|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 9:29PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
I have seen several posts and threads talk about how the Developers don't understand what was enjoyed about 4E. I haven't been able to clearly follow them, so I'm looking for clear examples from 4E fans. I don't want things like "I want encounter powers," but I want to know WHY you liked encounter powers. Please be as specific and clear as you can.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 9:56PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2010
|
Minions - not just a low level monster they are thematic and immune to residual damage as it takes a full hit to take them off the table - allows a cast of thousands in fights and are simple to run with static (not rolled) damage.
Bloodied condition: Good measure of a combatant being badly hurt.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 9:56PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
While not to keen on alot of 4th ed things I did actually like alot.
4th ed weapons. 3.5 wepaons did get a bit crazy in that system and the way 4th ed wepaons ineracted with powers was quite clever. I liked weapon traits such as brutality and the like.
NADs. I did like NADs as well and I can go either way on NADs or Fort/Ref/Will saves. Glad to see the back of 3.5 touch attacks.
Striker mechanics on some classes. INteresting take on things like favoured enemy and sneak attacks.
Powers. I am also fine with powers just no in the way 4th ed implemented them.
Warlord. Liked the class despite a general dislike of AEDU power structure. Also liked the 4th ed warlock over the 3.5 one.
Cleaner simpler rules overall. Readong the combat chapter in the PHB is not very nice. 4th ed had an orsum DMG and MM as well for the most part. As a forever DM I really liked that aspect of it.
Minions/Elites/Solos. At lest the concept of them. Proberly overused used but I can see the need for them in 3.XYZ game.
Racial powers. Did not like AEDU, did like racial powers. Planning on yoinking these in my curent game as my players liked them as well.
XP encounter design system. CR was all over the place.
Thats a few things off the top of my head form someone who did not like alot of 4th ed but I did like large parts of it.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 10:37PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Here's some threads from EnWorld.org and RPG.net that can give you the run-down on what 4ed got right: www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?332... forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?633971-4th-...
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 5:41AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Healing magic as a class feature.
It didn't reduce the healer as a healing bot if he just wanted to assume the minimum required. He was free to do what he wanted of his character without losing healing effectiveness or investing a standard or movement action in it.
It's the thing I will miss the most from 4th edition. There's no way I will play the old healer way in the next edition. We returned to the question "Who wants to be the healer ?" when creating a group. In 4th edition, it has stopped, even I was okay to play a healer, as I could be a full support character with control and buffs without taking a single healing spell and still be a good healer.
And when I see the mess about healing in the next edition, I really don't understand the step back.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:15AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Here is what I like about 4E:
Monsters do not follow PC rules. This makes it easy to create forceful opponents that surprise the group. They do not know what to expect even more. Also, being able to pick role-appropriate powers and abilities and tag them onto any monster makes encouter building very easy. Especially because the math of encounter building is streamlined and opponents are identifyable as minions, standard, elites and solos from a DM's point of view.
Leader characters instead of "healers". I do not have to play a cleric to heal others, I can also play a Warlord or a bard or something else instead. Opens up a lot of choices.
Everybody contributes to the game because classes are balanced. All players have the choice to distribute abilities, skills and powers in a fashion that makes the "three pillars of roleplay" worthwhile for everybody. Also, the concept of skill challenges helps in that regard.
The power system. I really like encounter powers because they give a character something meaningful and powerful to do in any combat while offering the chance to narrate causes and effects in many different ways.
Everything is on a card. You do not have to look up stuff in long spell lists or lists of maneuvers. It is right there on you character sheet or in the monster stat block. I really hate spell lists, especially in alphabetical order. What a waste of time and printer ink! YVMV of course.
Just roll the attack, not the defense. In that way, the attacker has the control, which is good. Also prevents bad DMs from fudging a save out of arbitrariness. I like NADs for the same reason.
The tactical side of the game. The people I play with love battlemaps and interesting terrain as a break or part of the roleplaying. I also like the fact that in 4E a combat has it's own story with tension and everything. I like a longer fight with dramatic ups and downs better than the short narrative of a fight that lasts for only 5 minutes in real time.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:17AM
#7
|
|
|
The bloodied mechanic - It works nicely as a way of differentiating how hurt an enemy is compared to others. It was also nice how it was incorporated into some abilities like the shifter racial powers.
Minions - Nice way of simulating lots of weak enemies.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:28AM
#8
|
|
|
The bloodied mechanic - It works nicely as a way of differentiating how hurt an enemy is compared to others. It was also nice how it was incorporated into some abilities like the shifter racial powers.
Minions - Nice way of simulating lots of weak enemies.
These would be my top two as well.
Even though it wasn't really a mechanic per se, more of a key word, bloodied offered a consistent way to map monster abilities and for you to let players know about where the creature's hp was without telling them the exact amount. Is he bloodied or not? It gives just enough information.
Minion I liked as well. A good amount of modern games have been falling in with the "Extras" mechanic. I first remember seeing rules for 1 hp trash mobs in Exalted 1st edition. I loved it then and I still love it now.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:37AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2006
|
Question on minions, why can't you simply take any monster and give it 1 hit point. Wasn't this (in general) what a minion was? Does this need to be stat-ed out?
Browncoats Unite...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:49AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Healing surges seem to be top of the list. The idea that you get your HP back between fights is a good one, and the current hit dice mechanic barely covers that and does so in a clunky way because it requires a roll.
I feel like the base marking status condition isn't bad to have. Though I wouldn't want to see it as exclusively a fighter ability, it should be something any melee combatant gets where the last person to attack someone has the active mark. I feel like it reduces the focus fire potential when you add that -2 penalty and furthers the idea that combatants tend to "pair off" in a melee and fight their own opponent in front of them as opposed to just focusing down one enemy at a time. I don't want to see complex stuff like the paladin or swordmage mark, but just having the basic mark condition and allowing everyone to do it with a melee attack would be good.
I liked the idea in 4E where at some point you stopped getting new powers and just exchanged old powers for higher level ones. I feel like that's a great paradigm for the game especially at higher level since it limits complexity of higher level characters. I'd like to see that applied to feats and spells.
I'd like to see reactions and interrupts introduced as a mechanic. Right now we just have reactions, and I felt the interrupt and reaction distinction was great for determining when a given ability triggered. Currently there's a lot of abilities that I am uncertain when they're supposed to trigger. Like if Artful dodger happens before or after you know if the creature hit you.
I also like how 4E handled armor proficiencies. It was a good way of handling different armors, so you had some guys in scale, some in plate and so on, as opposed to just "wear the best light or heavy armor you can"
|
|
|
