|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 10:03AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
Here are some things I appreciate about 4E that no one really complains about. I hope they keep some version of these.
Retraining. Players can switch out a power, theme, feat, or skill when they level. In LFR you can switch out even more. Yeah it effects a few people's immersion, but it works really well in practice. No more getting stuck with a feat that looks good on paper but doesn't really help your PC.
Ended day long buffs and pre fight buffing. No more going through a list of spells you cast before you kick in the door. Almost all the combat effecting powers and abilities don't kick in till combat starts. Maybe some people didn't like this, but I don't remember reading many complaints.
Long work days. You can regularly go 4-6 encounters without needing a extended rest. The flip side is that it was a bit harder to challenge PCs if DMs wanted a big solitary battle that day, but you could still do that if you wanted.
Standard/Move/Minor/Free. It works well for the most part and is easy to understand. Doesn't seem to effect anyones immersion.
DM prep time. Its a lot easier to just throw an encounter together in a couple of minutes and still have it be a fun challenge because the xp budget made sense.
I am sure someone out there will complain about some of this, but can you think of any others that even most people who don't like 4E still like?
Constructive comments from people who don't like 4E, but have borrowed stuff from it anyways, are appreciated.
Edit: There are lots of other threads to comment about what you don't like about 4E. I would apprecitate it if replies were limited to what people like about 4E.
Second Update: Here is a general list of the things multiple people seem to like. I won't list all of them or tally how many people like them or anything. And some people say that they don't like these even in this thread, but should be a decent summary not counting what I already mentioned above:
Healing surges
Disease Rules
Scaling raical and feat bonuses that stayed useful over time, i.e. dragonborns breath attack and weapon focus (altough IMO they could have done the racials attack scaling a lot better)
No crit confirmation and crits are interesting
Ongoing Damage
Petrification
Rituals
No HP rolling and good starting HP
At will casting for spell users
Martial encounter powers
Monter Desgign: Entries having all the information there. Related to this is that monsters and PCs did not work or advance the same. And monsters are easy to scale
Less need for PCs to rest all the time: Encounter based desgin vs daily based design
Fluff alignement
Branching Class paths
Cleric was insteresting - healing did not take up whole turn most of the time. And other classes could heal too.
Tactical combat
Idea that you are a hero
Posion
Saving Throws
Self healing (second wind)
Skill challenges & low number of skills
Useful high level fighters
Attack rolls vs defense/NADS/static defenses/attacker always rolls
Minions
No randomness in PC generation
No facing
Simple initiative system
Delay and ready actions
More fey/lovecraft fluff. Good Cosmology (feywild, shadowfell)
Well codified mechanics: standard keywords for instance. Very clear rules overall.
Armored spell casters
Diverse Pantheons
Action Points
Reskinning/flexible fluff
Both AEUD and Essentials styles.
Marking (and different defenders marks worked differently)
Different Mechanical feel for races
No racial Penalties to stats
Power source features (like Channel divinity)
Turn Undead worked better
Leader granted attacks
Backgrounds
Monk movement techniques
All classes get build options
Easy magic item creation
Paragon Paths and EDs
Exception Based Design
Online Content
No save or die or ability and level drain and no magic item stat bonuses
Tiles and tokens
Bards are good (OP note: this is the first edition where I ever wanted to play a bard)
Static Proficiency bonuses to weapons
Through about the first 80 posts
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 10:31AM
#2
|
|
|
-Healing surges. They are under exploited.
-Racial powers that scale with levels.
-Feats that scale with levels.
-At-wills for casters and encounters for martials classes.
-Combat with standard, move and minor actions.
-No need to confirm critical hits.
-Poison rules and on going damage.
-Petrification.
-Rituals.
-Retraining, but it was there in 3.5, it just needs to be in the core rules.
These are all things that could be superimposed on a 3.5 rule system.
Resident Socialist and Undying Troublemaker
Martyr of Section 1, 2 and 4
Original Troll of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 10:53AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
- Retraining - not only a good idea, it makes in-game sense. - Standard/Move/Minor/Free - I like how this simplifies things while retaining options. - DM prep time - 4e undoubtably took prep time and chopped it more than in half. If you don't appreciate that, you're a masochist.  - Scaling racial abilities - things should get better as you do. - Scaling Feat bonuses - see above. - No rolling for HP - we ended up taking the average in 3.5 more often than not.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:03AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
- Having all information about a monster's abilities in the monster's entry. A major thumbs up from me.
- At-will spells for wizards.
- Less need for players to rest to move the story along.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:10AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
- No rolling for HP - we ended up taking the average in 3.5 more often than not.
We ended up doing half + half a roll in 3.5. Wizards got 3-4, rogue 4-6, cleric 5-8, fighters 6-10, and barbs 7-12. A little randomness, but never a 1 for anyone and fighters always got more than wizards.
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:21AM
#6
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
I don't have much good to say about 4e most of the time -- I almost wish I had known it better despite my practical experiences with it having been decidedly poor times. However, there are a few concepts that I think it really did get right.
- Fluff Alignment: While I prefer the nine alignments as better general descriptors (in my mind deeper thanks to having more than one axis), I do like that they are just that in 4e -- descriptors. This game can be played without Detecting and smiting evil, even if capitol-E Evil (like, say, a Baernaloth) exists alongside capitol-G Good. Especially for mortals as opposed to planar exemplars, alignment represents general tendancies, a category into which you can broadly file unique personalities.
- Branching paths. 4e suffered badly from class bloat, but I think one thing that was well handled was a particular element of progression: Divergence. That is, two characters who start off very similar at level one may angle for paths that ultimatley make them very different, and there is a clear roadmap for doing it. This existed in 3rd as well, as Prestige Classes, but those were handled rather poorly: By in large, warnings that they should be special were disregarded. I don't think Paragon Paths were perfect, but I do think they were probably a step in the right direction. In my ideal 5e, major branches might be represented similarly to the Paragon Path, and would be mutually exclusive: that is, if you start levelling as a generic "Wizard" you may get a chance to specialize and become an "Enchanter" a "Necromancer" or maybe even an "Artificer". If you do, you can't become any of the others. However, if the generalist option exists at level 1, it should still exist at level cap -- you shouldn't be forced to take a "new direction", so it's important to have a path that represents the middle road you started on.
- The "cleric" was no longer a bullet to be taken. That is, there was not this requirement for one character to sit by being a box of bandages for the others. I think this could have been addressed better, but at least it was addressed. My ideal? Step back to having a defined Healer, but make healing non-exclusive with providing positive progress to the party in combat. Imagine a 3.x "bandaid" cleric, and quicken all his or her "Cure Whatever Wounds" spells, leaving your move and standard action for doing things that aren't healing. It would be overpowered thanks to 3.x math expecting a different economy of actions, but if balanced somehow it would be more fun. The problem wasn't that someone had to heal, you see, so much that it was whoever healed didn't have the time (actions) to do anything else.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 11:49AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
The problem wasn't that someone had to heal, you see, so much that it was whoever healed didn't have the time (actions) to do anything else.
They almost went far enough with this in 4E and did after PHB1. The cleric, but not the warlord or later published leaders, has a lot of standard action utility powers including the "Cure light wounds" type powers. They don't have to take them and had other good options, but something like 40% of cleric utilities are standard actions in 4E and most of them are not worth taking. They are the only class that has this problem, though they did errata a couple of them down to minors.
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 12:10PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2008
|
My two biggest axes to grind with 3E -- vancian spell casting and clerics being boring -- were handily answered with 4E.
The combat in 4E was fantastic -- very entertaining and tactical, like WOW and Warmachine had a pen-and-paper baby. It would sometimes bog a bit, but I'll take a few minor hiccups in exchange for an otherwise stunning vibrato performance.
I also like the idea of 'power sources' to help get a sort of Unified Field Theory for powers in 4E. Sort of fits in with all of the other story bits I like about 4E.
The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were a little rough, but I'm willing to forgive the dust I had to blow off them. They were, IMHO, a good refinement of the Prestige Class idea in 3E.
I also like the entire design theory behind 4E -- this is a game about you being a badass fantasy hero. They decided to work with the powergaming rather than trying to fight it. Minmaxers are much easier to work with in 4E -- they think they're min-maxing, but they're really just making normal characters. That was a deft move, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 12:17PM
#9
|
|
|
Seperation of Monster and Player advancement. I like very much that monsters do not build and scale in the exact same manner that players do. I like the Monster roles, I like Elite and Solo monsters.
At-will powers for spell casters.
Healing surges.
They way healers can heal while attacking or heal and make another action.
Racial powers I like that they scale with level but I think they should improve more often than every 10 levels.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 12:23PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2003
|
Skill Challenges. They introduced a way to give xp for non-combat situations as well as employing non combat skills into a combat heavy game. It was a perfect template for events beyond the battlemat, and I think even Paizo used them as a basis for their chase rules.
Though it's also the one thing I hated most about 4E. I had never seen one done right, or even if done right, still not enjoyably. I would always cringe when one came up and the party as a whole would breathe a sigh of releif when the next encounter was a combat. Not that it was the DM's fault all the time, skill challenges were a great idea, that they half thought out and tried to make it "balanced" with bonuses that were arbitrary to the challenge and more geared for some scaled to level percentage chance rather than reflecting any real resolution. Even after errataing it, they still seemed to miss the point that the scaling is not what needed to be polished.
Halber
|
|
|
