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

[Hexmage-EN]

I never cared for hooved Tieflings. The only thing I don't like about the 4E Tiefling design is that their horns grow from the brow. It looks strange and in some cases makes the females look like they have a receding hairline. I'd rather that they grow out of the forehead or from the sides of the head.

 

[resistor]

I never cared for hooved Tieflings. The only thing I don't like about the 4E Tiefling design is that their horns grow from the brow. It looks strange and in some cases makes the females look like they have a receding hairline. I'd rather that they grow out of the forehead or from the sides of the head.

I'm not hung up on needing hooves, but the brow-horns and iguana tails are just atrocious, IMO.

 

[JeffB]

I really like 4E and I'm going to answer firstly with my gripes as they are few-

1) I don't like "slave to the grid" combat systems that pretty much necessitate the use of minis, counters, etc.

2) I also wish that the game was a bit more gritty and made healing surges recovery a bit tougher.

Those are my 2 big gripes and I can live with (or ignore) pretty much everything else that is a minor grip.

What did it get right? Pretty much everything else-

I don't really have issue with power systems as everything is right there in a smaller stat block at your fingertip- very little having to reference elsewhere in a rulebook.

I love the abstract/vague nature of many rules. I like being able to define things myself.

I like that skills are simplified/and reduced in number.

I love that the cosmology is very open ended (more of that "vagueness") so I'm not tied to anything concrete like the Great Wheel- which I actually have loved since the OD&D days-just gets boring after 30 years.

I love that the game is extremely DM friendly from a prep standpoint.

Like the powers system, the Monster stablocks RAWK! everything right there.

I like being able to re-skin powers/monsters- very easy to modify them for flavor or mechanical need.

Lack of buffs and PCs with bandoliers of rods/staves/wands or Golfbag of weapons.

 

[Opus]

I don't care for 4e but they did some things right:

-Overall simpler system provides more play, less prep
-Limited skill list so you can focus on the important ones
-Rebalancing the classes, everyone can participate
-Healing surges, keeps the game going without having to break things off and wait an imaginary 8 hrs after every combat
-Action points
-Monsters are not PCs and have simplified stat block

My main beefs with 4e and why I don't like it as much as other editions:

-Generic classes. A wizard is really not much different than a paladin. All classes use the same powers, they might give them different names but their effect in combat is the same.
-Replacing spells with powers. Removes all the mystery of magic users. See first beef.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

You know, this really doesn't say anything.
It is like saying that baseball puts the fun up front and center, and basketball is hung up on bouncing a ball and throwing it through a hoop. Therefore, baseball is more focused on fun than basketball.

Obviously, 4E touches on *something* that is more fun *to you*. But without providing any data whatsoever on what constitutes "fun", you haven't made a complete statement.

That's a great response to what I posted, thanks. Let me elaborate:

What I mean is that I really like the mechanics of 4e, even if I can see why people have problems justifying them in terms of description.

A good example is the Come and Get It Power. I totally understand why people dislike the idea that a Fighter can just pull people next to him without having to make a roll, particularly if they are, say, a huge Dragon or Beholder, or Vecna or something. I get that.

On the other hand, as a mechanical power, it utterly rocks. It makes the Fighter feel like a total bad-ass, it feels great as a player and I love the concept.

That's what I'm talking about when I say the fun is up front and centre, and the fluff and description comes afterwards.

Other things I like:

Daily/encounter/at-will powers for all classes. Puts everyone on an equal footing and gives everyone options all the time.
Minions & eiltes. Really helps differentiate monsters from each other.
Monsters aren't the same as characters.
Warlock pacts - love the idea, but need to spend some more time developing the in-game details with my Warlock player.
Character roles - it's brilliant as a DM to know that a certain mix of characters will "work" as a party, even if it's not immediately obvious how.
Monster roles - makes plotting encounters easy.
Character builder - hours of fun.
Healing surges & milestones - help the character to continue to adventure

 

[avin]

Really? You get that feeling from the "tiefling infernal warlocks are in the Players Handbook" 4e? The "there are no good aligned creatures in the Monsters Manual" 4e? The "Points of light against the darkness" 4e? The "by in-large, the world is unaligned" 4e? The "paladins don't have to be LG" 4e?

I took the opposite; 4e seems much more shades of gray compared to the shining knights and "baatezu" of years gone by...

I thought this was each one personal feelings, not a debate, but let's go...

- Tiefling Warlocks = Wow paste, nothing more (I'm a Wow player).

- Compare the number of good aligned creatures in 3E to 4E. 4E forces you fight evil all the time.

- Points of light: "oh no, there's too much evil around, save the world good boy!"

- I don't get this "world unaligned" quote, I never used an aligned world.

- Excellent 4E change! All alignments paladin is one more step from AD&D to the right direction.

Chaos vs Law has been nerfed while GOOD vs Evil is stronger than ever, this is what I get from 4E fluff all the time.

PS. My "I LOVE IT" list is far bigget than my "hate" list

 

[AllisterH]

Strange...I've always seen 2nd edition as the edition most slanted towards the "Aragorn is who you play"".

 

[mmu1]

I like the idea behind Rituals, even if the way they're implemented would actually work better as part of a 3E rather than 4E game. (they'd be a nice addition to a 3E magic system, but they're not enough to fill in the gaping holes in the 4E system)

Other than that, I can't off-hand think of anything I actually like about 4E. Some of the art, maybe?

 

[BryonD]

That's what I'm talking about when I say the fun is up front and centre, and the fluff and description comes afterwards.

Fair enough.
I'll point out that you are still replacing "what you find fun", with "the fun".
Magic: the gathering puts the fun right up and center.
WHFRP puts the fun right up and center.
3E puts the fun right up and center.
4E puts the fun right up and center.

In my context, that is a starting point for conversation. You identify it as if it is a conclusion. So either you are saying 4E has nothing new (I know you are not), or you are saying that it is something new that 4E suddenly thought of. I don't buy that, but you have found a game that works for you, so cool.

To me, overcoming challenges within a rational model of how things work is a big part of the fun. 4E has pushed that fun, my "fun", to the side for the sake of simplicity and instant gratification.

And least things get sidetracked, I dislike Come and Get It, but that is one particular power. I'm certain a list if equally distasteful specifics could be identified for 3E. I avoid those elements and if I liked 4E as a whole I could just as easily avoid this one detail. It is a matter of overall design philosophy.

 

[Windjammer]

Like: Encounter Design.

Dislike: Disparity of support for combat and non-combat portions of the game.