For Those Who Love, Hate, or Love & Hate 4E: What Did 4E Do Right?

[Zustiur]

* I'll chime in for another 'defenses instead of saves'
* Combat is generally more interesting
* Better clarification of Standard/Move/Minor/Free than 3E
* Replacement of full attack - I'd like to see a house rule for this in 3E, remove full attack for everyone so that you only need to make one attack roll each round... and go from there. I'm not sure how.
* No 'small' and 'medium' weapons to cause oddities like 'small' long spears with reach and so on.

 

[pogre]

We just concluded our 4e campaign, and I'm largely in the anti-4e camp now. However, I liked the following about the game:

- Monsters do not follow PC rules.

- Encounter format.

- Easier stat blocks.

- Largely dropping multiple attacks in a round.

- minions.

- powers instead of spells.

 

[vagabundo]

Hmm 4e is a perfect fit for me, suits my playstyle.

* A big fan of the new cosmos
* Really like the Elves/Eladran split
* Races and base classe structure are really done right.
* Flexibility and easy of design have been injected back into the system
* The super-sexy streamlined D20 combat system. The whole combat chapter is a work of art as far as I'm concerned.
* Explicit Tiers
* Healing Surges
* Weapon properties - but they didn't go far enough with this.
* nerfing - overpowered - wizards and buffs
* Diseases
* Monster design
* Skills - although I think one or two more skills would have been better
* The online tools and DDI are excellent.

Probably more, but that's enough for now...



On the fence:
* The powers system: I really like the system in theory, but some of the implementation has been off and it can get complex for the players to manage so many powers and sometimes powers are very specific and arn't that useful. Too many samey powers and I'm not sure how much more 3[W[ damage and condition I can take. I'm hoping to see more flexibility built into the system as it progresses. The PHBIII classes - or maybe martial power II - will be interesting because I think they will have to expand the system or die...

 

[xechnao]

It put limits to the D20 system to try make it more focused and manageable and built around this foundation a new and solid game.
But as the OP puts it fails on suspension of disbelief. I blame for this their need to cater to the D20 system while making this new and solid game. I believe, if they did not have to remain D20 system like and built from the ground up 4e could have been so much better.
Oh well, perhaps 5e.

 

[Nightson]

The thing I like most about 4e is the way they exposed the system to view. It's a lot easier to see how it works, and because of that it's a lot easier to change when need be.

 

[Raith5]

I have odd relationship with 4th ed. When I am actually playing it I love it, but when I sit down to create a PC or level up I find it a bit annoying at times.

I love

* The healing surge mechanism
* The mobility and fluidity of fights
* I like the style and the practice of the races and the classes
* Skills and skill challenges
* I like the way they did action points
* The new cosmology is great

Im not fond of/ thought could be better

* Feats - they seem to vary widely between the indispensable and the really weak
* At wills - I would have lied to see more at wills, or get more at will as characters progress that are more situational (I guess more like fighter or wizard at wills where you select the right power for the job - rather than the ranger at will Twin Strike being the only at will that gets used)
* More utility powers and I dislike the divide between utilities that buff skills and those that are defensive/combat related.
* Rituals - should take less time to cast
* Multiclassing - should be more opened ended and allow more dipping into the class features. I like the ides of be able to access the at will of the MCed class as an encounter power.

Still I think 4th ed is a great step forward!

 

[steenan]

I don't like 4e, mostly because of the lack of solid fluff. On the other hand, I can't deny that the game implements a few very good mechanical ideas:
- monster roles, minions, elites and solos; it is clear how to build interesting, tactical and cinematic combats
- simple monster creation rules
- healing surges and healing in general; completely unrealistic, but good for both story structure (assuming power fantasy style) and game balance
- no long-term buffing spells and SoD spells
- at-will, encounter and daily powers; milestones to encourage longer adventuring days
- simple skill system (though I don't like the lack of non-adventuring skills)
- consistent implementation of AC and other defenses
- racial feats for culture-dependent racial abilities

 

[FireLance]

I'd say that 4E has a very good rules skeleton. Some of the things that I like the most about the ruleset are:

1. Encounter-based balancing
2. The power structure (at-wills, encounters, dailies, utilities)
3. The skill challenge structure
4. The disease track

The RAW implementation of some of these may have been problematic (skill challenges in particular) but I think the core concepts are very flexible and can be easily tweaked to have wider applications (e.g. the disease track can simulate the effect of long-term poisons and injuries) or to add new complications and variations for more experienced players (e.g. allowing the use of certain powers or good ideas or roleplaying on the part of the player to earn automatic successes in a skill challenge).

It seems that some flavor choices did not go down so well, though - while I don't think that there's anything wrong mechanically with come and get it as a power, some have found it thematically inappropriate for a fighter.

 

[Kinneus]

I've noticed something interesting here: people who say they explicitly dislike or are on the fence about 4e say they like healing surges. While poeple that are fans of 4e (in my experience, anyway), generally dislike the healing surge mechanic. Their gripe is that the designers went through all this trouble to eliminate the fifteen-minute adventure day syndrome, giving players things like encounter powers, at-wills, milestones and action points to encourage them to do more than a couple of encounters a day. But then they pulled a 180 and put in healing surges, a hard and fast limiter on how much your character can do in one day. Anyone who's played 4e knows; if one player is out of healing surges, the adventure comes to a halt as soon as possible.

Could some of the people who like healing surges shed a little light onto why? Do you like a limit on how much the characters can accomplish in a day? Or maybe just a limit on how much healing you can pump into a single person before they need actual rest? Also interested in why people who dislike the system like this particular mechanic, while people who do like it, don't.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Fundamentally, I like the fact that 4e put the fun of playing a game up front and centre, and not the simulation of a game world.

I know that a lot of things in 4e can't be explained in a pseudo-scientific way, and I'm completely fine with that because, mechanically, they make the game more fun for the way I like to game.