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

[ProfessorCirno]

"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.

That's not a class feature, that's basic mechanics.

 

[steenan]

There are several things done really well in 4E, IMO. I see them as definite improvements in game design over previous editions.
- Consistent, effect-based mechanics. The system represents what is done and how successful; methods left to description.
- Consistent agenda. 4E is about tactical combat, finding treasure and getting more powerful. It is definitely gamist, all pretense to setting simulation discarded (as opposed to previous editions that tried to simulate with no success). All other pieces of the system changed, simplified or removed not to get in the way.
- Good balance. 4E has a clear focus and it is balanced in the area it focuses on.
- Various parts of the system that go well with the game style it wants to achieve (healing surges, encounter powers, multiple saves on deadly effects)

The game is very well designed. Unfortunately, the changes that make it so at the same time move it further from my preferences. I want simulationist play, setting and character exploration, quick combats - exact opposite of what 4E offers. It is a very good game, but not for me.

 

[Reynard]

That's not a class feature, that's basic mechanics.

If it was basic mechanics it would apply to everyone. I think there's too much focus on being rewarded for playing as it is; what happened to the reward *of* playing -- you know, fun.

 

[TheNovaLord]

i played it for about six months

had some good things, not many of which where unique/new

healing surge...like that you could sit down after a combat and 'get better' w/o needing a medic

skill challenges. should be place for great narration to fulfill the challenges of a scene, but feels much more colder than that

minions

something at every level

 

[Neonchameleon]

skill challenges. should be place for great narration to fulfill the challenges of a scene, but feels much more colder than that

Just pitching in, Skill Challenges are very badly explained IMO. The way I use them when DMing is marking down a tally chart on a piece of paper - and running the actual challenge as a fluff driven session with the skill challenge results for keeping score on a complex activity. It helps me pace it, allows partial failures within an overall success, and helps me know how much experience to give. The one thing never to do with them is tell the players they are in a skill challenge - every time I've seen that happen it's at best seemed cold, and at worst like a mechanical excercise in rolling dice.

 

[Fifth Element]

If it was basic mechanics it would apply to everyone. I think there's too much focus on being rewarded for playing as it is; what happened to the reward *of* playing -- you know, fun.

That's a facile response - if all you need is the fun of playing, then why have levels at all? There's no need for advancement, since you can have fun paying without it!

I think that if players are playing a game that involves mechanical advancement, you should assume that they enjoy mechanical advancement. That is, mechanical advancement increases the fun for them. It's not a question of fun/not fun, but fun/even more fun.

 

[Fifth Element]

"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.

And at 5th, 7th, 13th, 17th and 19th levels, that's all he got, other than hit points (where he could roll 1) and a very small number of skill points. He didn't even get any more save bonuses or iterative attacks. No feat, no fighter bonus feat, no ability score increase.

Now, I would agree that the importance of "dead levels" if often overstated, but to call them a lie is demonstrably incorrect, I think.

The issue is probably more about the uneven power gain. Again with the fighter, at 5th and 7th level he gets +1 to attack, and some hit points and skill points. But at 6th level, he gets all of this, plus his first iterative attack, plus a feat, plus a bonus fighter feat and +1 to all his saves. You can see how 5th and 7th look "dead" compared to 6th.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

They got the game in decent distribution channels.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I've never played 4e, but would definitely like to give it a whirl. The things that spring to mind that I like (in concept, if not always in implementation):

- healing surges/second wind
- simplified monsters
- rituals
- "bloodied" and tying abilities/tactics to it.
- SSSoD (as another class of attack, though not to replace SoD)
- minions
- defenses scheme
- the cosmology (because, oddly, it closely matches the one I've been using for along time)

Actually, much of what I like about 4e are things that I'd already done to 3.5e in some form or another, either on my own or with alt rule systems like Trailblazer or UA.

 

[Ariosto]

What they did RIGHT is not identical with what I like. Actually, if there is something I especially like, then that is more probably something they got wrong.

The balancing of classes seems to be a big winner. It's something I gather many people had wanted for a long time. It's something that called for careful thinking, and for being ready to dump "legacy" assumptions as necessary.