D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree, that not beeing able to learn enemy mage´s spells is a bit sad. It was always a great deal to find a new spell book.
But this is the price for having mages in the same realm as other PC classes.
On the other hand, class specific ritual could have done the trick.

I also wished, monsters and PC´s had about equal hp and equal damage. Elites maybe a different system than doubling their hp... Those are little things, that make immersion a bit harder in 4e. But if you stop worrying, it works quite well.

 

[wlmartin]

I really do feel sorry for the D&Ders out there who do not have an open mind enough to explore that D&D 4e is an evolution of the game of Dungeons & Dragons.

Yes, it focuses on using Powers that make you feel like you are playing a game of WoW or DDO. I disliked this at first but then appreciated that D&D, WotC and Hasbro aren't in D&D to "do it for the fans" - it has to make money. I have gotten used to the way that D&D uses Powers now and it feels a lot easier than before.

Characters in 4e are no longer severely unbalanced. It took us all a long time to get used to Healing Surges instead of normal heals but now it feels more natural. No longer do we have to worry about the Rogue being a 2nd class (pun intended) character because all he is good for doing is finding traps. The wizard doesn't need to hide at the back of the room once his spells have run out.

No more Confirm Crits... enuf said.

Any game, to survive is going to evolve. Those of us who had to learn a different level of mathematics to figure out THAC0 each round of play in 2nd Ed understand that the key to being a D&Der was knowing ALL of the rules. It wasnt about being a Rules Lawyer, if you didn't know the rules you had a handicap against anyone that did.

Now, knowing the rules is still important but it doesn't cripple you if you get stuff wrong because the pre-gen character sheets and character builder take that all away and do it for you. To some D&D is about the rules, the maths and the sheer number crunching of it, to those I say go play something else.

To most of us, it is about good Roleplay and fun monster battles. After all if we just wanted to hack + slash, there is WoW, DDO, Warhammer and many other online / offline options to get involved in.

A true Roleplayer and D&D fan can take a bunch of tokens, a scribbled map and wonky game table with his friends around and make the game feel like it is actually happening. It wouldn't matter if we had to roll a D20 or a D200 - it isnt the rules we play for, its the ROLES

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You know, I'm starting to think that the skill challenge framework works better for designing non-combat challenges than for running them.

The skill challenge framework ensures that a DM at least thinks about:

1. How the PCs might be able to overcome a non-combat challenge, and what a successful [Skill/Ability] check actually means in narrative terms.
2. The kind of complications that might arise in the course of a non-combat challenge, e.g. if the PCs act in an inappropriate fashion.
3. The consequences of succeeding or failing at a non-combat challenge.

I wonder if skill challenges might actually work better if the DM defines the complexity of the challenge only after he has thought through what the PCs need to do to overcome the non-combat challenge, and how to narrate each step and setback. A challenge in which the PCs need to accomplish four tasks would be a Complexity 1 challenge, and so on. Then, the skill challenge becomes framed in terms of what the PCs need to do to overcome the challenge rather than in terms of X number of skill checks.

Yeah, sometimes working up an SC is a good way to think about a situation. It may not really turn out to be an SC, or not a typical one anyway, or it might turn into more than one, etc. OTOH they work the other way too. A couple sessions back we had run ahead of my prepared script, so I just started describing stuff to the players. They knew they had to sort out a situation, so I just cast it into a simple puzzle. Everytime a player went and poked around some feature of the area they were in I just made something up and had the player decide what to do and make a skill check. Near the end I had a few things happen to pull things to a conclusion and the players figured things out and made a few more checks to wrap it up. Very successful, totally unscripted, and BECAUSE it was unscripted it really couldn't go off the rails. This won't work all the time obviously, but you can get a lot of mileage out of winging SCs.

In general though these days when I am building an SC I think more about resources and obstacles than successes, failures, and skill checks. In fact I rarely do more than just list the skills I think are likely to be employed so I can make sure there's a good chance there will be a mix that will engage most of the characters.

 

[delericho]

I really do feel sorry for the D&Ders out there who do not have an open mind enough to explore that D&D 4e is an evolution of the game of Dungeons & Dragons.

Actually, in many ways 4e isn't an evolution of the game - it's a revolution. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is true nonetheless. Also, many of us who reject 4e did so after having looked into it and made an informed choice.

No more Confirm Crits... enuf said.

Not really. Confirming crits was mechanically and mathematically sound design. The 4e approach is quicker, and certainly avoids that 'disappointment' of a failed confirmation, but it also has that nasty corner case where the monster's AC is exactly 20+attack bonus, and so every hit on the creature is an automatic crit.

On balance, I agree that 4e has the edge. But it's not quite as clear cut as you suggest.

Those of us who had to learn a different level of mathematics to figure out THAC0 each round of play...

What, subtraction?

I kid, of course - the "attack bonus" paradigm used by 3e and 4e is certainly an improvement. Still, talk about "learn(ing) a different level of mathematics" is hyperbole.

Anyway, welcome to the board.

 

[wlmartin]

Confirming crits was mechanically and mathematically sound design. The 4e approach is quicker, and certainly avoids that 'disappointment' of a failed confirmation, but it also has that nasty corner case where the monster's AC is exactly 20+attack bonus, and so every hit on the creature is an automatic crit.

On balance, I agree that 4e has the edge. But it's not quite as clear cut as you suggest.

Yes, most of the time when you are dealing with level appropriate monsters, a 20 is normally always an auto crit, however the rule is built to stop playings from attacking creatures with much higher defenses and aiming to get a Crit 1 out of 20 times, as we all know in 4e, a 20 isnt always a Crit - if the monster wouldnt normally be hit by anything the PC could throw at (ie a 19 + mods would still be 2 or more missing from normally hitting the monster) then only normal damage occurs.

Confirming / Conforming Crits was a useless exercise and since most D&Ders agree that rolling a 20 is one of the best experiences, having to conform is like someone winning a raffle prize, being called up to the table and told to dip their hand in again to see if they can pull their own name out a 2nd time!

Thank god its gone

What, subtraction?

I kid, of course - the "attack bonus" paradigm used by 3e and 4e is certainly an improvement. Still, talk about "learn(ing) a different level of mathematics" is hyperbole.

Anyway, welcome to the board.

Thanks for the welcome - much appreciated

I didn't mean that it was like learning calculus and it most meant as an over exaggeration but I can't be the only one that kept on forgetting how to use THAC0 when first learning.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, most of the time when you are dealing with level appropriate monsters, a 20 is normally always an auto crit, however the rule is built to stop playings from attacking creatures with much higher defenses and aiming to get a Crit 1 out of 20 times, as we all know in 4e, a 20 isnt always a Crit - if the monster wouldnt normally be hit by anything the PC could throw at (ie a 19 + mods would still be 2 or more missing from normally hitting the monster) then only normal damage occurs.

Confirming / Conforming Crits was a useless exercise and since most D&Ders agree that rolling a 20 is one of the best experiences, having to conform is like someone winning a raffle prize, being called up to the table and told to dip their hand in again to see if they can pull their own name out a 2nd time!

Thank god its gone




Thanks for the welcome - much appreciated

I didn't mean that it was like learning calculus and it most meant as an over exaggeration but I can't be the only one that kept on forgetting how to use THAC0 when first learning.

THAC0 wasn't exactly complicated, no, but it was annoying and showed up clearly that someone should have just fixed AC so it went up instead of down, lol. I mean, that was all they did to fix things in 3e essentially.

 

[delericho]

as we all know in 4e, a 20 isnt always a Crit - if the monster wouldnt normally be hit by anything the PC could throw at (ie a 19 + mods would still be 2 or more missing from normally hitting the monster) then only normal damage occurs.

Indeed, which is why the oddity I noted only applies where the AC is exactly 20+bonus.

Confirming / Conforming Crits was a useless exercise and since most D&Ders agree that rolling a 20 is one of the best experiences, having to conform is like someone winning a raffle prize, being called up to the table and told to dip their hand in again to see if they can pull their own name out a 2nd time!

Indeed. I recall the "Design & Development" column where they addressed this (and also concealment, darkness, and other 'spoiler' effects).

I was always extremely torn on their reasoning - while removing the relative low that comes from the 'spoiler' is somewhat advantageous, it did also occur to me that the exact same logic could be employed for getting rid of the damage roll entirely (since it surely sucks to roll a (possibly rare) hit, only to get a lousy '1' for damage). Or even to get rid of failures entirely, since those also suck.

And so on. It's all about deciding where to draw the line.

 

[wlmartin]

I was always extremely torn on their reasoning - while removing the relative low that comes from the 'spoiler' is somewhat advantageous, it did also occur to me that the exact same logic could be employed for getting rid of the damage roll entirely (since it surely sucks to roll a (possibly rare) hit, only to get a lousy '1' for damage). Or even to get rid of failures entirely, since those also suck.

And so on. It's all about deciding where to draw the line.

I personally have played 3, 3.5 more than 4 and IMO, 3rd was built to call out to the players wanting to use D&D as an engine to battle. 4e is a lot more about Roleplay than 3rd ever was and IMO its so much easier to play 4th. Easier doesnt appeal to everyone, some people think that spending hours on a single encounter instead of progressing the adventure is worthwhile but I don't

I love all editions of D&D and I think this thread will never die because as many 4e converts like me that there are, 5 diehard fans hugging their previous edition corebooks will chime in and then to defend them the 4e converts will be back on.

Just one of those things i'd say

 

[wlmartin]

THAC0 wasn't exactly complicated, no, but it was annoying and showed up clearly that someone should have just fixed AC so it went up instead of down, lol. I mean, that was all they did to fix things in 3e essentially.

At the end of the day, BAB and THAC0 are essentially the same things, just reversed.. still seems a lot better now in 4e. Although 4e is a lot more egalitarian about how characters actually participate in combat.. for example high INT being the same as high DEX when figuring AC bonus.. not sure I liked that one at first and it seemed an excuse to give Wizards an excuse to avoid having to cast Shield / Armor spells.

There is plenty I prefer in 2nd than 3rd and 3rd in 4th and 4th in them all. I still get players messaging me on LFG boards I am on asking if I want to join a 1st or 2nd edition game... Its been 15 years since I played 2nd edition, not even sure if I remember most of the rules!

 

[delericho]

I personally have played 3, 3.5 more than 4 and IMO, 3rd was built to call out to the players wanting to use D&D as an engine to battle... Easier doesnt appeal to everyone, some people think that spending hours on a single encounter instead of progressing the adventure is worthwhile but I don't

It's funny. Both of these two points are the exact opposite of my impressions of 3e vs 4e. The emphasis of the 4e rules is very clearly on battle (probably on the assumption that that's where people need the support). And encounter length in 4e is vastly greater than I have ever encountered in 3e.

Evidently, your mileage varies.

Edit: the sentence I cut - I don't hugely disagree with it, although I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in the ability to roleplay in 4e vs 3e. 4e certainly doesn't seem any worse.

I love all editions of D&D and I think this thread will never die because as many 4e converts like me that there are, 5 diehard fans hugging their previous edition corebooks will chime in and then to defend them the 4e converts will be back on.

Uh-huh.

But here's the thing: I'm not a 3e diehard, and I'm more than willing to concede the weaknesses of that edition. I only stick with it as my edition of choice because it is the closest I have to "the game for me" - 4e has simply failed to grab me, while Pathfinder is even more complex than the too-complex 3.5e. If a new edition came out that did a better job (for me), I'd drop 3e in a moment and never look back.

And yet, curiously, I find myself being attacked as being "irrational" (not by you), described as a "diehard fan hugging (my) previous edition corebooks", and the like, simply because I reject 4e. Odd.