Name one thing you love and one thing you hate about 4e D&D

avin · Oct 3, 2008

Love: combat.
Hate: Monster Manual... lack of ecology and descriptions makes monsters like cannon fodder, which makes zero sense on my games. I want my fluff back. I hate "2 skeletons, 1 spider, 1 kobold" encounters. Have some hopes on Tome of Horrors and Creature Collection 4E.

tuxgeo · Oct 3, 2008

The Little Raven said:
Player powers are not the full extent of the system.

Sacred Circle, page 68 of the DMG, is an example of ground hallowed in the name of a particular deity.

(Not to derail the thread -- we were asked to list a Love and a Hate; maybe I should fork this? -- but I thought a reply might be in order.)
Re: "Player powers are not the full extent of the system." True. But the subject I was listing was a pair of player powers: 3e "Hallow" and 4e "Hallowed Ground" are both player powers, (mostly) defensive in nature, using a daily power (or daily spell slot in 3e), affecting an area about the size of a house or churchyard (55 feet across in 4e), giving +2 to AC (or ALL defenses in 4e) and a +2 bonus to saves, about mid-career power level (5 of 9 in 3e, 16 of 30 in 4e). They seem directly comparable to me.
Re: "Sacred Circle": While a lovely terrain effect (and thank you for your effort and diligence in including a page reference), that is not notably comparable: NOT a player power; NOT using a daily slot; NOT defensive; NOT affecting a whole building (only 15 feet across); NOT giving bonuses to saves.
But you know what? That's not the real clincher: The actual issue is the NAME. The word "hallow" or "hallowed" does not occur anywhere in the DMG description of Sacred Circle: it is described as an area "dedicated" to a deity. Yes, the name is the make-or-break issue for me: if 4e "Hallowed Ground" had been named "Defensive Advantage Zone" (DAZ for short), I would not have considered it a nerf of 3e "Hallow" for a moment -- I would have thought of it as a brand-new power, useful in some of the same ways as 3e "Hallow."
I included "Hallowed Ground" as an example of nerfs because its degree is so gargantuan: the 4e prayer has in the loose neighborhood of a MILLIONTH of the duration of the 3e spell. (Churches can be centuries old: Mont. St. Michel is roughly 1300 years old -- about 136,000,000 encounters -- and presumably hallowed all that time. It seems to me that the 3e "Hallow" spell was an attempt to simulate that kind of duration, but 4e figuratively tosses it out the window.)
The presence of the word "hallow" makes the 3e and 4e powers comparable, but it is the egregious degree of the change which makes that nerf exemplary, and that is why I listed it. (How much is Magic Missle nerfed? Range: 100 feet instead of 100 feet + 10 feet/level? No automatic hit? That is a distinctly lesser nerf than being a millionth of the duration.)

Uhhh, what? If it exists in the game as a magic item, it has a level and a price. If it has a level and a price, you can create it using the Enchant Magic Item ritual.

And if it doesn't already exist in the game as a magic item, no PC can research it and invent it, because there are no guidelines for doing so. Yes. That was my point.

So, Channel Divinity feats, which you can only take for your god, don't count as powers unavailable to clerics of other deities?

They do, barely: They're so situational that they are not available in every encounter, relying as many of them do on rolling natural 20s, or having somebody use an action point, etc. Just to propose an example: few of them would cause the local Baron to say, "We have a job that only a Cleric of Pelor can do. Go fetch one! No, a cleric of Avandra won't do!"

catsclaw227 · Oct 3, 2008

Love: DMing the game is a great pleasure now.

Hate: Weakness.... it can really drag out a combat when you have two guys with weakness, or monsters that grant weakness (due to poison, or whatever) a lot.

It's a nice idea, but it can really drag combat out.

Grimstaff · Oct 3, 2008

Love: Creativity over Crunch

Hate: Controversial GSL

CormEvyrncrest · Oct 3, 2008

Love:
-the art for characters and monsters
-3 races of elves...really but a nice base on it without the 40 million races of elves we had before
-Wizard base class

Hate:
-the MMORPG feel...if I wanted that, I would go play an MMORPG...I want to feel like I'm a character, not a set of numbers and abilities
-Dragonborn..honestly, were normal orcs busy? Did the other brute races turn you down at the bar? These are evey power gamers dream...and worst starting character ever, because it outweighs the rest of the party in abilities
-The look of the weapons and armor...why does everything look like cinder blocks, or just WAY too spikey?? What happened to the in dept fantasy feel??

renau1g · Oct 3, 2008

Love - (as most people here seem to agree) DM'ing the game

Hate - High Focus on combat, lack of non-combat spells for wizards.

Fifth Element · Oct 3, 2008

CormEvyrncrest said:
...I want to feel like I'm a character, not a set of numbers and abilities

Like previous editions, where your character sheet had...abilities and numbers.

CormEvyrncrest said:
-Dragonborn..honestly, were normal orcs busy? Did the other brute races turn you down at the bar?

Presumably they wanted a brute race without the overtly evil connotations of orcs.

CormEvyrncrest said:
-The look of the weapons and armor...why does everything look like cinder blocks, or just WAY too spikey?? What happened to the in dept fantasy feel??

It left sometime during 3E. The spikes are not new to 4E.

CormEvyrncrest · Oct 4, 2008

Fifth Element said:
Like previous editions, where your character sheet had...abilities and numbers.

As in I don't feel like the books encourage you to actually create a unique, in depth character....there is a serious lack of "Become the Character" feel in 4e so far, IMO

Fifth Element said:
Presumably they wanted a brute race without the overtly evil connotations of orcs.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. They could have written the orcs as a savage, yet noble race...much like they did with dragonborn...but they wanted to attract the most noob fanboys, so they went with dragonborn. I understand the move..I'm in marketing...but I don't think the dragonborn do anything for gameplay, beyond appealing to powergamers.

Fifth Element said:
It left sometime during 3E. The spikes are not new to 4E.

any spikes in 3E and 3.5E are nowhere NEAR overused like they are in 4E. IF you can throw a sword, and even the handle of it is going to stab someone...thats too spikey...I realise their trying to make the "infernal/evil" looking...but that could have been done without the immense overuse of the spikey appearance.

Fifth Element · Oct 4, 2008

CormEvyrncrest said:
As in I don't feel like the books encourage you to actually create a unique, in depth character....there is a serious lack of "Become the Character" feel in 4e so far, IMO

If you compare the 3E and 4E PHBs, you'll find the 4E book has discussion of character personality, mannerisms, etc. in the character creation section, while the 3E book does not (they had that sort of thing in PHB2, but not in the core books). I won't comment on earlier editions, since I don't want to dig those books out of the closet.

CormEvyrncrest said:
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. They could have written the orcs as a savage, yet noble race...much like they did with dragonborn...

...and get roasted for completely changing the flavour of orcs. The point is dragonborn are a new race, so they could attach whatever flavour they like to them. Orcs in D&D are well-established as evil, evil, evil.

CormEvyrncrest said:
but they wanted to attract the most noob fanboys, so they went with dragonborn. I understand the move..I'm in marketing...but I don't think the dragonborn do anything for gameplay, beyond appealing to powergamers.

Ah. I see. You realize this insults any poster here who likes dragonborn?