D&D 4E Positive Aspects of 4E

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

-The per encounter time frame for character strategy
-The New Paladin and Cleric - granted we don't know too much about either and less about clerics, but I just enjoy seeing every editions take on these archetypes. They're such a distinctly DnD problem.
-The Dragonborn - finally a core desert race
-PoL
-Watching my players pick out the tricks and traps of a new system
-Multi-stage/creature dynamic encounters

 

[vagabundo]

There is lots I am liking from what I have heard about the new system. Pretty much all the list in the OP.



One aspect I hope they fix is Charging, so underpowered (+2 to hit), doesnt matter if you are a puny kobold or a fully armour knight on a warhorse going at full tilt.

Historically charges could make or break battles, in DND they have zero real effect...

I also hope they fix grapple, sunder (get rid of it? have it as something that happens on a fumble?) and to a lesser extent disarm, bull rush and trip..

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm massively looking forward to less prep time, and per/encounter/day abilities that set the characters apart.

Particularly the idea that no Wizard will ever have to buy a light x-bow at first level again!

 

[shilsen]

One aspect I hope they fix is Charging, so underpowered (+2 to hit), doesnt matter if you are a puny kobold or a fully armour knight on a warhorse going at full tilt.

Historically charges could make or break battles, in DND they have zero real effect...

That +2 can often make the difference between a miss and a hit. And the fully armored knight on the warhorse going full tilt is usually utilizing a lance and doing double damage with it, or triple damage with Spirited Charge (double damage even with a non-lance weapon). Charges in D&D by characters focused on charging (just like historical knights were) can be devastating.

 

[vagabundo]

That +2 can often make the difference between a miss and a hit. And the fully armored knight on the warhorse going full tilt is usually utilizing a lance and doing double damage with it, or triple damage with Spirited Charge (double damage even with a non-lance weapon). Charges in D&D by characters focused on charging (just like historical knights were) can be devastating.

I think what bothers me is that there seems to be little difference with regard to the speed of the charge and the mass of the charger.

I would like to see charge changed to a combination of Bulls Rush/Overrun + Charge, with the damage multipler depending on the speed of the charger (spd 1-6 = x2, 6-8 =x4, ...). For me, having a dragon charge you should wet the chainmail pants of any hardened PC.

I dont mind mounted combatants needing feats to do a proper charge, as it is hard to hit anything from a moving horse, it requires a lot of training.

 

[kennew142]

Perhaps the biggest positive in my mind is the reduction in reliance on magic items. When I first started running D&D 3e, I was very happy. This was the edition that brought me back to D&D (from Runequest, GURPS, HERO and Call of Cthulhu). I had switched around the publication of AD&D 2e. I ran a few games and played in a few more, but my interests were elsewhere. D&D 3e looked like the answer to most of the issues I'd had with earlier editions. At low levels (3-10) it was.

The first problems began for me at 3rd level, when magic items began to show up in the game. I had developed several items with campaign significance and history, items that were intended to be part of the storyline. My players (pretty good role-players by the way), players who had never acted this way in any game before, had read in the DMG about what items a character should have at a given level and immediately wanted to sell the things they had found so they could buy +1 resistance items and +1 amulets of natural armor (my personal least favorite thing in the game).

I resisted.

They complained.

Eventually, I gave in.

I realized then and there that a game system predicated on every character having certain items at a certain level required the existence of the Mega-Lo-Magic-Mart in every campaign. This mechanical approach to the game was incompatible with every homebrew I had ever run (in any system) since 1979.

The situation got so bad for me that I simply stopped runing the campaign that I had designed. My players did seem to catch on as quickly as I did, although they eventually came around. I still GMed for them, but I ran in published campaign worlds with treasure given out by the rules. The problem with this solution was that I prefer campaigns in which the major adversaries are powerful NPCs - not monsters. Because NPCs are equipped with the same sort of magic items every character is required to have in order to be playable, the magic mart intensified. Most treasure consisted of weaker versions of what the party already had, not to mention the dozens of wands each spell caster accumulated.

If D&D 4e had no positive elements aside from reducing the reliance on magic items, it would still IMO be worth trying out. Before the announcement, I was prepared to leave D&D altogether for another system again (possible AD&D 1e or the new RQ). I am happy to be able to continue with D&D in 4e.

 

[Meeki]

One aspect I hope they fix is Charging, so underpowered (+2 to hit), doesnt matter if you are a puny kobold or a fully armour knight on a warhorse going at full tilt.

Historically charges could make or break battles, in DND they have zero real effect...

Yea but historically dwarves couldn't tumble in full plate and heavy load and gnomes didnt exist (which they don't in 4e what does that tell us!!?)

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I don't really see these benefits yet, myself. I don't see the "narrowing" of feats as something that will simplify the game (though certainly only having the corebook's selection to choose from when 4e comes out will simplify things for a while), and I'm pretty darn sure feat-related power creep will still exist in the exact same way as long as people print splatbooks with new feats in them.

The thing is if there is a generally-agreed vision of what a feat can do, then it's harder to have horribly balanced feats, over- OR under-powered. Then they're less likely to print subpar or overoptimal feats, and those that are will be more obvious and easier to winnow out.

I, personally, think this is a fantastic idea.

Brad

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The thing is if there is a generally-agreed vision of what a feat can do, then it's harder to have horribly balanced feats, over- OR under-powered. Then they're less likely to print subpar or overoptimal feats, and those that are will be more obvious and easier to winnow out.

I, personally, think this is a fantastic idea.

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

Dodge, Endurance, and Toughness aren't great feats, but the abilities of the Dwarven Defender class are pretty phenomenal compared to the fighter class. So a fighter makes a sacrifice, giving up three precious feat slots to gain entry to a powerful class. If the entry requirements were three useful feats that most fighters would take anyway, the class becomes a no-brainer and is no longer a meaningful choice. That's why I didn't allow the DD player in my campaign to take Improved Toughness instead of Toughness for the prereq. One of the few drawbacks of the DD class is that you have to take a few sub-optimal feats.

 

[Traycor]

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

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?

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?

I don't want to hijack my own thread, so I'm not going to get into a big debate about this. Basically on this point I don't think lvl 1 characters could be conceived as apprentices by any stretch of the imagination. That outlook basically involved ignoring what the character could do. So if my character is already a fully trained hero then I would like for them to be able to act like one, instead of having all the ability of the hero but not being able to back that up.

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

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.

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.

To me that's all semantics. How you cast and what you have memorized are minor differences that most people would never notice unless they are practiced in the classes or rules. My players probably couldn't even tell me the difference between the two other than spellbooks. I am hoping for truely unique and distinct classes in 4E. Ones that you can't mistake for each other.