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

[Jhaelen]

"Wow! This feat SO matches my character concept. Too bad I didn't know at level 1 that it existed and that I needed a 15 Dex to get it."

I just noticed this comment. Is this supposed to be something 4e doesn't do well?

When I initially skimmed the post I thought it referred to 3e - Oops!

 

[Turtlejay]

Magic items were one of the things 4e was supposed to fix. In 3.5, a magic user or properly skilled Rogue amassed a small fortune in scrolls and wands. Situational magic or supplemental. It might be a Comprehend Languages scroll, just in case, or a brace of CLW wands for between encounter healing.

4e has largely shifted *that* burden to Rituals or innate power of the PC's, but has fallen into a different trap. In the vaccum has entered. . .The Big Three. It is like, a given that players should have magic items that provide enhancement bonuses to Attack, AC, and FRW. It is a *new* paradigm, a new reliance, and just as twinky IMO.

I would have much preferred if the DMG2 method was default, and there was instead a paragraph about allowing DM's to assign magic items of a certain tier 'enhancement bonuses'. I like magic items for the cool things they can provide you. Largely situational stuff that you may not want to invest a power or feat in, but a few hundred gold. . .sure! You can always sell or trade it if you don't like.

I know you don't have to use magic items RAW, but it is not done well. I'm answering the OP.

Jay

 

[chitzk0i]

I did not state that they were not necessary. That is your inference from what was posted.

It is easy to see though that spells like Mage Armor and Bear's Endurance could take the place of many necessary magic items in 3E.

No such spells exist in 4E. That's a fact. Close your eyes and go "la la la la" all you want, but spells could take the place of many necessary items in 3E. And that is one reason that magic items did not have to be handed out like candy as much in 3E. Sure the items existed, but that does not mean that all DMs were forced by the game system to hand them out.

Really? A party of four would need 4 different stat buffs (assuming we use the 3.0 hr/level durations), 1-2 magic vestments if we only put it on the tank, and 2-3 greater magic weapons. That's 4 level 2 spells and 3-5 level 3 spells. Is the party starting at level 7 or 8 so the cleric and wizard can do something besides replace magic items?

Now, my 3.5ese is rusty, but I don't recall any spell that grants a deflection bonus to AC or a resistance bonus to saves. The only way to give out a natural armor bonus is if you get a druid involved (or maybe a high-level, single-classed ranger who didn't feel like using a spell-less variant).

How is that easier than telling the players "You get +1 per five levels to attack, damage, and defenses"?

 

[KarinsDad]

Not quite.

By combining the rules on page 138 of the DMG2 (Alternate Rewards) and page 139 of the DMG2 (Boons), you really can have an entire epic level party with zero magic items and they won't be any weaker than the same party with a full complement of magic gear. It's even CB compatible.

Even if you only apply the inherent bonuses from page 138 (and distribute zero magic items) the party will still only be marginally weaker than your typical party, because aside from the requisite +x bonus, magic items make up a far smaller portion of your total power than in previous editions.

You might not like the power reduction of magic items in 4e, and that's a fair opinion to hold (I prefer it myself, but that's neither here nor there). However, IMO, it's pretty clear that 4e is the least reliant on magic items (because they can easily be replaced using just two official, albeit optional, rules).

IF the campaign is set up that way, you can get away with a low number of items in 4E. 3E, you could do that without having to resort to optional rules. The spells were there to add bonuses.

But, what if the 4E campaign is not set up that way? Then it is item reliant.

And what happens if the 25th level Fighter drops his +5 mega Sword into the lava in 4E? He might have an old +3 spare one, but he might not.

Like I pointed out, in 3E there were spell options to handle this even in a low magic setting.

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.

A DM could theoretically pull in the inherent bonus rules for the 25th level Fighter if he so desired because the Fighter lost his sword, but that's fairly lame. A DM can do anything. That doesn't make the default system any less magic item reliant.

 

[Gort]

Things that 4e doesn't do well.

1. Anything that isn't "a team of heroic adventurers fight their way to glory"

PCs who want to focus outside combat or PCs who are designed to suck are not done well.

Is that a bad thing? No, not really. That's just what D&D is, and it's always been that way. If you want something else, there are systems like the wuthering heights roleplaying system (where combat is automatically successful if your would-be murderer is crazy enough).

2. Simplicity
PCs who simply want to resolve combat by repeating "I hit it with my sword" are out of luck.

To me, this IS a bad thing. Personally I would have liked it if class at-wills and basic attacks were balanced against each other, OR if classes augmented their basic attack in some way so it was still worth using. It would just have made introducing new players to the game a lot easier.

1. Agreed. I really don't get the whole mindset of, "I can't make a useless lump no adventuring party would want to bring along! My playstyle is ruined!"

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.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IF the campaign is set up that way, you can get away with a low number of items in 4E. 3E, you could do that without having to resort to optional rules. The spells were there to add bonuses.

But, what if the 4E campaign is not set up that way? Then it is item reliant.

And what happens if the 25th level Fighter drops his +5 mega Sword into the lava in 4E? He might have an old +3 spare one, but he might not.

Like I pointed out, in 3E there were spell options to handle this even in a low magic setting.

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.

A DM could theoretically pull in the inherent bonus rules for the 25th level Fighter if he so desired because the Fighter lost his sword, but that's fairly lame. A DM can do anything. That doesn't make the default system any less magic item reliant.

If you want a low(er) magic campaign you set up the campaign with low(er) magic rules.

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. If the player is really dumb enough to drop his sword into lava of his own free will, oh well, sucks to be him. I guess he better hope the party ritualist has enough arcane components/residuum to whip him up a new blade right quick, or that he has a backup weapon. I don't think it's a very realistic scenario though.

A more realistic scenario is a rust monster. Except that the fighter isn't likely to be put out for more than that single encounter (and that's if the rust monster can actually land the attack) because you get full value residuum and it's child's play for the party ritualist to make you a new one as soon as the battle's done. Not exactly something I'd call game breaking.

It isn't realistic to say that in 3e the party could fall back onto spells. If it's a low/no magic campaign, the party wizard isn't exactly going to be lugging around a golfbag brimming with wands. And his spell slots are limited, so if he's memorizing enough Bull's Strengths, Greater Magic Weapons, etc. to buff the entire party (every fight for some of those if you're using the 3.5 rules, since 1 min/level is a pretty short duration) he isn't exactly going to be tossing web, dispel magic, or disintegrate like they're going out of style (and therefore isn't contributing much, if anything, to the encounters). And on top of that he still can't compensate for the loss completely, since there were certain bonuses (saves) that spells in 3e generally don't grant. Oh, and it takes just one spell- (greater) dispel magic- to remove the party's "magic items" in this scenario. Hence, yes, the 3e party is at a noted disadvantage.

In order to compensate for all the enhancement bonuses you need, you'll be lugging around Merlin the Crappy Crossbowman with d4 HD and No Armor, and your bonuses will be worse than expected for your wealth level.

Heck, if the 3e fighter drops his +5 sword into the lava (which is far more likely to occur as 3.x actually allows disarming) he's pretty borked too. It isn't exactly likely that anyone would bother to memorize Greater Magic Weapon in a high level party that's practically drowning in magic bling. Better hope the fighter has a +4 backup, just like in your theoretical 4e scenario...

 

[KarinsDad]

4e has largely shifted *that* burden to Rituals or innate power of the PC's, but has fallen into a different trap. In the vaccum has entered. . .The Big Three. It is like, a given that players should have magic items that provide enhancement bonuses to Attack, AC, and FRW. It is a *new* paradigm, a new reliance, and just as twinky IMO.

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.

If I fail to give out a +4 sword to the Fighter and give him a ring instead, then he is being played for ~5 levels or so at -1 to hit and damage from the other PCs.

And this does not take into account unslotted items like Wondrous Items.

Sure, the PCs can craft items to fill in the other slots and to get Wondrous Items, but with the "big 3" staring everyone in the face every 4 to 5 levels, it just seems like the vast majority of the magic item system is designed solely for the "big 3" and the rest of the magic items are an afterthought.


With this thought, I decided to look in the compendium. Here are the results of the big 3 and the slotted items:

Big 3:

1286 armor
3294 weapons/implements (428 holy symbols, 6 ki focus, 231 orbs, 347 rods, 319 staves, 233 totems, 264 wands, 1466 weapons)
559 neck

Other slotted items:

228 arms
123 feet
137 hands
180 head
116 rings
107 waist

There are more armors than there are the rest of the slotted items combined.

Out of this selection of items, the big 3 make up 85% of the list. They make up 71% of the entire compendium list. The magic item system, both in distribution and items, revolves around the big 3.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Additional Things 4e Doesn't Do Well ...

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

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

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

 

[Mad Hamish]

One point to consider there is that a lot of the wondrous items etc retain value better than the armour, weapons/implements and neck slots.

So you can afford to buy a lot of different arm/foot/wondrous items etc and get use out of them.

 

[FireLance]

IF the campaign is set up that way, you can get away with a low number of items in 4E. 3E, you could do that without having to resort to optional rules. The spells were there to add bonuses.

But, what if the 4E campaign is not set up that way? Then it is item reliant.

And what happens if the 25th level Fighter drops his +5 mega Sword into the lava in 4E? He might have an old +3 spare one, but he might not.

Like I pointed out, in 3E there were spell options to handle this even in a low magic setting.

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.

A DM could theoretically pull in the inherent bonus rules for the 25th level Fighter if he so desired because the Fighter lost his sword, but that's fairly lame. A DM can do anything. That doesn't make the default system any less magic item reliant.

While I agree that in 3e, spells could compensate somewhat for the lack of magic items, the extent to which it actually takes place in a game is quite dependent on the presence, abilities and goodwill of the spellcasters. In other words, whether there are spellcasters in the first place, what spells the spellcasters have access to, and whether the spellcasters are prepared to use those spells instead of the alternatives.

In any case, this thread is not meant to be a mindless 4E-bashing exercise. I'm sure there are plenty of other places where we can get that, if we are so inclined. Intelligent critique and recognition of the limitations of 4E is welcome, but finding solutions and ways to overcome those limitations is better. In the specific case of magic items, inherent bonuses, boons, special training, etc. have been cited as one fairly simple way to run a game in which magic items are rare. Inherent bonuses can even be used in a more "normal" game to act as a safety net against the loss of magic items - the PC gets the higher of his inherent bonus or the enhancement bonus from his magic item to his defenses, attack rolls and damage rolls.