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

[Infiniti2000]

I disagree with almost everything above where someone says something is bad.

1. neophyte PCs - this is a good thing, not bad.
2. solo PC - another good thing, I'd much rather time be spent on improving the game for a group.
3. attrition - I simply don't agree. This is 100% on the DM.
4. minis/grid - I don't agree, and, more importantly, I don't really care about those who for some reason choose not to play with minis/grids.
5. multiclassing - I don't agree. multiclassing in 4E is far superior to previous editions.
6. bad ass PC - thank God this isn't possible.
7. "balancing desirability" (i.e. siloing) - no comment (this is a massive side-topic)
8. "focus on combat and dungeon crawl" - I view this as complete hogwash. Nothing could be further from the truth. 4E's focus, as you put it, simply frees the DM to concentrate on plot and story rather than stats. Thank God for that. It's the best thing about 4E, hands down.
9. no crappy characters - Thank God again. People are actually complaining about this, really? Unbelievable. "Hey, I want to suck ass!" ?
10. skill challenges - I only kind of agree. They're really hard to run and understand as a DM, but once you do they're awesome. The key here is that 4E embraced it as a core rule rather than as a variant houserule as in 3.X.
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.
12. inspiration - another one that boggles my mind. As a DM, I've never been more inspired (started with 1e AD&D in '87).
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.

The one part I kind of agree with is the (initial) math. 4E math is provably incorrect as has been done on these boards. Despite that, it's still playable as-is with competent players and some DM finesse.

 

[ender_wiggin]

There's really nothing much wrong with Skill Challenges. The math before the first errata was a mess, that's all. The problem isn't "The 4e Skill Challenge System sucks", the problem is building and running SCs is an art form and most people haven't yet (and maybe never will) master it that well. There IS no universal framework possible for SCs. People need to stop looking for one because it doesn't exist. I think the goal to aim for is more a library of well designed SCs for various classes of situations where an SC is a good option.

I agree with this completely. That being said, does anyone know of such a library existing on either these boards or another?

 

[FireLance]

Ironicly, this has always been a feature of D&D.

In second edition, for example, you had to have a 15 in most attributes for it to positively affect your character... the same statistic advantage is garnered with a 12 in the current system.

And, contrasting with 3e, it's not like +1 to hit is suddenly a different number in 4e than 3e--on the contrary it's exactly the same distribution. What 4e DID do is divorce MAD characters from that problem... Paladins no longer require four different scores to function well... while reducing SAD brokenness... wizards benefit from having a score other than Intellegence.

I was thinking more along the lines that 4E reduced the generic benefits of the ability scores. Constitution no longer grants a bonus to hit points on a per hit die basis, so there is no significant benefit if you decide to raise Constitution instead of your primary or secondary ability score. Intelligence no longer grants additional skill points, so raising Intelligence instead of your primary or secondary ability score only benefits Intelligence-based skills. Similarly, Dexterity no longer adds to AC/Reflex exclusively, and Wisdom doesn't add to Will exclusively.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be: I think 4E characters have too many dump stats.

 

[fuzzlewump]

4e's focus is combat and the dungeon crawl. Or, at the very least 'the game.' Any time that 'the game' falls away, 4e's cracks start to show.

Yeah, for some reason the published adventures focus on dungeon crawling, but 4e is actually terrible for dungeon crawls. Combat is not quick, and it's meant to be epic and interesting for each character involved. What this means is that there should be less combats per story element, because those less combats will take the same amount of time as the more combats would in previous editions. If you find out the paladin of the church has fallen and go to confront him, there should be 1-2 combats. There should not be a 4-5 encounter long dungeon crawl to get to the paladin, because the players will quickly become bogged down and unmotivated.

"Out of combat, this game is pretty hollow." They have a point.

Finish that sentiment with skill challenges, skills in general, rituals, and utility powers and you or them could have a point. Yes, if you ignore what the game gives you for out of combat resolution, it is really hollow.

Spells like Confusion were powerful and awesome in 3e... why did they have to tack on 'psychic damage' to it? I sometimes wish utility powers were actual utility powers, not more combat-oriented bells and whistles going by another name.

I feel you. It took them until the pacifist(shielding?) cleric to get a handle on this idea. Something like confusion isn't the best example, as the effect is very much connected to the psych, and if 3E had damaged attached to it no one would even raise an eyebrow. At least "Sleep" doesn't have any damage.

4e does an astounding job with combat and the standard dungeon crawl. It doesn't necessarily do a bad job with all the out-of-combat stuff... but it doesn't quite blow me out of the water, either.

Like I said, 4E is really bad for the dungeon crawl. Like the OP said, attrition is much less of an issue in 4E. Combats take longer, but have the potential to be more interesting than a single battle in 3E if the writer of the adventure doesn't spread themselves thin trying to get their 1 paragraph of story to stretch over 3 levels. It's ridiculous really. The modules I've seen come out should cover 1 level at most based on the amount of story presented.

 

[FireLance]

I disagree with almost everything above where someone says something is bad.

1. neophyte PCs - this is a good thing, not bad.
2. solo PC - another good thing, I'd much rather time be spent on improving the game for a group.

Mind you, I'm not saying these are bad. I'm saying these are things that 4E doesn't do well out of the box. The issue is more of flexibility than quality.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, it doesn't order pizza well either, but I'm not going to list that!

 

[Danceofmasks]

General skill use in 4e is nice.

Skill challenges are ass. I'm not saying that just 'cos I've experienced "badly designed" challenges, I'm saying that just 'cos they count as an encounter.

If they weren't an encounter, thereby not automatically counting towards a milestone (DM can tick it up if they want), it'd be better.
If they weren't an encounter, thereby allowing the taking of 10, 'cos seriously if a skill challenge takes 3 hours in game not being able to take 10 for ... say .. climbing a wall, i'd be happier.

The actual mechanic of DCs and # successes before failures .. those I don't mind.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Well, it doesn't order pizza well either, but I'm not going to list that!

You just did.

 

[Herschel]

Some DMs see this rules vacuum and go, "Cool! Now I can do whatever I want in these spaces!" These are the sort of DMs that are the best 4e DMs, the sort of people that play it, love it, and write in forums about it.

This is me. I HATED DMing in 3E with all the rules lawyering it promoted even in non-combat situations. My fun broke down there a lot.

Outside of maybe the basic, stand-and-shoot archer ranger (which I find boring as Hades) there isn't a great "starter" character in 4E for a total new person to gaming.

Also, PHB1 reads more like a technical manual instead of a book to spur one's imagination.

 

[Herschel]

I was thinking more along the lines that 4E reduced the generic benefits of the ability scores. Constitution no longer grants a bonus to hit points on a per hit die basis, so there is no significant benefit if you decide to raise Constitution instead of your primary or secondary ability score. Intelligence no longer grants additional skill points, so raising Intelligence instead of your primary or secondary ability score only benefits Intelligence-based skills. Similarly, Dexterity no longer adds to AC/Reflex exclusively, and Wisdom doesn't add to Will exclusively.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be: I think 4E characters have too many dump stats.

I find it kind of ironic that a member of a group stereotypically picked on by jock types would aspire to need characters with better athletic builds to be competent.

Seriously though, I find it an excellent feature. No more do you need a ‘roid boy to be in melee. Cunning and craftiness are also viable combat stats now. Fortitude is still based on physical prowess but instead of being nimble enough to react, you can be bright enough to recognize what’s happening an instant quicker and be proactive. I’m glad I don’t need a sheet of 18s to be a good character. I’m glad there aren’t “solo” PCs and the focus is on the group. These are things I really like about 4E.