This has something to do with the 5 man party, correct? The game assumes you have a "balanced" 5 man team because the DM is assumed to construct "balanced" monster parties. All class or role based systems make this assumption. You're generally assumed to have a warriors to protect the casters and deal damage, a caster or utility character for diversity reasons, a dedicated character for healing, a charismatic or roguish character due to their wealth of skills, and another tank or ranged fighter to pick off enemies from afar.1. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
I've never seen a class/role based system that circumvents the idea of a "balanced" team. If your players choose to be the same class or an unbalanced party based on the player handbook's recommendation, then it's the game master's job to modify the campaign to fit it. If your party consisted entirely of fighters then it would be completely unfair to have them fight wizards in large, open fields around every corner.
The people with a beef against 4E seem to forget that, like all RPGs, the rules are an abstraction. This doesn't mean that they're inherently broken, it means that it's ultimately up to the GM to modify what exists to keep things fun which is the most important factor in any game.
Now before you go on the WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT HOMEBREW!!!11 tangent, neither am I. Modifying encounters isn't homebrew, it's the GM's job. Altering things within the bounds of the written rules isn't homebrew. Now if I made all goblins have mechanical wings or changed the HP system to a wounds system then that'd be homebrew.
Again, the fault of the GM. In open terrain mounts have the advantage. The same is true for any fast creature. If all your characters fight in is flat, featureless terrain then you're a poor DM.2. The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks. (Related to World Fail.)
If you have trouble with fast creatures, then introduce controllers. That's the reason they're in the game. Abilities like slow and area attacks were designed to hinder fast creatures. Strikers and brutes will obvious have a tough time battling mounts but most soldier type monsters have hit-and-run attacks or methods of keeping players bound to them.
Like I said above, if every battlefield is flat, featureless terrain then you've already failed as a DM.3. Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game. (Related to World Fail.)
Besides, bows have ammunition and the range increment on a bow is within the bounds of most ranged attacks or spells. If the flying monster in question attacks out of range then all the players have to do is find cover (which is easy given the angle of the attacker), use total defense (and unless the monster of the same level as the player gets a lucky shot, they're not bound to hit often), or run away.
As far as monsters picking up a bow and using it, the DMG provides rules for base attacks for every monster. For example, a level 1 soldier is assumed to have a +6 to attack. If a level 1 soldier picks up a bow then simply allow the monster to attack with a +6 bonus and deal 1d8 + whatever modifier damage.
I don't understand what's wrong with the economy as long as you follow the recommendations in the DMG. I read the post on the rust monster but there's a little block under it saying DM's should instantly put a stop to players who abuse the monster's powers.2. The entire economic system is a clusterfuck of not-sense-making. (Related to #1.)
Another failing on the DM. I've run plenty of 4E games and I've never had a problem explaining powers.3. Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers require such an effort that your strength can only be mustered once before you rest.
Encounter powers require such a great expenditure of energy that you need a breather before doing them again.
In my games, Hp doesn't represent physical health but rather fatigue. Your healing surge limit is what I use to describe overall health. A person with 1 hit point and 8 out of 8 healing surges is perfectly fine. A character with 100 out of 120 hit points and 0 out of 8 healing surges is about to fucking kick the bucket.
It's a much more plausible system. Hp in video games has always been used as an abstraction and yet we are to believe a character at 1 hp with his head about to fall is magically healed to full with no visible wounds by a single spell? No, healing surges are a much better way to gauge health than Hp.
I don't know, I need a better example but the description of powers within the realms of fantasy rely on the DM.
Daily powers replaced daily abilities from 3.5. There's little difference in the way they work. The powers are assumed to be so exceptional that you can only muster the energy once before you rest.4. Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"
Healing surges were designed to replace the need for walking healing machines. A cleric no longer has to 'save' spells to spontaneously cast them before the party rests. If a character runs out of healing surges, which isn't implausible if they're fighting through three or four encounters at a time, then they're forced to retreat until the next day.6. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
Yes, healing occurs instantly thus removing that long lull in 3.5 spent healing naturally. 4E is a game of high fantasy meaning a low fantasy game where healing is rare will require modifications to the existing ruleset.
I don't agree with this at all. A sorcerer isn't the same as a barbarian, for example. They're both strikers, but a sorcerer focuses on range over melee. A sorcerer's spells are weaker but a barbarian leaves himself open. One may compare a ranger with a sorcerer but sorcerer spells are wild and can even strike their own party members.1. A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
I've played with several parties and none of them felt the same in combat or in roleplaying.
I don't understand this either. A fighter is just that; a fighter. This has remained the same in all editions of DnD. 4E offers several paragon variants for each class, feats based on race, and variants based on race. No two people, without prior knowledge, could possibly build the same class.2. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
Again, it's the DM's job to set the pace of the game. DnD has always been a game about combat. If you want a combat lite game, then give more experience for skill challenges or completing quests. If the players look for trouble then give them trouble. If they don't, then don't (within reason).3. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode. (Related to Balance Fail and World Fail.)
This I will agree with as I loved magic in 3E.4. Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Try playing a ranger with an animal companion in 4e. Try playing a witch with a familiar in 4e. Try playing a bard in Core 4e.
However, we're talking about 4E, remember? 4E assumes that no one can raise or control other creatures in the name of "balance." The game works fine without it. Rituals cover the utility effects spells once did such as teleportation or passing through walls. The new rule books also allow you to summon creatures and own familiars.
I don't understand this either. How do you grind in a tabletop game unless the DM allows it?3. HP bloat resulting in grinding.
I read the skill challenge topic.4. Skill challenges are completely broken.
Players don't have to contribute. Even better, if a player can find a way to give a bonus to another player then they can use that relative skill at no penalty to the failures of the particular skill challenge.
But I'll repeat myself, players don't have to participate. If five chefs are cooking a cake and one of them is only skilled at frying stake, that chef realistically doesn't have to help the others out, right?
Again, I can't really agree with this because solo monsters embody every monster type. They can attack multiple times, they always have a ranged attack, they can disable players, and they have action points. If you find the combat boring, then it's up to the DM to introduce something unique like a trap or other monsters. If that means you have to lower the level of the solo monster to add in other challenges then so be it.5. Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.
The most subjective complaint. I preferred the old system of magic but rituals essentially replace the utility spells that wizards always kept 1 or 2 scrolls on "just in case."6. Ritual system is retarded.
First off, the "15 minute work day" doesn't work in 3E. Your powers recharge after 24 hours NOT eight hours of rest. Spellcasters require 8 hours to realign spells, but if you cast a level 3 spell and rest you're still down a 3rd level spell until you wait another 16 hours.7. Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.
As far as 4E goes, you can't take an extended rest until 12 hours have passed. If players enter a dungeon, fight one encounter, and then leave to rest they'll have to wait until their powers recharge. In that time they could be attacked or something else happens. A game should never be in "time stop" mode where the world comes to a grinding halt while the players are adventuring. That's another failure on the DM's part. If the players wait around until they can rest, logically something is going to happen across them especially if they're waiting in a dungeon.
In effect, it makes more sense to press on until all of your resources are taxed then "expend all daily powers, run away and rest." If the DM allows players to cheat the system, then the DM should stop them. I certainly wouldn't allow a party to rest outside the dungeon unmolested.
I'd like to know exactly what doesn't make sense because I've yet to come across a mechanic that halted a game for longer than 5 minutes.8. Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics.
I read this topic and it made no sense either.9. Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.
The typical 5 man party assumes you've got a guy to draw attacks his way, a guy to dish high amounts of damage, a guy to control the battlefield, a guy to do the healing and help people fight, and a fifth member that can be any of the above four. A party of 5 rangers or 5 sorcerers ultimately won't survive if the DM creates encounters as recommended by the DMG.
----------
To make a long post short, a lot of the complaints I'm reading are the result of the DM not being able to adapt to the new rules. I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons since the original white box and each edition has required me to adapt my play style gradually. 4E is perhaps the most drastic of changes to the system but after a month of playing I haven't run into any problems when abiding by the rule books.
Any trappings you have with the system itself, I guarantee is the result that you aren't DM'ing it properly.
