- 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.
I can agree on this
- No Rolling to "Confirm" Criticial Hits. Always hated that.
As stated elsewhere, this causes problems with the "nat 20" needed to hit. Also, with the confirm, you make items that play on this, making it easier to confirm (say using a Kris dagger) or harder (giving some value to helmets, greaves and the like). Likewise, I've always instituted a houserule that if on the the confirm you get a nat 20, roll again.
- 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.
Somewhat agree - definitely don't like the static value of 10+. I'd prefer a disease-track style as I don't like the "suddenly I'm cured!" sort of results that occur with stuff like poison and such.
- 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.
Pretty much agree
- 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.
Don't agree, but I think only fighter-types should have had access to iterative attacks as class features/feats, and they shouldn't have been at minuses.
However, I've seen some recent posts that have me thinking there's better ways to do multiple attacks such as claw/claw/bite, two-weapon fighting and "3 swings with a sword".
- 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.
Strongly disagree. I once would have agreed, but recently having gone back to play older editions I realized it was stupid that hit points
and AC were trending upward. Raising both conflates the problem of long combats and raising AC alone would make combats with low-level enemies a joke. By not inflating AC but allowing HP to increase low-level foes can still be somewhat of a challenge as they can use their numbers to wear down a high-level foe.
There is also the problem that beating an opponent's AC has become synonymous with actually striking the foe - in older editions (before "Touch AC"), that wasn't necessarily the case; there are many rulebook descriptions where a "hit" could be described as a graze or even a bit of expended luck avoiding the blow through the loss of hit points.
- No Rolling for Stats or Hit Points.
I still like to have the option to roll, even though I mostly use point buy for Stats.
- 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.
Not for me; at-will spells just make me cringe, though I'm not against giving out low-powered wands or scrolls (1 spell-a-day does suck to be on the receiving end, but Unlimited Power is too much). I see nothing wrong with the wizard having to rely on mundane weaponry to occasionally save his hide. Gandalf with a sword or the D&D dart-tossing mage (forget this crossbow junk!) is trope I'd like to keep in the game.
- 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 liked this as well, though I still like being able to give out "spell batteries" once in a while.
- 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.
Seems reasonable, perhaps even a good alternative to spells with saves every round.
- 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.
Alignment has its uses - for NPCs. I'd rather open it up to "demeanors" - three adjectives that describe a character or monster. Besides Lawful, Good, Chaotic, Evil you could throw in Calm, Emotionless, Passionate, Simpleton, Lustful, Greedy, Noble, etc. Then base items, spells or effects that could tie into those demeanors.
- Simple, Easy to Read and Use Monster Stat-blocks. This makes the DM's life sooooo much easier.
Agreed, though I'd love to see them go back to taking up less space at times. (AC: 7, HD: 2, hp: 7, #Att: 2, Dam: 1d6+poison/1d6+poison, Mv: 12", Spec Att: poison 1d6, Spec Def: Teleport, Align: LE, XP: 640) has it's uses.
- No Level Drain. Good riddance!
Eh, the losing XP part I'm glad is gone, but I'd rather it just did a -1 to hit, -1 to skill checks and -3 hit points would have been plenty well enough.
