic but I think the idea will still apply) can be used for several related things by different classes.

There are other things, reduce levels from 30 to 18 for instance. That eliminates a lot of "we had to have something for this level". Make more powers scale so they can simply be used over a wide level range instead of being replaced, etc. Overall I think you could cut back from the 8k powers of 4e to under 1k and not really have any less effective options (less classes would help here too, and exactly how you parse up the class hierarchy is a detail that can be handled various ways).

 

[S'mon]

I like 4e but it's not easy enough. Mostly this has to do with how attribute scores are treated (both with ability to hit things and feat pre-reqs). You need to plan your character out several levels in advance just to back factor in which starting attributes you need to hit the feats you want. This is pretty lame.

Um, don't most people just choose from available feats when they hit an even level? Planning out your character was a 3e thing, I haven't really seen it in 4e. There are plenty of good feats without prereqs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Um, don't most people just choose from available feats when they hit an even level? Planning out your character was a 3e thing, I haven't really seen it in 4e. There are plenty of good feats without prereqs.

Yeah, it was certainly a LOT more vital in 3e where you had to plan out which classes you'd cherry pick a level from at each level up, etc. At least with 4e your character will pretty much hit baseline performance almost no matter what you do if it isn't completely obviously a bad idea like a low STR fighter or something. NO way I have any interest in going back to THAT mess.

 

[Jhaelen]

Um, don't most people just choose from available feats when they hit an even level? Planning out your character was a 3e thing, I haven't really seen it in 4e. There are plenty of good feats without prereqs.

That matches my experience. I usually look two levels ahead, though, and only print the sheets for odd levels.
I've advanced characters to level 30 because I was simply curious how such a character might look like, but that's just for fun.
For characters I'm actively playing, I've found it to be impossible to plan ahead. E.g. usually I have to see powers in action before I can tell if I like them. If they don't work out as expected, they get switched out.

It's more or less an accident when I notice a feat which would be nice for character a) while browsing the feat list for character b) and suddenly start to wonder why I never noticed it before only to find out it's because my Dex happens to be a point too low. Meh.

I don't really like feats in 4e. Heck, I don't like feats, period. Looking over the endless lists of feats is my least favorite part when leveling a character. I'm no longer sure, they're really required. Aren't there enough customization options without them?

Every other part of character advancement is fun and invites experimentation.

Magic items are entirely optional since we use inherent bonuses, so I don't figure them in when planning for a character. Gaining a cool item has sometimes affected my character development, though. Yet another reason not to plan ahead!

 

[mkill]

I like 4e but it's not easy enough. Mostly this has to do with how attribute scores are treated (both with ability to hit things and feat pre-reqs). You need to plan your character out several levels in advance just to back factor in which starting attributes you need to hit the feats you want. This is pretty lame.

Agreed. Feat prereqs need to die in a hot burning fire. Either a feat is balanced, then any PC can have it, or it's not, then slapping a Str 19 prereq on it doesn't balance it either.

(That 3E was worse in that regard is not really an excuse)

 

[Nichwee]

Personally I think some prereqs for feats are a good thing.

For example, I wouldn't want a feat that gives the old Evasion ability (take no damage on a miss versus Reflex) to be usable by someone with no Dex or Int. It should not be useful to them much (as if they have no Dex or Int then they won't be missed much) but it still seems wrong for a guy with no Reflex stats to be able to weave through an explosion imo.

Some feat prereqs exist as they are "extensions of great ability" so taking them with no ability, let alone "great ability", would be wrong. Many feat prereqs are unnecessary, but some just make good roleplaying sense.
If all feats are built off "If you do well at this you may also gain this perk" then they don't need prereqs to balance them, but if they are "You gain this perk, but you should only be able to gain this perk if you are good at such-and-such" then they should have prereqs, to stop peeps knabbing the perk for mechanical reasons even though their character would have no hope of achieving it if it actually called for a check of their stats.
(The Linguist feat for example. Int 8 PCs should not be able to gain 3 languages that simply - maybe a single language version with no prereq would be better, or build the feat to scale with Int - as this would avoid feat bloat)