D&D 4E Things I Learned From 4e

[Hussar]

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, 1000 times this.

I largely agree with everything KM has stated.

What I would like to see, as others have mentioned, is a system for handling out of combat encounters that is as robust as the combat system. I do agree that the combat system can be pared WAY down. We don't need that many status effects. Cut that down significantly and then give me a system for handling the other aspects of the game - exploration and the talky bits.

It's pretty sad that the rules surrounding initiative in D&D have always been longer than the rules for determining whether or not you can change somone's opinion of you.

 

[Dannager]

It's pretty sad that the rules surrounding initiative in D&D have always been longer than the rules for determining whether or not you can change somone's opinion of you.

I'm not really sure that's supportable. The initiative rules in 4e are outlined in the PHB, and take up about one half of one column of one page, and really don't require any further reference to determine how they work. Meanwhile, the Diplomacy skill takes up about a third of one column of one page, but notes in the description that Diplomacy is usually used as part of a skill challenge, and so the rules for adjudicating whether or not you can change someone's opinion of you have to incorporate skill challenge guidelines (which certainly take up more space than initiative).

 

[Almacov]

I don't want to feel a constant need for a computer at the table.
Keeping track of monster stats and running a variety at once has been a bit of a nightmare for me DMing 4e, as they all have very precise and individual rules. And then there are conditions, which add more to keep in mind.

I also want D&D to be simple enough that players don't need to have read a large portion of the book to understand what they need to know, and I want them to have character sheets that make intuitive sense when they look at them. The division between "Ability Modifier" and "Ability Modifier + 1/2 level" in particular makes things really messy for new players to interpret, from what I've seen. Character Generation and leveling should be as straightforward as possible. (Ideally without sacrificing too much flexibility)

I know I don't NEED a computer at the table for 4e, but there's so much cluttery data and minutia flying around that it feels like I do. The computer doesn't even help with that problem so much as it tricks me into thinking it's reasonable to deal with. I find my attention split between the players/action/story and the mess of numbers more than I have in any other game.

I understand that many, if not most, people likely don't find this all as difficult to deal with as I do... it's frustrating, because there's a lot about that minutia that I at least like in theory. At the table though...

 

[Dannager]

I find my attention split between the players/action/story and the mess of numbers more than I have in any other game.

I honestly find a single computer screen much easier to manage than a DM screen, Player's Handbook (for rules), Monster Manual, adventure booklet, and personal notepad. It's also a lot less to cart around.

I think that, no matter what edition of D&D I run, I would feel crippled without access to a computer. I could manage it, certainly, but it would be like going back to bread and water after eating gourmet meals.

 

[Almacov]

I honestly find a single computer screen much easier to manage than a DM screen, Player's Handbook (for rules), Monster Manual, adventure booklet, and personal notepad. It's also a lot less to cart around.

I think that, no matter what edition of D&D I run, I would feel crippled without access to a computer. I could manage it, certainly, but it would be like going back to bread and water after eating gourmet meals.

I think the matter is, for me, not how I track stuff so much as the fact that I don't want to track more than I need to.
If I had my druthers, I'd be playing a system where I could keep my eyes up at my players or whatever I have representing the environment their characters are in (grid, illustrations, what have you), 98% of the time.

There's just too much data for me to think about in a 4e encounter. Too many sets of powers (especially the damn interrupts, reactions, minors, and free actions) to keep track of when running multiple statblocks, and too many conditions/variables. I think almost all of those things are beautiful in theory, but my mind is perhaps too meager to deal with them while also DMing in a satisfying and engaging way.

 

[Randomthoughts]

My lessons based in part from KM's list:

* I don't care about the Encounter, I care about the Adventure: I think I'm missing some nuance here. I see Adventures consisting of many encounters. What am I missing?

* I want to do more than fight things. 5e should develop non-combat activities but any sub-systems should be optional rules IMO based on some unified mechanic. That mechanic is Skill Challenges, although improvements are needed.

5e should have a separate track for non-combat character progress. Feats should be in separate combat and non-combat pools and each class should have the same # of feats from each pool.

* Combat: 4e combat is 90% fine, but work on streamlining it. I'd focus on conditions (like save ends, ends on my turn, your turn, etc. - too complicated) and incorporate (perhaps as optional) rules like doing max damage vs bloodied target.

I use 4e combat for set pieces (like "zooming in" at a tactical level). I use Skill Challenges for more narrative-based combats (a strategic level). But a "middle-road" should be developed here. Right now, I've experimented with modified Skill Challenges, but it hasn't hit the mark IMO.

* Powers: I like them. I like that different classes can use them (whatever they may be called). Make power sources more flavorful though, but as optional rules. Think Dark Sun - arcane powers are much more flavorful there.

Powers should be balanced. One reason 4e has saved me time (as GM) is that I didn't feel the need to scrutinize each and every PC sheet for a "broken" power that would destroy my campaign. Give us (optional) measuring tools for these powers to modify them and be able to gauge their level of effectiveness. IOW, I don't mind breaking balance so long as I know what I'm getting in to. But it's easier to start with balance and break it than the other way around.

* Rituals: Like the idea of them. Like that GM has control over these potential campaign-breaking powers. Just improve the implementation (specifically, the cost). When I say "cost", I mean the mechanic that governs how often they are used. I'd prefer a mechanic other than gold.

* Roles: I like the idea of roles; keep them but develop them for non-combat as well.

* Treasure: I do agree that 4e treasures can be pretty lame. So, spice things up. I prefer less treasure but more powerful items (that can develop over time), but I can see others may want their christmas trees. So, offer options and optional rules.

* Monsters: 4e did it right with monsters IMHO. Definitely offer electronic support (Monster Builder). I like the single stat block that avoids separate referencing. But create a way (like a point system) to create monsters and their abilities. This way, we can have greater variation, and if they're "not balanced", we'd know (and use them anyway) . I do this now in 4e but it can be hit or miss.

* GM's burden: 4e has made GM prep very easy IME. 5e should keep that and make it better (easier). A key to this, of course, is the Monster Builder. But make it better - like making Terrain/Hazard/Trap Builder(s).

* Stunts: Refine and expand page 42. Encourage and teach players to make stuff up.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not really sure that's supportable. The initiative rules in 4e are outlined in the PHB, and take up about one half of one column of one page, and really don't require any further reference to determine how they work. Meanwhile, the Diplomacy skill takes up about a third of one column of one page, but notes in the description that Diplomacy is usually used as part of a skill challenge, and so the rules for adjudicating whether or not you can change someone's opinion of you have to incorporate skill challenge guidelines (which certainly take up more space than initiative).

Even if what I've said is exaggeration, it's not all that far off. I mean, if you're going to include skill challenges, you should also include surprise rules as well.

But, the point is, even if the word count is exactly the same, that's still sad. The rules for non-combat elements should be as detailed and robust as any other part of the game.

I'm tired of free-forming my way through everything other than combat.

 

[buzz]

I think that, no matter what edition of D&D I run, I would feel crippled without access to a computer.

This highlights a lesson I learned from 4e and 3e: I don't want to play any RPG that makes me feel like I ought to be using a computer at the game table (or even for chargen).

 

[buddhafrog]

I agree with the OP completely, and I still play 4e. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some other things from 4E I learned that have not yet been mentioned in this thread:

- I like having a small starting town and campaign area in the DMG in which to play in, rather than an entire campaign world.

- I love the saving throw mechanic to determine duration of status effects, rather than the DM secretly rolling and then needing to remember the duration behind the screen. (Although adding in an extra round so that (save ends) effects last at least as long as 'until the end of your next turn' effects would not be a bad thing, IMO.)

- I think all weapons and magic should probably max out at 1d10. No 1d12s or 2d6s. Or if you have to keep them, eliminate all 1d4 weapons then (except for unarmed attacks) because there's too broad a range in damage results I think.

- The current Stealth rules as they stand are very good "in combat" rules.

- The Martial power source has failed in its stated hoped-for purpose, in that some people still refuse to accept that the Ranger is the 'martial archer' no matter how many times you tell them, and they'll keep insisting they want their 'Fighter' to be able to be just as effective with a bow.