D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[Traycor]

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

Yes, as you can imagine, we never tell anyone that they must play a certain class. That's why we had a game that reached epic lvls with no cleric or wizard.

We had a paladin, 2 fighters, a druid, and a rogue. The possibility of making parties like this more viable has me very excited.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

I'd agree, if the fighter was allowed to out-cleric the cleric sometimes, because I think if one class can steal someone else's thunder, then everyone should be able to do so.

 

[Li Shenron]

All of these are positive aspects for me:

- Fighters getting special abilities with all weapons. Big big win!
- Less Christmas tree magic items from the Big 6 arms race
- Combat against more opponents at once. This creates more action and a more heroic feel. The players feel more capable.
- 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!
- 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.
- Warlord class. Whether you like the name or not, it’s good to have a melee based class that is built on inspiration and leadership. This is far more iconic in fiction than the bard (and I love the bard) so it is a more flexible archetype for new players to latch onto.

Many of the others I don't care much, and now for the ones I dislike:

- Players can be meaningful heroes at lvl 1

...and players are forbidden to play apprentices characters. This is effectively 1 option less in the game, not 1 more. If you want to be meaningful at the beginning in 3e, start at level 3.

- Healing abilities for all classes (and non-reliance on clerics)

And why not lots of skills, martial prowess, and arcane spells for all classes? That would mean less reliance on rogues, fighters, and wizards. No thanks, the reliance on clerics is not much worse on the reliance on other character types. Plus, there is always multiclassing if you want some healing powers.

- Compound abilities that allow for both needed and fun actions at the same time

I think the concept of "needed" is overrated and outdated

- Reduced and consolidated skill lists

The new skills will certainly work, but I love the flexibility of the 3e skills. I also dislike the idea that because someone thinks James Bond (aka a little good at everything) makes for a great character, then every character should be James Bond.

- Classes that are distinct and meaningful.

I agree. But this was true in every single edition.

- WotC taking a stand on not including classes unless they are quality. Bards are probably my favorite class and I love to include them in my games… but I would much rather wait and have them done right than have another half-baked version released.

Makes sense, but it would have made more sense to include all favourite classes and make them high quality at the same time.

- Epic levels are built into the core. This should avoid much of the bizarre nature of epic level play.

Nonsense. Epic is what you call epic. There is nothing intrinsecally different between epic and pre-epic, only quantitative differences. Now what they call epic is just the last 1/3 of core levels. This doesn't prevent them to later release a supplement that takes PCs to levels 31st-40th and call it "Uber level handbook" just because the word Epic was already used.

- No confirming crits. Makes for more cheering moments on the part of the players.

I dislike the part that the chance of critting doesn't depend on character's ability.

- Rogues can sneak attack undead and other such opponents. Crits work too! Woot!

Boring to me. I prefer variety in monsters. This is one piece of variety less.

- Paladins can smite anyone! I play more realistic games where not all opponents are evil (and many are neutral built into the system anyways). My paladin player was always frustrated that she couldn’t smite so often. I like this change.

Hence now smite should be available to Fighters and everyone else. If it has nothing to do with morals and religion, then it is not a paladin ability.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I actually like pretty much everything I've heard. Some of the terminology is dumb - I don't really like Emerald Frost or Golden Wyvern - but, then, I'll either be running games in Eberron or in my own setting, and in either case I'm confident "flavour" details like those names, and the gods, and everything else will be out the window anyway, as it is in Third Edition.

 

[The Little Raven]

- Players can be meaningful heroes at lvl 1

...and players are forbidden to play apprentices characters. This is effectively 1 option less in the game, not 1 more. If you want to be meaningful at the beginning in 3e, start at level 3.

Apprentices can be meaningful heroes. Harry Potter is one modern example, as is Pug of Crydee. One of my favorite all-time stories revolves around the exploits of an Assistant Pig-Keeper.

Hero does not mean you're an expert, it simply means you're the guy that will step up to the plate when the Shadow looms.

The new skills will certainly work, but I love the flexibility of the 3e skills.

Intuit Direction ("North is that way!") is flexible?

Makes sense, but it would have made more sense to include all favourite classes and make them high quality at the same time.

It would have made sense if they were working in some kind of time vacuum, instead of having deadlines.

However, instead of cribbing the class into the focus they chose for the PHB1 (martial, arcane, divine), or diluting the focus of the book with more power sources and less detail for each one, they elected to wait until they could be addressed in a fashion more suitable to the class.

Nonsense. Epic is what you call epic. There is nothing intrinsecally different between epic and pre-epic, only quantitative differences. Now what they call epic is just the last 1/3 of core levels. This doesn't prevent them to later release a supplement that takes PCs to levels 31st-40th and call it "Uber level handbook" just because the word Epic was already used.

I think he's talking about the fact that above level 20, the rules for characters completely changed, as opposed to their current attempt to make it mesh cleanly with lower-level play.

I dislike the part that the chance of critting doesn't depend on character's ability.

Well, we don't know if Improved Crit still exists or not, but previously, it was dependent more on your weapon than anything else, not your abilities. Aside from Improved Crit and some class abilities along the same line, they only way to get a higher crit chance was by picking up a weapon with a range. That's not relying on skill, that's relying on equipment.

Boring to me. I prefer variety in monsters. This is one piece of variety less.

Y'know what's boring to me? Having my entire schtick killed by a single monster type (undead; no sneak attack) or alignment (all enemies are neutral, smite is useless), thus relegating me to be sub-standard during an encounter.

Hence now smite should be available to Fighters and everyone else. If it has nothing to do with morals and religion, then it is not a paladin ability.

How does calling on your god for aid in your battle not count as religion?

 

[kennew142]

I agree with all your points, and the OP's. Just wanted to comment on the specific spell types you mentioned. It's my understanding that those effects are all possible via rituals.

In 3e, a wizard could mumble and gesture for 6 seconds and out pops a Balor. He snaps his fingers, and the target is brain-washed for weeks at a time. That's silly.

In 4E, such mighty magics will now require 1) a formula (that could be given out as treasure), 2) exotic ingredients that don't fit in a generic all-purpose "spell component pouch", 3) a suitably meaningful length of time.

Fantasy fiction has all sorts of multi-day spells, quests for rare (or unique!) components, mass sacrifice, and so on. 3E didn't really have a mechanic for these sorts of effects; it didn't really give a reason for the BBEG to slaughter thousands of innocents or build a secluded tower filled with summoning circles, laboratories, and libraries. From the looks of things, 4e does.

Hurray!

So in 4E, wizards can ignite firebursts all day long like Tim the Enchanter, and they can also cook up ritual healing magic or re-forge artifacts like Elrond.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I realize that you're engaging in a little creative hyperbole, but to set the record straight:

1) Wizards in 3e cannot summon Balors.
2) Only bards and psions could alter memories in that fashion.

Most of the players in our games gave up on summoning, because the monsters are so weak compared to the level at which you can summon them. I play a 17th level cleric with augment summoning who hasn't summoned anything since 10th level because anything he does summon is too weak to last more than a round or two against opponents of our level. I'm not actually arguing in favor of more powerful summoning spells. I'm just sorry to see them go. Mostly I use summoning for bad guys. I expect that in 4e I will just hand wave it. Have the bad guy murmer some words of power and have the monsters appear. So long as I count them into the encounter level, it doesn't matter how they get there.

For the record, I fail to see how it is any more silly for a wizard to charm an opponent than to hurl fireballs all day long like Tim the Enchanter. For PCs I would prefer some minor charms along the lines of "These aren't the droids you are looking for," or as simple as fascinating or distracting an opponent.

I am all in favor of magical rituals for the BBEG to summon powerful adversaries and allies, or to create powerful and enduring magical effects.

I do believe that limiting wizards to one single concept (evoker) is a terrible idea. I also think that requiring a ritual in order to distract an opponent is a little lame.

I also mentioned polymorph. This is a very iconic ability for wizards. I understand that some folks abused it and that the rules allowed for it. Since 1980, this has never been a problem in any game I've run. There are numerous fixes that would have solved the problem. In some stories, Wizards must learn each shape individually. In others, wizards can assume animal forms without a problem, but run the risk of losing themselves in the form of a monster or more powerful creature. The best control on abuse is a firm GM. I know this is not an ideal solution, since a rule that is open to abuse will be abused in some games and writing rules that are open to abuse is bad game design.

 

[Traycor]

- Players can be meaningful heroes at lvl 1...and players are forbidden to play apprentices characters. This is effectively 1 option less in the game, not 1 more. If you want to be meaningful at the beginning in 3e, start at level 3.

I can understand the dislike for this one… but forbidden? Hardly. There is nothing stopping you from cutting back on hp or abilities or such the way there were lvl 0 optional rules for 3E in the DMG. It will just no longer be the default assumption that you are an apprentice. You are no longer forced to have apprentice levels skills or skip part of your game to jump to higher lvls.
I absolutely hate starting games above lvl 1. I want to build the character up myself. Now I can do that without starting out an apprentice every time. (along with a group of other apprentices, which was always a stretch story-wise. Now parties can make more sense together.)

- Healing abilities for all classes (and non-reliance on clerics)

And why not lots of skills, martial prowess, and arcane spells for all classes? That would mean less reliance on rogues, fighters, and wizards. No thanks, the reliance on clerics is not much worse on the reliance on other character types. Plus, there is always multiclassing if you want some healing powers.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. Without healing, the game grinds to a halt. Without skills the game just gets harder. Or without martial prowess you must be more tactical or run away more. But without healing it usually means the party must rest or go back to town, but either way the game can get boring quickly.
I also dislike the extreme power creep that high lvl healing causes in play. Mass Heal meant that at epic lvls monsters have to do 100’s of points of damage in a single round to keep things interesting since the whole party can be healed in one action.
With lots of minor healing such a second wind, we can now play our games and have fun with or without a cleric.

- Classes that are distinct and meaningful.

I agree. But this was true in every single edition.

I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree. Sorcerers and wizards were almost exactly the same besides the use of a spellbook. The rest was meta game stuff, spells per day, and amount of spells. Rangers were little different from a multiclass fighter/druid. 3.5 fixed this some with skills, but it was now like a rogue/druid. Barbarians weren’t much different from Fighters. They had more skills, but Int was a barbarian dump stat so the end result wasn’t much different. Rage boosted stats and meant the barbarian was mad in combat, but feats boost the fighter’s abilities and many fighters RP angry in combat, so it wasn’t that distinct to me.

I’m talking classes that are truly distinct regardless of how well the players RP.

Makes sense, but it would have made more sense to include all favourite classes and make them high quality at the same time.

Hehe, me too. But in real life it’s not always possible. Therefore, their choices were to include it half-baked or to delay it. I’m glad they stood up for a better class and chose to delay.

Nonsense. Epic is what you call epic. There is nothing intrinsically different between epic and pre-epic, only quantitative differences. Now what they call epic is just the last 1/3 of core levels. This doesn't prevent them to later release a supplement that takes PCs to levels 31st-40th and call it "Uber level handbook" just because the word Epic was already used.

Hmm… not sure I get your point here. IMO lvls 20-30 were broken in 3E. The game became a nightmare to run. From what they are telling us, lvls 20-30 should be better now. And since the numbers are built in core, and the monsters are built in core, I’m inclined to think they are right.

 

[kennew142]

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'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 answer is yes, and no. 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. The generic uber-mage was a construct of the old D&D magic system, wherein wizards scribed new spells into their spellbooks, prepared and forgot them when they cast them. In my ideal system, wizards would have fewer spells known. I like the concept of specialist wizards, but I dislike the idea of forbidden schools/effects. If spells were designed to be more like powers/talents, a wizard could choose to be a generalist with low-level powers covering a tremendous breadth, or a more specialist wizard with more depth. In order to gain depth (higher level effects), the wizard would have to sacrifice breadth - and vice versa.

In short, I believe all of the aforementioned options should be available to wizards as a class, but I agree that it is too much for a single wizard to be able to do any spell in the game. I think a wizard should be probably know more spells per level than a sorcerer currently does, but not all of the spells in the game. 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.

 

[The Little Raven]

In short, I believe all of the aforementioned options should be available to wizards as a class, but I agree that it is too much for a single wizard to be able to do any spell in the game. I think a wizard should be probably know more spells per level than a sorcerer currently does, but not all of the spells in the game. 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.

So, you then believe that the wizard should take up more space in the core book than all the other classes combined, as was the case in 3e until they put the sorcerer in?

That's my problem. I don't mind wizards getting more, new stuff down the line, but favoring one class over all others in the core book is poor design.

 

[Xethreau]

-Ritual magic. Now complicated spells (Hallow, Teleport, and others) are specifically designed for use outside of combat. Not only is this flavorful, but it makes mechanical sense too.