Errors from previous editions which got repeated.

[Nail]

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...

It's clear that the "+1 sword" is a sacred cow....but they've successfully killed sacred cows before.

For me, the thing that +X magic items do is "expose the underlieing machinery" of the game mechanics, and remove the suspension of disbelief. We all know a PC needs a certain "+" by a certain level, or the balance is off. ....and I don't want to be thinking that while my PC is deciding which goody to pick out of the loot pile. It kinda takes the joy away.

If there are two different items, and the items are only different in what neato-powers they have, then I can think about what best fits my role and my style. But if the central difference is what "plus" they have, and what numerical stat they add to...then much of the freedom to chose is removed.

That's one of the central mistakes that carries through 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Errors from previous editions which got repeated:

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.

Most of the classes already can use other attributes than strength to attack with their powers (with the right selections of powers)

playing in an unarmoured campaign can be done reasonably well by reskinning light armours as clothing for most classes.
Heavy armour could be described as light armour or reinforced clothing.

heck you could just handwave it so that the armour proficiencies give you the effect of the armour (there needs to be a fair amount of handwavium for armour enchantments and why only particular people can benefit from them)

 

[Keenath]

I'm pretty sure ritual price reduction doesn't work on magic items. It has a cost of "special". 50% of special is... ???

 

[Derren]

I'm pretty sure ritual price reduction doesn't work on magic items. It has a cost of "special". 50% of special is... ???

special/2, and as special is a variable it would work.

 

[cmbarona]

1) My big gripe, which developed some time back in 3.5, was the disparity of skill feats vs. combat feats. It makes people who want to be the jack of all trades (e.g., a Rogue in one of my games) definitively less effective at combat than those who don't care one lick what they can or can't do outside of combat, and vice versa. It effectively ends up being yet another dividing point among the group: in combat, these people shine; outside of combat, these people shine; and never the two shall meet. I really wish they had separated skill feats from combat feats, and given everyone two different pools from which to draw.

2) MAD classes, although these seem to have been fixed in PHB 2 (which still leaves the PHB classes suffering from this lagging a bit...)

3) Arbitrary feat stat requirements. I'm looking at you, weapon mastery. The classes which which focus on these stats will qualify almost automatically, and those that do not focus on those stats will sometimes suffer significantly trying to qulify for them, or simply will not qualify for them at all.

4) Some of the carry-over that makes implements different from weapons. If anything, this edition could have been the one to treat implements like weapons. Unfortunately, they didn't quite make the leap, and things are too entrenched in the current system to effectively go back and change things.

All in all, I don't mind D&D being combat heavy; that's just one of the hallmarks about this particular game, just as other RPGs focus on other areas of the whole RPG experience.

I also think they actually managed to fix a lot of stuff I didn't like about previous editions, which are too numerous (and off-topic) to list here.

 

[Pale Jackal]

cmbarona makes a good point about combat and non-combat feats, though I think the number of non-combat feats that currently exist would need to be increased significantly. As such, it might not be that big a deal: there aren't that many feats you can pick! Unless you're REALLY intent on being skilled at many things. As I think about this, I'm not sure if there's a workable solution in D&D's current form. D&D's skill system is simply too simple... what would the feats add? Re-rolls? Plusses? Maybe you get "skill" feats at a much reduced rate? Either way, I think there'd need a be a massive infusion of interesting feats or something else for this to be viable, otherwise it's kind of meaningless... I can see a lot of players simply taking "Skill Mastery" for skills they're already good at, and then once they do that, branching out to skills that they're not good at.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

I'd support the change, but even I have to be at least a little realistic about the feasibility of slaughtering sacred cows.

They have already (properly) killed a few sacred cows in this area.

Shields no longer give a bonus to defense and magic items no longer boost abilities scores.

I suspect that it is merely a matter of time. DND 5E or 6E should have it accomplished.

 

[Keenath]

As I think about this, I'm not sure if there's a workable solution in D&D's current form. D&D's skill system is simply too simple... what would the feats add? Re-rolls? Plusses? Maybe you get "skill" feats at a much reduced rate? Either way, I think there'd need a be a massive infusion of interesting feats or something else for this to be viable, otherwise it's kind of meaningless... I can see a lot of players simply taking "Skill Mastery" for skills they're already good at, and then once they do that, branching out to skills that they're not good at.

I'd suggest adding more reroll feats, and I think it would also be interesting if there were racial feats that acted like Skill Training for two related feats, especially for skills that are strongly associated with classes that are tough for that race. Er... here, examples:

Dwarves don't make good rogues, in general, but they have a history of Stonecunning letting them do some limited trap detection, and dwarves are big on architecture and such. So: "Trapfinder", a dwarf feat that gives you training in Perception + Thievery.

Dragonborn are usually not strong wizards, but dragons have an association with magic and knowledge, so: "Arcane Instincts" gives you training in Arcana and Insight.

Maybe that's too good, I dunno. Just what came to mind right off the bat.

 

[outsider]

I don't think the "+5 longsword" is ever going to go away. It's too important to the style of D&D. People think of it as the game of killing things and -taking their stuff- for a reason.

I do think, however, that by the time 5th edition rolls around(maybe sooner) we will start seeing "magic items" from the other power sources. We'll see a martial longsword +5 that gets it's bonus from it's exceptionally high quality. We'll see a primal longsword +5 that is powered by a spirit bonded to the item. "Magic" items are a relic from previous editions of D&D where magic was the be all and end all, and I don't expect that sacred cow to last much longer. It will primarily be a flavor change, but some mechanics might be attached to it.

 

[Stalker0]

My biggest thing is not providing good rules for skill use. Skill challenges are fine, but some baseline for skill use in combat would be great. B09S really started putting skills to use (though 3e's widely varying skill system limited the power they could provide it), and I was hoping to see more of that in 4e. You get it once in a while, but its very minor.

Second thing would be big sweeping skill bonuses. Sure we don't have the +30 jump rings anymore, but a +6 diplomacy item is still ripping the gap open between the haves and have nots when it comes to skills.