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

[Garthanos]

Me too. .

I find combining hybrid rules in its current form (even if beta) with maybe a dabble of mc plus appropriate skinning gets me well... exactly the characters I like... very few exceptions. And unlike in every previous editions they dont feel like utterly gimped.

I am wondering if people who complain about multiclassing have tried hybrids?

 

[Garthanos]

"How do I build [X character]?" doesn't work well in general. If you want to build my namesake, try a game like Mutants and Masterminds that is better suited for it. Indeed, M&M's Warriors and Warlocks supplement- for running sword and sorcery games with M&M- has a build that's clearly Elric.

I have been doing build Gandalf, build Elric and build Baggins style threads and with some success. (Dont give up )

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/264148-designing-elric-melnibone.html

Would you take a look? feedback there... maybe dig in with some creative thinking?

 

[ForceUser]

I find combining hybrid rules in its current form (even if beta) with maybe a dabble of mc plus appropriate skinning gets me well... exactly the characters I like... very few exceptions. And unlike in every previous editions they dont feel like utterly gimped.

I am wondering if people who complain about multiclassing have tried hybrids?

I forgot about hybrids, and don't have any books with them. I was curious to take a look, though.

 

[Elric]

I have been doing build Gandalf, build Elric and build Baggins style threads and with some success. (Dont give up )

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/264148-designing-elric-melnibone.html

Would you take a look? feedback there... maybe dig in with some creative thinking?

To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in building my namesake even in a system better suited for it (chose this handle years ago), and in a system like D&D that's not well-suited for it, the value of time spent trying to do such difficult things is significantly less.

That's for a PC Elric build. NPCs don't follow the rules for PCs, which makes the system easy if you want to re-create a particular character as an NPC.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

I just want frost cheese to disappear, pretty please. Why is it still there? Those elemental keyword weapons (frost) and that ridiculous lasting frost and wintertouched combo is now the "shining" way of increasing damage. It must end.

 

[satori01]

I second 2d combat. In 3.5, flight was relatively easy to come by..not so in 4e....even at higher levels of play.

Air Walk, Mass Fly, a Wand of Fly....any and all of these were often essential to higher level play as all of the monsters flew.....the monsters still fly in 4e, but it is much harder for the party. I also think the lack of iterative attacks further exacerbates this ....a 15th level fighter in 3e with no archery feats still gets 3 attacks with a longbow....which can produce a credible threat, or at least something that can not be ignored....a Fighter in 4e making basic ranged attacks is a joke.



Fireball: You take the most iconic spell in the game and make it a horrible daily that is not chosen anymore. WTF!

PHB1 vs PHB2: the polish in PHB2 is clearly evident, while PHB 1 many of the iconic classes are just not given the treatment they should.

Utility powers/Non Direct Damaging powers: my fondest memories of all prior editions are creative uses of non damaging powers. Such as casting Grease on a cliff face as enemies are climbing up, or using Stone Shape to change the battle field and create a choke point, or using Lower Water to prevent an Water Elemental from using Whirlwind in a sewer pipe.

4e lacks that type of magic and wonder, and non damaging spells are often either nearly unusable due to the writing (Grease I am looking at you), or just dominating (the Wizard Avarice daily (exact name escapes me right now).

Magic Item usage per day depending on level: lame...just lame and I suspect is also the rule that is probably most ignored or forgotten (like weapon vs armor type penalties in 1e)

 

[Eric888]

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.

This is an excelent point. Some people don't want to juggle 4 encounter powers, 4 dailies, 6 encounter powers, item dailies, etc. etc. They either are RPers who get bored during combat or are new to the game and there really should be a few builds who only do one thing. It won't diminnish the game in the least to have several viable builds who only use at-wills.

Righteous Brand clerics, Eladrin Feychargers, Magic Weapon Battle Enginears, and White Lotus Swordmages are the closest we get and they are still complex, just in different ways. There is no "I swing" over and over build and that is something I miss from past editions. I know they wanted fighters to be more interesting, but they really threw out the baby with the bathwater when they decided to eliminate it altogether.


As for controllers, I still don't see what they have that other classes don't. They are not bad. Invokers and wizards are great classes with powerful dailies, but there is never a time where the party says "boy I wish we had a controller. We really need a controller." Every class has AoE and status effects so what do they do?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As for controllers, I still don't see what they have that other classes don't. They are not bad. Invokers and wizards are great classes with powerful dailies, but there is never a time where the party says "boy I wish we had a controller. We really need a controller." Every class has AoE and status effects so what do they do?

Now see, in the game I run the opposite is true. The wizard was retired a while back to make room for a player that wanted to run a Dragon Sorcerer. The sorc is an excellent striker and a fun PC to have in the party, but tactically it doesn't hold a candle to the wizard. The players were always pretty dubious about the wizard because she didn't punch out much damage in general and players always seem to remember big damage. The funniest thing is now after a couple of adventures without the wizard they want her back!

You'll tend to see this. The players overlook the benefits of the wizard (or other controllers) but if you talk to the DM you quickly learn how much that wizard does for the party in so many ways.

The other problem with controllers is simply again that players don't appreciate control as a concept. The wizard is handed some really nice control capabilities right from level 1 but 90% of players spoil it by selecting powers based on how much damage they do. Instead of taking Icy Terrain they are sucked in by the damage output of Force Orb. All you end up with is a substandard striker.

The failure with wizards then is more clearly in the presentation than in the actual class itself. Pre-AP they are pretty narrow in build options but the good options are way good. It just takes a pretty tactically savvy player to understand what makes a good wizard.

 

[Jhaelen]

Some people don't want to juggle 4 encounter powers, 4 dailies, 6 encounter powers, item dailies, etc. etc. They either are RPers who get bored during combat or are new to the game and there really should be a few builds who only do one thing.

Luckily, neither RPers nor those new to the game will have to, since you only have to juggle them when you're level 30. Compare this to an epic character in 3e, please!

What 3e class, in your opinion, was the one that attracted most RPers or newbies?

My group includes several casual players and even my no.1 casual player who isn't interested in reading _any_ rulebooks didn't have trouble creating and playing a (1st level) character. The one thing he did have trouble with was selecting the right powers for the character concept he had in mind. But that was easily remedied after the first couple of test encounters by swapping two powers.

In my experience, the game _is_ easier to grasp than 3e and after you've grasped it, it's easier to concentrate on actually playing the game rather than looking up rules.

 

[satori01]

What 3e class, in your opinion, was the one that attracted most RPers or newbies?

The Warmage in 3E was the easiest class, especially at higher levels, to plug a newbie in behind the control seat, at least in my experience.

Calculate the spell DCs, give the person the spell list, and PHB and Spell Compendium and they were good to go.

Not many games can you take a person with no RPG experience, and have them run a 15th level character.


While I do not think it is that great of an issue...I do understand and acknowledge the point that all classes in 4e have to juggle feat/power selection....where as classes in 3E like the Warmage, Beguiler had a large spell list, all of the spell list was known, and the player could spontaneously cast.