D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[Lord Fyre]

Actually, until I actually see a rulebook, most of those features are still "noise" as far as I am concerned. :\

Except for one . . .

- Online tools that allow me to game with my old college buddies that have scattered to the winds.

While this feature did not actually require a new edition, it by itself makes me very interrested in going to 4th Edition.

Because, like many of us, Out of Game, Real Life, events have broken up more then a few of my gaming groups.

 

[Wanderer20]

The most amazing feature of 4E I still think about, is that I will not have to buy a cent to continue playing my 3.5 campaigns

 

[Charwoman Gene]

- Players can be meaningful heroes at lvl 1
- Points of Light means that being a hero is now meaningful, instead of an occupation
- Fighters getting special abilities with all weapons. Big big win!
- Healing abilities for all classes (and non-reliance on clerics)
- Less Christmas tree magic items from the Big 6 arms race
- Social combat rules in core (hopefully!). I loves my RP and this will give players that don’t RP very well a chance to still participate in these kinds of interactions.
- Combat against more opponents at once. This creates more action and a more heroic feel. The players feel more capable.
- 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
- Streamlined stat-blocks and less rigid rules for making monsters.
- Monster have unique abilities instead of huge lists of wizard spells. It’s more interesting and less work all at the same time.
- 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!
- Elemental planes (and other exotic locations) that are now reasonable to adventure in.
- Demons and Devils that aren’t clones of each other. Real reasons for the distinction in creature type between the two.
- Sanctioned PDF versions of my books online. With updated errata!!
- Classes that are distinct and meaningful.
- Defining of roles to make things clearer to some players, but at the same time removing the need and reliance on having a role-filled party. Woot for 3 wizards and a rogue! Our last big game went to lvl 28 without a cleric or a wizard, so I know how much of a headache roles were in 3e.
- Unified numbers on class progression. This means less tables, less space in my books, and less confusion. Also less high lvl disparity. Since my last big campaign started at lvl 1 and went all the way up to lvl 28, I can vastly appreciate this unified progression.
- Simplified magic item pricing
- 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.
- Epic levels are built into the core. This should avoid much of the bizarre nature of epic level play.
- Alignment revisions. Most creatures should be unaligned and fewer mechanics should rely on this. A very very positive change.
- Rogues can sneak attack undead and other such opponents. Crits work too! Woot!
- Necromancers and Illusionists becoming their own classes. This is huge. I can’t begin to express my joy. These needed their own mechanics badly.
- 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.
- 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.

I like these from your list, I also like the shift away from over symmetrical, dry, academic ivory-tower design to a gamist, in the trenches model. This is FAR from universally appealing.

 

[Lanefan]

If 4e turns out to match the educated guesses we've got so far, I'll like:

Points-of-light setting design. This alone might make 4e worthwhile, if done well.
Critical hits working on undead and constructs. 'Bout time.
Illusionists and Necromancers becoming their own classes. (though I'd prefer if they were in the first PHB rather than a later one...)
Fewer and more interesting magic items. I'll be ecstatic if they add in more oddball and quirky items as well!
Rejigged item creation rules.
A grapple mechanic that actually works without grinding the game to a screeching halt. (OK, I'm being hopeful here; the previous editions are 0-for-3 so far)

There's lots more things that my personal jury is still out on, and some that just don't look promising at all...but there *are* things to like.

Lanefan

 

[helium3]

Book of Vile Darkness had some GREAT stuff that I only got the chance to scratch the surface of. Sadly, never got my campaign to the point where the players were trying to stop Apocalypse From the Sky.

*chuckle*

Funny you should mention that. I was in a campaign where the players were trying to do just that. Only, an artifact was being used to both maximize and empower it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Let me rephrase. It's not how much content, it's the quality of that content. "More" content doesn't matter. You could, for example, add 200 0-level spells for the bard to the PHB. It wouldn't really be a significant improvement to the class, although it would give him far more options and far more text.

Well, the quality of the content is pretty strong, too.

I mean, there are rules for climbing or picking a lock in the skill section. The wizard can use that rules. But he also has extra rules to do it "his way", by casting Spider Climb (or Fly) or Knock.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Thanks for pointing exactly the worst skill example!

The flexibility I like is in the whole system. For example in how much you want to invest between different skills, instead of maxing everything (which is an option in 3e, automatic with no choice in 4e).

The individual skills aren't "flexible" but rather "useful" or "not so useful". Instead of merging them and thus causing small but fastidious (and evitable) compatibility problems, they could have just added new good uses for existing skills. We did that in our games, and turned Intuit Direction into something worth taking. The second flexibility of the system is that adding new uses to existing skills does not cause any compatibility problems at all.

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.

Mah, they set their own deadlines, they pay the consequences.

The question is: are you really sure the delay will result in great design? How many times they revised the polymorph rules in 3e? Would it have been better to wait 4 years without polymorph, to ultimately have a version that is only slightly better? I don't think everyone agrees.

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.

Ok. He probably meant they changed the basic progressions so that there isn't need for a rule discountinuity.

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.

Perspectives. I personally find it much more boring that I have a schtick which is always working. I want troubles now and then, because I find loads of fun in having to think outside the box to be effective. YMMV

 

[Imp]

- 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
- Social combat rules in core (hopefully!). I loves my RP and this will give players that don’t RP very well a chance to still participate in these kinds of interactions.
- Combat against more opponents at once. This creates more action and a more heroic feel. The players feel more capable.
- More combats in a day. Allowing players to continue battling as they wish creates a greater immersion and sense of heroism. In most novels, a hero will push on and on until they can’t go anymore because of their drive and passion. In previous editions it was hard to mirror this common heroic mentality without a TPK.
- New magic system. Thank. God.
- Streamlined stat-blocks and less rigid rules for making monsters.
- Monster have unique abilities instead of huge lists of wizard spells. It’s more interesting and less work all at the same time.
- Wizard implements. While the specifics are still being tweaked on how this will work, the wizard class was in sore need of things to distinguish members of the class. It allows for means of customization closer to what melee classes have available, and it makes magic staves/wands more than disposable batteries.
- Simplified math at epic levels. Anyone who’s played lvl 21+ can do naught but cry with joy at such news.
- Alignment revisions. Most creatures should be unaligned and fewer mechanics should rely on this. A very very positive change.
- No confirming crits. Makes for more cheering moments on the part of the players.
- Rogues can sneak attack undead and other such opponents. Crits work too! Woot!
- 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.
- Swordmage class. This is a personal pet peeve and I truly hope it is revised to make it into the PHB 1

These are the ones I like. I bolded my favorite.

Some of the other ones, I'm either not yet convinced of their implementation, didn't really consider them a problem in 3e, am just neutral about, or (just a few) disagree with, but I'm keeping it positive here.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

You cannot fairly argue that a rules is good because you can house rule it... otherwise every rule ever is good.

I absolutely hate starting games above lvl 1. I want to build the character up myself.

How is it conceptually different for you to start at level 1 with triple HP and BAB +3 (4e) and start at level 3 with three HD and BAB +3 (3e)? The 4e 1st level will be something similar to 3e 2nd or 3rd level: why does it matter to you, when creating a 3e 3rd level PC, that there were 2 levels before, if in both cases you may need to select more or less the same amount of stuff?

Without healing, the game grinds to a halt.

We were talking about a game without clerics, not without healing...

Sorcerers and wizards were almost exactly the same besides the use of a spellbook.

You mean besides being spontaneous or preparation-based, and besides the amount of spells known? Trust me, I've played a lot of sorcerers and wizards (they are my favourite classes), and they are TOTALLY different from the point of view of how the game plays The fact that potentially they can learn the same spells does not make them much similar, and you will not likely learn a lot of the same spells at the end.

 

[ivocaliban]

Borrowed from Traycor:

- Simplified rules a la grapple
- Streamlined stat-blocks and less rigid rules for making monsters.
- Unified numbers on class progression. This means less tables, less space in my books, and less confusion. Also less high lvl disparity. Since my last big campaign started at lvl 1 and went all the way up to lvl 28, I can vastly appreciate this unified progression.
- Simplified magic item pricing
- Epic levels are built into the core. This should avoid much of the bizarre nature of epic level play.



There were many things listed in the original post that I did not like. There were also a few that I didn't think we had any way of knowing would occur. The above, mostly from my point of view as a DM, do sound encouraging. Essentially, my favorite reported aspect of 4e is the idea of taking the pressure off the DM.