4ENCLAVE

A new home for the 4th Edition of the Worlds Oldest Roleplaying Game
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 What I love about 4e

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Pashalik
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 11
Join date : 2013-05-18
Age : 30
Location : The Sunset Citadel

PostSubject: What I love about 4e   Tue May 28, 2013 9:32 pm

This is a bit of an older post I made a few months ago when a thoughtful AD&D player asked what it is 4e fans like so much about 4e. He was actually interested in the answer, so I thought about it for awhile and gave him this. I have reposted it here by request(with some cleanup editing, naturally).

Clarity of Rules:
 
Balance:
 
NPCs Not Using PC Rules:
 
Roles:
 
Lore:
 
Ease of DMing:
 
Rituals:
 
Less Random Death/More Dynamic Combat:
 
Healing Surges:
 
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Felorn Gloryaxe
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 367
Join date : 2013-05-16
Location : United States

Character sheet
Name: Felorn Gloryaxe
Class: Fighter
Race: Dwarf

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Wed May 29, 2013 2:13 am

Thanks for re-posting this over here. This post really was gold. I think any 4e fan could appreciate it.

_________________

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft

Like a Star @ heaven
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pashalik
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 11
Join date : 2013-05-18
Age : 30
Location : The Sunset Citadel

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Wed May 29, 2013 2:15 am

Heh, thanks. I like to think so, at least.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CHIA
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2013-05-16
Age : 20
Location : Newark, DE

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Wed May 29, 2013 6:35 pm

I do feel that this sums it up nicely. My only disagreement is that I prefer having NPCs be made the same way as PCs. That's probably one of the best parts about Saga, imo., in that it makes it easy to build and run NPCs.

_________________
Hi, I'm CorranHornIsAwesome. You may remember me from such threads on the Wizards boards as "Build Your Encounter!" and "Writer's Block."

/Troy McClure
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Felorn Gloryaxe
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 367
Join date : 2013-05-16
Location : United States

Character sheet
Name: Felorn Gloryaxe
Class: Fighter
Race: Dwarf

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Wed May 29, 2013 8:10 pm

I really like the way AD&D handles henchmen and NPCs. They are easy to create, but use players options too. I like players being able to see a wizard spell that one day they may be able to cast too.

_________________

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft

Like a Star @ heaven
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pashalik
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 11
Join date : 2013-05-18
Age : 30
Location : The Sunset Citadel

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Thu May 30, 2013 3:31 am

CHIA wrote:
I do feel that this sums it up nicely. My only disagreement is that I prefer having NPCs be made the same way as PCs. That's probably one of the best parts about Saga, imo., in that it makes it easy to build and run NPCs.
Yeah, I can see the appeal in having NPCs built like PCs. But it has some serious drawbacks, and in the end, I simply don't think it's worth it. It comes down to a personal preference.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
doctorbadwolf
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 81
Join date : 2013-05-25

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:57 pm

Awesome list. Chia: interesting! I find that the most disadvantageous part of Saga is that I have to build NPCs as PCs, when they could be much simpler.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AbdulAlhazred
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-05-17

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:06 am

Pashalik wrote:
CHIA wrote:
I do feel that this sums it up nicely. My only disagreement is that I prefer having NPCs be made the same way as PCs. That's probably one of the best parts about Saga, imo., in that it makes it easy to build and run NPCs.
Yeah, I can see the appeal in having NPCs built like PCs. But it has some serious drawbacks, and in the end, I simply don't think it's worth it. It comes down to a personal preference.

I think it worked OK in AD&D where a PC could be pretty simple, though spell-casters were not real straightforward, and sadly at higher levels they were just about the only thing that could challenge PCs. The other downside was always just the channeling of NPCs into only a few narrow archetypes. You could of course just give an NPC any old ability you felt like, but the standard conventions discouraged that. I like the way in 4e an NPC can be ANYTHING at all, there isn't any such thing as "oh, he's a cleric, he's got to pick from this spell list and gets 2 of this and 3 of that..." The 4e "evil high priest" could potentially do pretty much anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CHIA
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2013-05-16
Age : 20
Location : Newark, DE

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:57 pm

doctorbadwolf wrote:
Awesome list. Chia: interesting! I find that the most disadvantageous part of Saga is that I have to build NPCs as PCs, when they could be much simpler.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find that there are enough fan made resources that I only hav3e to make custom stats for big characters, which works rreally well.

_________________
Hi, I'm CorranHornIsAwesome. You may remember me from such threads on the Wizards boards as "Build Your Encounter!" and "Writer's Block."

/Troy McClure
Back to top Go down
View user profile
doctorbadwolf
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 81
Join date : 2013-05-25

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:46 am

CHIA wrote:
doctorbadwolf wrote:
Awesome list. Chia: interesting! I find that the most disadvantageous part of Saga is that I have to build NPCs as PCs, when they could be much simpler.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find that there are enough fan made resources that I only hav3e to make custom stats for big characters, which works rreally well.

I suppose we will. For me, if I'm using premade enemies, I don't care about the process to make them, just that the finish product works. the process only matters, to me, when I'm making my own enemies, in which case I greatly prefer a system that's simpler than PC creation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Felorn Gloryaxe
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 367
Join date : 2013-05-16
Location : United States

Character sheet
Name: Felorn Gloryaxe
Class: Fighter
Race: Dwarf

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:35 pm

I like simple NPC creation. Just give me some basic stats and I'll role with it. Chances are if a NPC really needs stats anyway he will more than likely die (Which is why I don't like giving gods stats). Most NPCs I use just do stuff stat-less. If it ever comes to them being in combat I will give them random stats according to what I think about them, or if they are really powerful I just make stuff happen, for instance if a level 1 fighter attacks a Archmage NPC... he messed up... More than likely I will just do something that would make since in the scenario. More than likely the fighter would blow up into a pile of ash.

Now that's extreme but completely doable.


_________________

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft

Like a Star @ heaven
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Duskweaver
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-06-14
Age : 35
Location : Et In Arcadia Ego

Character sheet
Name: Duskweaver
Class: Invoker
Race: Eladrin

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:18 pm

Reading a certain thread on the WotC Next forums led me to realise something I hadn't really appreciated before. In four-and-a-bit years of DMing 4e, I have never had to fudge things to avoid a TPK. I sure as heck can't say that about any previous edition of D&D, and it seems very likely I won't be able to say it about Next (assuming I ever DM Next). That's actually a pretty awesome achievement on the part of 4e's original design team, I think.

_________________
"My flying carpet is full of elves."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
doctorbadwolf
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 81
Join date : 2013-05-25

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:52 pm

Very true. I'll add that in spite of what many claim about the system, I've never had to fudge things in order to challenge PCs, or intentionally put them in risk of character death.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AbdulAlhazred
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-05-17

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:41 pm

Well, I've TPKed one party, and had others close. Had a couple individual character deaths. I agree its not going to happen much and 4e got the challenge level quite well nailed-down.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
doctorbadwolf
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 81
Join date : 2013-05-25

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:53 am

Indeed. If 4e had later monster math more nailed down, the xp budget system would have provided a pretty near perfect method for predicting challenge level.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Duskweaver
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-06-14
Age : 35
Location : Et In Arcadia Ego

Character sheet
Name: Duskweaver
Class: Invoker
Race: Eladrin

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:23 am

Oh, I didn't mean to imply I've never had a TPK, just that I've never had to fudge things due to a potential TPK materialising unexpectedly out of nowhere in what should have been a moderate (or even easy) encounter. There's nothing wrong with character death, or even a TPK, in an encounter that was specifically designed to be very tough.

My point was that, as a DM, 4e encounter difficulty is reliable. An encounter that's designed to be easy won't unexpectedly kill the whole party even if the PCs do something dumb, or roll really badly, or the monsters get lucky. Likewise, an encounter that's designed to be hard won't unexpectedly turn into a trivial walkover due to a single spell ("I cast Dominate Monster; we now have a pet dragon!").

A level X monster is roughly as threatening as any other level X monster. I don't have to minutely examine every last trait and power of every monster I use to check they don't do funky things that may bring the campaign to a crashing halt (*cough*ghouls*cough*), or interact in ways that make a certain combination massively more dangerous than either monster on its own, or have powers or traits that might be totally inoccuous against one party and hideously deadly against another because some classes completely lack countermeasures against certain things. An all-divine party will have a somewhat easier time against undead than an all-martial party, which is as it should be, but not to the extent that I have to completely redesign every encounter to keep a reasonable level of challenge. I can run both parties through the same adventure, and it all just works.

_________________
"My flying carpet is full of elves."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Felorn Gloryaxe
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 367
Join date : 2013-05-16
Location : United States

Character sheet
Name: Felorn Gloryaxe
Class: Fighter
Race: Dwarf

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:36 am

I really have found that 4e is probably the most mechanically stable D&D system. It is very easy to work with. It has a strong core and plenty of wiggle room. But one of the biggest things about 4e I liked was....

RITUALS

My only complaint with rituals was that there wasn't enough of them, nor was there enough lore.

Rituals really seemed like a last minute thing in 4e. Though oddly enough I find them to be one of the neatest things. I really do wish there were more of them though. There are only roughly 300. Of course you have attack spells, and prayers, but rituals were awesome. I also really wish WotC would have released a book that went more in depth into rituals: from how they worked, to how they were cast, even to what some of the components going into it would be like, as well as crunch like more ritual based feats and skill powers.

I've actually just recently compiled ever 4e ritual in a word document and while there are quite a few rituals there aren't near enough. I'm blaming it on Mike Mearls. Rituals became fairly rare after Mike took 4e over.

_________________

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft

Like a Star @ heaven
Back to top Go down
View user profile
chaosfang
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 105
Join date : 2013-05-16

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:48 am

Browsing TVTropes got me to this page. It's kinda funny that it took so long for people to see what I loved about D&D 4E early on (as per definition of "Fridge Brilliance").

  • Rich fluff
  • Easy to DM, especially in terms of improvisation
  • Geared towards teamwork
  • Lots of customization options, especially as the game evolved (though admittedly I see this as a problem as well, due to how easy the system can break as more bloat is introduced [not to mention multi-attack brokenness)
  • Clear, straightforward rules for the most part

When it comes to mechanics, specifically I like

  • Rituals (concept, execution, though there was room for improvement somewhere there)
  • Skills (concept, execution)
  • Skill challenges (concept only; there was a whole plethora of stuff that could've been utilized with this, if the execution was more sound)
  • Healing surges (concept only; the extra HP from other healing sources -- especially leaders -- easily spoiled people and downgraded both Second Wind and the Leader Character Companion, and even encouraged a bit of metagaming by making multiple short rests a better choice)
  • AEDU (concept only; the framework associated with AEDU was horrible as it resulted in 4E classes appearing same-y even though their dynamics clearly differed, not to mention powers became a bit redundant, particularly when comparing higher-level powers to lower-level powers that basically do the same thing, but with slight tweaks.  Why didn't they carry over what they did with at-wills to other powers?)
  • Power Source (concept only; the Arcane power source was borked, and the Shadow power source didn't get enough love)

It could've been better, but I can definitely see what Rob Heinsoo was really aiming for when he was working on D&D 4E in his current project (13th Age).  I've given that system enough praises in another thread though...

By the way, if you ask me, a LOT of D&D 4E's issues seemed to have resulted from Mike Mearls' mishandling of the system, since he was in charge of most of the mechanics, while Rob Heinsoo was more into the vision and likely expected dynamics of the system.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AbdulAlhazred
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-05-17

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:58 pm

Meh, I don't have an issue with the powers structure in 4e in terms of classes being 'the same'. Its not an argument there's any point in getting into, but one of my minimal requirements is a consistent rules architecture. I think this is the primary failing of 13th Age. Its a game with some nice notions, but I wasn't at all impressed with the class designs and related mechanics.

I'm curious what you mean by "carry over what they did with at-wills to other powers", I don't follow. IMHO the power system itself is fine. The context it is placed in within the overall game has some issues, but personally I feel strongly that it is a big mistake to throw out the AEDU power system. Its fixing the wrong thing. That being said I have advocated combining powers, feats, and items. In that sort of system the power allocation would be considerably more flexible overall. I guess we'd have to see how that would play out in the overall design.

Personally I think 4e's problems stem more from presentation than anything else, and also choice of material. I don't know who to attribute that to, and it is really not important, but I think 4e was poorly served by its presentation. There ARE a few mechanical issues, but I think if they'd presented things properly and emphasized various aspects of the game a bit differently, released a bit different content in a bit different order and schedule that the game would have been vastly better received than it was.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
chaosfang
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 105
Join date : 2013-05-16

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:59 am

AbdulAlhazred wrote:
Meh, I don't have an issue with the powers structure in 4e in terms of classes being 'the same'. Its not an argument there's any point in getting into, but one of my minimal requirements is a consistent rules architecture. I think this is the primary failing of 13th Age. Its a game with some nice notions, but I wasn't at all impressed with the class designs and related mechanics.
Fair enough, but for me the important thing isn't so much the mechanics as the dynamics, so while I personally have no problems with the 4E AEDU framework per se because the system's dynamics allowed for certain play styles to occur based on what class you chose while keeping the whole system familiar enough to minimize any need to relearn stuff, the "everyone follows the same structure" was, in effect, the primary source of 4E's presentation problem.

Given the concept of "consistent rules architecture" that you speak of, I find that everyone is still roughly following that same AED power structure from 4E in 13th Age makes those imbalances much more acceptable (the U in AEDU doesn't even have to start at level 2, as talents + feat support of said talents can help in that regard, not to mention how several modifications like at-will Second Wind and heavier tie-ins with other game elements such as healing surges recoveries made some utilities a bit redundant).  Plus, unlike 3E or 4E, the fact that you only have 10 levels to worry about combined with a system that's just as transparent as 4E makes it easy to re-introduce any balance that you might feel is lacking in the system.

I would admit though that there are certain features of utilities such as granting saving throws or temporarily/permanently negate conditions that are missed, but I feel that they are better off as class-specific features such as found with the Bard (and hopefully with the Battle Captain in 13 True Ways).
AbdulAlhazred wrote:
I'm curious what you mean by "carry over what they did with at-wills to other powers", I don't follow.
An easy example: Rain of Steel + Unyielding Avalanche + Reaper's Stance. What if, instead of having to write three daily powers that all did the same thing, you could instead write it as something like
Quote :

Rain of Steel - Fighter Attack 5
You constantly swing your weapon about, slashing and cutting into nearby enemies.
Daily ♦ Martial, Stance, Weapon
Minor Action - Personal
Effect
: Any enemy that starts its turn adjacent to you takes 1[W] damage, as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.
Level 15: You also gain regeneration equal to your Constitution modifier, and a +1 power bonus to AC and saving throws. This power gains the Healing keyword.
Level 25: During your turn your fighter and fighter paragon path attack powers score a critical hit on a 19-20, and deal extra damage equal to your Dexterity modifier. In addition, enemies that take damage from you from starting adjacent to you also take 10 ongoing damage (save ends), so long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.

Just like how basic attacks and at-wills have "level 21" and certain encounter powers (like the theme powers in Dark Sun) had different variations to the same power.

The only major downsides I can see with re-designing the powers as such would be twofold:

  • Inability to take the daily power multiple times, so you can't have three different variations of Rain of Steel that you can pull off (which frankly I'd actually prefer that, so you wouldn't have the "same power, with slightly different effect" sameness feel issue).
  • Some classes would end up with a substantially smaller power list than other classes.

AbdulAlhazred wrote:
IMHO the power system itself is fine. The context it is placed in within the overall game has some issues, but personally I feel strongly that it is a big mistake to throw out the AEDU power system. Its fixing the wrong thing. That being said I have advocated combining powers, feats, and items. In that sort of system the power allocation would be considerably more flexible overall. I guess we'd have to see how that would play out in the overall design.
How would you combining them all play out?  I mean, aside from having power pools (which I think is a fine idea, but seems more appropriate for a role-based or source-based system than a class-based system) and feat pools (which already exist), how would item pools, or combining all three actually work?

AbdulAlhazred wrote:
Personally I think 4e's problems stem more from presentation than anything else, and also choice of material. I don't know who to attribute that to, and it is really not important, but I think 4e was poorly served by its presentation. There ARE a few mechanical issues, but I think if they'd presented things properly and emphasized various aspects of the game a bit differently, released a bit different content in a bit different order and schedule that the game would have been vastly better received than it was.

  • Presentation,
  • too much healing to go around with leaders around,
  • too many arcane powers that could've gone to an "elemental" or the "shadow" power source,
  • too many things to track [unless you ban material] as a result of a combination of options bloat and temporary effects bloat (see: (save ends) and "until __" conditions, not all of which are "until the start/end of your next turn"),
  • the poisoning of the edition by 3E enthusiasts prior to its release,
  • a relatively hurried release, which basically came from the discarding of the Orcus project in lieu of having to release 4E instead,
  • complete ignorance of playtest input at certain points, and
  • the shunning of third parties via GSL (see: Paizo and how they had to resort to their backburner project Pathfinder for survival)


Those are what I think really harmed 4E more than anything else.  I'm not sure how negative the reception was with the Time of Troubles, but the Spellplague was pretty bad for some, though I would likely count that as a relatively minor issue.

In terms of DMing, my primary source of burnout in 4E would have to be the tracking issues combined with the apparently-unforeseen dynamics resulting from monster/PC interactions (which I can't readily fix due to this being an LFR campaign, not unless I switch from LFR to simply FR and just use the modules as a base template).

Oh and speaking of presentation, one feedback I got from other player would be that it was too much like either DotA (choose a power then time its use) or Magic: the Gathering (due to use of power cards).  The latter is obviously a presentation issue, but the former does merit a bit of investigation because a side effect of having everyone on the same AEDU framework as designed is that improvisation, while expanded in some ways due to powers, was also restricted because the efficiency that powers offered was so immense that even I find it difficult to improvise as a DM; the best suggestions for improv given in the DMG basically amounted to "prep harder", with only page 42 as the lifesaver, and the only thing that might help the players connect with the campaign would be their backgrounds... assuming the DM even bothered to give focus on it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AbdulAlhazred
0th-Level Adventurer
0th-Level Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 64
Join date : 2013-05-17

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:20 pm

OK, yes, I definitely agree that powers should level-scale. Maybe my familiarity with 13a is a bit stale, I played through the first couple of playtests, but I haven't read through the final release rules. In the playtests each class had QUITE different mechanics, and in fact several classes (bard and cleric were the prime examples) had multiple overlapping "power like" mechanics at the same time. I just didn't think that was at all a good idea and detracted from the overall utility of the game.

As for my idea about pooling things... I don't know EXACTLY how it would work out. I've never gone through and tried to map out an actual class, lists of possible boons, etc to flesh it out. I would guess that there would be less of a strictly ordered progression, boons would GENERALLY be structured in 'power-like' terms, but they would also be rather feat/item-like. A boon might be very much a 'power' granting some effect or attack, but the same boon could be cast in terms of an item from which said power arises. Thus it wouldn't be mandated that everyone would have a level X daily, a level Y encounter power, etc. It might turn out that it WOULD end up worked out that way, but I wasn't committing to it one way or the other. In any case I think 4e has evolved a bit beyond that with Essentials and I think we'd go forward rather than back.

Tracking was a big part of 4e's issue with combat and just general rules intensiveness. I would cut back on it, but I think that the presentation of things in a modernistic user interface style was actually pretty good. It was just a little too rigid. Only experimentation and testing would say for sure. Issues like GSL and edition warring are kind of moot at this point. WotC managed to piss a lot of people off, but personally I was profoundly disappointed in the D&D Community. My opinion of the people involved will never be the same.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
chaosfang
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 105
Join date : 2013-05-16

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:46 pm

In the strictest of mechanical sense, 13th Age talents are different from powers, but when you look at how those talents are designed, they all still follow the AED power scaling -- Barbarian Rage is daily, Power Attack is encounter, cantrips are INT mod/battle, rituals are daily + take a considerable amount of time to be pulled off, that sort of scaling.  So in effect, everyone still roughly has at-wills, encounters, and dailies, although in varying amounts and dependent on how you want to build your character... and some have their at-wills primarily limited to just basic attacks (which in 4E is typically the worst choice due to outright superiority of at-wills, unless you play around with the right game elements, so I kinda feel bad that the basic attack was rarely used unless you're charging, making opportunity attacks, utilizing Combat Challenge or you're playing an Essentials character...).  Fighters and Bards are a bit more complicated with their flexible maneuvers/battle cries, but given the restrictions of some maneuvers/battle cries, I'd say the Fighter was roughly like 10% ~ 15% underpowered, though the free talent and two class features that he gets does make up for it somewhat.

The only truly "underpowered" class I'm aware of in 13th Age would be the Paladin, probably because it only adds 1d12 damage (and lets you deal half damage on a miss) unless you spend feats for it, although given how often you can use it [especially with Way of Evil Bastards], it's not too bad IMHO.  But given the theme of the class, wherein he's the tankiest tanker and a superior "defender" than the Fighter -- even with the Fighter's new class features -- I'm more inclined to say that if you want a more offense-oriented "holy warrior", Fighter's the way to go.  Barbarian is arguably a runner-up in the "underpowered" list, but only because he's a glass cannon by trade; that being said, once you've set him up with talents that make him survive better, he can be quite the terror on the battlefield.

As for utility, this is something I truly, truly wished was in 4E: backgrounds + one unique thing + relationship dice.  Aside from that, some of the utility abilities found in 4E can also be found as talent feat enhancements.  The only thing lost is the flexibility granted by the skill powers (because they're skill-dependent rather than class-dependent), but that's what I feel the generic feats are for, and I'd prefer to have the generic feat list short and sweet, so as to minimize/avoid options bloat.

- - - - -
Funny how you mention WotC pissing people off, given how they're handling 5E right now.

- - - - -
Back to topic:
Specifically with regards to skills and skill challenges, what I really like about 4E is that skills aren't as strict in 4E as they were in 3.x, because instead of multiple skills that have specific uses, you have a more streamlined set of skills that apply to multiple scenarios, which for me makes improvisation much easier (and makes the discrepancies between classes when it comes to skills less painful).  This also makes skill challenges a far more interesting thing, especially when framed so that the players can describe how they can utilize any skill -- not just what the DM wrote in the skill challenge scene -- and possibly benefit from it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CHIA
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 131
Join date : 2013-05-16
Age : 20
Location : Newark, DE

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:02 pm

Yeah, gotta agree.

_________________
Hi, I'm CorranHornIsAwesome. You may remember me from such threads on the Wizards boards as "Build Your Encounter!" and "Writer's Block."

/Troy McClure
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Felorn Gloryaxe
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 367
Join date : 2013-05-16
Location : United States

Character sheet
Name: Felorn Gloryaxe
Class: Fighter
Race: Dwarf

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Sun Aug 04, 2013 5:40 pm

To be honest. The more I play other editions of D&D the more I wanna come back to 4e. I recently started running a 3e game again. And boy... Is 4e a cleaner system. Plus it's a little more fun to run.

_________________

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft

Like a Star @ heaven
Back to top Go down
View user profile
chaosfang
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 105
Join date : 2013-05-16

PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:59 am

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:
To be honest. The more I play other editions of D&D the more I wanna come back to 4e. I recently started running a 3e game again. And boy... Is 4e a cleaner system. Plus it's a little more fun to run.
If I had to DM D&D, it will have to be D&D 4E, bar none. Pre-4E has its charms, especially with a rocking DM, but otherwise I prefer the idea of D&D 4E.

[ Implementation well... that's for a different topic, but suffice to say that as long as the system has that same spirit of D&D 4E, I'd definitely go for it Smile ]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: What I love about 4e   

Back to top Go down
 
What I love about 4e
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
4ENCLAVE :: 4th Edition :: 4e General Discussion-
Jump to: