D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[Li Shenron]

Not to be snide at all, because I mean this in a respectful way. But you argued that my point of view was irrelevant because I could simply house rule and give characters a few thousand free xp to fix what I don't like.

Then when I make the same point back at you (changing to an optional rule to fit what you don't like) you claim it's not a fair argument?

No no, I didn't want to imply your point was irrelevant. The reason why I don't particularly like to have a bump at the lowest level, is that I know players who love to start characters which are apprentice. What is an apprentice, well can vary between people... Incidentally, I'm not a particular fan of 1st level adventures, I play them without problems, but when I run a game as DM I most often set the starting level at 3rd, which gives me more space for adventure design.

All I wanted to say is that even if neither I play those 1st-2nd levels often, I wouldn't want to take them away from the game for those who like it.

And my last comment was only based on the fact that to me starting at 3rd level is not a modification to the rules, while dropping things from 1st level character is, which potentially causes problems.

No other reason I know of that a party must have a cleric. Sure they have other uses, but healing is the reason a party in 3E can hardly do without one. I'm glad that is changing.

Well, I'd like to have a cleric because someone wants to play one, not because it's needed. I understand that there are too few alternatives in 3e for healing, because without a cleric you basically need potions and wands, which are very costly by default. I would much much more prefer alternatives for example from herbalism or alchemy, than to give every class healing spells/effects. Let's see how they did it, but I know that my pessimism is fueled also by the fact that I still haven't recovered from hearing the weird idea about auto-healing when attacking.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Casters and non-casters more balanced.
Sweet spot extended from 1-30.
Game will still be balanced if you don't have four encounters per day.

 

[fuindordm]

One of the few drawbacks of the DD class is that you have to take a few sub-optimal feats.

Meh. I've seen one in play, and rooting yourself in a single square is almost always a poor tactical choice. The DD shines in a particular setting (with narrow corridors or entrances that he can block, and monsters dumb enough to stand toe-to-toe), but the special abilities aren't as effective in open spaces.

The high DR at the end is quite nice--one of the only redeeming features of the class, but it takes a long time to get there.

On this subject, one of my favorite things about 4e is the promise that fighter types will finally be able to hold the line even in open spaces.

 

[fuindordm]

The wizards-as-evokers line troubles me, but the promise that key abilities will be reserved for specialists makes me hopeful.

Here's my ideal middle ground:

All dedicated spellcasters will have access to two classes of magic:

"Fast magic" comes from the domain they know best, and is useful in combat because it can be produced at a moment's notice.

"Slow magic" comes from all other domains, and usually takes too long to perform to be useful in combat. It might be possible, however, to prepare it ahead of time or make use of it in a siege situation.

So when they say "wizards are evokers", they mean that the wizard class is a dedicated spellcaster specialized in primal energies, whose fast powers are particularly useful for dealing damage in combat. However, the breadth of their knowledge is such that a huge variety of effects can be pulled off using slow magic.

A 4e beguiler, on the other hand, would have "fast magic" focused on distracting and confusing the enemy rather than damaging them. They too will have access to a wider range of "slow magic", probably sharing many of the same rituals as a wizard but perhaps not the most powerful.

Here is the key point: the beguiler should still be able to cast a fireball, but it would take a few minutes. This means he'll almost never do it in a typical combat, but he knows enough about magic to cast it from a spellbook or scroll if some other use is needed--to melt a wall of magical ice, for example, to inflict damage on a structure, or to attack enemies from a place of hiding.

I think this interpretation of specialization would be pretty darn interesting.

Ben

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The high DR at the end is quite nice--one of the only redeeming features of the class, but it takes a long time to get there.

Good Will saves, class bonus to AC, good skill selection, d12 HD, and uncanny dodge are all better benefits than most of the CORE bonus feats you would be picking up by staying in the fighter class. PHBII may change this calculus somewhat but I never picked up that book.

And the stance is quite useful when you get a non-Tumbling enemy flanked -- very few are willing to move (taking 2 or more AOOs) in that situation.

 

[Kesh]

Well, I do believe this thread has been derailed so thoroughly it's not just off the tracks, it's over the bridge, into the ravine and being washed downriver at this point.

Back to the original topic:

• Points of Light - I love this concept for world-building and general adventuring. It made me really rethink how I wanted to handle my homebrew campaign setting.
• Per encounter abilities - I fell in love with this idea when I first saw the Warlock. I think it's a brilliant move to integrate this into the core rules and use it for general spellcasting. Speaking of which:
• The death of Vancian magic + integration of Ritual magic - I'm glad Vancian spellcasting is gone, replaced with a combination of at will/per encounter/per day spells and ritual magic.
• The cleric is no longer a healbot - Adding healing abilities to other classes and turning the cleric into a Leader role is a great idea in my book.
• Fighter maneuvers and Paladin smites - This is going to add a lot more variety to our melee fighters. I only hope the ranger gets a similar treatment.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I like the 'PHB/DMG/MM I,II,III,IV...' model, on a year by year basis, as proposed.

No, I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. Honestly.

There is so much confusion among gamers (I've seen this online and 'IRL' a lot) about what to buy, at the best of times. This spells it out, nice and neat. Core, 'expanded core', everything else. They'll come out at *this* rate, and they'll uniformly be titled *this* way. Simple.

It makes 3e's array of books, and their order and rate of release look like a total shambles.

And yeah, I'm not 'going to 4e', FWIW.

 

[smetzger]

Yes, these are all good things. However, a lot of these are 'goals' of 4e. Until we get the whole package we will not know how well these goals have been met.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What I like about what I heard from the 4E peeks so far...hmmm, lets see.

- The strengthening of class roles. That's one good thing to make it easier for new players to grasp what their class is their for. It creates archetypes that are recognizable. They may not be the same archetypes that were in the game 30 years ago, but they will most likely be similar enough.

- The seeming return to the order/chaos emphasis, in the Planar geography as well as the baseline campaign (Points of Light is less about good/evil, and more about order/chaos, as far as I see it).

- The whole Points of Light baseline for D&D adventure itself. It's a nice return to the classic fantasy settings, and enables a DM to simply invent and go crazy, or place any kind of adventure he likes in a remote corner of his game.

- What I also like is the new chance to create a nice and streamlined Basic D&D that can stand on its own for a few levels, serving as introduction and appetizer for the main game, thus bringing a lot of new players into the game.

 

[Shadeydm]

Less DM prep time + Easier to run = Win
Most of the other hints and blogs about the game not so much.