D&D 4E Things I Learned From 4e

[buzz]

While I agree with you on a more robust system for exploration, I'm not really sure how you can put the "talky bits" into firm rules, as I've started threads on Diplomacy and other social skills in the past, and it's not something where people have a lot of agreement on how to resolve it.

Plenty of other RPGs have handled this with aplomb. WotC just hasn't presented a good option for D&D as yet. I would take a look at some of the Thief skills from Mearls' Iron Heroes for possibilities in a d20 context.

 

[Hussar]

While I agree with you on a more robust system for exploration, I'm not really sure how you can put the "talky bits" into firm rules, as I've started threads on Diplomacy and other social skills in the past, and it's not something where people have a lot of agreement on how to resolve it.

Oh, I agree that whatever system they choose will have critics. However, "everything outside of combat is basically free form with a couple of die rolls" is not the solution I want.

Going back to the reason for this thread though:

The Biggest Lesson I Learned from 4e

The idea of actors within the context of an ongoing conflict no longer having discrete turns is the biggest, and IMO best, innovation of 4e. The fact that a character in combat can act two, three or even more times in a round, and those actions are not simply reactions, but are actually actions that can be instigated either by the player or another player, is fan freaking tastic.

Yes, it makes resolving combat longer. I understand that. But the fact that everyone is acting all the time (or as much as possible) is one thing I will insist on in every RPG I play from now on.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, I have been playing 4e more or less since it's launch. Here are a few things I've picked up, that I hope the team keeps in mind going into 5e. Please share your own, too!

• I don't care about the Encounter, I care about the Adventure. 3e started the trend of making the encounter the central part of the game, and 4e solidified it. The thing is, I don't care about the individual encounter. I don't care about one fight with goblins, or one talk with the guards. What I care about is the context it is embedded in, the multi-day struggle to survive the dungeon, or to journey to the far-away land. It's not killing monsters that makes me feel heroic - it is the context for killing them that matters to me.
• I want to do more than fight things. Specifically, there are three things that I'd like to do, in addition to combat: Exploration, Discovery, and Interaction. 4e's minis combat system is peerless, but that's not how I want to solve all my problems. I want robust subsystems for plumbing dungeons (including resource management!), unearthing secrets (including knowledge rolls!), and dealing with NPC's (including skill rolls!), systems that every player at my table might contribute to in some way. I don't want you to worry about balancing classes so tightly on combat roles, but to rather see them in the context of adventure roles.
• I want combat to move faster, and be more cinematic. 4e combat lasts way too long and is way too concerned with the minutae of opportunity attacks, squares, cover, and BLAH BLAH BLAH for my fun. I don't want to have to bust out the minis. I don't want to have to bust out the grid. I want to be able to put thoughts in my players' heads without requiring little plastic toys for the deed. I want more danger, more swinginess, more chaos.
• I don't want 500 powers for each class. I think I'd like power sources to be where powers are -- all martial powers come from the same source, and all martial characters draw on the same power pool, even if the Thief and the Fighter take it in different directions.
• I don't want any role to be "necessary". The baseline for balance should be set low enough that any character can clear it. No one should have to play the leader or the defender or the controller (or the Face or the Sage or the Explorer), if they don't want to.
• I want treasure that is more fun. I do not want to fill out a shopping list. I want to roll on a table, get things that are potentially a little unbalancing (but a lot of fun!), and always be entertained with the quirks.
• I want monsters to be more fun. I do not want to plunk down a stat block on a minis grid and wait for it to die. I want to populate my world with interesting and fascinating creatures waiting to be discovered around the next bend in the river.

I'm interested in what other 4e players have learned from their experience, and I'm sure WotC is, too!

I second all of these.

 

[Viking Bastard]

The idea of actors within the context of an ongoing conflict no longer having discrete turns is the biggest, and IMO best, innovation of 4e.

I don't really get what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[Nebulous]

So, I have been playing 4e more or less since it's launch. Here are a few things I've picked up, that I hope the team keeps in mind going into 5e. Please share your own, too!

• I don't care about the Encounter, I care about the Adventure. 3e started the trend of making the encounter the central part of the game, and 4e solidified it. The thing is, I don't care about the individual encounter. I don't care about one fight with goblins, or one talk with the guards. What I care about is the context it is embedded in, the multi-day struggle to survive the dungeon, or to journey to the far-away land. It's not killing monsters that makes me feel heroic - it is the context for killing them that matters to me.
• I want to do more than fight things. Specifically, there are three things that I'd like to do, in addition to combat: Exploration, Discovery, and Interaction. 4e's minis combat system is peerless, but that's not how I want to solve all my problems. I want robust subsystems for plumbing dungeons (including resource management!), unearthing secrets (including knowledge rolls!), and dealing with NPC's (including skill rolls!), systems that every player at my table might contribute to in some way. I don't want you to worry about balancing classes so tightly on combat roles, but to rather see them in the context of adventure roles.
• I want combat to move faster, and be more cinematic. 4e combat lasts way too long and is way too concerned with the minutae of opportunity attacks, squares, cover, and BLAH BLAH BLAH for my fun. I don't want to have to bust out the minis. I don't want to have to bust out the grid. I want to be able to put thoughts in my players' heads without requiring little plastic toys for the deed. I want more danger, more swinginess, more chaos.
• I don't want 500 powers for each class. I think I'd like power sources to be where powers are -- all martial powers come from the same source, and all martial characters draw on the same power pool, even if the Thief and the Fighter take it in different directions.
• I don't want any role to be "necessary". The baseline for balance should be set low enough that any character can clear it. No one should have to play the leader or the defender or the controller (or the Face or the Sage or the Explorer), if they don't want to.
• I want treasure that is more fun. I do not want to fill out a shopping list. I want to roll on a table, get things that are potentially a little unbalancing (but a lot of fun!), and always be entertained with the quirks.
• I want monsters to be more fun. I do not want to plunk down a stat block on a minis grid and wait for it to die. I want to populate my world with interesting and fascinating creatures waiting to be discovered around the next bend in the river.

I'm interested in what other 4e players have learned from their experience, and I'm sure WotC is, too!

I agree with pretty much ALL of this. 4e treasure SUCKED because they didn't want it to overshadow kewl powerz, and that's how it turned out. I had players rarely even use magic item powers because their class powers were flashier. Plus, the magic items were drab and lifeless. Id much prefer they cut them down by one-third and inject some mystery and magic back into them instead of a grocery list of minor perks.

As for Monsters, i do think 4e took a good direction of injecting the ability to make 5 types of the same monster somewhat mechanically different. Of course, this all boils down to grid-based combat maneuvers.

 

[Hussar]

I don't really get what you mean. Can you elaborate?

In most RPG's, whenever you enter a situation where you have discrete rounds (whatever term they're given in that RPG), the actions of one actor (either PC or NPC) are initiated and resolved during that actor's turn in that round. Outside of that turn, it's very difficult for an actor to initiate any actions.

Rolling it back to D&D for a second. In 3.5 D&D, you roll initiative and get your turns in combat. During your turn, you take your actions (move and standard) and you're done. Unless something draws an AOO from you, you don't get to initiate any actions until the next round and your turn comes up.

In 4e, that's not necessarily true. For one, it's easy for one character to grant you extra actions - the Leader role takes this as its primary function (other than possibly healing), but other classes can do it as well. Additionally, a number of the powers are interrupt style effects - things that you can choose to initiate on someone else's turn, frequently requiring very little to trigger that action.

Take something like "Ripost Strike", a 1st level Rogue At Will. If you hit with this attack, you deal damage and if the target of your attack attacks you, you get a free shot at it. Not exactly a hard thing to do. Additionally, there are a number of magic items and whatnot that act in a similar fashion. And, there are powers that trigger off of ally actions, many of which are completely under the control of the players at the table.

As I said in before, it's not terribly difficult for a character to be acting two, three or even four times in a given round, all on different initiative counts. It's not that this was never seen in earlier editions, but, never to this scale. Sure, you might get an extra shot with something like Trip and hitting them when they stand up, but, in 4e, it's baked right into the classes.

 

[hanez]

So, I have been playing 4e more or less since it's launch. Here are a few things I've picked up, that I hope the team keeps in mind going into 5e. Please share your own, too!

• I don't care about the Encounter, I care about the Adventure. 3e started the trend of making the encounter the central part of the game, and 4e solidified it. The thing is, I don't care about the individual encounter. I don't care about one fight with goblins, or one talk with the guards. What I care about is the context it is embedded in, the multi-day struggle to survive the dungeon, or to journey to the far-away land. It's not killing monsters that makes me feel heroic - it is the context for killing them that matters to me.
• I want to do more than fight things. Specifically, there are three things that I'd like to do, in addition to combat: Exploration, Discovery, and Interaction. 4e's minis combat system is peerless, but that's not how I want to solve all my problems. I want robust subsystems for plumbing dungeons (including resource management!), unearthing secrets (including knowledge rolls!), and dealing with NPC's (including skill rolls!), systems that every player at my table might contribute to in some way. I don't want you to worry about balancing classes so tightly on combat roles, but to rather see them in the context of adventure roles.
• I want combat to move faster, and be more cinematic. 4e combat lasts way too long and is way too concerned with the minutae of opportunity attacks, squares, cover, and BLAH BLAH BLAH for my fun. I don't want to have to bust out the minis. I don't want to have to bust out the grid. I want to be able to put thoughts in my players' heads without requiring little plastic toys for the deed. I want more danger, more swinginess, more chaos.
• I don't want 500 powers for each class. I think I'd like power sources to be where powers are -- all martial powers come from the same source, and all martial characters draw on the same power pool, even if the Thief and the Fighter take it in different directions.
• I don't want any role to be "necessary". The baseline for balance should be set low enough that any character can clear it. No one should have to play the leader or the defender or the controller (or the Face or the Sage or the Explorer), if they don't want to.
• I want treasure that is more fun. I do not want to fill out a shopping list. I want to roll on a table, get things that are potentially a little unbalancing (but a lot of fun!), and always be entertained with the quirks.
• I want monsters to be more fun. I do not want to plunk down a stat block on a minis grid and wait for it to die. I want to populate my world with interesting and fascinating creatures waiting to be discovered around the next bend in the river.

I'm interested in what other 4e players have learned from their experience, and I'm sure WotC is, too!

Wow you said it. I read this a second time and think that is an incredibly conscise description of what 4e taught me.

 

[Nebulous]

Kind of mentioned, but I wanted to expand on it:

Magic Items should be rewards Don't work the math so that a level 12 fighter requires a +3 sword. Additionally, move the magic items out of the PHB and back into the DMG. Magic Items are for the DM to give the players, not for the players to pick out.

This. Or, to compromise, leave Common magic items in the PHB, and move Uncommon, Rare and Artifacts and Cursed Items to the DMG.

 

[Gundark]

I learned being DM doesn't mean I have to devote 40 hours a week to prepping games or know every in-and-out of my players' abilities and their combined synergies. The ease and openness of DMing 5e will largely decide whether or not I make the switch.

This

 

[Tallifer]

• I don't care about the Encounter, I care about the Adventure. 3e started the trend of making the encounter the central part of the game, and 4e solidified it. The thing is, I don't care about the individual encounter. I don't care about one fight with goblins, or one talk with the guards. What I care about is the context it is embedded in, the multi-day struggle to survive the dungeon, or to journey to the far-away land. It's not killing monsters that makes me feel heroic - it is the context for killing them that matters to me.
  That is why Fourth Edition adventures are divided into story parts and combat parts: you can skip as much of the combat as you want and just go through the story.
• I want to do more than fight things.
  I do not share your experience. I can only comment that my Fourth Edition groups have always spent a lot of time exploring, roleplaying and puzzle-figuring. But the fights were awesome.
  
• I want combat to move faster, and be more cinematic. 4e combat lasts way too long and is way too concerned with the minutae of opportunity attacks, squares, cover, and BLAH BLAH BLAH for my fun. I don't want to have to bust out the minis. I don't want to have to bust out the grid. I want to be able to put thoughts in my players' heads without requiring little plastic toys for the deed. I want more danger, more swinginess, more chaos.
  You have a point here. There should be an alternate quick-combat system for small fights. Or for especially big ones like small battles. But keep the glorious regular system as is!
  
• I don't want 500 powers for each class. I think I'd like power sources to be where powers are -- all martial powers come from the same source, and all martial characters draw on the same power pool, even if the Thief and the Fighter take it in different directions.
  Nope. The Character Builder solves all problems like that. You usually only have a half a dozen powers from which to choose one at each level. And since some of them are obviously specific to a build, that narrows more and quickly.
  
• I don't want any role to be "necessary". The baseline for balance should be set low enough that any character can clear it. No one should have to play the leader or the defender or the controller (or the Face or the Sage or the Explorer), if they don't want to.
  The easy multi-class rules and the themes allowed players to tack on the healing or control spells or skills needed for a party. But most of all, the ease of encounter design in Fourth Edition meant that the dungeon master never had any problem toning down an encounter for an unoptimized group. I even ran a short campaign for just two players. Using some published adventures.
  
• I want treasure that is more fun. I do not want to fill out a shopping list. I want to roll on a table, get things that are potentially a little unbalancing (but a lot of fun!), and always be entertained with the quirks.
  I hope they make a list of random items for you, but keep the wish list for me and mine. I do not want a useless item thanks.
  
• I want monsters to be more fun. I do not want to plunk down a stat block on a minis grid and wait for it to die. I want to populate my world with interesting and fascinating creatures waiting to be discovered around the next bend in the river.

This makes no sense. That is not a system issue. That is your choice as dungeon master to populate your wilderness and towns with people and monsters.