Gort
Explorer
Citation needed.
D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?
- Thread starter FireLance
- Start date
Citation needed.
Zaran
Adventurer
You asked us what 4e doesn't do right. The problem is people's opinions on what the game doesn't do right are getting attacked and then they are defending their views. I wouldn't call it 4e bashing. If anything it's those who are defending 4e that is turning this into a war.
Personally, I like the game for what it does do. I won't go back to 3.5e. I DO think that Wizards needs to man-up and redo the first few books to bring the content up to par with the later stuff.
Here's where I disagree. I think that economics and D&D can work hand in hand.
Magic items have to be expensive enough that not every militia have them, but inexpensive enough that PCs can acquire them and inexpensive enough that powerful merchants can afford to buy them from PCs. So, it's not the starting amount of gold for magic items that creates a problem, it's the amount of gold for the highest level items compared to the amount of gold for the lowest level items.
A low end brand new car costs $10,000. A high end brand new car costs $500,000. The ratio is 50 to 1 (and no, I won't go into cars even more expensive).
Having a 50 to 1 ratio, or 100 to 1 ratio, or even 250 to 1 ratio between 1st level items and 30th level items is fine. Having an ~10,000 to 1 ratio is what is unrealistic.
Every 5 levels of item (i.e. going from a +1 item to a +2 item) multiplies the economy by 5. Every level, the PCs tend to find gold and items worth ~30% to 40% more than the previous level (there is a gradual curve for 4 levels and than a steep jump at 6, 11, 16, etc.). If there were only 10 PC levels, then this would be reasonable. But, there are 30 levels.
Changing it to multiply by ~3.2 instead of 5 does the following to the magic item purchase price:
Level 1: 360 GP (which btw is a bizarre number, I would make it 500 GP or something)
Level 6: 1150 GP
Level 11: 3600 GP
Level 16: 11500 GP
Level 21: 36000 GP
Level 26: 115000 GP
Note: This is just one example of a better equation. An even shallower one might be preferable.
This way, PCs could sell items for 50% to 75%% of their worth because they still have the limiting factor of them having a LOT less money overall. They still can find fabulous treasures, they are just not mega-fabulous treasures.
I think the entire concept of "a PC has to sell an x+1 bonus item in order to acquire an x bonus item" to be inherently wrong from an economic POV. Would you sell your old $250,000 home for $50,000, just in order to buy a brand new $50,000 home somewhere else? It just doesn't make sense.
There shouldn't be such logical inconsistencies in the economics of the game system.
It's a plausibility issue. Some people don't like Magic Shops in their game. Fair enough. But the economics of the system should allow for Magic Shops. It's plausible that merchants would want to buy and sell every possible object in the gaming world. That's plausible. Having items that nobody can afford to buy and sell is implausible.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I look at it like this KD:
Items sell for a lot less than purchase price for a variety of reasons which include the difficulty in finding buyers for what are really essentially luxury goods. The PC is selling to a broker or certainly selling at a "wholesale" value (try selling some jewelry, I assure you if you sell it to a jeweler you'll be lucky to get more than the base metal value in most cases). The buyer also is effectively buying merchandise of unknown provenance which is basically almost certainly looted from somewhere. 20% really doesn't sound all that unreasonable when you think about it.
The 20% value also neatly deals with problems like what happens when the PCs get hold of stuff that doesn't neatly fit into a treasure parcel such as the effects of a deceased ally or stuff the DM simply never considered it possible they could acquire. Its sort of a natural correcting factor that keeps the economy of the PCs firmly in the DM's grasp without resorting to cheap tricks like rust monsters and fairly arbitrary attempts by the DM to fleece the party out of its goods (all things that were far too often needed in the old days).
In terms of the cost curve, sure it could be shallower. The thing is then basically you're looking at items of pretty disparate power levels being much closer in price. That could be good or bad depending on circumstances. I'm not sure its unequivocally a better treasure system though. From a DMing standpoint I'm finding the 4e system to be relatively bug free and that tells me its doing something right.
I also think that yes once your PCs hit paragon tier then the pricing of items they're dealing with goes clean out of sight of the local economy they were dealing with at heroic tier. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It rather encourages the PCs to move on in the world and start dealing with the 'big boys' of the world. At 20th level an item costs 125k gp. That certainly is a good chunk of change but still not so astronomical that it goes completely into lala land. Its the kind of cash that Kings and Dragons and such can work in.
Once you get into the epic tier then yes you are dealing with astronomical sums, but the PCs are also the most powerful heroes in the world at that point and their peers are world emperors and major unique beings. They are likely not buying and selling stuff to mere mortals anymore, its more like you deal with some high powered Efreet in the City of Brass or something where ordinary economics of ordinary mortals are just not relevant.
So, yeah, you can create a shallower curve and that might work fine in a specific setting but the defaults also work within the context of what the authors of the game were envisioning.
Items sell for a lot less than purchase price for a variety of reasons which include the difficulty in finding buyers for what are really essentially luxury goods. The PC is selling to a broker or certainly selling at a "wholesale" value (try selling some jewelry, I assure you if you sell it to a jeweler you'll be lucky to get more than the base metal value in most cases). The buyer also is effectively buying merchandise of unknown provenance which is basically almost certainly looted from somewhere. 20% really doesn't sound all that unreasonable when you think about it.
The 20% value also neatly deals with problems like what happens when the PCs get hold of stuff that doesn't neatly fit into a treasure parcel such as the effects of a deceased ally or stuff the DM simply never considered it possible they could acquire. Its sort of a natural correcting factor that keeps the economy of the PCs firmly in the DM's grasp without resorting to cheap tricks like rust monsters and fairly arbitrary attempts by the DM to fleece the party out of its goods (all things that were far too often needed in the old days).
In terms of the cost curve, sure it could be shallower. The thing is then basically you're looking at items of pretty disparate power levels being much closer in price. That could be good or bad depending on circumstances. I'm not sure its unequivocally a better treasure system though. From a DMing standpoint I'm finding the 4e system to be relatively bug free and that tells me its doing something right.
I also think that yes once your PCs hit paragon tier then the pricing of items they're dealing with goes clean out of sight of the local economy they were dealing with at heroic tier. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It rather encourages the PCs to move on in the world and start dealing with the 'big boys' of the world. At 20th level an item costs 125k gp. That certainly is a good chunk of change but still not so astronomical that it goes completely into lala land. Its the kind of cash that Kings and Dragons and such can work in.
Once you get into the epic tier then yes you are dealing with astronomical sums, but the PCs are also the most powerful heroes in the world at that point and their peers are world emperors and major unique beings. They are likely not buying and selling stuff to mere mortals anymore, its more like you deal with some high powered Efreet in the City of Brass or something where ordinary economics of ordinary mortals are just not relevant.
So, yeah, you can create a shallower curve and that might work fine in a specific setting but the defaults also work within the context of what the authors of the game were envisioning.
I would
.It all depends on what you're trying to simulate. I think of D&D as a simulation of various kinds of fantasy adventure stories. 4e is neat little engine for modeling adventure story protagonists and their over-the-top violent exploits. Contrary to some opinions, it's not too bad for less violent exploits, unless you think comic-book magic is required to enjoyably navigate non-violent situations, in which case 4e isn't so good...
... which leads me to answering the original question.
The main thing 4e does badly is high-magic D&D, where a large portion of the tactical, strategic, and puzzle/problem-solving revolves around spell use, which, in my experience, is roughly every game I've ever been in that made it past mid-level.
4e feels much more Swords-and-Sorcery than the previous editions. I like that, but I will admit I sometimes miss the high magic game. It's certainly not the only avenue for creative problem-solving play --think of all the books where the heroes do clever things without the aid of Charm Person, Invisibility (pre-3e), Teleport, etc.-- but it is one of them. A cool one, at that.
Of course, the problem with that is, in my experience, most campaigns eventually become about spell use. Spells end up being the best solution, crowding out other creative options.
Rangergord
First Post
4e is good at balancing power gamers that dominate a gaming session b/c they have found every advantage and problem with 3e to bleed dry, while the causal player is left wondering...why the hell they bothered to show up. It also, so far, ensures there is some sort of long term balance across many publications, for now.
However, forcing players to cooperate, rather than just encouraging them has not be recieved kindly by many. Though there is still room for epic personal glory in 4e with good DMing, many players (and DM's) just can't see it.
BTW, stealth is still as bad as it was, it has just constantly more complex over the years, 4e just seems to be the end of the road.
4e does have the best and easiest condition and effect tables to read on the go as palyer or GM, there is not question what you are doing and what the effect well do.
4e is extremely well edited and laid out for quick reference. Perhaps the best book to date for wizards.
Sadly 4e has also lost much of the orginality and fun of 3e in exchange for its more text book look and very well balance system. Its licence, though created to ensure Wizards gets the money it so rightly deserves for starting and maintaining the d20 revolution, has driven a lot of producers back to 3e rather than doing something new.
And frankly from a creation point of veiw, 4e looks to be somewhat limited in scope to what it can do; 3e is still growing, and without new blood 4e may die quicker than it deserves.
However, forcing players to cooperate, rather than just encouraging them has not be recieved kindly by many. Though there is still room for epic personal glory in 4e with good DMing, many players (and DM's) just can't see it.
BTW, stealth is still as bad as it was, it has just constantly more complex over the years, 4e just seems to be the end of the road.
4e does have the best and easiest condition and effect tables to read on the go as palyer or GM, there is not question what you are doing and what the effect well do.
4e is extremely well edited and laid out for quick reference. Perhaps the best book to date for wizards.
Sadly 4e has also lost much of the orginality and fun of 3e in exchange for its more text book look and very well balance system. Its licence, though created to ensure Wizards gets the money it so rightly deserves for starting and maintaining the d20 revolution, has driven a lot of producers back to 3e rather than doing something new.
And frankly from a creation point of veiw, 4e looks to be somewhat limited in scope to what it can do; 3e is still growing, and without new blood 4e may die quicker than it deserves.
Last edited:
The problem with these sorts of threads is the *opinion* that either side throws out as *fact*.
It is not a fact that 4e or 3.5 has long combats. That kind of judgement is totally subjective. It is not a fact that 4e or 3.5 is more or less fun. Those judgements are opinion.
The 20+ page thread on the Main forum degenerated into nitpicky arguments about creativity, none of which were based on any kind of fact, and I don't think anyone besides the ones arguing got anything from it. This thread had some promise, but is starting to waver and show signs of bickering.
I'd really like to see more facts here. Is it a fact that 4e's economy is badly modeled? Sure. Does that impact gameplay at all? Subjective!
Is it a fact that 4e relies less on magic items than 3.5? Subjective!
Not that these things aren't worth talking about, but they aren't worth *arguing* about. I don't think anyone here was really acting out of line until someone acused them of doing so, and then. . .*plop*, the flinging of crap commenced.
What doesn't 4e do well? Item creation. I know that was a fun part of the game for some folks in 3.5. Having the means to create many different types of items was another way to customize your character. 4e has boiled that down to one ritual (well, brew potion and the alchemy feat, too) and it is less a focus of the rules written. Not to say you couldn't make it so, but it is a good argument that is based on fact.
Jay
It is not a fact that 4e or 3.5 has long combats. That kind of judgement is totally subjective. It is not a fact that 4e or 3.5 is more or less fun. Those judgements are opinion.
The 20+ page thread on the Main forum degenerated into nitpicky arguments about creativity, none of which were based on any kind of fact, and I don't think anyone besides the ones arguing got anything from it. This thread had some promise, but is starting to waver and show signs of bickering.
I'd really like to see more facts here. Is it a fact that 4e's economy is badly modeled? Sure. Does that impact gameplay at all? Subjective!
Is it a fact that 4e relies less on magic items than 3.5? Subjective!
Not that these things aren't worth talking about, but they aren't worth *arguing* about. I don't think anyone here was really acting out of line until someone acused them of doing so, and then. . .*plop*, the flinging of crap commenced.
What doesn't 4e do well? Item creation. I know that was a fun part of the game for some folks in 3.5. Having the means to create many different types of items was another way to customize your character. 4e has boiled that down to one ritual (well, brew potion and the alchemy feat, too) and it is less a focus of the rules written. Not to say you couldn't make it so, but it is a good argument that is based on fact.
Jay
Last edited:
Victim
First Post
Why not compare more expensive vehicles? An epic type weapon is an incredibly powerful tool, that - most of the time - isn't really needed unless you're trying to do some outlandish, epic stuff. So why wouldn't the natural point of comparison for a +6 item be something like a rocket boosted, jet powered "car" made because someone is trying to set a new land speed record? Or how about dedicated race cars - where added costs are needed because they engage in potentially deadly competition against other teams also going for high performance?
We could also broaden our category from cars to means of transportation - what's the ratio of a private jet compared to a cart?
No, my point was the exact opposite:
The thread would have been fine and on safe territory if nobody had started comparing 3e and 4e rules, basically saying 'this was super-great in 3e and it totally sucks in 4e'.
That's when the edition war machinery starts to roll.
If someone says: '4e economy sucks', I'll be inclined to agree.
If someone says '4e economy sucks but 3e economy was great', I'll disagree and argue till the cows come home (or the mods close the thread).
Imho, you have to judge the system on its own merits. Just pretend it was a completely new rpg system (which it basically is*).
Note, that I'll _also_ disagree and argue till the cows come home if someone said '3e economy sucked but 4e economy is great', because that's just not true, either.
*: Oh, dear! I guess, that's also been hotly debated... apparently it's quite difficult to avoid edition-war-fodder completely
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Things I don't think 4e does well.
1. Novice characters. A fourth edition character starts out clearly distinct from the common town guards (not necessarily better as a glance at the monster manual town guard will tell you), but distinct. The mechanics do not help you create a sense that characters started off as ordinary people who took on an extraordinary task and by overcoming challenges ascended to the top of the world. Instead, the mechanics get in the way of that. The PCs were never ordinary.
2. Skill challenges. By this, I refer to the rules for skill challenges in the DMG--either before or after errata. The mechanic for skill challenges is terrible and more often serves to gloss over story elements than to immerse players in them. I think after two years of play the, "DMs/authors just haven't figured out how to run/write good skill challenges" excuse has worn out. If the rules were any good, people would be using them well by now.
3. Non-combat encounters. Now, this has already generated some controversy in the thread. Obviously if you're the kind of DM or player who doesn't want rules to get in the way of your fun, then you're going to be fine with 4th edition's ability to do non-combat encounters. For players and DMs like me who like to have an idea of what our characters should be able to accomplish outside of combat, the rules for skill uses tend to be rolled into the rules for skill challenges where the DC for whatever you want to do is 5/10/15 +1/2 level. The end result is that you don't really know what you can do unless you are in a skill challenge (in which case, it's pretty much the same as it was at 1st level). And if you're not in a skill challenge, for a lot of things, you have no idea what the DC is or should be.
4. Rituals. Yeah, you can do them. But other than the cure disease/etc line of rituals, why would you? The basic scrying ritual, for instance takes a long time to perform, only gives you 30 seconds viewing time at best, and is so short range that you can probably see the location you're scrying anyway. If you want to outdo Iggwilv and bind Grazz't, rituals would seem like the perfect instrument, but there isn't a ritual for doing that. If you would like to make your castle fly, there's no ritual for that either. The system has just enough rules for curing that you can fix what monsters do to you and enough rules for divination that you can figure out it's never worthwhile. And it has rituals for things like waterbreathing that are needed to facilitate certain types of adventures. But it does not have rituals for anything that would drive the plot itself. Those are for NPCs and don't need rules.
5. Make combat quick. The proof is on this one. In LFR, it is quite frequent for convention organizers to extend the game slots for paragon tier adventures to six hours because otherwise there isn't enough time to finish the module. It's not role-playing that is taking all that extra time. Nor is it usually the case that they are trying to cram more combats into the modules than they were before. (In fact, LFR modules often have fewer combats than Living Greyhawk or Living Arcanis modules did).
6. Run mid-sized to large combats. If you don't like the minion rules, you're completely out of luck for running a combat with two enemies per PC. If you wanted to run a combat with three enemies per PC, you're probably out of luck even with minions. The xp per monster system and the relation of attack to defense and hit points in 4th edition means that you're pretty much running combats with 1-8 non-minions, tops and maybe up to 8 minions. But more than that and it stops working.
7. Run non-distinct combat encounters.
If you don't get a short rest in between two encounters, even two relatively easy encounters can threaten a TPK. You need that five minute rest and consequently kicking in the door and clearing out a whole dungeon in glorious round by round combat is out of the question. Likewise, "the guards sounded the alarm, and you hear the rush of booted hobgoblin feet that will probably arrive in two minutes" is a signal to retreat rather than to drink a few potions or move to defensive locations.
8. Run a sandbox campaign.
4e works if the DM is driving the campaign. If the players are doing so, it is much harder to make it work. The "whatever the plot requires" attitude towards the abilities of NPCs makes it impossible for PCs to engage in a game of preparation with distant NPCs. You can't keep non-detection up so that the NPCs don't scry you. (First, there isn't a non-detection ritual. Second, there aren't useful scrying rituals which means that if they do try, the DM has a new ritual that you don't know how to use or defend against). Likewise, you can't anticipate that the NPC will attempt to raise the soldiers who died in the last battle as undead and use them against you but will be limited as to how much he can raise because you stole his onyx gems last session. Since there are no rules for creating undead, you don't know what he needs or how many undead he can raise--ordinarily the answer is, whatever the plot demands and whatever makes a useful encounter. While those answers make sense in the context of a story-driven campaign where you have to stop the bad guy from getting the whatever it is he needs, they don't work in a sandbox campaign where you try to understand his capabilities and make plans to neutralize them.
9. Beginner characters.
Even the "stand 25 squares back and twin strike with my greatbow" character is far more complex to run than some characters in previous editions were. There are no longer super-complex characters like wizards were in previous editions, but there aren't simple ones like previous edition barbarians or fighters could be either.
1. Novice characters. A fourth edition character starts out clearly distinct from the common town guards (not necessarily better as a glance at the monster manual town guard will tell you), but distinct. The mechanics do not help you create a sense that characters started off as ordinary people who took on an extraordinary task and by overcoming challenges ascended to the top of the world. Instead, the mechanics get in the way of that. The PCs were never ordinary.
2. Skill challenges. By this, I refer to the rules for skill challenges in the DMG--either before or after errata. The mechanic for skill challenges is terrible and more often serves to gloss over story elements than to immerse players in them. I think after two years of play the, "DMs/authors just haven't figured out how to run/write good skill challenges" excuse has worn out. If the rules were any good, people would be using them well by now.
3. Non-combat encounters. Now, this has already generated some controversy in the thread. Obviously if you're the kind of DM or player who doesn't want rules to get in the way of your fun, then you're going to be fine with 4th edition's ability to do non-combat encounters. For players and DMs like me who like to have an idea of what our characters should be able to accomplish outside of combat, the rules for skill uses tend to be rolled into the rules for skill challenges where the DC for whatever you want to do is 5/10/15 +1/2 level. The end result is that you don't really know what you can do unless you are in a skill challenge (in which case, it's pretty much the same as it was at 1st level). And if you're not in a skill challenge, for a lot of things, you have no idea what the DC is or should be.
4. Rituals. Yeah, you can do them. But other than the cure disease/etc line of rituals, why would you? The basic scrying ritual, for instance takes a long time to perform, only gives you 30 seconds viewing time at best, and is so short range that you can probably see the location you're scrying anyway. If you want to outdo Iggwilv and bind Grazz't, rituals would seem like the perfect instrument, but there isn't a ritual for doing that. If you would like to make your castle fly, there's no ritual for that either. The system has just enough rules for curing that you can fix what monsters do to you and enough rules for divination that you can figure out it's never worthwhile. And it has rituals for things like waterbreathing that are needed to facilitate certain types of adventures. But it does not have rituals for anything that would drive the plot itself. Those are for NPCs and don't need rules.
5. Make combat quick. The proof is on this one. In LFR, it is quite frequent for convention organizers to extend the game slots for paragon tier adventures to six hours because otherwise there isn't enough time to finish the module. It's not role-playing that is taking all that extra time. Nor is it usually the case that they are trying to cram more combats into the modules than they were before. (In fact, LFR modules often have fewer combats than Living Greyhawk or Living Arcanis modules did).
6. Run mid-sized to large combats. If you don't like the minion rules, you're completely out of luck for running a combat with two enemies per PC. If you wanted to run a combat with three enemies per PC, you're probably out of luck even with minions. The xp per monster system and the relation of attack to defense and hit points in 4th edition means that you're pretty much running combats with 1-8 non-minions, tops and maybe up to 8 minions. But more than that and it stops working.
7. Run non-distinct combat encounters.
If you don't get a short rest in between two encounters, even two relatively easy encounters can threaten a TPK. You need that five minute rest and consequently kicking in the door and clearing out a whole dungeon in glorious round by round combat is out of the question. Likewise, "the guards sounded the alarm, and you hear the rush of booted hobgoblin feet that will probably arrive in two minutes" is a signal to retreat rather than to drink a few potions or move to defensive locations.
8. Run a sandbox campaign.
4e works if the DM is driving the campaign. If the players are doing so, it is much harder to make it work. The "whatever the plot requires" attitude towards the abilities of NPCs makes it impossible for PCs to engage in a game of preparation with distant NPCs. You can't keep non-detection up so that the NPCs don't scry you. (First, there isn't a non-detection ritual. Second, there aren't useful scrying rituals which means that if they do try, the DM has a new ritual that you don't know how to use or defend against). Likewise, you can't anticipate that the NPC will attempt to raise the soldiers who died in the last battle as undead and use them against you but will be limited as to how much he can raise because you stole his onyx gems last session. Since there are no rules for creating undead, you don't know what he needs or how many undead he can raise--ordinarily the answer is, whatever the plot demands and whatever makes a useful encounter. While those answers make sense in the context of a story-driven campaign where you have to stop the bad guy from getting the whatever it is he needs, they don't work in a sandbox campaign where you try to understand his capabilities and make plans to neutralize them.
9. Beginner characters.
Even the "stand 25 squares back and twin strike with my greatbow" character is far more complex to run than some characters in previous editions were. There are no longer super-complex characters like wizards were in previous editions, but there aren't simple ones like previous edition barbarians or fighters could be either.
Similar Threads
