What 4e does right

[McTreble]

So I know that 4e isn't perfect, and there are a few things I wish they had done differently, or addressed since the release. That being said, I was hoping to generate a quick set of things that you believe 4e does right. These can be broken down into a few types:

Fundamental changes in the rules/ mechanics/ flavor
New rules/ mechanics/ flavor
Reimagined rules/ mechanics/ flavor from the old editions

Don't limit yourself to the original 3 books either. If you love something from Arcane Power or Eberron Campaign Guide, shout it out here!

I'd also love to hear (briefly) why you think 4e did it right.

Ok, I'll start: My absolute favorite mechanic is the multiple defenses. AC is still the primary, but as far as rules = theme, there is nothing more satisfying than the fear based attack that renders the hulking ogre beaten when attack upon attack against his body falls flat. Same goes for the rogue's Reflex based attacks and all others. I feel that this single sweeping change in the game was a brilliant stroke.

Who is next?

 

[Goblyn]

I haven't got into 4e, but there is a couple of things about it that I like quite a bit.

Skill challenges: I like. A codified set of rules for dealing with non-combat encounters with enough 'wiggle-room' to make it your own.

Rituals: I like. Not so much the implementation, but the idea that it's a way to allow more powerful spells to PCs without having to worry about said spells becoming ubiquitous and thus game-breaking due to a sensical limit on them.

 

[Davachido]

I've enjoyed several things that's in this edition:

• Passive perception/insight: No more DM asking players about rolling to see stuff and less metaing (for my groups anyway).
• Steady hp progression: If your CON mod is not that great you don't necessarily die instantly from any hit.
• Less ways of breaking characters: This is more for those of us that play with a lot of power gamers, there's still some cheese about but no-where near as much as 3e.
• DM tools: DMing is a lot smoother and more inviting for players to make the jump to DM which is great.
• Paragon paths: There is quite a few of these for each class at the moment and I quite like the versatility it brings, ED are good but I think PPs are done better.
• 'Power' specific books: This is good because in 3e your PC could take feats and the like from almost any 'complete' book and you'd just sift through them constantly. Now you just look at those books associated with your power type and the PHB 1/2, and maybe some supplements if your DM is feeling generous.

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure there's other things too that 4e has done right.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I like ....

Every class has cool powers

Even within roles, there is a good variety of implementations

Monsters and PCS are not made on the same rules

Prep for the DM is far far easier

Magic items are very good.

 

[FireLance]

I like the split between at-will, encounter and daily powers. It makes it easier to balance the classes, and it makes it easier to tweak game elements for your desired level of balance. Do you think that bloodclaw weapons are too useful? Make the damage tradeoff an encounter power instead of an at-will power.

I like the concept of skill challenges, even though I think the implementation was rather messy.

I like it that there is some variation, but usually not too much variation, in the range of a bonus or statistic. This means that almost every d20 roll is meaningful - there is a non-trivial chance of both failure and success.

I think the base game structure and engine is very robust, and with that as a base, there is a lot more variation and tweaking that can be done. We're starting to see some of that already: classes that change the default encounter power structure, variant class abilities, skill powers, automatic damage powers, different ways to use the multiclassing mechanic, etc.

As a player, I find the Character Builder to be very useful, too.

 

[JediSoth]

4E isn't my game of choice, but there are a few things I did like about the system:

Minions - As soon as I read up on these, I incorporated them into my 3.X game. They worked well during my 4E game, too, especially to give a sense of overwhelming danger when the players couldn't figure out which monsters were minions and which weren't.

The Electronic Tools - Oh gawd, yes! I wish I could find something as robust as the Encounter Builder for my 3.X games. I really liked the mini character cards my players would give me when they created characters with the Character Builder. I'm definitely going to make them fill out similar 3x5 cards for each character in 3.X (and other system's games) because...

Passive Checks - I like the concept of passive perception and insight. I forgot about them a lot, though.

Skill Challenges - As FireLance said, I like the concept, thought the explanation, examples, and execution were horrible. Went I centered the last 4E game I ever ran around a skill challenge, I just wrote out the key events that would occur, which skills I thought were best for the challenge (and would ask for if need be), and left enough wiggle room for creative solutions by the players.

 

[amerigoV]

I am newer to 4e, and there are a lot of things I like. A great one was exemplified last night - a massive battle that raged the whole session. We fought imps and some other minor devils. It felt like a 4th or 5th level fight in older editions of D&D. Actual level - 2nd. *


* I know, there are people that want to suffer through the early levels as glorified peasants with rusty swords, but I have gamed too many years for that schtick to be fun anymore. Hoorah for effective low level PCs!

 

[delericho]

As with others, 4e isn't my game of choice. Two big things I did really like, though:

- Skill Challenges. Again, I don't care for the implementation, but the concept is really strong.

- Encounter design. Both the use of monster roles (and the emphasis on mixing different roles in a single encounter), and also the Minion/Normal/Elite/Solo split make for a very strong encounter design system.

There are any number of small things I also like about the system, but those are the big ones.

 

[Dausuul]

In general, my feeling about 4E is that it nailed most of what I want out of D&D, but needed another six months of polishing the crunch and tightening up the fluff.

Specific things that I think 4E nailed:

• The power curve. Characters at the starting levels are no longer total weenies, and characters at the higher levels are no longer omnipotent deities.
• The fighter and rogue classes are so much better now than they have ever been.
• Minions are freakin' brilliant. You can now set up scenarios with the PCs holding the line against dozens of foes, without it being a nightmare to keep track of 'em all.
• Ritual magic. I have quibbles with some specific rituals, but the overall concept of ritual magic is very solid.
• Monster/encounter design. Putting together a fun encounter is both far easier and much more fun than it was in 3E.
• I give skill challenges credit for potential. I don't think they've realized their potential yet, however; the system is clunky and hard to use.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Power balance between the PCs. Most pnp rpgs are *terrible* at this, in fact 4e is the only one I'm aware of that has really good balance.

The game works at all levels, not just 3rd->6th. The game works whether you have few or many encounters per day. Prior to 4e you couldn't really have a small number of encounters as it favoured the casters too much.

Dedicated healer no longer essential, making 4e less videogame-y than previous editions. It used to be the 'Looking for healer' one sees in WoW was pretty much replicated in D&D - in groups where no one wanted to play a healer, one player would reluctantly have to 'take one for the team'.

Monsters demonstrate flavourful, distinctively different abilities in combat. In earlier editions, a lot of monsters were very same-y, mechanically. All humanoids were basically the same. Tons of big monsters with Improved Grab, etc.