Errors from previous editions which got repeated.

[Saeviomagy]

Sad thing is, sometimes it -is- fun to get a sword that says 'Do more damage.' It's simple, elegant, and always useful.

Except usually that ends up being "do the amount of damage that we expect you to be doing". It's rare that a sword actually lets you do more than the baseline damage the game was designed around, because the game has to be designed with certain assumptions in mind.

 

[CubeKnight]

Back to the OP's question (I think)--

A repeated mistake in editions of D&D: Allowing magic items to add to your numerical stats; i.e. +1 Longswords (or +2, +3, etc) or <shudder> a Belt of Strength +4. Magic items simply shouldn't add anything to a numerical statistic, as it always makes equipment too critical to character power. Instead, magic items should have magical powers that expand a PCs options; a sword that can kill rakshasas, for example. Or an axe that causes wounds that don't easily heal. Etc.

+1. Would totally love this.

 

[77IM]

Errors from previous editions which got repeated:

1. Focus on tactical combat. D&D has always been a combat-heavy (even combat-focussed) game, and 3e introduced some interesting tactical elements to combat, but 4e might have gone too far. An effort to make combat less "swingy" has turned it into a grind. The powers system, meant to give all classes interesting options, seems too rigid and self-absorbed (using DMG p.42 is generally not as good as just whacking the guy with your encounter power).

2. Inconsistent use of clarifying language and cross-references, and over-reliance an terminology. D&D has always had a lot of terminology and sometimes it is explained well but sometimes it is left to the players to follow the trail of logic (each edition reads more and more like a computer program...). For example, the Reliable keyword. You're expected to notice that keyword and know what it means. Would it have been that hard to add a line about "Miss: The power is not expended?" There's a similar problem with Sustained -- sometimes the power spells out what that means, but other times it assumes that you know the specific definition of Sustained Duration. Here's a thread about that: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/254646-sustain.html

3. Math Soup. Every round of combat there's a lot of, "Wait, so I'm at +2 for combat advantage, -2 for cover, +5 for the righteous brand, -1 for being in the aura, oh and I'm -2 until I save because of that other thing..." Situational bonuses (cover, combat advantage, etc.) are one thing, but when you layer on the dozens of powers that grant minor bonuses and penalties, it becomes a real hassle.

4. Superior weapons. If you're a melee character, there's probably a superior (formerly exotic) weapon that you should be using because it's better than your military (formerly martial) weapon. By most definitions of game balance (which I will not repeat here), this is imbalanced.

5. Strength+Armor. 4e doesn't even have Weapon Finesse for the poor Dexterity-based combatants. Combat Training is nice, but it's only for basic attacks, so it sucks for warlords and paladins and so forth. And while light armor got a really nice boost, it's still risky to go unarmored (unless you're an avenger) -- even the wizard gets a tremendous benefit from upgrading to leather. D&D has always been about "fighting men" with strong sword arms, but I think the genre source material has enough swashbuckling ninja fencers to justify Dexterity-based combat for people other than rogues.

-- 77IM

 

[Chimera]

A mistake that was made even bigger in 4e, and I recognize that I might be in the minority on this, is the extreme curve of Magic Item pricing. I thought it was horrible, illogical and uneconomic in 3e. I find it outright absurdly laughable in 4e.

But then, many people writing for 3e had some really bizarro ideas about the value of a GP in general, and the inconsistencies were pretty intolerable to me (Stronghold Builder's Guide? I'm looking at YOU!). I haven't looked at the non-core equipment books or had to deal with economics much in 4e to say if it is better or worse on mundane items.

 

[Nail]

A repeated mistake in editions of D&D: Allowing magic items to add to your numerical stats; i.e. +1 Longswords (or +2, +3, etc) or <shudder> a Belt of Strength +4. Magic items simply shouldn't add anything to a numerical statistic, as it always makes equipment too critical to character power. Instead, magic items should have magical powers that expand a PCs options; a sword that can kill rakshasas, for example. Or an axe that causes wounds that don't easily heal. Etc.

This. I want to give my player's magical items, since the powers are fun, but I don't want to have to worry about giving too little. (Or too much.)

Sad thing is, sometimes it -is- fun to get a sword that says 'Do more damage.' It's simple, elegant, and always useful.

If magic items that gave numeric boosts (your traditional longsword +1) were eliminated, there would be rioting in the streets.

Maybe...maybe not.

If it were done right, the pain (and riots) would be mitigated by the ease of the system, as well as the simple coolness factor of having magic tiems that actually did stuff. As it is (and as it has been for every edition of D&D), magic items aren't simply "cool". They are required for balance.

@DracoSuave: You could still have a weapon that "did more damage" without having a static "+". Look at Gauntlets of Ogre Power, frex. There are lots of ways to do it so that it's neat, flavorful, and balanced.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Magic item treshold bonuses to the players: with this rule, players can benefit from exceptional magical items but don´t fall behind when none are available. And they can still profit from the good old sword they found at fist level or so...

2. At least there is remote balance even without magic items, you just have to use lower level monsters to compensate... (conservative guess: use monster of level 2/3 - 3/4 of your players...) and balance should be ok... and because damage scales less than hp, you may even save yourself some grind...

3. Older editions are not balanced without magical items in mind... try creating a fghter npc 10 levels higher without magical protections... good chance your charm person will convince him t switch sides...

So: did they repeat the mistake? Yes if you want to call it a mistake. Is it easier in 4th edition to remedy this mistake? i think so... either by applying heroic bonuses to all attacks and damage (+1 at level 6,11,16,21,26 or for better scaling: 5,11,15,21,25) or by using lower level monsters...
Do I like magic items giving bonuses? hell yeah! But fighters are even cool without them

 

[keterys]

1. Focus on tactical combat. D&D has always been a combat-heavy (even combat-focussed) game, and 3e introduced some interesting tactical elements to combat, but 4e might have gone too far. An effort to make combat less "swingy" has turned it into a grind. The powers system, meant to give all classes interesting options, seems too rigid and self-absorbed (using DMG p.42 is generally not as good as just whacking the guy with your encounter power).

I'm pretty sure that's 3 different points

1) Combat too tactical
2) Combat too grindy
3) Power system too rigid and self-absorbed

On #1... umm, I heartily disagree. As it is, there are enough circumstances where it's not tactical enough for me #2 does appear to be the case for some people, though it's very odd... in some group I see it and in other groups combat is over in 20-30 mins. I'd like to get a better feel for this, but there does seem to be some _serious_ disparities. #3 Self-absorbed?? That's a heck of a thing to say. Fwiw, I'd _hope_ that an encounter power is more effective than p42, since p42 is at-will.

Miss: The power is not expended

That would only work for single target Reliable powers, fwiw... not that I'm not sure the game might be better with only single target Reliable powers

Math Soup

Agree - I think there are way too many bonus types and penalties shouldn't stack.

Though, really, +2 for CA, (it gets +2 for cover), I'm at -2 for that and +5 from my ally is... not _that_ crazy, I'd think. I mean, the cover and combat advantage I'd hope you aren't looking to get rid of... at which point it's not that many things to track.

Superior weapons

Yeah, I'd cheerfully see the game flush them.

Strength+Armor. 4e doesn't even have Weapon Finesse for the poor Dexterity-based combatants. Combat Training is nice, but it's only for basic attacks, so it sucks for warlords and paladins and so forth.

Paladins can have Charisma-based attacks? Warlords are Str-based, but a perfectly reasonable alternative might be something like Bard that has no need for Str at all... Rogues certainly have no need for weapon finesse... not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Then you have the problem that an Epic Destiny power gets replicated by a single item (actually, the item is even better than the power).

Then, it is a simple matter of banning the magic item... Anyway, this is a big non-sequitur in my games, since I don't allow magic item creation or purchase by players (all magic items are plot points and gained as monster treasure or rewards given by NPCs)

Anyway, going into the other topic, I can perfectly understand why the designers thought about getting rid of +1 swords and then decided to keep them in... Having a "Plus-Something Sword" is one of the sacred cows of D&D, and just like the words "saving throw" and "chaotic evil", they have to be in the game somehow, even if they don't fit at all anymore.

I am a very big fan of 4E, but this is a perfectly valid criticism of it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I remembr when getting a +3 sword was so awsome you braged for weeks...and only 1 or two characters I ever played ( out of dozzens, maybe even 100) ever had such a mighty weapon as +5 sword...

Then came 3e...and they decided that +X was only half of the enchantment and put all those otehr things in...and noone had +3 swords...they had +1 shocking icy swords...

Now here comes 4e and once again all the special abilities take hold...no one ever says "I want to someday have a +4 sword..."

A repeated mistake in editions of D&D: Allowing magic items to add to your numerical stats; i.e. +1 Longswords (or +2, +3, etc) or <shudder> a Belt of Strength +4. Magic items simply shouldn't add anything to a numerical statistic, as it always makes equipment too critical to character power. Instead, magic items should have magical powers that expand a PCs options; a sword that can kill rakshasas, for example. Or an axe that causes wounds that don't easily heal. Etc.

no we need the opsit...we need the system to be balanced at +1 wepons at 10th...+2 at 20th and +3 by 30th...but still have +1-+5 weapons...if you get a +3 sword at 8th level you are ahead of the curve...and it should be rare that the sword does anything else...

Down with +1 Flaming, Frost, keen, Longswords of speed
Down with +1 Flaming /+2 Flaming /+3 flaming upgrade as you go

make magic magic again...

 

[gribble]

I think the big two for me are the 15 minute adventuring day and the magic item "christmas tree" effect.

In both cases the pre-release marketing claimed to have fixed them. In both cases, you can see in the system where they've tried. In both cases they failed horribly.

The introduction of at-will & encounter powers certainly went a long way to resolving the problem. Unfortunately, WotC introduced an even harder limit on character effectiveness - healing surges.

By making all of the "core" magic items provide a flat bonus on top of special abilities, you can see how WotC have tried to avoid the "must have" boring mechanical-only boost magic items of 3e. Unfortunately, the math makes it even more essential in 4e that you have one suit of armor, one neck slot item and one weapon/implement and that all are of the level-appropriate bonus. I don't see why they didn't just include the flat bonuses in the standard level advancement mechanics and make the magic items just the interesting bits...

Oh well. Maybe these will be rectified in 5e...