Good things in 4e

[Krusk]

Can anyone think of some stuff 4e did right? Something where there is a mechanic you enjoy using?

At the moment I have one thing. XP budgets.

Not looking for things it did better than other editions, just things that you enjoyed about it.

You might be able to pull minions in as a concept, but I always found their execution poorly done. In use, I would use 4 minions, that re-spawned until a gauntlet style spawn point was destroyed. Usually hitting like 12 or 13 in a fight.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Using the same ability progression for each class. Having regular level based progressions with bonuses rather than using bizarre multipliers. Having 'short rest powers', 'long rest powers', and 'always powers'. Making each attribute equally important. Getting rid of randomized hit points. Rituals.

They got all of the above wrong to some degree or another, but trying to get them right was something they got right.

[Josh_Kablack]

Simplifying each character's action sequence - it's still too complicated and there are still too many exceptions, but "Move, Minor, Standard, you can trade those down plus you get an Immediate and up to one Opportunity per enemy" is actually meaningful streamlining without massive functional changes to 3e's "Move + Standard=Full Round, you can use Full Round to double move, Full Attack or other explicitly full round actions, you may or may not be able to 5' step as a free action depending what else you do, you get one (or more, but still limited with feats) opportunity attack between each of your own initiative count -- Oh and then we tacked on formal rules for Swift and Immediate actions right after releasing the 3.5 revision."


You can find my comparison of 3e and 4e mechanics on this thread: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52638

[hogarth]

You might be able to pull minions in as a concept, but I always found their execution poorly done.

I agree, and that's my opinion about most things in 4E -- good idea, poor execution.

From this list:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50071

The attacker should always roll all the dice determining the effects of a power.

Your race should define what you are good at for your entire adventuring career.

Your choice of class at first level should define your character at all levels.

Your choice of Stats should define your character forever (Lago).

Monsters should be completely self contained and interact with the rest of the system and world in no way.

Players should be as isolated from the economy as possible.

Actions should take many die rolls to resolve.

The action economy should be inviolate - everyone gets one action (Lago).

Each die roll should "unpredictable" and both succeed and fail fairly often (Josh)

Every player should be attempting to "do damage" every round. (Josh)

Every player character should be healing in combat every combat (Lago).

Points of Light.

All effects should have the same durations.

Characters should be rigidly delineated into "combat roles." Like in an MMO.

Characters should be required to constantly trade up equipment with marginal improvements.

Players should bounce up from potentially fatal wounds dynamically and consistently.

Actual danger should be kept to a minimum.

All challenges and opposition should scale to the PCs (Doom314)

Enemies should have no game changing immunities - "I waste it with my crossbow" should be an answer to any problem (Doom314)

Characters should be defined by the thing they carry in their right hand ("In 4e it is all about the implements").

Abilities that don't affect combat take up space and should be deleted.

Anything that lasts longer than a combat should have a permanent cost.

Feats, and by extension any customizable part of your character, should never give you an "option" - everyone gets the same number of options that are defined in the powers. (MartinHarper)

The game should focus heavily on squares. Less than 10 squares in most cases (Josh)

World and plot affecting abilities should be taken out of the hands of players (Lago)

Battles should be to the death (Lago & Doom314)

...I think the following ideas were pretty good:

- Attackers should roll all the dice (instead of attacker rolls attacks, defender rolls saving throws).
- Monster stat blocks should be simpler than PC stat blocks.
- One standard + one move + one minor action should be enough for everyone.
- You shouldn't need magical healing.
- Skills should be an afterthought.
- Keeping track of round/minute/10 minute durations is boring.
- Some non-combat spells are better as rituals that anyone can use.

I'm sure I'll think of some more.

[Username17]

It's frankly really bizarre that 4e didn't drop with a fully functional multiclassing system, because everyone is already on the same power schedule. All you had to do was make a 5th level power basically equal to a 5th level power and give people enough powers that they could still be identifiable when taking things off of two lists, and you'd be golden.

-Username17

[hogarth]

It's frankly really bizarre that 4e didn't drop with a fully functional multiclassing system, because everyone is already on the same power schedule. All you had to do was make a 5th level power basically equal to a 5th level power and give people enough powers that they could still be identifiable when taking things off of two lists, and you'd be golden.

Like it or not, D&D is a classed system, and if you just allow people to pick and choose powers, that basically defeats the purpose of having classes in the first place.

[Krusk]

It's frankly really bizarre that 4e didn't drop with a fully functional multiclassing system, because everyone is already on the same power schedule. All you had to do was make a 5th level power basically equal to a 5th level power and give people enough powers that they could still be identifiable when taking things off of two lists, and you'd be golden.

-Username17

When I ran it, one of my more popular house rules let people take powers from any class that shared a role. You could also pick whatever stat you wanted to attack with.

It really was that easy, so I have no idea why hybrid classing was created. I explain mine in 20 seconds, theirs in 4-5 hours.

Hograth, thanks for the old thread. Will read up.

[Josh_Kablack]

Also, softened death thresholds and everyone PCs having an ability to trade their round of combat action for HP recovery were pretty good.


The crazy complexity of critical hits in both 3e and 4e still makes me nerdrage though.

[Seerow]

It's frankly really bizarre that 4e didn't drop with a fully functional multiclassing system, because everyone is already on the same power schedule. All you had to do was make a 5th level power basically equal to a 5th level power and give people enough powers that they could still be identifiable when taking things off of two lists, and you'd be golden.

-Username17

Unfortunately that was the problem: They didn't give enough powers.






Anyway list of things I thought they did right:

-Encounter building. Monster design may have been off, leading to a little too much padded sumo, but the ease of building new NPCs balanced with other NPCs, and the ease of throwing together encounters, was a huge strength of 4e. I always hated running 3.5 encounters, DMing 4e was a much better experience.

-Elites and Minions. Solos I feel went too far and really feed into the padded sumo feel, but elite monsters are a nice in between, and are a good fit for the monsters that are intended to be tougher than average. Minions similarly let characters feel awesome by wrecking their way through tons of minions, while still providing relevant challenge compared to swarming players with a bunch of lower leveled opponents (who would similarly go down in one shot but have no chance of hitting or damaging PCs)


-Player HP/healing surges. HP starts higher and ends lower, this is a good thing. Healing surges allow for healing to scale easily, so healing in combat remains relevant. Some people don't like in combat healing so complain about this, but I do think it is a good change.

[RobbyPants]

The crazy complexity of critical hits in both 3e and 4e still makes me nerdrage though.

I don't know how they work in 4E. How are they complex in 3E? Is it in figuring out what does and doesn't multiply?

[CapnTthePirateG]

Getting rid of rolling for stats.

[Swordslinger]

-One bonus type for buff powers. Everything is a power bonus, as opposed to a hodgepodge of random crap that can be stacked and abused.

-Much easier NPC creation.

-Numerical guidelines for monster stats and skill DCs.

-The power format. It's just so much easier to read than prior editions.

-Healing surges. Much better than ticking off wand charges or being forced to go back to town to heal like 2E.

-Half elves that aren't total ass.

-Fighter types that don't suck.

[BearsAreBrown]

Less 'nickel and dime'-ing of buffs.
Power tiers.

[hogarth]

-The power format. It's just so much easier to read than prior editions.

I cannot disagree with this more. If the powers are easier to read compared to 3.5, it's because they don't do anything at all interesting or complicated. The format itself is specifically designed to cause either a migraine or a narcoleptic attack after reading 5 or 10 powers, from my experience.

[NineInchNall]

-The power format. It's just so much easier to read than prior editions.

I cannot disagree with this more. If the powers are easier to read compared to 3.5, it's because they don't do anything at all interesting or complicated. The format itself is specifically designed to cause either a migraine or a narcoleptic attack after reading 5 or 10 powers, from my experience.

This. Oh, god, this.

This sort of ties into the fact that the mechanical effects of most powers are samey and completely divorced from the supposed narrative effects. I mean, from other RPGs I'm used to skipping past the wordy-ass description straight to the mechanics, and the mechanics themselves tell me what the narrative is.

"[W]+Cha and slide 1" tells me nothing and feels very card-gamey.

[Swordslinger]

I cannot disagree with this more. If the powers are easier to read compared to 3.5, it's because they don't do anything at all interesting or complicated. The format itself is specifically designed to cause either a migraine or a narcoleptic attack after reading 5 or 10 powers, from my experience.

I'm not talking about the powers themselves, merely the format. The main thing with 4E powers is that they list what happens on a hit, what happens on a miss and what always happens (the effect).

That makes it less likely to write weird ambiguity errors like Pathfinder's forcecage, where you have a "Reflex negates" but no mention of what that actually means. Does the cage just not come into being at all? Does the creature get to move out of the cage before it appears? Can the creature opt to stay in the cage if it wants? This is a fundamental problem with the 3E spell description block, because you have to rely on the designer to include for all the contingencies in the actual text.

Similarly, 3E spells that grant a status effect, like blinded that have a Reflex half. Does making the save negate the status effect? In many spells the text actually tells you, but the default rule is ambiguous and as a spell creator it's fairly easy to leave that out.

The 4E block reduces and eliminates a lot of those ambiguities because it states exactly what happens in each case. There's no grey area of what effects apply if your opponent succeeds on the save.

[hogarth]

I cannot disagree with this more. If the powers are easier to read compared to 3.5, it's because they don't do anything at all interesting or complicated. The format itself is specifically designed to cause either a migraine or a narcoleptic attack after reading 5 or 10 powers, from my experience.

I'm not talking about the powers themselves, merely the format.

Absolutely. The format is terrible, and the only reason that it's not ten times as terrible is because the powers are ultra-simplified as a rule. Reading pages and pages of powers with little to no related fluff is terribad.

I should note that there's a place and a use for a condensed listing without fluff, similar to the appendix of abridged monster stats from the 1E DMG. But that's purely for reference, not something that you would read for any sort entertainment value. Rule books should be entertaining to read, not a chore.

[tzor]

Like it or not, D&D is a classed system, ...

But was it really a classed system or a "role" system where each iconic class basically was its own "role." Even in the non linear days of 1E there were many cases where classes existed that gave class features to a role other than the base role of the base class.

The classic example is the 1E Ranger; vastly different from later editions, the real 1E Ranger was a sword wielding spell caster (and a sword wielding caster of wizard and druid spells at that). Thus the character could still play the "role" of the meele guy while getting some additional spells to throw around.

Crossing the streams in 1E wasn't obvious because you wrote a new class that combined the features you wanted to cross and you were done. Yet that was in effect happening.

[tzor]

Absolutely. The format is terrible, and the only reason that it's not ten times as terrible is because the powers are ultra-simplified as a rule. Reading pages and pages of powers with little to no related fluff is terribad.

I have to agree. Rule designers have to look at the layout concepts behind the "For Dummies" book (understanding that the layout is written for a different page size than most rulebooks) (by the way is there a "Writing Dummies Books For Dummies" book) as well as other books on formatting in order to get information across in a simple format.

Lots of rule books are horrid at the layout format. When they succeed it is in spite of the horrid layout. Some horrid systems succeeded merely because they took the time to use a format that gave a better impression.

[Swordslinger]

I'm not talking about the powers themselves, merely the format.

Absolutely. The format is terrible, and the only reason that it's not ten times as terrible is because the powers are ultra-simplified as a rule. Reading pages and pages of powers with little to no related fluff is terribad.

I guess fluff has never been a huge deal for me. 4E gives you a one line bit of fluff you can put to a power, which is fine enough. I can add my own fluff to fireball without the book giving it to me.

It's one thing to complain about the 4E monster manual for a lack of fluff, but as far as powers go, I don't need a one paragraph description of dazing strike or magic missile. What I do need to do is access rules quickly and easily, and that means not having to wade through a paragraph of bullshit to figure out how much damage the spell does and what happens if the person succeeds on their save.

If anything, including flavor in powers confused people, I can't count the number of PCs who started using 3E flavor text to try to justify doing something illegal by the rules. It's better to have no flavor text at all rather than flavor text I have to ignore.

[hogarth]

I guess fluff has never been a huge deal for me.

If that's the case, then you should be complaining that the 4E format is a gigantic waste of space. Without fluff or the requirement to state the power's effect in plain English, you could compress 90%+ of all powers into a single line, I bet (again, along the lines of the appendix in the 1E DMG).

If anything, including flavor in powers confused people, I can't count the number of PCs who started using 3E flavor text to try to justify doing something illegal by the rules. It's better to have no flavor text at all rather than flavor text I have to ignore.

The fact that 3E's format has some failings does not mean that 4E's format should get bonus points.

[Josh_Kablack]

The crazy complexity of critical hits in both 3e and 4e still makes me nerdrage though.

I don't know how they work in 4E. How are they complex in 3E? Is it in figuring out what does and doesn't multiply?

3e confirmed crits should be a straight multiplier. They're not, since added dice don't multiply - but weapons can have multiple dice, or stage up due to size increasing effects and then that gets multiplied, even though it is dice it's base weapon damage. The "no dice" limit adds complexity without actually doing a damn thing for balance - there are so very many ways to snag additional static +1s to +4s to damage that do get multiplied on crits that the restriction becomes meaningless in mid-level or wide-ruleset 3e games.

4e crits should be a straight max damage result. They're not, since any magic weapon (which any weapon-based character will have by 3rd-5th level) has it's own extra dice add which are rolled and added on a crit, and weapons with the "heavy crit" property get an extra rolled amount equal to the base damage of the weapon. Thus critting on a [2W] power with a +3 Greataxe yields a damage expression of 24+3+1d12+3d6. It breaks down like this: 24 damage (twice the weapon maximum of 12) +3 (static for +3 weapon)
+1d12 (rolled for heavy crit) 3d6 (rolled for "magic" property's added die size * number of +s). And that is neglecting any attribute adds, feat bonuses, cheesetastic item bonus or power bonuses your buddies may have buffed you with. At least in 4e, all these additions do serve a bit of a balance function to help mitigate padded sumo - but it's still far far more complicated than it needs to be to do that and I could shit out better mechanics - I mean that I could probably come up with three more streamlined and easier to explain systems that would give equivalent average damage numbers while taking a crap.

[ishy]

Don't forget about the 3.5 rule that magic weapons that have on crit effects still work vs crit immune monsters.
So if you attack a skeleton it is immune to your regular crit dmg but still takes the fiery burst dmg (even 50% extra for its fire vulnerability)

[BearsAreBrown]

And don't forget if you have multiple multiplicative effects you use an incorrect order of operations.

[Swordslinger]

If that's the case, then you should be complaining that the 4E format is a gigantic waste of space. Without fluff or the requirement to state the power's effect in plain English, you could compress 90%+ of all powers into a single line, I bet (again, along the lines of the appendix in the 1E DMG).

The 4E format was not as space conscious as it should have been, but it was on the right track with the presentation.

A 1E/2E/3E spell or martial maneuver wastes more space than a 4E power does, so even on space saving, the 4E method was better. The other editions only method of keeping word count down was by referencing abilities printed elsewhere, but in the location they were printed, they weren't space efficient.