D&D 4E What I miss about 4e (my preferences of course)

[Sage Genesis]

I agree with everything Sage Genesis has said in this thread.

Variety is good. Awesome is good. Character choice is good.

However, sometimes it feels like there is a little too much "awesome" per encounter and not enough at the same time.

When I have 4-5 players bringing the "awesome" to every single round of every encounter it can get old from the DM side of the table.

Because usually when the PCs are being "awesome" it involves the monsters becoming very much "not awesome".

When player's remark that an encounter was lame or no challenge, I stand agape because their character's are often built to ensure that result.

Now this position I can understand a lot better. It's true that 4e characters, particularly non-spellcasters, have more options and powers and "cool" effects than before. People sometimes claimed that 4e made everybody into a Wizard because of this. That's not a very accurate assessment of the situation but I think we all know the underlying causes by now.

As for monsters being "not awesome", they changed some of the design philosophy for monsters in the later Essentials/Dark Sun/Monster Manual 3 era. Powered their damage up a bit, made solos a bit more resistant to stuns and the like. So you're basically right, a lot of 4e monsters are a little too "not awesome".

 

[fjw70]

I love 4e but the pushing/sliding stuff can get a little crazy at times. Sometimes it gets to the point that any monster within 4 squares of a cliff or window is an attack roll and failed save away from being out of a fight or possibly dead. And the mage can do that at-will.

 

[Salamandyr]

Ok, starting to sound overpowered.

Descriptions like this reinforce why I avoided 4E. That's the game for you, but it's so far away from the version of D&D I want to play. Which is fine – I didn't complain when 4E came out, I just played other things. I'm looking forward to Next because it isn't these things (especially at low level!). Because with Next I reckon I can easily play a dark and grim version of D&D.

However the things you mention about flavour, and that coming from the mechanics of 4E, do sound very good.

I have found that you can run grim and gritty with 4e, but like everything else, it requires cooperation between DM and players--mostly in managing tone. None of those things he mentioned are actually powerful in game. They're cool, yes. But keep in mind, kobolds have over 20 hit points. Low level characters may feel more powerful, because they've got more options than in previous editions, but they really aren't.

Powers can be played as very wahoo! but they don't have to be. Disruptive strike, for instance, is just an arrow timed to disrupt an enemy attack. That sounds like something even a low level character could do.

PC's aren't more powerful than in previous editions, they're more granular. I will admit that there is a stumbling block to grim and gritty for 4e. It's psychological. Because you've got all these cool "powers", a lot of players, and GM's have a tendency to start moving in the direction of "fantasy superheroes". It's not helped that powers require some imaginative interpretation for them to make sense within the fiction, and some players have a problem doing that.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Since this is a DD Next Thread I'll say that much of what I like about 4th edition should transplant well to Next. A lot of the monster design is portable (Minion/Elite/Solo, at-will/encounter/reactions, grid-based stuff). I can see kit-bashing 4e classes in with modifications.

Encounter based design is somewhat doable especially with a fluid definition of short/long rests.

And much of what I like about Next is portable to 4e as well. I really think a fluid Encounter/Daily definition changes the feel. The Encounters program already uses this extensively. Short Rests and Long rests are restricted heavily. Which changes the way players think about using encounter and daily powers. I like the more measured use of resources over my "early and often" experience in home play.

 

[lutecius]

I certainly don't miss the way 4e's mechanics seemed to come first and how they translated in story terms often looked like an afterthought (TO ME, of course), especially the forced movement and marking stuff and of course the AEDU system but I did like the meatier 1st level characters, the bloodied condition and some of the world changes like the elf/eladrin split (not the name though), the cosmology or the succubus being a devil... Of course, that shouldn't be too hard to bring back.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't care for characters themed around mechanical tricks, or particular weapons myself. I prefer my heroes to be generalists who might have a particular preference, but they don't suddenly lose half their effectiveness if you take away their favorite toy/environment/spell.

Among the things I really liked about 4e was that it had the most prolonged "sweet spot" of any version of D&D that I've played. In previous editions, depending on class, it could take anywhere from 3 to 5 levels for a character to really "come online" and start doing the things you were playing the class to do. 4e let you "be your character" pretty much from level 1. By the time you hit third level and had two encounters and a utility under your belt, you really felt like an effective member of whatever your class was supposed to be. And that period before fun gave way to bookkeeping lasts at least midway through Paragon.

I also really liked the trimmed down skill list and the flat bonus for being trained. Since I subscribe to the point of view that the very worst thing about 3rd edition was the skill rules (after all, you could play in a game without a wizard or cleric, but you couldn't play without the skill rules).

I enjoyed the "board game" aspect to the game, except when it frustrated me. So color me ambivalent on the "tactical combat" aspect of the rules.

I really liked most of the changes to the traditional D&D cosmology, and especially to the idea that each Plane should represent really cool places to have adventures. I really dislike how much focus the D&D player base has given to the default pantheon.

I hated the importance given to racial choice, and racial feats.

I think if Essentials had come first, and Players Handbook style classes had been an "advanced option" that was added latter, we wouldn't be talking about 5e today.

 

[TwoSix]

I think if Essentials had come first, and Players Handbook style classes had been an "advanced option" that was added latter, we wouldn't be talking about 5e today.

I agree with that. I think if the first PHB hadn't been pages and pages of powers in each class, there would have been much less of a gut "WTF?" reaction that seemed the most common response by people who ended up not embracing 4e. It was honestly the DMG and MM that sold me on 4e, not the PHB.

 

[Salamandyr]

Yeah, I lost a few players who just wanted to say "I attack" and roll dice.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have the urge to say following:

It is really fun creating unique PCs in 4e. They were special in all regards.
The problem I have seen in actual play. There were a lot less tactical choices than you might think: and this is a direct result from picking few powers that you use over and over again. Powers did not compete with other powers.

A simple fix for 4e would have been following:
Every time you gain an encounter/daily power, chose 2 or 3 of them. In combat you can only use one. This would have made combats a lot less repetitive and more tactical, as you would not follow the same attack order over and over again.

Actually, the game would have been better, if it just allowed you to retain lower level powers and you could use them or the new one, or if you could use a fixed number of encounter powers per encounter, but mix them up as needed. It would make it more viable to not chose samey powers, but powers different in function. Actually, this at least would be my 4e fix.
5e actually uses that approach in the weapon master subclass. I hope it will survive internal tests.

So the real problem in 4e for me:
You have great tools during character building to make your character unique, but during play sessions, you have no choice but to use the same tactics over and over again. (A little bit exaggerated, especially when you take essential classes into account, which shifted things from character building decisions to in-game decisions)

 

[Raith5]

I agree with everything Sage Genesis has said in this thread.

Variety is good. Awesome is good. Character choice is good.

However, sometimes it feels like there is a little too much "awesome" per encounter and not enough at the same time.

When I have 4-5 players bringing the "awesome" to every single round of every encounter it can get old from the DM side of the table.

Because usually when the PCs are being "awesome" it involves the monsters becoming very much "not awesome".

When player's remark that an encounter was lame or no challenge, I stand agape because their character's are often built to ensure that result.

I have not found monsters in 4th ed to be lame. As a player I have found them largely to be challenging and at times surprising with varieties of aura, forced movement out of turn attacks etc. The various recharging rates of monster powers makes things dicey. BTW i cant help but think what 4th ed would have been like if PC powers had some kind of recharge mechanism!

So all in all - the awesome factor is higher IME on both sides of the DM screen, so I dont think it is a zero sum game.

Sure it is not perfect. All these awesome bits slow things down on all sides. I must also say that Solos still seem to have problems staying up at times. I think it may be that I am in party of two strikers and two controllers so we lock them down very effectively. But I cant help but think they need either more actions or more interrupt powers.

I also have mixed feelings about knowledge checks for monsters. The wizard in our party has insanely high knowledge checks and we always get him to make checks early and often, so we always know lots of detail about our foes. As PC it makes sense and is logical, but as a player it grates on me sometimes: I think I want to be surprised!