My biggest issue is with the magic item system. There are too many magic items, they're boring, and they're too important to a character's power level (unless inherent bonuses are used). By far my least favorite part of building characters above level 1 is picking out magic items, and it always seems to take longer than everything else about the character combined.
While I like the tactical complexity of 4E, combat does tend to take too long. This is mostly because players who don't know their characters that well have too many options to choose from much of the time, there are too many conditional bonuses from too many different sources, and there are too many off-action attacks. Of course IME combat in 3E took even longer, but that's mostly because we had to look up more convoluted rules and spells in the middle of the game.
I don't like the way the math scales. The 1/2 level bonus (and enhancement bonuses) are all pointless IMO, and only serve to make bigger numbers at higher level. I don't like feeling as if my character is trying to keep up with the pace of the "treadmill" as he levels. To be fair D&DN seems to be addressing this (at least based on the comments that we've seen so far).
Feat taxes are no fun, and the fact that most groups give out Expertise and ID for free is telling.
Rituals were a great idea that were poorly implemented. Too expensive at low levels and too cheap at higher levels. I'd prefer if their cost was in healing surges rather than gp (because again, money is too important for the darned magic items).
A generally inflexible adventuring day. As a DM, I'm reluctant to plan for 1 encounter days because if the party knows this will be the case, they blow all of their resources and make the encounter too easy. If they fear further encounters and they don't blow their resources (but I'd planned on them doing so) the encounter will probably be too deadly. OoC damage (from traps, for example) are only significant because of their drain on the "healing surge" resource. It feels less like the character is actually getting hurt, and more like the game is straightjacketing you into a 3-4 encounters per day structure. I'd like it if surges had more applications (fueling rituals?) or affected the next day more (ending a day with fewer surges hinders you in some way the next day)?
I think the healing setup from 4e could be toned down, yeah. Overall I liked the resource management in 4e OK, but it can definitely be tweaked in a few ways to make it better.
Feats can basically die as far as I'm concerned. There probably needs to be SOME sort of way to regulate minor PC option selection, but neither 3e nor 4e feats as such seem to have worked all that well. I think inevitably they turn into a set of required choices by their very nature.
Combat can definitely go faster and the focus shifted more to the overall adventure. I'd say that's really where 4e missed the mark more than anywhere else. Tactical combat is nice, but I think if they focus the tactics more on the whole adventure the game will be a LOT more flexible. You can still have cool tactical combats, but if they last 20 or 30 minutes and the choices are more about when and how to expend resources across several encounters it will work better.
I think math scaling just always exists. 5e going with a flatter curve could be more interesting. It will be a bit of a departure for D&D, but not a bad one.
Going to be pretty much like other person here and say feat taxes and rituals sucked pretty hard. I want to feel like I'm increasing in power, not by my AC/Attack rolls/ect increase, but my options to go up as well. And that includes out of combat stuff.
Another thing is the roles. I actually really liked class roles, since they helped teamwork between party members, where as 3.5 was more individualistic in combat. The problem was, where Strikers were the most expendable of roles (all you really lose is the encounters can last longer, but with say, a fighter as your defender, you can still get pretty powerful damage), they had a ton of classes to choose from, where as stuff like controllers, if you wanted to play a decent one, you'd have to choose from the Wizard, Druid, Invoker, or Psion, which tended to get old fast, since I'd always feel (with the exeption of the druid, because you could go melee, somewhat) that they all played really similarly. What I'd do, if there truely is the modularity they promise in character creation, is provide classes options to play 2-3 roles effectively. For example, you could have an Artificer be a leader, in it's current role, or a controller by instead focusing on inventions, such as mines or the like.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
I wish that 4e had done a better job of explaining the design choices. As many people have pointed out, it was a pretty big departure, in terms of mechanics, and had there been more explanation, it would have gone down better, I believe. For instance, more explanation of why wizards were a problem before might have had more people be okay with the changes. For instance, I have a friend who doesn't want to play 4e because wizards were nerfed - no more fireballs doing leveld6 damage. But, she's a reasonable person - if a designer explained that they tried to balance the fighter with the wizard, but the only way to do that was to elevate the fighter and tone down the wizard, she'd get it, I believe. Mostly, this comes down to I wish other people liked 4e as I do.
As for the system itself ? Multi attacks, a bit too slow combat, too many "-2 to x"powers, and martial practices being underpowered. Still it's the best system of d&d for me. Mileage may vary.
And in Exalted, they tried to remove the intense lethality of the entire system. ...Com'on. Errata cannot be monthly and regularly outdate books. It was a tool to force players to buy into DDI to use their builder - a supbar option that really only works if other people in your group have DDI, mostly the DM.
Just putting it out there... if the Exalted team had the ressources to publish all the errata that is needed to bring it on par with D&D's "corretness" of content, we'd be looking at a lot more errata. So this comparison is limping extensively bad.
Errataing basically the whole Charmset of the Dragonblooded was done mostly in the form of the Thousand Correct Actions, and there is so much more needed to bring everything up to date. Seriously, no matter how much I actually love Exalted, this comparison is just plain invalid.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
I think too much of the tone and style which was shown in the preview materials and talked about as 'Points of Light' was lost. Even if more of it was kept, I honestly do not feel the mechanics of the game were a good match for a more grim game. While Dark Sun turned out surprisingly well, I'd still say even that seemed somewhat at odds with the ideals that 4E was built around. Opinions vary, but mine -when it comes to that- is that I'm better served by playing a different game than 4E when that is the style and tone that I want.
I thought Grab sucked too much. I understand wanting to keep it simple, but it was too often a virtually worthless tactical option.
Skill Challenges were a great idea, but they have a few problems which bug me. The math doesn't always work quite right. Also, I didn't like how they were presented as being so binary & so yes/no. I prefer to have more results be possible. In my games, I somewhat stole the GURPS idea of "margin of success" and applied the idea of it to Skill Challenges. I thirdly feel as though it was sometimes difficult to incorporate them into a game without making them feel like some sort of mini-game within the overall game of D&D.
I would like a little more depth to skills. I understand wanting to simplify things, but there have been a few times when it was difficult for me to decide what skills were appropriate to a situation without it seeming a little strange in my mental picture of the action. A little bit more granularity would have been nice.
I think the condition track which diseases use should have been used for saves instead of the save system.
That's what comes to mind right off the top of my head.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
I thought Grab sucked too much. I understand wanting to keep it simple, but it was too often a virtually worthless tactical option.
While the default effect of Grab does seem lacking, I find it was a safe option to go for as a default effect. In just about every tabletop game, Grab rules were nightmarish to the point where various web comics poke fun at the fact that grappling was such a complicated matter.
What the default effect of grab doesn't take into account would include "what would happen if I make a vertical jump towards a flying enemy and grab him by the foot or whatever appendage I can reach?". That's primarily because the default effect of grab only takes into account the default actions found in the game, which means it applies primarily to the two-dimensional space of normal combat and to just normal effects. Thus, Grab is effectively one of the gateways for some pretty cool cinematic effects... when done right of course
I mean, if a player asks me the above question, I'd say that he must make an Athletics check for the jump, and at the end of the movement make a Grab attack that, on a hit, would have the creature grabbed (as per rules). However, if the creature's Strength modifier x 20 is not enough to carry the PC, at the start of his turn he must make a Strength check or fall. Fall damage would apply to both creature and PC, using their relevant heights at the time.
[ this would allow PCs who want to dogpile on the opponent (to ensure that he falls) to do so ]
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I thought Grab sucked too much. I understand wanting to keep it simple, but it was too often a virtually worthless tactical option.
While the default effect of Grab does seem lacking, I find it was a safe option to go for as a default effect. In just about every tabletop game, Grab rules were nightmarish to the point where various web comics poke fun at the fact that grappling was such a complicated matter.
What the default effect of grab doesn't take into account would include "what would happen if I make a vertical jump towards a flying enemy and grab him by the foot or whatever appendage I can reach?". That's primarily because the default effect of grab only takes into account the default actions found in the game, which means it applies primarily to the two-dimensional space of normal combat and to just normal effects. Thus, Grab is effectively one of the gateways for some pretty cool cinematic effects... when done right of course
I mean, if a player asks me the above question, I'd say that he must make an Athletics check for the jump, and at the end of the movement make a Grab attack that, on a hit, would have the creature grabbed (as per rules). However, if the creature's Strength modifier x 20 is not enough to carry the PC, at the start of his turn he must make a Strength check or fall. Fall damage would apply to both creature and PC, using their relevant heights at the time.
[ this would allow PCs who want to dogpile on the opponent (to ensure that he falls) to do so ]
Good points...
Personally, one of my main issues was that grab didn't normally hinder my opponent's ability to fight. From the other side of the table (as a GM) I've had encounters in which a monster had a grab ability, and the PC chose to just fight while taking damage from the grab ability because it was less dangerous (and required less actions) to just beat on the thing grabbing them.
What you said touches on something else I had forgotten about though. There were a few rules which produced somewhat strange results when applied to a more fluid environment; an environment which allowed movement in more directions. I was often left wondering whether or not anyone in the playtests of 4E tried to do things such as jumping onto a flying opponent, grappling someone while in water, and various other things which go beyond a 2D environment. In an adventure game, I suppose I somewhat assume that style of action would be somewhat common; especially considering the somewhat more cinematic style of 4th Edition.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
I thought Grab sucked too much. I understand wanting to keep it simple, but it was too often a virtually worthless tactical option.
While the default effect of Grab does seem lacking, I find it was a safe option to go for as a default effect. In just about every tabletop game, Grab rules were nightmarish to the point where various web comics poke fun at the fact that grappling was such a complicated matter.
What the default effect of grab doesn't take into account would include "what would happen if I make a vertical jump towards a flying enemy and grab him by the foot or whatever appendage I can reach?". That's primarily because the default effect of grab only takes into account the default actions found in the game, which means it applies primarily to the two-dimensional space of normal combat and to just normal effects. Thus, Grab is effectively one of the gateways for some pretty cool cinematic effects... when done right of course
I mean, if a player asks me the above question, I'd say that he must make an Athletics check for the jump, and at the end of the movement make a Grab attack that, on a hit, would have the creature grabbed (as per rules). However, if the creature's Strength modifier x 20 is not enough to carry the PC, at the start of his turn he must make a Strength check or fall. Fall damage would apply to both creature and PC, using their relevant heights at the time.
[ this would allow PCs who want to dogpile on the opponent (to ensure that he falls) to do so ]
Good points...
Personally, one of my main issues was that grab didn't normally hinder my opponent's ability to fight. From the other side of the table (as a GM) I've had encounters in which a monster had a grab ability, and the PC chose to just fight while taking damage from the grab ability because it was less dangerous (and required less actions) to just beat on the thing grabbing them.
What you said touches on something else I had forgotten about though. There were a few rules which produced somewhat strange results when applied to a more fluid environment; an environment which allowed movement in more directions. I was often left wondering whether or not anyone in the playtests of 4E tried to do things such as jumping onto a flying opponent, grappling someone while in water, and various other things which go beyond a 2D environment. In an adventure game, I suppose I somewhat assume that style of action would be somewhat common; especially considering the somewhat more cinematic style of 4th Edition.
My guess: At one point the devs thought, "do we REALLY need to stuff in specific rules for these awesomefunbutrarelyusefulthings?" and the answer eventually was "no, let the DMs handle the tiny system quirks, it's their campaign anyway". Kinda like how divided they were between the generic-yet-flexible skills currently employed in 4E and the use of skills as written in 3.5E (there's at least one article on the site discussing that, though I'm not in the mood to do a search).
As for grabs not hindering opponent's fighting ability, I'm thinking that's also in the purvey of DM adjudication: if the PC *just* grabs, then it's as written (and we assume that the PC grabs a body part that doesn't hinder movement or what not). However, if 1. The PCs decide to go multiple grabs, it's wholly possible that the grab's immobilize becomes restrained instead. 2. The PC decides to grab a specific body part, then the target gains a bonus to defense, but on a hit the effect changes from just immobilized to anywhere from "the grabbed body part cannot be used" (possibly negating two-handed weapon attacks) to "the target cannot breathe" (see: Drowning rules).
Of course, not every creature would have a windpipe you can choke, and creatures don't necessarily have the same body parts in the same places as regular folks (we're talking D&D after all, with Gelatinous Cubes and Beholders galore). Thus, solid rules on choking, or what not, might not apply. So rather than add "this creature is immune to choking-by-grab" to a multitude of creatures, again it's left to the purvey of the DM.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
4e was by far my favorite edition of D&D, but I still had a few problems with it.
Combat Length - While I love tactical combat with miniatures and a grid map, I think some things can be done to make combat resolve faster.
Skill Challenges - I love the idea, but didn't much like the implementation. The core ideas are good, but more work need to be done to make them more dynamic, and exciting.
Condition Application - In a effort to reduce exceptions to rules, there are a lot of ridiculous situations that come up with conditions. Prone oozes, and flyers are just some of the stupid combinations at occur. I don't see a problem with making some conditions situational, or giving some creature types immunity to certain conditions.
Lethality - 4e reduced the most lethal elements of previous editions to mathimatically certain successes. Saving throws are by default made 55% of the time. Combat is heavily stacked in the favor of the PCs (see my sig quote). I do like the death saves and negative bloodied rules, but combined with everything else it is too easy for characters to survive unscathed.
Magic Items - A stated design goal of 4e was to reduce character reliance on magic items. The idea was to make the game about character, not what items they wield. I think this was perhaps the most dismal failure of the 4e design team. Big three (weapon, armor, neck) item bonuses needed to increase at a set rate or the characters were in danger of becoming unable to defeat level appropriate opponents. Furthermore the system as designed originally didn't take into account worlds without magic, or very low magic campaigns. Magic items should be special and the rules for them should allow for a character to keep his iconic sword (e.g. Stormbringer) through their entire career, instead of throwing it away when a new, better one comes along.
Money - While I liked some rules that took the ability to "game" the money system away from players, I think the structure was far too ridgid like the magic item system. Campaigns should be able to survive with characters having vast wealth, or no wealth at all equally well.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
