D&D 4E The Dispensible 4E

[Steely_Dan]

Which is the AD&D and the 4E way And if you're counting force of will and luck, I don't see why it can't be restored non-magically.

Oh, I have no problem with non-magical healing, I just, as you know, do not dig on Healing Surges (I know you do). I really like Second Wind.

 

[CleverNickName]

Oh, I have no problems with this. It is, however, not an innovation of 4e. BECMI went one way, AD&D the other. As long as you're prepared to accept that your mileage may vary and that non-physical damage has been the RAW default for the AD&D stream of D&D then I see no problem. But blaming things on 4e when the issue is you prefer the BECMI justification of hit points to the AD&D one is unwarranted.

You are correct. I guess my issue is that the healing mechanics of 4E make it very hard to do the aforementioned hand-waving, and that is what I dislike. I guess healing surges, etc., would be less offensive to me if I could just ignore them.

Like mind flayers. I think they are ridiculous, an unnecessary sci-fi influence in a fantasy game world, and I've never liked them...so, I never put them into my games.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

-Magic item dailies: WoTC find a better way to do this please. The current system (yes even with the latest books that have improved the issue haven't made it any less clunky)
-Skill Challenges: WotC find a better way to do this please.
-Hard to track combat: Please have materials for tracking marks, status effects, and other such things available upon release please.
-Adventure modules: Either figure out how to make entertaining adventures or quit ripping us off with these horrible products.
-Art: Evoke, don't fill. So much reused art in the splatbooks. Really ruins my day to buy a new book and flip through it only to see 5 - 6 pieces of art that I've already seen in previous books. Screw that WotC.
-Less misses altogether. Increase the hit chance of everyone in combat. Even Pokemon has a better to hit formula than 4E D&D did. I swing, I miss, I swing, I miss, I swing I hit, doesn't really cut it anymore. Embellishment can only do so much.

 

[herrozerro]

-Less misses altogether. Increase the hit chance of everyone in combat. Even Pokemon has a better to hit formula than 4E D&D did. I swing, I miss, I swing, I miss, I swing I hit, doesn't really cut it anymore. Embellishment can only do so much.

This one I can agree with fully. This has been fixed with the E classes for the most part, they usually have excellent accuracy and I have noticed in my games the differences with my players who have embraced the E classes and those who have not.

Missing just sucks, even if you use abilities that still do something on a miss, I dont like how the game is setup to be a 50% hit ratio. Personally I'd like to see a missless game or peg it somewhere around 90% base with conditions or other modifiers that bring it down.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Why be a slave to the 50% accuracy thing, if you want the players to hit more often, lower the monster's AC/Defences; that's what I miss about previous editions, not every 15th level/HD monster has the same AC (give or take a point or two, Brute etc). I have reduced monster HP in 4th Ed, also helpful.

 

[herrozerro]

Why be a slave to the 50% accuracy thing, if you want the players to hit more often, lower the monster's AC/Defences; that's what I miss about previous editions, not every 15th level/HD monster has the same AC (give or take a point or two, Brute etc). I have reduced monster HP in 4th Ed, also helpful.

Well I'd like to have tactically meaningful games, when you just reduce the defenses to me at least it starts to screw with the assumed balance of how long things should last. So in my experience I usually have to increase HP just to get a meaningful fight if I lower defenses.

 

[Steely_Dan]

So in my experience I usually have to increase HP just to get a meaningful fight if I lower defenses.

Ah, I have never experienced that DMing 4th Ed, monsters in general have too many HP for my liking (can cause grind).

I do like 4th Ed Monsters, I just reduce HP, remove 1/2 level from all attacks, defences and skills (and obviously the character's), and they run a lot smoother, IME.

 

[herrozerro]

Ah, I have never experienced that DMing 4th Ed, monsters in general have too many HP for my liking (can cause grind).

I do like 4th Ed Monsters, I just reduce HP, remove 1/2 level from all attacks, defences and skills (and obviously the character's), and they run a lot smoother, IME.

well i have a larger group, 6-8. So they can usually focus fire down 2 creatures a round.

 

[WarlockLord]

And I don't know who was saying that in 4e. Because it simply isn't so.

Actually, it is. You will recall the controversy over the expertise feats? The low accuracy of attacks in 4e means you pretty much need every little stupid fiddly bonus you can get. So right away you need a primary bonus to your to-hit. That knocks out a lot of races right there, because you simply cannot get a twenty in your primary attack. And you need to hit or your turn is wasted.

Now (I know Essentials killed a lot of this), many classes were designed to need a secondary stat high, such as the infamous orbizard needing int and wis. This was ok to begin with as no race had int and wis...until they released the deva, who had bonuses to both. So either you played a deva as an orbizard, or you were objectively worse as a wizard. To make things worse, the developers handed out racial feats which straight-up made already good race/class combinations better (such as that one feat in Arcane Power for gnome illusionists, Gnome Phantasmist or something. I have the book, I'm just in school). So despite the fact that your orc illusionist sounded badass in your head, he is in all ways worse than playing a gnome. And for a game who advertised "any race, any class", that is straight up terrible.

But hey, what did we expect when the game tells us "Be an eladrin if you want to be a good wizard"?

Too many hp for too little monster damage. They've raised the damage.

Did they lower the hit points so fights don't take forever?

And what does it say about 4e that they've had to errata their entire monster system?

Incidentally, I'd like them to stop continually overhauling the books. I have a small stack of 4e books anymore I can't use without cross-referencing the wizards site because they've all been errata'd over stupid things (let's change magic missile! Lower a damage die here!). And it took them years to fix the orbizard.

Name a few such concepts please - as long as they fit the professional adventurer mould?

Well, orc illusionist comes to mind, but I don't think that's what you meant.. Lightly armored spear-wielding skirmisher comes to mind. Wolf rider comes to mind. A priest of an ocean god comes to mind. Admittedly, I don't have the character builder. But to build a lot of core 3e and 2e concepts, you seriously need to dumpster dive through books just to build something like "necromancer," "poisoner" or "shapeshifter". All of which could at least be constructed in 3e's core rules.

As for your point about noncombat, I will simply submit that 4e's noncombat rules consist entirely of skill challenges (which the devs admitted don't work) and rituals (which cost too damn much and do too little). So there's that.

 

[Dragonblade]

Healing surges are fine and work well. No matter how much some people squint and pretend otherwise, HP ARE NOT PHYSICAL DAMAGE. They have not been for four editions now. Nor should they be in 5e. D&D has always been about heroic fantasy, and by heroic I mean PCs being able to perform feats of legend like fighters wading throw hordes of lesser opponents, etc.

D&D from 1e on, has NEVER been about modelling physical trauma with its HP system. There are other games that do that if thats how you want to play. Old school 1e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for one. This isn't a 4e issue, or a healing surge issue. Its an issue with a playstyle that has diverged from the stated definition of HP for four editions now. Its time to move on from this debate, because while 5e may not have surges, it most definitely will have HP that work the way they have since 1e and have continued to work through 2e, 3e, AND 4e.

Getting back to the OP, there are only a few areas that 4e needs to improve on.

1 - Inherent bonuses should be the assumed default. Expected magic item acquisition shouldn't be built into the game.

2 - Magic items have too many fiddly bonuses and minor powers. All magic should work more like 4e artifacts.

3 - Rituals are fantastic but underdeveloped and need to draw upon a different resource than money, especially considering that magic item acquisition is an expected as part of advancement. There should also be rules to cast some rituals in combat.

4 - The default hit ratio for an opponent of equal level should be about 70-75%. The average mathematical probability of missing an opponent of equal level two rounds in a row should be under 10%. Also monster HP totals should be slightly decreased and damage slightly increased to make combat faster, and more dangerous.

5 - Uniform bonus progression was a good move, but uniform class structure makes many classes feel artificially constrained. I miss different subsystems for different classes. Balancing this is difficult but should be attempted.

6 - Power recovery and usage should feel a bit more organic. I don't like the encounter power or even the daily power model in 4e. I don't like the over-reliance on X/day powers in Pathfinder either. I'd prefer a recovery mechanic for powers that feels more organic. Or conversely, instead of a recovery mechanic, I'd like a 'charge' mechanic for lack of a better word. I don't like the idea of nova-ing powers. I'd prefer a model where your more powerful abilities get unlocked and become usable the longer a combat goes on as opposed to them always being available upfront.