You don't play 4E, but what did they get RIGHT?

[Dykstrav]

One thing I forgot about until now... I do like how many powers include effects beyond damage, in theory, although it's a real pain to keep track of.

I've seen a few different people mentioning "no buffs to track" as something they like about 4E. I must respectfully disagree with this assertion, there are far more situational modifiers to track (de-buffs as well as buffs), and it's one of the things that I actively dislike about 4E. The buffs and de-buffs can change every single round.

Many leader classes are a big handful of buffs to track. There are still things like bless and shield of faith that clerics will ideally cast at the beginning of an encounter. Every cleric at-will in the Player's Handbook has a situational buff that players have to be reminded about on every turn... And it's typically a pretty minor benefit (a +1 or +2) that only applies until the end of the turn. Three out of five of the wizard at-wills in the Player's Handbook have situational effects to track as well.

 

[Jor-El]

I made a long "pros and cons" list for myself one time, and the cons list is a lot longer, but there were several pros I really liked.

Then I realized that some of the pros were things that already existed in 3E, although there were often optional rules. That being said, the items from 4E that I like:

1. Healing surges. (in concept)
2. The emphasis on how abstract HPS are.
3. The emphasis on DM fiat.
4. Minions and Solos (in concept)
5. The emphasis on the importance of exciting terrain

 

[Joshua Randall]

I don't like 4E and IMO it has no redeeming qualities or features.

OK, let me get this straight: in a thread titled "You don't play 4E, but what did they get RIGHT?", you decided it was a good idea to post just to say you don't like 4e?

Can you explain how your post adds anything worthwhile to this discussion?

Did you know that you are not required to respond to, let alone read, every post on a message board?

If you don't like something, just be quiet about it. There's no need to inform everyone of your dislike.

Also, putting IMO in underline is not a free pass to be a jerk.

 

[Beginning of the End]

There's been no "low-end" or "high-end" of the power scale lopped off, because there was no low end or high end of the power scale to begin with. There was "An orc attacks and you die, reroll, boy isn't this fun," and there's "Ok we're going to stop playing because the game no longer makes sense." What 4e did was say "Being level 1 sucked because of how stupid fragile and grubby you were, so that's gone. Being level 20 sucked because the game no longer functioned, so that's gone."

You might want to look up the definition of "lopped off". Because saying "they didn't lop it off, it's just gone" is complete nonsense.

 

[Reynard]

Pathfinder did the same thing, too, you know. And it's a better game for it.

The what now? Last I checked, PF 1st level PCs were still quite fragile and had to take care when adventuring, and 15th level PF PCs were still quite complex and demi-godlike and had to take care not to incinerate innocent nations when fighting.

And the game is better for it.

See, here's the thing about the "sweet spot": it's only the sweet spot if that's what you like. It seems that for most people the sweet spot is "pretty powerful, capable of cool feats and not too fragile, but also not to complicated". Yay -- enjoy levels 5 to 11 or so. But some people think the "sweet spot" is being heroic, but human, with capabalities kinda above those of normal men, but don't get cocky. PF levels 1-5 on Slaw Advancement gives you a solid year of that kind of play. And some few (deranged) folks believe being able to level armies and traverse the multiverse in search of Wands of Orcus is the "Sweet Spot". Hello 20th level.

In "lopping off" the low and high ends, 4E extended one "sweet spot" at the expense of the others. Which is fine and all, if that's what you want, but don't suggest a) PF did that, because it didn't, or b) that is somehow objectively better than the weird traditional D&D chump-champ-demigod powercurve.

 

[Fifth Element]

1) Treasure parcels and reducing the players going "I loot the bodies" after every fight. I'm none to keen on wish lists, but having set places of treasure rather then chewing your nails over what kind of equipment every enemy has because of looting is a good move, and it helps encourage the more adventurous style of gaming. Neither Frodo nor Han Solo paused to loot the bodies. One thing that makes this go from good idea/bad implementation to just "good idea" is this rather handy website.

Man oh man, it's taking my players forever to adapt to this. We've been playing 4E for over a year, and they still try to loot every body, no matter how many times they find absolutely nothing of value.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I continue relentlessly to do fine high level 3.5. Please, PLEASE explain what I do wrong.

I'm pretty much sick of statement like this. Not suitable for every taste? OK. Overcomplicated? Maybe. Unplayable? Hell, no.

Difficult to say, maybe I try to tell you what you maybe do right...

- Maybe you didn´t misinterpret CR as "a typical combat only has one enemy"
- Maybe you don´t allow scry buff and teleport stupidity
- Maybe you have nice players, that don´t try to abuse the out of some classes

What you may be doing "wrong":

- you say no, when PC´s wants to combo stuff without flavour, just to abuse some feartures of prestige classes
- you may not allow creating every item the PCs want to have
- you may not follow strict monster building guidelines, especially when you are creating "solos"

What you could be doing wrong (i.e. unfair)

- you could design your encounters by cancelling out each autowin button PC´s have. (Which IMHO can lead to very frustrated PCs and DMs)

And if your players are doing it "right", 3.5 can fall apart on level 3 and upwards...

I could contribute a bit to the topic a bit, but I didn´t play a lot of 3rd edition after we changed to 4e... but at the end of 3.5 i hoped for:

- no instant win spells (funny for PCs, but a bit frustrating for DMs)
- hit point philosophy (I already tinkered with cure spells healing d12 on barbarians and d4 on wizards, as 1hp has different "meaning" for wizards and barbarians)
- useful and straightforward monster creating guidelines... (In the end, my monster conversions from 2nd edition ended in hp as appropriate, AC as appropriate, abilities like in 2nd edition)

 

[the Jester]

Thanks to whoever deleted the flaming douchebaggery that was starting up.

Earlier I posted "ease of dming" as a 4e-got-it-right. Here's another one- the game is evolving without requiring a major rewrite. The folks at WotC are responding to gamers who are critical of their baby: Essentials looks like a laundry list of retro-style options to me (random treasure, no power martial pcs, etc). I'm glad to see their responsiveness, especially given how divisive 4e was to the gaming community at large.

 

[olshanski]

I like that they unified the mechanics of "Armor Class" and the various saves (Reflex, Will, Fortitude).

What they currently call "Saving throw" appears to be actually "Half-life of bad effect", and that seems pretty neat as well.

I like that spellcasters and fighters are more balanced... it appears to make it easier to play a wizard at low level, and easier to play a fighter at high level.

I especially like the name "Dungeons and Dragons" because it sounds like a game I am familiar with, it has nostalgia value, and it is sort of a leading industry name.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've deleted several posts that were seriously off topic and issued a warning.

Lets keep this thread on topic from now on please!

Thanks