So What Did You Like About 4th Ed?


 Had to think a bit about this thread. If you have nothing nice to say about 4th ed please do not post, if you love 4th ed this thread is not really for you but please feel free to post something. This thread is mainly for players who prefer other editions but did like something at least from 4th ed. THe reason? When WoTC designs a new system they have a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Star Wars Saga for example was a great system but not that much of it carried over into 4th. Very little of 3.5 carried over to 4th ed either.

 One thing the edition wars posts have made clear over the last 4 years or so is  that gamers do not like it when their favourite system they are passionate about is facing oblivion. Same thing as 2008 as at the time Pathfinder did not exist and the 4th ed players will have no Pathfinder for themselves.

 However D&DN is going to need to attract gamers from every version of D&D. D&DN has 4th ed influences but it proably resembles pre 3rd ed D&D more than 3.5 or 4th ed. Broadly speaking there is probably 3 types of D&D player although they can overlap.

Pre 3rd ed.
d20 (3.0-PF)
4th ed.

Obviously you are not going to get everything you want in D&DN. Mechanics can change but one could aim for a 1/3rd content that at least resembles something one is familiar with in your preferred playstye. D&DN has 4th ed influences espicially in the monsters.

 Put simply what did you like about 4th ed that you do not mind D&DN borrowing and will not push the grognard buttons to hard. I'll post my pones below so as not to have a massive 1st thread.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Things I liked About 4th ed.

Cosmology. I prefered 4th eds system being honest. I would rather have the Great Wheel as core, tradition and all that  but I have quickly yoinked 4th eds system for my home games.

Weapons.
d20 heavily rewarded optimisation in its weapons. Generally that meant two handed weapons and various exotic weapons. This continues in Pathfinder where two handed weapons, the scimitar, guns, and 18-20X2/19-20/X3 crit range weapons are generally the best ones. D&DN has kind of solved this problem to some extent but the weapons are a bit bland although my PCs are using a variety of them compard to 3rd ed/PF.

Armor.
 D&D has never really had good armor rules. The one with the best AC that you can use or be strong enough to wear is often the best one. 3rd ed tried to break this but once again the system may as well have had Chain shirt, Breastplate and Full plate along with mithril versions of them. 4th ed wasn't great in this regard but making different classes proficient in differnet armors had a retro feel and was interesting.

 Monsters.
 The encounter building rules and monsters in genral were quite good in 4th ed. WHile I did not like roles for PCs, roles for monsters was a great idea. Tweaking 4th ed onsters to D&DN and having a look at minon/elite/solo rules could also be a good idea.

DMG.
4th ed had a great monster manual and I liked DMing it better in alot of ways than 3rd ed varients. D&DN runs fast and is easy to run so it seems 3rd ed missed out here but I'm fine with that. I prefer pre 3rd ed D&DN and 4th to 3rd ed at least to DM and design. Pathfinder does make the DMs job easier with excellent adventure paths, not so much fun designing your own though.

Races.
 I liked alot of 4th ed races. Custom designing races for certain classes not so much but the overall idea was a good one. I am also fine with -1 or -2 applied on some stats a'la pre 4th and SWSE but its not somehitng I would get upset over. Suffice to say I prefer 4th ed (and 3.5) races over D&DN somewhat anemic/boring races. I did actually like the essentials human as well as the human is the best race in PF it seems.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

For the past 7 years or so, 4e had been my system of choice.

The biggest for me was the speed in which I was able to DM the game.  When prepping the game, I would only need to worry about a handful of DC for the game when players wanted to do something, monsters were very easy to customize and faster than previous editions, and backgrounds were basically the non-weapon proficiencies.

I don't care one way or the other what the classes do power wise, I do however like the balance.  Again, just made DMing faster.  It reduced that margin of error.  

Since DCs are a bit different this time around - I would say if I could take one thing from 4e and bring it in is that, of all the editions, it was the easiest and fastest to customize a monster, and the monster manuals already had variations of each race so you could quickly pick a healer, two fighters, and archer for a party to encounter.

Quick edit: I always run my own adventures in my own campaign setting, so this is why ease of customization is so big for me.
 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Tricky question.

I liked encounter spells, and how utility spells were no longer competing against combat spells for the same limited resources.  I really liked the idea of rituals as at-will magic with a casting time and some real material cost behind it.

I really liked some of the martial at-will abilities, like Cleave, and how the two-weapon fighting schtick was a discrete maneuver that didn't just act as a force multiplier.

The metagame is not the game.

Scottevil I never got to play 4th ed only DM it. I hope the designers look at 4th ed in this regard anyway.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

A list:

Standardized attacks and defenses.

Consolidated skill list.

System math that worked more smoothly than any edition yet (and still works better than 5e).

Interesting options for non casters.

Spells that were far more interesting than those of previous editions.

Class differentiation. 4e had classes that actually play differently instead of having just 2 classes (caster or not caster).

Significant reduction in the power of daily resources limiting the effects of the 5MWD.

Non Vancian casters! The first time I ever enjoyed playing a caster.

Ease of multiclassing and hybrid classing.

Ease of creating character concepts. 4e has allowed me to finally be able to create the characters I have always wanted without being restrained by the inadequacies of the system.

Encounter based resource management (including healing surges).

Martial healing.

Relative combat balance (out of combat balance needed work).

Utility powers and rituals.

At-will magic.

Defined roles helping to differentiate characters. Right now 5e classes appear to be a mish mash either capable of performing 3 roles at once or no roles at all.
Not a big fan of 4e. In fact the times I've tried to run it usually fail immediately do to the pain caused me by watching people make characters.
Aside from that 4e had some good ideas. Though I may not have agreed with their implementation.

Healing Strikes - the whole cure spells don't eat up your whole action. Made making a War cleric worth while.

Monster Customization - I especially liked that you could just drop in an ability or spell effect to make for a more unique version of the monster. It was a little cumbersome to wrap my head around at first. Once I got it down, though.

the DMG - I found this to be the best written version of DMG I had ever read through. It wasn't that different than previous versions to be honest, but it was better written and edited.

Skill list - Short and sweet. Condensing skills was a definite improvement. Not a big fan of the bonus progression and training.

At will cantrips and orisons - I found this to be a great addition to casters. In fact, my ideal casting system is a bit of vancian and at-wills and rituals. D&DNext is on that track already which makes me happy.

Taunt type abilities - while these can be mechanically dissociative I think it was a good first try. In previous editions I've worked very hard to make Knight-style characters be primary targets. Hell, I know players that would have killed for any kind of taunt mechanic prior to very high levels.
Well, i do not like 4E, but i did notice one good ability;

1) Reduced time need for GM's to prepare a session

I haven’t played 3.5 or 4 at all. But the other day I bought the D&D 4e DMG1. I feel that the focus on encounter balance is a bit to heavily weighted, as a DM I’m going to do whatever feels right for the game. That being said it is an awesome tool if your starting from scratch and need a place to begin. It also takes any of the moral onus off of the DM, which is great. So if the party wipes in a balanced encounter its entirely their fault.


What I am really impressed with though is the skill challenge section. It is a great way to codify some very abstract events. I was imagining scenarios where I wouldn’t even tell the players that they were in a skill check, just call for rolls here and there. It would leave them guessing and give me a balanced way to quantify their success or failure.


Skill challenges could also be used to easily arbitrate the results of any off the wall plans the group might come up with. For instance if they want to lure a monster out of its liar and then trick it into running over a cliff. It would be a simple matter to have the group explain their plan then get each player to roll a skill check for their part in that plan.


I need to speak to the artwork as well; most of it I found to be very cartoonish but the picture of Drelnza’s chamber on page 16-17 was great to see, it made me confident that this is the same game that I have always been playing. And the character study on page 77 is perfect. It is easily among my top 5 D&D illustrations of all time. It makes me want to create a character and play the game.

I think if DDN wasn't on the table that I might buy into 4rth. 


Great thread, good idea Zardnaar.

1. Class Roles and Party Synergy 
2. Standardized Attack and Defence Method
3. Interrupt and Reaction Powers  
4. Reduced GM Preptime
5. Less Game Breaking Spells
6. Monster Roles and Monster Synergy
7. At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility
8. Consolidated Skills 
 So far almost unanimous on the prep time for the DM. Even Gustaven said something nice

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

1. Class balance

2. Martials with interesting and diverse mechanical options

3. Ease of DM'ing

4. Consistency (until Essentials)

5. Power sources

6. Page 42 

  • Healing surges - the concept was great but some of the implementation was a bit crap.

  • Multiclassing and hybrid characters

  • Balance of classes - although I didn't like the extent to which they took the balancing so everyone was a striker.... even the defenders

  • At-will and encounter abilities

  • NADs

  • Rituals - time savings FTW. Nothing like having a couple of long rests to change spells twice to ruin your flow

  • Utility spells - great idea

  • Lots of meh magic items meant that Monty Haul adventures didn't mean that your PCs were too OP.  It did mean they were filthy rich but the only thing to spend all the cash on was meh magic items! Awesome!

  • Character optimization

 So far almost unanimous on the prep time for the DM. Even Gustaven said something nice



It's raining unicorns and rainbows! Wink
 Would heaing surges be a good idea if you got less of them? My PCs didn't mind sing them in SWSE as you only got 1-3 of them depending on your build. 4th ed my players didnt like them because it removed alot of the risk and made it a pain to grind through them from the DM side of things.
 A short rest is kind of a helaing surge that can be used outside combat. Just wondering if a 4th ed helaing word mechanic that let you gain hit points as if you spent a short rest would work in D&DN specifically with a D&DN converison of the Warlord.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Would heaing surges be a good idea if you got less of them?

They could be made to work on a pacing dial of some sort.  You could have fewer or more daily resources, including surges (in campaigns that averaged fewer encounters/day, everyone woud have fewer surges, daily spell 'slots,' items with daily functions, uses of per-day racial abilities, etc.  Or, you could recover resources (like spells or surges) on a schedule other than daily/extended-rest.  It would give the DM freedom to run a greater range of adventures and campaigns.  

A short rest is kind of a helaing surge that can be used outside combat.

A short rest lets you spend sureges in 4e...  
Just wondering if a 4th ed helaing word mechanic that let you gain hit points as if you spent a short rest would work in D&DN specifically with a D&DN converison of the Warlord.

Sounds like that would just be a 'surge trigger.'  If you didn't have surges, but instead healed a fraction of your hps (like 1/4) with a short rest, sure, triggering a 'short rest' in combat would be a reasonable mechanical effect for a healing ability like a spell or inspiring word to have.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Limited and useful skill list. Skill in 4ed offer the possibility to improvise a lot.  We will loose that in Next.

Skill challenge. At first it look bizarre, but after a while we cannot play without them. It give focus to role-play and out of combat situation.
Giving players a lot of possibilities to improvise and role-play.

A lot of small feature that give player the feel of power: Teleport as a move action, Healing on minor action.
Magic serve the player, they are not bind to an old and crappy  vanican  and spell system.

An overall system that encourage playing not bothering about exception and silly rules.

I feel that we are gonna loose a lot of good thing from 4ed with Next. And mainly for marketing and tradition reasons.

F
As a DM that depleate the party's surges quite often...no, having less surges per day would be a problem for me.
Yeah just been tossing around ideas on how to convert the 4th ed Warlord over to D&DN Tony. 4th ed kinda shoehorned the healing word mechanic onto all the leader types. THis time around make it a bit more unique IMHO. Let the cleric heal with spells, warlord gets healing word, bard can have some healing spells but can focus on somehitng else as opposed to a leader type as such.

 Might be a silly idea IDK.

mexrage its kinda obvious you are not going to get a 4th ed style healing surge mechanic and depending on how monsters worked you won't need it anyway. 4th ed monsters are more scary at lower levels than pre 3rd ed and D&DN monsters are.

 My idea is to add somehting form 4th ed to appeal to thier players but without upsetting the 3rd ed players. An exact 4th ed conversion is not going to happen and neither is a exact 3.5 conversion. ALot of the 4th ed mechanics may not have been bad ideas as such but we can look at them and tweak the mechanics for new D&D classes and monsters and the like. I liked minons for example but if D&DN had them just leave them in the lower levels. Maybe solos could make a comback but make them suitably rare (Dragons, Balors) etc).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Pretty much what everyone else said above. For me, the quickness of DMing and preperation is probably #1 as a DM. I love that I can design a new monster or alter a monster in seconds to make interesting encounters. I can throw together a fight in moments and make it memorable. In 3e/3.5 I can remember spending hours designing JUST the BBEG. Frankly monster design in 4e is worlds better than any other edition, especially after MM2. I love that 4e monsters have a lot of varients, that 'gnolls' aren't just one monster but a dozen, each with their own unique abilities and styles of combat. 4e monsters let me make a fight with kobolds fun and unique just by mixing the types of enemies.

But what others haven't mention to my surprise is just how codified the rules are in 4e compared all other editions (including DDN). Everything is laid down in a concise maner, easy to understand and use. For example just looking at spells. Lets look at the DDN spells;

Bless: Lasts until concentration ends or one minute. One monute? In combat that is 10 rounds but must the DM have the added duty of tracking rounds to remember when each spell ends? What about out of combat.. must we keep track of each individual round then too?

Burning Hands: Does fire damage to every target in a 15' cone. Well how many targets can fit in a 15' cone? Since there is no grid, it could hit 2, or 8. The DM has to figure that out, on the fly and desputes are BOUND to happen with your players. 'That small target gets hit' 'no.. he's behind the large target' 'no he's off to the side!' 'Which direction are you firing the spell again?' One could argue having a grid is the reason this is so simple in 4e, and that is only a small part of it.

Lets now look at 4th edition and you can see spell duration is codified into one of four easy to understand rules. Spells either last until your next turn, end of encounter or until the target makes a saving throw. A 15' cone spell would instead be Close Blast 5, which means it hits a 5x5 square based upon the caster. Easy to understand, concise and there isn't going to be an argument over it.

This is just two spells, of a myriad of other weird rules that are up for interpretation. It makes me think of the dozens of arguments over the years with various players who interepreted 1,2 ,3ed rules vs not a single time.. ever having an argument about rules in 4e simply because they were so clearly laid out.

That, is in my mind.. the reason #1 on why 4e is the best edition currently.
Yeah just been tossing around ideas on how to convert the 4th ed Warlord over to D&DN Tony. 4th ed kinda shoehorned the healing word mechanic onto all the leader types. THis time around make it a bit more unique IMHO. Let the cleric heal with spells, warlord gets healing word, bard can have some healing spells but can focus on somehitng else as opposed to a leader type as such.

 Might be a silly idea IDK.

mexrage its kinda obvious you are not going to get a 4th ed style healing surge mechanic and depending on how monsters worked you won't need it anyway. 4th ed monsters are more scary at lower levels than pre 3rd ed and D&DN monsters are.

 My idea is to add somehting form 4th ed to appeal to thier players but without upsetting the 3rd ed players. An exact 4th ed conversion is not going to happen and neither is a exact 3.5 conversion. ALot of the 4th ed mechanics may not have been bad ideas as such but we can look at them and tweak the mechanics for new D&D classes and monsters and the like. I liked minons for example but if D&DN had them just leave them in the lower levels. Maybe solos could make a comback but make them suitably rare (Dragons, Balors) etc).



That's one of the problem i have with D&DNext...most encounters end up being redundant to the point of feeling more like you are playing a tabletop version of Diablo 2...i dislike the chunky salsa style of encounters.  I prefer having very few encounters per day or story arc, but having them being very significant every each of them, i don't want to feel like i am DMing a jRPG where you have so many "random" encounters that end on 1 or 2 rounds without any thought before they reach the "boss or mini boss" encounter
Ease of DMing
Greater amount of customizabiltity of characters (Race, Class, Background, Theme, Skills, Feats, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies)
Class Balance (even if you included Essentials)
Monsters that are more than bags of HP
The DMGs
Martial classes being more than BASIC ATTACK, MOVE, BASIC ATTACK
At-Will Wizard Attacks (no more crossbow for me!)
Clerics being more than a Healbot
I love the elemental chaos, Feywild, and Shadowfell

Magic wands, holy symbols, and the like as loot

Easy prep (for the most part)

Page 42

Fighters that could contribute at all levels

At-will wizard spells

Primal power source

Skill challenges 

role-playing xp (from DMG2)


5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Yeah just been tossing around ideas on how to convert the 4th ed Warlord over to D&DN Tony. 4th ed kinda shoehorned the healing word mechanic onto all the leader types. THis time around make it a bit more unique IMHO. Let the cleric heal with spells, warlord gets healing word, bard can have some healing spells but can focus on somehitng else as opposed to a leader type as such.

 Might be a silly idea IDK.

mexrage its kinda obvious you are not going to get a 4th ed style healing surge mechanic and depending on how monsters worked you won't need it anyway. 4th ed monsters are more scary at lower levels than pre 3rd ed and D&DN monsters are.

 My idea is to add somehting form 4th ed to appeal to thier players but without upsetting the 3rd ed players. An exact 4th ed conversion is not going to happen and neither is a exact 3.5 conversion. ALot of the 4th ed mechanics may not have been bad ideas as such but we can look at them and tweak the mechanics for new D&D classes and monsters and the like. I liked minons for example but if D&DN had them just leave them in the lower levels. Maybe solos could make a comback but make them suitably rare (Dragons, Balors) etc).



That's one of the problem i have with D&DNext...most encounters end up being redundant to the point of feeling more like you are playing a tabletop version of Diablo 2...i dislike the chunky salsa style of encounters.  I prefer having very few encounters per day or story arc, but having them being very significant every each of them, i don't want to feel like i am DMing a jRPG where you have so many "random" encounters that end on 1 or 2 rounds without any thought before they reach the "boss or mini boss" encounter



 Thats kind of a pacing issue/DM issue. It can be a problem if you are running prepublished adventures like the playtest ones. Caves of Chaos for example is a big dungeon hack, Isle of Dread is a sandbox explore type adventure.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

...monsters...oh, and, uh...monsters...yeah, those monsters...cool...mooooooonters...yeah...

Excuse me if that sounded filthy, but The Omen is on in the background (over here in the UK, this second), and I am feeling peculiar (in a wonderful way), sorry...I am also fond of the Recharge mechanic of 4th Ed (amongst other things).
Ease if DMing.
At will spells.
The concept of skill challenges.  
4th ed kinda shoehorned the healing word mechanic onto all the leader types.

I thought this wasn't a thread for dumping on 4e.  ;)

Yeah just been tossing around ideas on how to convert the 4th ed Warlord over to D&DN Tony.  THis time around make it a bit more unique IMHO. Let the cleric heal with spells, warlord gets healing word, bard can have some healing spells but can focus on somehitng else as opposed to a leader type as such.

Ultimately, healing is restoring hps.  A healing spell is going to restore hps, an Inspiring Word or any other form of non-spell healing is still going to have to restore hps.  There's not really a way around that.  So what 'being different' really means is just making one strictly inferior to another, and that's not a good idea.

But, if we must, why not:

Inspiring Word:  Restores hps in combat.

Healing Ritual:  Restores hps durring a short rest.

Healing Check:  Restores hps durring an extended rest.

There, they're different.  Hmm... actually, that fits genre pretty well.




mexrage its kinda obvious you are not going to get a 4th ed style healing surge mechanic

Well, it was one of the good things 4e did.  It made it possible to have parties without Clerics, made Clerics a much more varied and interesting lot even while allowing them to pull their traditional 'healing' duties, and, actually, modeled genre a good deal better than repeated castings of cure spells.  Not quite as dramatic as achieving some degree of class balance, but a pretty significant improvement.  

Writing it off seems like exactly what you were trying to avoid with this thread.  Even the first playtest, mostly hard-core old-school in feel, put in Hit Dice - bowdlerized healing surges with an old-school label applied.  The concept is just that good.  


My idea is to add somehting form 4th ed to appeal to thier players but without upsetting the 3rd ed players. An exact 4th ed conversion is not going to happen and neither is a exact 3.5 conversion.

An exact conversion would be pointless.  Even Pathfinder isn't an exact conversion of 3.5, and tried to make a few improvements here or there.  But, building on improvements - instead of throwing them away and trying to fix the same old thorny problems that every prior attempt had failed to deal with - that's not coverting, that's just making a better edition of the game.


ALot of the 4th ed mechanics may not have been bad ideas as such but we can look at them and tweak the mechanics for new D&D classes and monsters and the like. I liked minons for example but if D&DN had them just leave them in the lower levels. Maybe solos could make a comback but make them suitably rare (Dragons, Balors) etc).

Minions are prettymuch a reality in 5e, anyway - under bounded accurracy PC damage rises so rapidly that low level monsters quickly become one-shot-kills.  Being a minion would actually make them tougher, since misses (and, presumably, successful saves) wouldn't kill them.  And, clearly, the idea is that higher level monsters can be 'solos' to lower level party, since they're just bigger blocks of hps.  It's the same idea as CR in 3.x, except that, with monster AC/saves changing little with level, it's actually viable.  Well, a high level monster might hit a little too hard, even for a solo, but that could be adjusted...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Clear and simple rules separate from "fluff".
- I can't emphasise enough how much easier the game is without the 2-hour rules arguments and "checking" which happened in every edition prior.

Balanced classes.
- Such a blessing to be able to play a non-caster and still make a meaningful contribution to the game.

Ease of DMing.
- If this is lost I won't DM again, I've already threatened to stab anyone who so much as suggests that I ever DM 3.5 again.

Page 42.
- All those people who claim 4th Ed reduced improvisation, well they must have had very different experiences to me.

Skill Challenges.
- Sure, they buggered up the difficulties... but a good DM was always able to eyeball those anyhow (and everyone else gets to make "good DM" arguments for the crap in their editions) and they FINALLY made non-combat encounters as meaningful as combat.  You were actually ENCOURAGED to give SP for stuff other than fighting AND given systems to support it!

Standard/Elite/Solo/Minion + Creature Design.
- Say it with me now "a monster is NOT a PC, they do NOT have to follow the same rules".  Huzzah!  And good rules for simple alterations to monsters.  And simple rules for building encounters.  And simple ways of structuring "easy hit" creatures with "tough ones" etc.  And those beautiful stat blocks... a bit more fluff on each page would have been nice, but those stat blocks!  

...

I don't think that any of these things is too much to ask from Next.
Even some of the 4th ed players Tony have advocated some changes to 4th ed itself. I did not like the 4th ed implementation of healing surges, used them in SWSE and they were fine. I'm not opposed to a healing surge mechanic in D&DN or houseruled into PF or 3.5.

 Anyone expecting 75% on their prefferred edion or style in D&DN is going to be very disappointed. Seems clear that 4th ed style classes and role structure is gone at least for every class, doesn't mean a 4th ed style Warlord cannot exist in D&DN. I don't know how to convert over a 4th ed Warlord to D&DN since it doens't use 4th ed powers but it could have some encounter type abilities a healing word mechanic and maybe some auras similar to the the 3.5 Marshall. It may not be able to heal an individual as much as a cleric but if it is giving an extra d6 hit points via healing word to everyone thats 4d6 healing above and beyond the short rest mechanic to a 4 man party at lvl 1. It compares well to a clerics 1d8+4 the main difference being each person only really gets healed for an extra 1d6 hit points over what they would normally get.

 Might have to scale helaing word faster than 4th did to compare to a clerics helaing spells but you get the idea.  It kind of scales all by itself anyway as characters can spend hit dice for each level so by level 5 a hypthetical D&DN warlord would be healing up to 20d6 damage per day.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Seems clear that 4th ed style classes and role structure is gone at least for every class

If the only thing you have to say about the things 4e did well is "it's clear we're not going to get that" what is the point of starting this thread, again?  

doesn't mean a 4th ed style Warlord cannot exist in D&DN. I don't know how to convert over a 4th ed Warlord to D&DN since it doens't use 4th ed powers but it could have some encounter type abilities a healing word mechanic...

Ironically, because 5e doesn't use any sort of consistent structure for classes or any consistent mechanics for them, there's no reason you /couldn't/ have a fairly faithful version of the Warlord.  There's nothing else to say what a warlord /is/, beyond it's one and only appearance in the 4e PH1.  No reason it shouldn't have encounter and daily exploits, for instance.

Commanding Presence, in the absence of Action Points, could /grant/ an extra action to allies (maximum once per milestone per ally), for instance.  

Inspiring Word, in the absence of surges, could heal 1/4 hps to start.  


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I liked the ease of creating/altering monsters. Good, clean monster-math.
I liked the ease of writing adventures.
The DMG 1 was one of the best DMGs in D&D's history (aside from the borked DCs).
That's about it.    
My prefered edition is PF/3E but I did like 4th edition monster creation tools.

As DM NPC/monster customization is really important me... this was a nightmare in 3E. 

 Thats kind of a pacing issue/DM issue. It can be a problem if you are running prepublished adventures like the playtest ones. Caves of Chaos for example is a big dungeon hack, Isle of Dread is a sandbox explore type adventure.



I never run published campaings, like i have said before, i DM my campaing, not someone's else campaing (also the reason i see 100% fluff no crunch books and articles as a waste of paper/data space, but i am a harsh and pragmatic thinking person).  The thing is that there is no middle ground with the current core system and monster design...it's either encounters that the party will destroy without any cost or consequence, or will be a encounter that will probably force the party to retreat and have extended rest after it... and worst of all, is not because of the monster have tactics and the character have to tackle the encounter in a diferent way...it's just because they have more HP and deal more damage per attack...

Seems clear that 4th ed style classes and role structure is gone at least for every class

If the only thing you have to say about the things 4e did well is "it's clear we're not going to get that" what is the point of starting this thread, again?  

doesn't mean a 4th ed style Warlord cannot exist in D&DN. I don't know how to convert over a 4th ed Warlord to D&DN since it doens't use 4th ed powers but it could have some encounter type abilities a healing word mechanic...

Ironically, because 5e doesn't use any sort of consistent structure for classes or any consistent mechanics for them, there's no reason you /couldn't/ have a fairly faithful version of the Warlord.  There's nothing else to say what a warlord /is/, beyond it's one and only appearance in the 4e PH1.  No reason it shouldn't have encounter and daily exploits, for instance.

Commanding Presence, in the absence of Action Points, could /grant/ an extra action to allies (maximum once per milestone per ally), for instance.  

Inspiring Word, in the absence of surges, could heal 1/4 hps to start.  





 Just being realistic I suppose. If you liked the class/role structure by all means say so but I do not think they are going to bring that back as none of the playtest packets would indicate that.

 I got the idea for this thread last night when thePaladin came up on another thread and the split along ediiotn lines of what a Paladin is. SOme 4th ed players won't compromise, and neither will some 3rd ed players. I tend to ignore them If theres 12 classes in the Core book maybe 3-4 of them can be AEDU. Right now 4th ed players in D&DN don't seem to be getting alot and as I said WoTC tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater (3.5, SWSE, now 4th ed).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Ironically, because 5e doesn't use any sort of consistent structure for classes or any consistent mechanics for them, there's no reason you /couldn't/ have a fairly faithful version of the Warlord.  There's nothing else to say what a warlord /is/, beyond it's one and only appearance in the 4e PH1.  No reason it shouldn't have encounter and daily exploits, for instance.

Commanding Presence, in the absence of Action Points, could /grant/ an extra action to allies (maximum once per milestone per ally), for instance.  

Inspiring Word, in the absence of surges, could heal 1/4 hps to start.  



Now THIS is the best idea I've heard on these forums in weeks!
A short list of my highlights of 4th edition:

1)  Ease of DMing.  Part of this came from great monster design (especially later books:  Monster Vault is probably one of the best products released for any D&D product), and also solid math behind the system (meaning I knew generally what monsters/players were capable of at any given time, how much HP they should have, etc).
2)  Martial classes that had (from my viewpoint) fun game mechanics.  (Note:  So far, I am extremely pleased with the D&Dnext Fighter Class.  Keep it up, WotC!)
3)  At-Will spellcasting.
 SOme recurring themes coming through from posters of various editons.

 Tony check your inbox BTW.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Just being realistic I suppose. If you liked the class/role structure by all means say so but I do not think they are going to bring that back as none of the playtest packets would indicate that.

I'm not going to undergo a psychotic break and become optimistic or hopeful (I've been a pessimist and a cynic since age 4), but unrealistic though it may be, I'm not going to let it go.  ;)  

4e introduced some great stuff, and it's being lost not because there's a better alternative, but to satisfy sheer spite.  

I got the idea for this thread last night when thePaladin came up on another thread and the split along ediiotn lines of what a Paladin is. SOme 4th ed players won't compromise, and neither will some 3rd ed players. I tend to ignore them If theres 12 classes in the Core book maybe 3-4 of them can be AEDU. Right now 4th ed players in D&DN don't seem to be getting alot and as I said WoTC tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater (3.5, SWSE, now 4th ed).

OK, I can kinda see where you're coming from.  

One of those 3.5 babies, though, has aparently been rescued for use by 5e:  modular multi-classing.  In a comparable thread for 3.5, that's one of the things I'd pipe up with. ;)

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

- The Skill list - Lots of freedom and improvisation comes from the consolidated list.

- The Arcana Skill - it´s so much more fun than "Spell Craft" ... I love that I can have a magic duel to take temporary control of a magic device, or try to open a magic door with a Skill check

- Backgrounds - there are countless, all of them gives you some story hook and you can have as many as you need for the character. It helps players A LOT  to figure out cool story elements to his characters... one of the best implementations in D&D 4E.

Also, backgrounds replace social skills or non weapon proficiencies, so you don´t need to spend your slots to learn dancing or etiquette, it´s all part of the story. Soooo much better.

- Lore - D&D 4E has some great lore, the planes, the cosmology are great. the thing between Primordials and Gods, races and monsters lore.

- General cinematic, heroic aspect of the game. Being a player character means you are somewhat above the general people, you are the main characters of the story, so you don´t die as easily. If it was Starwars, you are Lucke, Solo or Lea. even in low levels you have a better chance to survive than let´s say, a regular clone trooper. I wanna be Lucke, not a clone trooper.  

- Rituals - they are super nice, I would just make them cheaper, allowing PCs to produce the component themselves instead of spending gold on it.

- Monsters.

- Page 42 - how to improvise with Skills. One of the best parts of D&D, and how simple it is...

- Rules are simple and most of them follow the same standards.

- Equal amount of powers to all classes.
I wish this forum's search capabilities were better, since there's been a few threads like this one already. A new one is by no means bad (it's way better than necroing an old one, probably), but it'd be convenient to be able to link to one.

This thread is an extremely long read, but it's very cordial. It's a jillion pages of actual discussion, with minimal sniping or bullheadedness. It contains probably the best and most honest discussions of 4e's strengths (and shortcomings) that I've seen on the boards.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

This one also has some thoughts:

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
 I got the idea for this thread last night when thePaladin came up on another thread and the split along ediiotn lines of what a Paladin is. SOme 4th ed players won't compromise, and neither will some 3rd ed players.

The 4E fans are willing to compromise - let the 3E fans play the way they like, and also let the 4E fans play the way they like.

Certain 3E fans think that this is an extremist non-compromising position, and instead want to let the 3E fans play the way they like and also let the 4E fans play the way the 3E fans like.

I tend to ignore them If theres 12 classes in the Core book maybe 3-4 of them can be AEDU.

If they make 4 classes out of 12 AEDU, they miss the point of AEDU.

If they recast 5E spell-casters to have just basic magical attacks, and embellish them with suitable modifications based on expertise dice (exactly like the 5E fighters, including the progression of expertise-dice quantity and size and the number of modifications the character can know and have ready), and do the same for all other classes, then they will have gotten the point of AEDU. In spite of lacking both E and D.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Sign In to post comments