There are a few things that still bug me. Several of them have to do with not getting rid of certain sacred cows when there is no reason to keep them other than easing initial fan reaction to the game.
First, the parts where I feel 4e did not go far enough, such as keeping alignment while rendering it completely meaningless in terms of rules (might as well get rid of it.)
Second, too much overcompensating for some relatively minor benefits, such as making it necessary for a Star Warlock to split their focus on two primary stats whereas a Hellfire or Fey Warlock can only concentrate on one, for no other reason than that the Star Warlock's pact gives them a small conditional bonus to die rolls. Or the severe limiting of Rogue weapon choices in exchange for sneak attack (leaving me to make Rangers that serve the out-of-combat role of Rogues (just as well as Rogues) by taking Thievery through a feat.)
Third, the cosmology of 4th edition seems to be more hard-wired into the rules than in previous editions.
Fourth, hard-wiring the square grid into the rules, even though a hex grid makes more intuitive blast and burst shapes.
Fifth, wizards (and from what I've seen spellswords) seem very elementalist in their powers, leaving me to wonder why there would be a distinct elemental power source. I would have liked to have seen all those non-elemental spells wizards have had in the past have a little more prominence, or perhaps if they had made a little more space for an extra line of spells in the PHB (like the illusions in Dragon.) Again, Fireball is a sacred cow for Wizards, yes. But if wizards are tossing around the elements with power and finesse, what do the elemental classes do?
Edit: Another one, and this is a big one so I'm surprised I forgot it. They created skill use railroading with skill challenges. "You can use one of these four skills to win this challenge, and when you succeed I'll tell you how you used that skill." "I have diplomacy, I'll use that." "You convince the duke that the borderlands aren't safe."
Well, what if I decided it would be more advantageous to convince the duke that the gnolls are a greater force than he had estimated originally, that his prejudice was blinding him? What if I wanted to convince the duke that while he may be right that the gnolls aren't much of a threat to his forces, his peasants are vulnerable?
I'd rather see a situation where you have the success / failure threshold, but the DM simply announce the nature of the challenge ("Skill challenge: escape the city!" or "Skill challenge: survive in the desert!") and let the PCs explain what skills they're going to use in that challenge, and why they think those skills should work. This is the one area where I feel 4e absolutely, positively screwed up.
Formulaic skill challenges are the one thing I absolutely do not like.
First, the parts where I feel 4e did not go far enough, such as keeping alignment while rendering it completely meaningless in terms of rules (might as well get rid of it.)
Second, too much overcompensating for some relatively minor benefits, such as making it necessary for a Star Warlock to split their focus on two primary stats whereas a Hellfire or Fey Warlock can only concentrate on one, for no other reason than that the Star Warlock's pact gives them a small conditional bonus to die rolls. Or the severe limiting of Rogue weapon choices in exchange for sneak attack (leaving me to make Rangers that serve the out-of-combat role of Rogues (just as well as Rogues) by taking Thievery through a feat.)
Third, the cosmology of 4th edition seems to be more hard-wired into the rules than in previous editions.
Fourth, hard-wiring the square grid into the rules, even though a hex grid makes more intuitive blast and burst shapes.
Fifth, wizards (and from what I've seen spellswords) seem very elementalist in their powers, leaving me to wonder why there would be a distinct elemental power source. I would have liked to have seen all those non-elemental spells wizards have had in the past have a little more prominence, or perhaps if they had made a little more space for an extra line of spells in the PHB (like the illusions in Dragon.) Again, Fireball is a sacred cow for Wizards, yes. But if wizards are tossing around the elements with power and finesse, what do the elemental classes do?
Edit: Another one, and this is a big one so I'm surprised I forgot it. They created skill use railroading with skill challenges. "You can use one of these four skills to win this challenge, and when you succeed I'll tell you how you used that skill." "I have diplomacy, I'll use that." "You convince the duke that the borderlands aren't safe."
Well, what if I decided it would be more advantageous to convince the duke that the gnolls are a greater force than he had estimated originally, that his prejudice was blinding him? What if I wanted to convince the duke that while he may be right that the gnolls aren't much of a threat to his forces, his peasants are vulnerable?
I'd rather see a situation where you have the success / failure threshold, but the DM simply announce the nature of the challenge ("Skill challenge: escape the city!" or "Skill challenge: survive in the desert!") and let the PCs explain what skills they're going to use in that challenge, and why they think those skills should work. This is the one area where I feel 4e absolutely, positively screwed up.
Formulaic skill challenges are the one thing I absolutely do not like.
Last edited:
