D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[The Little Raven]

My only real issue is the possibility that I will have to add enchantments, scrying, polymorph, summoning, etc... back into the game through house rules. All of these elements are too important to be left out IMNSHO.

This is the number one problem with wizards from previous editions, and people holding on to sacred cows. If they had left all this in the wizard class, as they did in 3rd edition, then once again you'd be faced with the problem that caused them to create the sorcerer: 1/3 of your book is dedicated solely to a SINGLE CLASS. That's almost 100 pages out of less than 300 that is dedicated to ONE CLASS, out of at least eight. Favoring one class so heavily over others is poor design, IMNSHO.

This just confuses me - while you need magic users in 3e for sure, you can get by pretty easily with a Cleric/Wizard/Wizard/Cleric party or such. Really, this is one of those things that's going to need months of actual play by thousands of people to hammer out.

The reason you could do that is because the 3e cleric was a broken, overpowered class. In response to 2e's problem of "I don't want to be the heal-bitch," they went too far. When one class can basically replace all the other classes through spell selection, something is seriously wrong with your cooperative group-based game.

 

[Mistwell]

This purpose of this thread is so that posters can express the things they like about 4e.

Not to rain on your thread so much, but a few of these seem like so much empty talk for now:

Why? What purpose did that serve? The guy says he is creating a thread just to discuss things we like about 4e, and you call them empty talk? How is that something you like about 4e? How is that in the spirit of this thread, a spirit that he expressed in fair detail in the first sentence of the thread?

 

[Eldragon]

This is the number one problem with wizards from previous editions, and people holding on to sacred cows.

I can't speak for others, but without these things the game ceases to be D&D and it becomes some other game. I would no sooner play D&D without polymorph spells than I would play Star Wars without Droids.

These spells are really what allow players to be creative and come up with fun ways out of sticky problems.

The list of spell archetypes that are "removed" reminds me of the spell lists of the D&D video games. Everything that is hard/impossible to implement in a static environment.


There is nothing stopping the designers from having similar effects but scaled down the power of the spell. This is what I suspect has been done.

 

[Imban]

The reason you could do that is because the 3e cleric was a broken, overpowered class. In response to 2e's problem of "I don't want to be the heal-bitch," they went too far. When one class can basically replace all the other classes through spell selection, something is seriously wrong with your cooperative group-based game.

Well, yeah, but the line replying to (that you needed the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric quad in 3e, and you supposedly don't need the Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader quad in 4e) is still questionable because you don't need the Fighter and Rogue as much because they can be replaced by more Clerics and more Wizards.

That not being the case and the game not breaking if you have a lopsided party would be an advancement in 4e taken together like that, and one I'd look forward to, though.

 

[The Little Raven]

I can't speak for others, but without these things the game ceases to be D&D and it becomes some other game. I would no sooner play D&D without polymorph spells than I would play Star Wars without Droids.

These spells are really what allow players to be creative and come up with fun ways out of sticky problems.

The list of spell archetypes that are "removed" reminds me of the spell lists of the D&D video games. Everything that is hard/impossible to implement in a static environment.

So, you're okay with one class receiving more than 10x the options of all the other classes in the core book, which gives him the ability to completely overshadow almost every other class (since a high-level wizard can replace the fighter and the rogue, and still be the badass spell-flinger)?

There is nothing stopping the designers from having similar effects but scaled down the power of the spell. This is what I suspect has been done.

There's nothing stopping the designers from giving the wizard way more abilities and options than other classes except for a desire to not favor one class more heavily than others, as has been the case in all previous books. Instead of some weak patch to solve this issue (which was introducing the sorcerer to share wizard spells), they're actually addressing the problem itself: the wizard had way too much stuff to do compared with any other class.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, yeah, but the line replying to (that you needed the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric quad in 3e, and you supposedly don't need the Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader quad in 4e) is still questionable because you don't need the Fighter and Rogue as much because they can be replaced by more Clerics and more Wizards.

And that was the problem in 3e. If the Cleric can replace anyone else in a cooperative group game, then the Cleric is overpowered. A cleric should never be a better fighter than a fighter, or a better rogue than a rogue. If that is the case, it's because of poor game design.

 

[Imban]

Why? What purpose did that serve? The guy says he is creating a thread just to discuss things we like about 4e, and you call them empty talk? How is that something you like about 4e? How is that in the spirit of this thread, a spirit that he expressed in fair detail in the first sentence of the thread?

I was accusing a few of those statements to be based on nothing but empty talk from the developers. Which, well, they are?

Seriously, we don't really know much about 4e's multiclassing other than Races & Classes - which has been contradicted by statements saying multiclassing is currently very much in flux, and unsupported statements in a few playtest articles that 4e multiclassing is awesome and super and cures cancer.

So my response was, in fact, "I like most of these things, but can't like these yet because I don't think we know anything about it yet." In fact, I omitted pointing out elements of that list I don't like, and there were some. So pike off, you.

 

[Oldtimer]

I remember one time we tried to run a game with a monk, rogue, and a bard.

Oh, I want to play in that game. I'd love to be a member of that party. Fun stuff!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

And that was the problem in 3e. If the Cleric can replace anyone else in a cooperative group game, then the Cleric is overpowered. A cleric should never be a better fighter than a fighter, or a better rogue than a rogue. If that is the case, it's because of poor game design.

In my experience, the cleric has the ability to be as good a fighter as the fighter for brief periods of time in which he has several rounds to prepare and isn't likely to face a Dispel Magic. The extra boost from certain spells generally balances out the lower base Str (having invested more point buy in Wis and Cha), inferior weapons, and lack of feats.

I think it's okay for the cleric to *sometimes* be a better fighter than the fighter.

 

[Villano]

What I like from your list:

- Players can be meaningful heroes at lvl 1
- Fighters getting special abilities with all weapons. Big big win!
- Healing abilities for all classes (and non-reliance on clerics)
- Reduced and consolidated skill lists
- New magic system. Thank. God.
- Abilities for all classes. Even fighters can do cool stuff now besides swing that sword.
- Simplified rules ah la grapple
- Choice of race is going to be meaningful at all levels. The races are more distinct and will have flavorful abilities at all lvls. Race now means more than just RP, which will inject racial flavor regardless of the amount of RP at the table. This is a big win!
- Tieflings and Dragonborn. They need not be in every game or setting, but if players want to be a planar being or a dragon, they now have a balanced, built in option in the core. These are commonly requested and I feel it was a brilliant move.
- Multiclassing that really, truly works without gimping the character. Just from what little we’ve been shown it is vastly superior to the current format.
- Alignment revisions. Most creatures should be unaligned and fewer mechanics should rely on this. A very very positive change.
- Feats are having their focus narrowed. This will simplify the game, streamline the character abilities at higher levels, and avoid much of the feat related power creep all in one swift stroke.

As someone who plays a fighter 99.9% of the time, I'm glad they are doing more to make the class more exciting.

Plus, they are doing away with the "non-human races must have a +2/-2 balance in their abilities" thing. I'm hoping that this will affect the level adjustment of other races and open the door to more playable races at lower levels.