D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

[FireLance]

One thing I noticed with the "hand out 0.8 magic items per level per PC" is that there are 30 levels or 24 items handed out. 18 of those should (as a general rule) be the 18 items of the "big 3". That leaves 6 items over 30 levels for the other 8 slots.

Not quite 6 items for the other 8 slots - 15 of the 18 "big 3" items can be sold, traded or broken down into residuum when they have outlived their usefulness and converted into lower-level magic items. Even at the standard conversion rate of 20% original value or so, and factoring the possibility that the magic items in some slots may themselves be replaced with better, higher-level versions, there is still enough scope to have a magic item in each slot if you are so inclined. You might not always be able to afford or otherwise get the magic item you want in each slot, but this is where decision-making and prioritization comes in.

 

[Destil]

The other side of this coin is that players now feel that they must at least partially design their PC to mid-Paragon from day one, just so that they don't screw themself out of something they want later on.

This is a huge failure of the retraining rules. You really shouldn't be able to retrain feats across tiers, I'm starting to think. The limited retraining slots end up being a resource to be spent for more power, rather than what they were intended for (letting you change something you didn't like).

 

[Mad Hamish]

It really depends on what feats you have available.
I don't know that I'll be dropping too many heroic level feats from my Ranger at any stage...

 

[KarinsDad]

Why would the 25th level Fighter drop his sword into lava? Last I checked, the only way for a character in 4e to drop his weapon is willingly.

How about Dominate? Isn't free actions like dropping a sword "at will"?

How about "Drop your sword into the lava Fighter, or I drop the Princess into the lava. Bwa ha ha ha."?

How about Fighter drops sword in his square in order to have a free hand, enemy slides Fighter, walks over and grabs sword and drops it into the lava.

Or, Fighter with sword and shield is on a rope bridge. Bridge collapses. Fighter has choice of dropping sword into lava to grab bridge with free hand or he drops himself.


This is also something 4E doesn't do well. Certain types of rules plausibility. Is it plausible for a Fighter to drop his sword into lava? Yup. In fact, it can make for a very challenging adventure. But, there are several "this isn't fun for the players, so 4E won't (typically) allow it" missing rules such as NPCs unable to grab items and steal them, PCs not dropping held items on the ground when they are stunned or unconscious, etc.

4e magic items (and even things like familiars) are as much a part of the PC and nearly as hard to get away from the PC as the PC's arm.

The amount of player entitlement (i.e. I am entitled to not have an item be destroyed or lost) is higher in 4E than earlier versions. This entitlement might get equated to fun entitlement by some people, but I don't view it that way. It's actually the rule system trying to enforce certain play styles on people.

 

[Saeviomagy]

2. This can be houseruled, of course. If a player really hates powers, just give them a basic attack that does 2[W] damage + stat, increasing to 3[W] at epic. That'll probably be vaguely balanced, though powerful in long fights where everyone's used their dailies. I have no idea why anyone would want to go back to the bad old days of 3e fighters though, especially given that 4e fighters are the best class in 4e.

The main problem is people just starting to play 4e as their first ever RPG. They don't know the concepts of moving, attacking, rolling to hit or damage yet, but everyone else at the table will tell them that they're doing the wrong thing if they use a basic attack, at which point you launch into a discussion of which of their at-will powers is best for the situation, leaving the poor sap totally confused. Doubly so because most of the at-wills don't really have intuitive names. Deft strike? Tide of iron? Sly flourish?

Tumbling strike, shield bash and hit harder would have been better names. Not to mention sure strike and careful attack's names... I mean they do the same thing!

 

[korjik]

1) End tedious, repetitive, and pointless discussion over the necessity of magic items.

If you need magic items, I feel sorry for you.

2) Halt flame-wars over the various merits (and demerits) of assorted editions of D&D.

created it again

3) Make me give a crap about 3 pages of circular discussion about whether or not
a) PCs need magic items (they do, barring rules options like the inherent bonus rules that first were mentioned in the 4E DMG 1),

incomplete answer. it should be they do, or you could have an intelligent DM

b) this dependence is any worse than in previous editions (it isn't, you need them just as badly, no less and no more, than you did in previous editions),

a broken watch is right twice a day

c) the removal of certain spells somehow detracts from game play (not that I've seen),

It must be nice to see everything. I have seen very differently.

or d) if this thread is somehow a slam of 4E (it wasn't, until folks decided to start twisting away from discussion of the various areas that, for better or worse, 4E doesn't support well).

Finally something we can agree on.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Looks at the original post and thinks "good idea."

Reads the past couple of pages and shakes head.

Walks away from yet another derailed thread that started with such promise.

 

[Garthanos]

It's either / or in 4E. Either one plays the normal rules with a lot of required items or one plays the inherent bonus rules.
.

The methods don't seem that narrow to me.. add boosting the players characters with Alternative rewards and adjusting encounter and monster levels to your list. (I also have minion class allies who are normally disabled instead killed by serious monster attacks)

The reason items are "needed" is the formula for "how mighty are the PC's" is simplified to what level are they.

 

[avin]

Why I'm not able to quote?

"11. combat length - this comment makes no sense. Combats are QUICKER in 4E, giving you MORE time for other things. Even then, it's COMPLETELY UP TO THE DM."

Just not true.

"12. inspiration - another one that boggles my mind. As a DM, I've never been more inspired (started with 1e AD&D in '87)."

You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe points of light and GOOD vs eeeevil (because Wizards killed almost all good antagonists) appeals to you, but not to me or my group, so we use other sources of inspiration for our 4E games.

I started with 2E and never felt so uninspired by the (lack of) fluff.

"13. economy - I don't agree. It doesn't force you into a wishlist mentality, that's up to you. What it does do, however, is give you an extremely clear idea of a balanced treasure set. Feel free to do whatever you want, as you are actually instructed by the DMG. Don't blame the rules on this one. Blame the DM."

While didn't force DMG clearly suggests you ask your players a list of what they want, showing the metagamist point of view of most 4E designers.

This is a topic for 4E players and DM express what they think it doesn't work properly on 4E. People who play it and like it but would change some stuff. You don't need to rush and defend 4E as the Holy Grail like a 4venger... it's not 3E vs 4E here, people may like it but have different opinions than yours.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is also something 4E doesn't do well. Certain types of rules plausibility. Is it plausible for a Fighter to drop his sword into lava? Yup. In fact, it can make for a very challenging adventure. But, there are several "this isn't fun for the players, so 4E won't (typically) allow it" missing rules such as NPCs unable to grab items and steal them, PCs not dropping held items on the ground when they are stunned or unconscious, etc.

4e magic items (and even things like familiars) are as much a part of the PC and nearly as hard to get away from the PC as the PC's arm.

The amount of player entitlement (i.e. I am entitled to not have an item be destroyed or lost) is higher in 4E than earlier versions. This entitlement might get equated to fun entitlement by some people, but I don't view it that way. It's actually the rule system trying to enforce certain play styles on people.

I agree with you that a "no player entitlement" style game is something 4e doesn't do well (if it can even do it at all).

On the magic item issue, I still disagree with you though. By using just one or two simple (optional but official) rules, you can run a low or no magic item campaign with absolutely no harm done to the power level of the players. In addition, there are far less methods for the DM to remove magic items than there were previously (as you say, 4e magic items are nearly as hard to get away from the PC as the PC's arm). As such, IMO, low/no magic item campaigns are something that 4e does exceptionally well.