D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[EricNoah]

I wish there was a master list of features, like on a spreadsheet or something, and I could drag them into columns marked Good, Bad, and Indifferent. A lot of it I am indifferent to (example: I don't care at all about the mix of races in the PHB -- races are the easiest thing to add or remove from the core game). Some of it sounds good (warlock sounds good, changes to the wizard sound interesting, having different rules for PCs vs. NPCs/Monsters sounds great). Some of it sounds iffy (overly-flavorful feat names that don't hint at what it does). Would make a nice poll, actually, if ENW could handle "rating" type polls...

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Sub-par feats had their uses. They allowed for meaningful trade-offs.

Or you could have useful feats required for a useful class with balanced abilities (not that DD is an especially powerful class, for the reasons that fuindordm mentioned).

Brad

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Or you could have useful feats required for a useful class with balanced abilities

By taking away the possibility of delayed gratification (sub-par feats now in exchange for superior PrC abilities later), you are taking an option away from the players. A class like the DD shows a steeper power curve (if you are looking at core only). The character is somewhat weaker than a core fighter from levels 1-7, because of his sub-optimal feats, but somewhat better at levels 8 and up. If that's what a player wanted, this option was there for them. Are you saying that shouldn't be an option anymore?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

By taking away the possibility of delayed gratification (sub-par feats now in exchange for superior PrC abilities later), you are taking an option away from the players. A class like the DD shows a steeper power curve (if you are looking at core only). The character is somewhat weaker than a core fighter from levels 1-7, because of his sub-optimal feats, but somewhat better at levels 8 and up. If that's what a player wanted, this option was there for them. Are you saying that shouldn't be an option anymore?

I can't speek for the OP, bu from my view:

1) It's problematic if you want to maintain game balance. Once you don't start at lower levels, people will have a tendency to pick the classes that are stronger at high levels. It's not guaranteed (not everyone is a power gamer first , but it's still a problem.

2) How important is "delayed gratification" really in an on-going campaign. The level system inherently will always make you bad at start and good at the end. Do you really notice that you were consistently worse then "stable gratification" character and now are consistently better then him? Or won't you focus more on the aspect that at 1st level, an Ogre was a terrifying monster and at 20th level, you could wade through hordes of them?

3) You're not playing alone. If your character sucked at the early levels, that might mean that your party mates got to shine more, but it also means that you were not pulling your own weight and they had to work harder. At higher levels, your character begins to overshadow them, taking more spotlight, and they look back "we had to work so hard to get here, and now (only) he is doing all the cool stuff!".
Now, this is obviously exaggerated, but the core is that your choice for a certain character class can or probably will affect the other player negatively, and that is not a good design. You might be allowed to make stupid decision in-character (attacking the wrong target, inciting a fight where talk would have been safer, not stopping to heal a comrade, heck, even casting fireball in between your party and your enemies), but if possible, the mechanics shouldn't force this on you.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I believe that wizards (in general) should be able to do pretty much anything conceivable by magic, so long as that power/spell is not in and of itself unbalanced. That said, I don't think that every wizard should be able to do everything.
[snip]
The best analogy is like a fighter specializing in a weapon or style, but still still being able to use other weapons to much lesser effect.

I'm with you on this one. It seems like 4E is making Wizards & Fighters--all classes, really--use the same essential system of:

To cause damage or effect an enemy, use item [x] to modify d20 roll and try to beat target defense of [y].

So a wizard with a +3 wand/fighter with a +3 sword can cast a firebolt/swing, roll d20 +3/roll d20 +3, compare the result against reflex defense/armor class, and if it succeeds deal d8 + 3 + [Int mod] damage/d8 +3 + [Str mod] damage.

That's a good thing, in my opinion. In earlier editions, casters and fighters were essentially playing different games. In 4E, it seems like everyone will use a unified system.

The danger is that all classes are rendered down to a generic "PC", with the eact same capabilities--just different names for the tools. Sword = wand, and so on. But I don't think that will happen. Sure, a basic bow attack might (and probably should) do the exact same damage as a basic magic missile, using the exact same mechanic (d20 + tool mod + ability mod vs. target's defense). But with four different defenses to target, even basic attacks will be varied among classes. And advanced abilities will undoubtedly follow 4E's "role" guidelines, so that Wizards will have abilities that control, fighters will have abilities that help them anchor a front line, rogues will have abilities that deal damage to single targets, and so on.

Point is, every class is playing the same game. All the abilities work the same way. Compare to 3e. What's the fighter equivalent to Fly? Or Rope Trick? Or Charm Person? Or the limitations of spells known and spells per day?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In earlier editions, casters and fighters were essentially playing different games. In 4E, it seems like everyone will use a unified system.

I honestly think that this was a strength of earlier editions....possibly the core strength. The more "games" an edition supports, the more likely (as a player) that you will be able to find a game you enjoy. Once you've brought it down to one "game", you'd better hope it is a game you really like.

A good analog might be that Baskin Robbins, having discovered an amazing new recipe for Rocky Road, decides that it doesn't need the other 51 flavours to stay in business. They might be correct, but unless you really, really like Rocky Road (or you're really, really enthusiastic about anything Baskin Robbins), you might get a bit concerned about the short- and long-term ramifications of the change.

Of course, YMMV.

RC

 

[Zaruthustran]

I honestly think that this was a strength of earlier editions....possibly the core strength. The more "games" an edition supports, the more likely (as a player) that you will be able to find a game you enjoy. Once you've brought it down to one "game", you'd better hope it is a game you really like.

A good analog might be that Baskin Robbins, having discovered an amazing new recipe for Rocky Road, decides that it doesn't need the other 51 flavours to stay in business. They might be correct, but unless you really, really like Rocky Road (or you're really, really enthusiastic about anything Baskin Robbins), you might get a bit concerned about the short- and long-term ramifications of the change.

Of course, YMMV.

RC

I think your analogy applies to 4E more than 3E. As long as you enjoy Ice Cream, you'll enjoy what Baskin Robbins has to offer. Many different flavors of the same thing: Ice Cream*. That's analogous to 4E's unification of core mechanics across all classes. Sure, if you don't like Ice Cream you're out of luck--no variety of flavors is going to satisfy you if you don't like the essential product.

3E is more like an ice cream store that also sells broccoli. They're both foods, but they're not at all the same kind of food. That's more analogous to the 3E split between casters and noncasters.

-z

* to continue this fun analogy, multiclassing would be a double scoop, and feats would be sprinkles, peanuts, and other toppings that accent and enhance the base scoop.

 

[Gundark]

while you need magic users in 3e for sure, you can get by pretty easily with a Cleric/Wizard/Wizard/Cleric party or such.

Well I think this comes down to the campaign that you're running/playing in. I mean TRY playing thru the Age of Worms RAW without a cleric or wizard in the party. Whereas there are other published adventures where you can play other healing/arcane classes and be fine.

One complaint about about 4e is the whole roles idea. Anyone who thinks they weren't there in 3e is fooling themselves. Admittedly is probably boiled down to the groups play style. If the party wanted to play all rogues hopefully the DM tailored the adventures to match this play style. I'll bet there are a lot of groups out there who don't though.


Here is the things I really appreciate in the new edtion.

-Defined roles. This is a key element to introducing new people to the game IMHO. I introduced the game to my Wife's family and as newbs they liked the idea of flipping open the book and looking at the different types of roles they could take. I've tried to introduce new players to rpgs games without classes and the learning curve was definetly higher.

- the promise of decreased prep time. I havn't seen how this will work yet, however seeing the 4e stat blocks has me hopeful. IMHO a game session shouldn't take any more than a hour to prep for. What I mean is I should be able to sit down and stat everything needed for the adventure in about an hour. Any more and it starts to drag.

- The promise of smoother/faster play. Since I havn't seen the rules it's hard for me to comment, however I'm real hopeful they deliver.