What 4e does right
- Thread starter McTreble
- Start date
I like the way monsters were streamlined and simplified.
In 4e, high lv monsters are actually effective in melee, compared to 3e, where many high lv foes are simply spellcaster variants with sr and more hp. For instance, I thought the 4e balor captured the spirit of a balrog better than the 3e version.
4e monster abilities are also easier to use, and they tend to make more efficient use of the action economy unlike 3e, where you often had several attacks that competed with one another for that precious standard action.
Their stats are also independent of HD and gear, so you know monsters are balanced vs PCs of a certain lv. You don't have to pour over 10 different splatbooks and agonize over how to best stat up your 16th human fighter to make him worth that cr16 for instance. Just ratchet up his stats to the recommended guidelines.
In 3e? You had issues where simply playing around with a monster's feat slots could make them much more challenging. Giving a pit fiend a monk's belt increased its AC by 7. Don't even get me started with how one could abuse a dragon's spellcasting.
I am sure there are many more, but these are just the few that really jump out at me.
In 4e, high lv monsters are actually effective in melee, compared to 3e, where many high lv foes are simply spellcaster variants with sr and more hp. For instance, I thought the 4e balor captured the spirit of a balrog better than the 3e version.
4e monster abilities are also easier to use, and they tend to make more efficient use of the action economy unlike 3e, where you often had several attacks that competed with one another for that precious standard action.
Their stats are also independent of HD and gear, so you know monsters are balanced vs PCs of a certain lv. You don't have to pour over 10 different splatbooks and agonize over how to best stat up your 16th human fighter to make him worth that cr16 for instance. Just ratchet up his stats to the recommended guidelines.
In 3e? You had issues where simply playing around with a monster's feat slots could make them much more challenging. Giving a pit fiend a monk's belt increased its AC by 7. Don't even get me started with how one could abuse a dragon's spellcasting.
I am sure there are many more, but these are just the few that really jump out at me.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Overall, I like the focus on "gameplay", that seems to influence all design decisions and every specific interesting aspect. How does a mechanic actually work at the table, during play?
I think for example Healing Surge and the way they are used come from observing how earlier edition hit points worked. Once you had 3.5 Wands of Cure Light Wound available, it lead to a particular effect at the table - hit points were no longer a daily (or even longer) resource to use. It's a resource used per encounter. The longer-lasting resource were the number of Wands (or charges) the party had at its disposal. If you used standard wealth guidelines and access to item creation or magic item shops, the Wands would almost never run out at some point.
But these Wands were pretty much useless in combat. A healing wand gives you a lot bang for your buck if your buck is measured in gold pieces, it doesn't if it is measured in standard actions. The out-of-combat economy is not the same as the in-combat economy. From a playstyle perspective, this often meant that only Mass Cure Spells and even better Heal spells were really useful to the party, but most of the time offensive uses of your actions were even better.
There would have been different ways to deal with it - they could have removed the healing Wands out of the game, for example, and keep the hit points how they used to be. But they found that having a more or less reliable number of hit points in every combat encounter to be useful for balancing combat encounters, increasing predictability. On the other hand, without any slowly regenerating resources, you basically force every combat encounter to have the same difficulty - there are no long-term consequences to worry about. Such a system would certainly work, but it lacks a dimension of complexity and a way to challenge the players.
So Healing Surges provide the slowly regenerating resource, any "triggers" (like Second Wind, Bastion of Health, Inspiring Word or Potions of Vitality) are the encounter resource you don't want to run out. if a combat doesn't cost you all your encounter powers, it can contribute to the challenge over the adventuring day - because while you might get your triggers back, you don't get your surges back.
This is just looking at the isolated element of healing - the at-will/encounter/daily power resource system adds to that, with similar observations.
So I think what 4E does right, overall, is "understanding" the game. Not everyone likes the results. But that is not because the designers didn't know what they were doing, but they were designing their game for particular purposes. There is a reason for each game element to exist, and it is not just because it makes "sense" from the world perspective or makes for a good story, but because it achieves a certain goal for the gameplay.
It's still easily possible for someone to dislike such a game. If you don't like resource management, any clever attempt to create a resource management system is still a clever attempt to do something you don't like.
I think for example Healing Surge and the way they are used come from observing how earlier edition hit points worked. Once you had 3.5 Wands of Cure Light Wound available, it lead to a particular effect at the table - hit points were no longer a daily (or even longer) resource to use. It's a resource used per encounter. The longer-lasting resource were the number of Wands (or charges) the party had at its disposal. If you used standard wealth guidelines and access to item creation or magic item shops, the Wands would almost never run out at some point.
But these Wands were pretty much useless in combat. A healing wand gives you a lot bang for your buck if your buck is measured in gold pieces, it doesn't if it is measured in standard actions. The out-of-combat economy is not the same as the in-combat economy. From a playstyle perspective, this often meant that only Mass Cure Spells and even better Heal spells were really useful to the party, but most of the time offensive uses of your actions were even better.
There would have been different ways to deal with it - they could have removed the healing Wands out of the game, for example, and keep the hit points how they used to be. But they found that having a more or less reliable number of hit points in every combat encounter to be useful for balancing combat encounters, increasing predictability. On the other hand, without any slowly regenerating resources, you basically force every combat encounter to have the same difficulty - there are no long-term consequences to worry about. Such a system would certainly work, but it lacks a dimension of complexity and a way to challenge the players.
So Healing Surges provide the slowly regenerating resource, any "triggers" (like Second Wind, Bastion of Health, Inspiring Word or Potions of Vitality) are the encounter resource you don't want to run out. if a combat doesn't cost you all your encounter powers, it can contribute to the challenge over the adventuring day - because while you might get your triggers back, you don't get your surges back.
This is just looking at the isolated element of healing - the at-will/encounter/daily power resource system adds to that, with similar observations.
So I think what 4E does right, overall, is "understanding" the game. Not everyone likes the results. But that is not because the designers didn't know what they were doing, but they were designing their game for particular purposes. There is a reason for each game element to exist, and it is not just because it makes "sense" from the world perspective or makes for a good story, but because it achieves a certain goal for the gameplay.
It's still easily possible for someone to dislike such a game. If you don't like resource management, any clever attempt to create a resource management system is still a clever attempt to do something you don't like.
The Warlord.
I hate the name (a 1st level WarLORD?... maybe something a little more malliable like Tactician or something that doesn't scream power early on) but since playing and DMing 4e from the start, this class has impressed me more than any other. (Played as 4 others, DMed most of the remaining classes)
It works like other Leader roles but the flavor associated with it make it novel, useful, and hella fun. Alas, my Warlord died at 4th level so I didn't see how he played out in the remaining 26, but there is a statue now erected to Arden Wistbourne somewhere in my Points of Light.
Maybe I'll bring him back as a badass Zombie Warlord.
With chainsaw arms.
I hate the name (a 1st level WarLORD?... maybe something a little more malliable like Tactician or something that doesn't scream power early on) but since playing and DMing 4e from the start, this class has impressed me more than any other. (Played as 4 others, DMed most of the remaining classes)
It works like other Leader roles but the flavor associated with it make it novel, useful, and hella fun. Alas, my Warlord died at 4th level so I didn't see how he played out in the remaining 26, but there is a statue now erected to Arden Wistbourne somewhere in my Points of Light.
Maybe I'll bring him back as a badass Zombie Warlord.
With chainsaw arms.
I like the ease of preparation for DM and I find it fun to DM.
I like rituals, I like the flavour that it promotes. I have always been a fan of rituals but in the earlier version they were trumped by the spell system.
I like healing surges, that surges are the diminishing resource and not hp has been one thing that really contributes to the ease of DMing.
I like rituals, I like the flavour that it promotes. I have always been a fan of rituals but in the earlier version they were trumped by the spell system.
I like healing surges, that surges are the diminishing resource and not hp has been one thing that really contributes to the ease of DMing.
Trevalon Moonleirion
Explorer
For me, the biggest and best gain is ease of use for a casual player/DM: I can take a look at a monster stat block, and BS a combat encounter with it in seconds.
The ease of use factor is rather related to the simplified DM prep, a better rules set up for making stuff up on the fly (page 42), and less powers to keep track of. This last part might make more sense with a bit of context....
Several years ago I ran a 10th level 3.5 game with friends. We're pretty casual, and didn't get to game often. I had plenty of time in between sessions to prep, but often, I'd forget about exactly what the PCs were capable of. I planned an absolutely epic battle in a graveyard that would've lasted most of a night, been pretty cinematic, and a lot of fun. Basically, players had to jump from crypt to crypt to avoid hordes of low level zombies (they'd be minions in 4e), and then deal with some bigger, nastier baddies at the top of this graveyard cut into a terraced hillside.....
And that's when the priest says "oh, I'll cast moon bridge and then we'll walk from here to this high point over here" effectively bypassing the *entire. encounter.*
I'm much more aware of stuff the players can do now with the 4e power system.
The ease of use factor is rather related to the simplified DM prep, a better rules set up for making stuff up on the fly (page 42), and less powers to keep track of. This last part might make more sense with a bit of context....
Several years ago I ran a 10th level 3.5 game with friends. We're pretty casual, and didn't get to game often. I had plenty of time in between sessions to prep, but often, I'd forget about exactly what the PCs were capable of. I planned an absolutely epic battle in a graveyard that would've lasted most of a night, been pretty cinematic, and a lot of fun. Basically, players had to jump from crypt to crypt to avoid hordes of low level zombies (they'd be minions in 4e), and then deal with some bigger, nastier baddies at the top of this graveyard cut into a terraced hillside.....
And that's when the priest says "oh, I'll cast moon bridge and then we'll walk from here to this high point over here" effectively bypassing the *entire. encounter.*
I'm much more aware of stuff the players can do now with the 4e power system.
Absolutely. It was the first 4E mechanic I imported into my 3.5 game.
This can still be done, I did it recently when I used the ritual Shadow Bridge to bypass parth of the encounters in a castle. I this case lucky for us as we were on a clock and doing all the castle encounters could have slowed us enough to prevent us from completing the mission on time.
Emirikol
Adventurer
Hi, I'm Emirikol and 4E is not my game of choice. Although evolution of the game has always been based on refinements (e.g. fewer saving throw categories, ridding ourselves of THACO charts, etc.), there are a few things that I felt 4E did new-right.
30 years of DMing and I felt that 4e did one thing right for DM's:
prep time is more efficient. I feel that seperating combats from the story is a great idea..when it started in RED HAND OF DOOM 3.5E layouts, I knew it would stick to the new edition. Since combats take up so much of D&D gaming in general, it was wise to make that the focus of refining DM prep time. I can hope that in the next incarnation that they get rid of DM-tracking things like ongoing damage and multiple-round conditions, and I would be thrilled to give this game another shot.
As a player, I enjoyed having multiple special abilities that seemed equal to other players. I've always been a fan of game balance. Weapons and armor have also been balanced and the magic item crutch removed.
I feel that it managed to accomplish getting rid of the sweet spot like in prior editions. All levels definitely feel equal.
jh
..
30 years of DMing and I felt that 4e did one thing right for DM's:
prep time is more efficient. I feel that seperating combats from the story is a great idea..when it started in RED HAND OF DOOM 3.5E layouts, I knew it would stick to the new edition. Since combats take up so much of D&D gaming in general, it was wise to make that the focus of refining DM prep time. I can hope that in the next incarnation that they get rid of DM-tracking things like ongoing damage and multiple-round conditions, and I would be thrilled to give this game another shot.
As a player, I enjoyed having multiple special abilities that seemed equal to other players. I've always been a fan of game balance. Weapons and armor have also been balanced and the magic item crutch removed.
I feel that it managed to accomplish getting rid of the sweet spot like in prior editions. All levels definitely feel equal.
jh
..
tyrlaan
Explorer
It's very cool that it's still doable. But what's cooler is that there's a much greater chance the DM will know you can do it vs. not know you can do it. The universe of options in play (I specifically mean 3e spells vs. 4e rituals) is much smaller in 4e and therefore much easier for the DM to keep inventory on characters' abilities.
Similar Threads
