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

[Sage Genesis]

I do like some things about Next (quick chargen and combat for instance) but during the playtests I've already experienced that PC concepts are rather monotonous.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm talking about mechanical aspects. More "roleplaying" oriented aspects are of course as free as they've ever been.

But, mechanically speaking, if I say "halfling rogue" in 3e or 4e, then that still says very little. I'm not quite sure how he'll play, what he can do. He can have wildly different powers, feats, or skill ranks. In Next that is much more subdued. You could choose between assassin and thief, but that one choice is easily made as part of character concept. Feats are more rare (you don't even get any for the first few levels) and they now handle an entire concept all by themselves instead of being part of a feat chain, so you'll pick up less feats than before as well. If you've seen one assassin... well, you've kind of seen them all, really. A few different skill choices here and there doesn't really alter their basic mechanical capabilities.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think my favorite wonky 4e character was a ranger with Mark of Storms (when you hit someone with a lightning or thunder attack you can slide them 1 square), proficient in bolas (hit someone and knock them prone), with a +1 lightning bola (counts as a lightning attack). I had plenty of interrupt and reaction attacks, and the ability to shift between bola and bow as a free action, so my usual turn would be "twin strike a pair of enemies, slide them away from my allies, trip them," and then wait to shoot them when it wasn't my turn.

 

[Mistwell]

Honestly, if someone just made a Fourthfinder game that fixed the stuff I hated about 4e but kept the majority that I liked, I'd probably be more interested in that than NEXT.

Uh, isn't that 13th Age?

 

[RangerWickett]

I dunno. Something about that book's layout just prevents me from reading the character classes. I should give it another look.

 

[Herschel]

That's been my issue with Next also. I like the concept of melee characters wading in to the thick of battle and actually controlling what goes on around them and having effects other than just damage. The 4E Fighter/Swordmage/Paladin/Warden/Battlemind/Warlord were finally classes with the types of abilities I'd always wanted.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think my favorite wonky 4e character was a ranger with Mark of Storms (when you hit someone with a lightning or thunder attack you can slide them 1 square), proficient in bolas (hit someone and knock them prone), with a +1 lightning bola (counts as a lightning attack). I had plenty of interrupt and reaction attacks, and the ability to shift between bola and bow as a free action, so my usual turn would be "twin strike a pair of enemies, slide them away from my allies, trip them," and then wait to shoot them when it wasn't my turn.

4th is my favorite edition, but this epitomizes one of my beefs. To brutally paraphrase Syndrome, "When every attack you make is special, none of them are."

So every time this character hits with a Bola the opponent is shifted and prone. That kind of stuff just got old. 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's prone and you shift him. Blah, blah, blah.' Played through 30 levels and 300 encounters.

There are a plethora of combos like that which sound awesome the first half dozen times, but drive me nuts round after round after round. That's half the reason I cut HP in half.

 

[Sage Genesis]

To brutally paraphrase Syndrome, "When every attack you make is special, none of them are."

Uh, couple of things...

First, Syndrome is quite literally a cartoon villain. One with very petty, childish motivations at that. Quoting him to illustrate one's position is a little problematic.

Second, his argument hinges on everybody being special. If every character could do the lightning trip-shift stuff, then it wouldn't be very special. But if one character exclusively has those, then it's his theme. That doesn't have to make it un-special. Furthermore, not all his lightning attacks are identical - some are interrupts, some hit multiple targets, some hit harder than others, and so forth. Even with their overlapping aspects, they're still not all the same.

Third, Syndrome's quote is a logical fallacy. If everybody is special, then everybody is special. Only when everybody is identical in some way, then that trait is no longer a measure for specialness. But in RangerWickett's case, neither do all characters make lightning shift-trip attacks, nor are all his attacks the same. Therefore, the quote doesn't apply.

Finally, even if after all that the quote somehow would still apply, then the game has much larger problems all of a sudden. All spells and attacks suddenly become mundane and uninteresting because they're shared with others. If the lightning shift-trip Ranger is not special, then a Ranger with just a bow has got to be not special either. Wizard with Fireball? Boring, have seen those for decades now. Cleric wants to cast Cure Light Wounds? Nah, nothing miraculous about his magic, that's just old hat.

It is a direction I'm not prepared to go.

 

[GSHamster]

You know, after this thread I finally understand all the comparisons of 4E to superheroes. I always thought it referred to the power level, but it doesn't.

You aren't really making a character in the traditional sense, you're making a individualized superhero. Spiderman has webshooters and spidersense. Wolverine has claws and healing factor. Each superhero is (more or less) unique in his powers.

 

[Raith5]

Honestly, if someone just made a Fourthfinder game that fixed the stuff I hated about 4e but kept the majority that I liked, I'd probably be more interested in that than NEXT.

4e stuff I liked (with bad stuff in parenthetical italics)
Picking nifty powers (but the power list was too bloated and the character builder didn't let people vote on shi**y powers so you could filter to show only the good ones; ditto feats and magic items).

Interesting tactical options during combat (but early versions were grindy, and solos wae too vulnerable to debuffs, and the game unnecessarily scales up numbers as you level).

GMing is fast and easy, and statting up monsters is a cinch (but making a PC even with the character builder takes a few hours).

The amount of world-breaking magic was reined in (but at the same time interesting and iconic magic was also removed for 'balance' reasons; the Ring of Invisibility lasts for 1 round per day).

Give me a 4e with Bounded Accuracy, with only the options that were developed after the designers figured out how to use the system properly, and with a few more big splashy effects . . . and I'd be happy.

I 100% agree with all these points - but cant XP.

I would also add that while I like heroic starting point of PCs - especially them being robust in terms of hp and having good options (I still reckon the starting point of 4th ed could have been a bit more gritty and pushed back teleporting Eladrins and fire breathing dragonborns till 5th level or so). I just find it strange how the game pushed back flying till around 10th level , but then introduced 1st level teleports.

 

[WhatGravitas]

You aren't really making a character in the traditional sense, you're making a individualized superhero. Spiderman has webshooters and spidersense. Wolverine has claws and healing factor. Each superhero is (more or less) unique in his powers.

I'd rather say an individualised adventurer. It's no more specialised than a pyromancer, a quivering palm monk or a chain-wielding fighter. Themed characters aren't exactly something untraditional.