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

[Psion]

Put me down for iterative attacks... just remember which d20 game nixed it first.

Also, static defenses. That reflex save mod was a different thing from touch AC in 3.5 never sat well with me.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

(1) Looting isn't the only reason to search a downed enemy. IMO, discouraging searching (as opposed to looting) is taking a lot from the game.

I've nothing against searching. I dislike "I loot the bodies" "It's a goddamn primitive goblin with a knife made of stone, what exactly do you expect to find?" I also dislike "Well, I can't give this enemy this awesome attack, because then the PCs will loot it and I don't want that. Welp."

And I really don't get "I loot the body." "Ok, you find - " "Wait I rolled a 13 on my search check!" "...How difficult do you think it is to check a body?"

 

[Alcamtar]

4e has a few nifty additions:
- rituals
- at will spells
- mooks (er, minions)
- attack vs static defense
- bloodied

However, these are all things I already had in non-D&D games. I like beef, and I like ice cream, but I don't want beef ice cream. When I sit down to play D&D I want it pure, served straight up. And I like playing other games too.

4e does however go back to a few things that I prefer from earlier editions:
- less multiclassing
- single axis alignment
- points of light
- no meta-system for monster creation
- abstract hit points

Props for these. I'm sure there would be more if I took the trouble to read through it.

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.

Laugh!

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you are wondering what happened to all the iterative attack discussion posts, I've forked them over to this new thread here

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/289311-discussion-iterative-attacks.html

This thread for 'what did 4e get right please.

Thanks

 

[messy]

3) Removing iterative attacks. In high level 3e I found that it made fighters and their ilk the gods of combat, and even the most experienced wizards just had to stand back and watch the fighters demolish foes. I like that everyone is more on the same page there (and it promotes more mobile combat than a typical 'stand still and full attack' option.

i wasn't aware of this change. it can be #3 on my list, too.


messy

 

[Verdande]

I am not sure that actually happened. I played 4E monthly for about a year and, at low levels at least, extended rests to regain dailies and item uses were just as common as they were in previous editions.

As an aside: the key to solving the 15 minute adventuring day is to not let the PCs to rest safely whenever and wherever they want, and that requires a living, breathing adventuring setting.

Who said anything about them resting safely? Wandering monsters, money pressures, and a need to get stuff done helps limit the extra resting. But that doesn't mean that players aren't attempting to rest after every combat, or that they aren't right in wanting to.

In my mind, when the system requires that players take a position that is contrary to genre, it's the system that's at fault, not the individual DMs. To that end, I still hold that the 15 minute adventuring day is a problem inherent in the system, and that 4e takes tentative steps towards solving it. They still haven't succeeded, unfortunately, but they've got a rabid player base to please, after all.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

To that end, I still hold that the 15 minute adventuring day is a problem inherent in the system, and that 4e takes tentative steps towards solving it. They still haven't succeeded, unfortunately, but they've got a rabid player base to please, after all.

I agree. 4e took one big step forward by providing a reason to fight on (an AP every second fight), but simultaneously took a step backward by providing more reason to take an extended snooze (a free AP).

So, just like in earlier editions, fighting on still relies on 1) player metagaming or 2) DM railroading.

 

[Stormonu]

1. Dead levels are essentially non-existent.

"Dead levels" is, I think, one of the biggest lies perpetrated about 3E. For example, to me Fighters had no "dead levels". They got the class feature "+1 bonus to attack" at least every level.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Dead levels" is, I think, one of the biggest lies perpetrated about 3E. For example, to me Fighters had no "dead levels". They got the class feature "+1 bonus to attack" at least every level.

Well, it never bugged me, but it cannot be argued that there were levels at which PCs got only minimal bennies- a few HP and skill points- as opposed to the game's hallmark abilities (spells, feats).

4Ed largely equalizes the balance between level-based awards.

 

[Aldarc]

"Dead levels" is, I think, one of the biggest lies perpetrated about 3E. For example, to me Fighters had no "dead levels". They got the class feature "+1 bonus to attack" at least every level.

It's just +1 what I already do. That's not as exciting or rewarding as more spells or new abilities.