A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[Spatula]

Most of the PHB consisted of powers and feats. What was very disappointing was the lack of options at each level -- I mean, if you're going to design a game that focuses on "combat crunch", I think you should give much more options at every level. Why not have less "power levels" but more powers at each level?

The PHB is lacking, but it's not in terms of class power options. If you actually create a character (and try levelling it up), you'll see there's plenty to go around, and no real "right" choices. Although there may be some obvious "wrong" ones based on your character. You get a power at nearly every level, and you get 3-4 to choose from every time. Once you hit the paragon tier, your new powers replace old ones - you never have more than 3 encounter or daily powers from your class (discounting class features that everyone gets, like channel divinity) at any one time. So you have 3 encounter powers, out of roughly 25 to choose from at the top levels. Same with the daily powers. (plus 1 of each from your paragon path) You end up with 5 class utility powers out of a possible 15-20 (plus 1 from your paragon path and 1 from your destiny). And that's without even getting into the multiclassing feats, which just about double your options.

I don't think we'll see more fighter or wizard or whatever class powers in future supplements. Paragon paths, epic destinies, feats, magic items, yes. New class powers for existing classes? I hope not; it would make creating & levelling up a character very cumbersome to have everything scattered over various books.

Where the PHB is lacking is in Epic Destinies (only 4, and one is wizard-only), magic items, and to some extent feats.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Human Rabble.

So every Joe Commoner is a level 2 threat?

 

[aboyd]

Rather than start a completely new thread, it seems good to add my own short grumpy review here.

So I finished the 4th edition PHB. My final conclusion is this. The book is way the hell better organized. Everything makes sense. Gameplay is better. Having said that, wizards, warlocks, and even clerics are booooooorrrring. Fewer spells, and at least for clerics, their role as healer is much less interesting considering that everyone has healing surges (and yes, I did read that a cleric can trigger healing surges even after the other players hit their cap -- I'm not suggesting that clerics are useless, merely that they no longer feel as special or interesting as before).

Now, playing an elven ranger... THAT sounds interesting. The class gets many combat & movement abilities. Or maybe even an eladrin ranger, so you get teleportation abilities (at first level!) so you can hop all over the battlefield and wreak havoc. The stat bonuses for eladrin & ranger don't quite align, so it's not an optimal build, but it is interesting.

In fact, most warrior classes are awesome, with tons of abilities that rival the spells of spellcasters (I don't mean to imply that a fighter does magical stuff, but his martial attacks vary widely and have many different combat effects). I wouldn't be surprised to see groups consisting of 1 paladin, 1 ranger, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue as the norm now.

Overall, I can tell that playing D&D 4th edition will do just what WotC hoped -- keep gameplay moving (although you're still juggling a hell of a lot of stuff, some of it newly added). I think it also accomplishes some of the other criticisms that have been lobbed at it -- it does appear to cater to newbies, and it does appear to be modeled after computer games like WoW. Perhaps you chafe against such accusations, or perhaps you think "Exactly what we wanted, tell your friends!" Whatever the case, that's the impression I get when I read things like "The roles embodied by the [characters] are controller, defender, leader, and striker."

I find such breakdowns to be uninteresting and too MMORPG-ish. On the other hand, WotC probably thinks "Great! Mission accomplished!"

In comparing with 3.5 edition, well, I have to say that playing a cleric or sorcerer in 3.5 with the Spell Compendium or PHB 2 still seems to have a near-magnetic pull on me. I can admire 4th edition as having done what was needed, and I can praise it as being "better than my terribly low expectations." I can't call it compelling, though. I'll buy it, but mostly because it's good enough that people will use it and I'll want to join those games. For D&D 3.5, I was so hung up on creating great builds (or finding a new nuance of a character or trying a new spell) that I seriously would have bought & played the game even if I was the only person on earth doing it. In fact, I did do a few solo adventures and "what if" character builds simply because 3.5 was so interesting to me.

4th edition is "good." 3.5 edition is "flawed but damn interesting."

Just my opinion.

 

[LcKedovan]

What 4E does exceptionally well is encouraging role-playing (outside combat, that is and character immersion and focusing on the story.

Hey Primal, please elaborate on this.

-W.

 

[MadMaligor]

...Personally my biggest problems in 4E -- in addition to keeping track of all the various small mechanical details -- are coming up with plausible explanations for how most of the powers work, and the 'exception-based' monster/NPC system...[/yQUOTE]

I agree with you here, with regards to pen and paper players. It become much easier with mini's and table top markers, much much easier. You can really see the system shine, and anyone that tells you that you cant spice up the action during some serious team tactics filled battles needs a lesson in roleplay 101 (I sidetracked there a bit so forgive the rant).

The issue then is that 4th Ed basically hand guides you to the battle mat and says "Here you go, now you will be just fine". This is one of those areas where I can see some real valid criticism this early in the release. Its reason enough to give people pause and WotC needs to address the issue rather than just say "Yeah umm you can pen and paper it still. It works...really it does I swear!"


The powers thing though I also agree with. The key there is taking the time as a GM/DM to invest some thought into each one. At first that seems daunting, and well, it certainly is for those who might be new to the game. What I ended up doing is making sure I knew what my players were choosing and why. What did they envision the power/ability as being able to do. Then extrapolated a bit. I also go over the mobs I use and am sure to be aware of each ability and its roleplay strengths and weaknesses. That way during combat, descriptions are colorful but short and dont bog down the game play. When a player questions "How did they do that?!" I have already thought out the answer or was describing it during play to avoid the question in the first place.

A real clear cut example is the Kobold Dragonshield and how players reacted to its Dragonshield Tactics.

Fighter (player) - "Im going to move up to those two buggers with the dragon scale shields and mow them down with a cleave!" Makes his move on the board.

DM (me) - "Striding forward you swing your maul back for a wicked slash only to find the two Kobolds have quickly scampered a short distance away in opposite directions, now out of reach of your hammer. One of the slippery little "buggers" taunts you with yipping laughter." I slide the Kobolds appropriately.

Fighter - (improvising) "I ready a dagger and toss it at the laughing one." He has a free action to let one hand drop and just keep ahold of the maul with the other and a minor action to ready the dagger. Rolls a 19 to hit.

DM - "You let the weight of the maul swing down guiding it with one hand and pull out a dagger with your now free hand. A quick toss clips the laughing kobold who yelps with suprise and the others grin turns to a concerned growl.

Fighter - (rolls dice for dagger damage) "I wink knowingly at the one who growled then yell out I am going to need help cornering these little sons of (well you get the idea...hehehe)"

MM

 

[Sashi]

I can't help but compare the options a player had in 3E vs 4E when talking about powers. My fiance made a ranger last night; she can use a basic ranged attack (+7 to hit and 1d10+6 damage!), and has an at will to shift 1 before or after any attack, another to fire two shots at 1-2 targets, losing her Dex bonus on damage in exchange, she can shift 3 before or after an attack once per fight and do double damage on the hit, or she can fire two shots at two targets, using the higher of two hit rolls for both, again doing double damage, once per day. I'm positive that her 3E ranger didn't have that many options at 1st level, and probably not even my 6th. (Maybe at 6th.) Anyway, I guess I see more options than you did, but I respect that you wanted more.

At first level an Archery Ranger has Once Choice for abilities to gain: Precise Shot or Precise Shot.
At second level, he has nothing.
At third he has a new choice: Point Blank Shot or Point Blank Shot.
Ahh .. but at 6th level he can choose ... weapon focus or weapon focus.

A level 2 4E cleric has 17 powers available to him, a level 2 3.5 cleric had 37 spells available to him. So that's actually a significant reduction. Except that 12 of those spells are Orisons, and that a number of other spells just aren't useful or are just symmetries of other spells (bless and bane, Bless/Curse water)
On the other hand, a 2nd level fighter also has 17 powers available to him, when before he had 2: A bonus feat, and then another (chosen from a smaller selection of feats than 4E has)

In fact, if you consider that all 7 classes have 17 powers available to them by 2nd level, that's 119 powers, and these are powers that they have a CHOICE in, not just powers that they're given for free (such as Healing Word).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In comparing with 3.5 edition, well, I have to say that playing a cleric or sorcerer in 3.5 with the Spell Compendium or PHB 2 still seems to have a near-magnetic pull on me. I can admire 4th edition as having done what was needed, and I can praise it as being "better than my terribly low expectations." I can't call it compelling, though. I'll buy it, but mostly because it's good enough that people will use it and I'll want to join those games. For D&D 3.5, I was so hung up on creating great builds (or finding a new nuance of a character or trying a new spell) that I seriously would have bought & played the game even if I was the only person on earth doing it. In fact, I did do a few solo adventures and "what if" character builds simply because 3.5 was so interesting to me.

This is precisely what I do not like about 3.5e the way that build become the all comsuming obsession. I have seen arguments in groups about players taking sub obtimal choices. This should not be possible in an rpg IMHO, a player should be able to play their character asw they want.
The other effect of all the splat books was the appearence of odd synergies that only the players knew about and the DM would not be familar with because there was too much stuff to know and track.

4e may reveal its own problems in time but i feel DMs will have a better handle on because the player powers a relatively limited.

 

[hong]

Human Rabble.

The minion counterpart to Ruthless Egalitarians?

 

[mrswing]

I personally think that the tactically minded groups will get the largest amount of satisfaction from 4e. To me, the whole 'controller -striker - defender' etc. roles, and the strict roles for the monsters, are a more of a hindrance to storytelling. But from the tactical point of view (inspired partly by miniature games and MMOs - and even Diablo-type PC games) these add new options to the game which were previously absent.

 

[Praeden]

Don't worry about people saying that you are not open minded.

On this board "open minded" means liking 4E (or rather thinking 4E is the best thing ever). If you don't like it you are by definition a close minded hater.

Whereas to you, being open-minded is being able to take almost any piece of text and invent something to dislike about 4E. If so many of your 4E hates hadn't turned out to be purely imaginary, your moral high ground stance might carry some credibility.