What mechanical changes did 4th Edition get right?

[DarkOne-Rob]

Hey everyone,

So, without encouraging anything like an edition war, what did 4th Edition D&D get right that would have been a nice change to 3.5/PF in your opinion?

I liked the idea of saving throws being related to your better of two ability scores (Str/Con for Fortitude, Dex/Int for Reflex, Wis/Cha for Will). I know there were feats to make this possible in 3.5, but it was nice to recognize that a person could be strong of personality (stubborn) without being wise, and so on.

The concept of Defenses (AC/Fort/Reflex/Will) is also something I liked, though I didn't like changing saving throws. PathFinder sort of ran with this in the concept of Combat Maneuver Bonus/Defense, without trashing the saves with which players are so familiar.

Finally, I liked the fact that as you leveled up you got better at nearly everything, even if it was only a little bit better. Everything had your level involved in the math, making leveling up a significant improvement all the time even without new class features and such.

Anyone else have thoughts? I would love to see a PF mechanical rule-set that incorporated some of these things. Maybe we can hope for a 2nd edition someday?

[BrokenChord]

There is a 2e, silly :3

I thought this might be more deserving of a place in the 4e section until I read it more thoroughly. Um... I haven't played much 4e (it was really just too terrible for me to stomach) but I'd say you pretty much got all the good things it did down.

[Invader]

It was the correct number to follow 3... :smallamused:

[Elderand]

Personaly, I think that a lot of what 4th did right can be found in Starwars saga edition whitout the things I dislike.

Things like simplified skill system, your level being added to some things, etc.

[Keneth]

I actually didn't like the fact that saving throws are based off two stats. Being strong doesn't make it easier to fight off afflictions. Being smart doesn't make it easier to dodge a fireball. Being charismatic doesn't make it easier to resist fear. I'm sure you can justify anything, but I just didn't like it.

I liked simplified skills, rituals, and the fact that you don't fill half your magic item slots with stat-increasing items. Probably some other stuff too, it's been a while since I've salvaged stuff from 4th ed.


ect.

This irks me to no end. I'm starting to think people do it just to make others cringe.

[Tvtyrant]

I like the change in saves, with static defenses and active saves. Shorter duration control and debuff options are also fantastic.

[Inferno]

Pretty sure he meant a Pathfinder 2e.

[Elderand]

This irks me to no end. I'm starting to think people do it just to make others cringe.

No I just typed fast and made a mistake.

[some guy]

I like the change in saves, with static defenses and active saves. Shorter duration control and debuff options are also fantastic.

I like both 3e's saves and 4e's defenses.
But I'm especially fond of the shorter controls and debuffs, a bit less bookkeeping is always nice.

Edit: And minor actions, I like minor actions.In 3e a lot of actions (opening doors, getting equipment) do not feel efficient as a move action (I can see why you spend a move action on it, but I always have hated it as a player).

[Tvtyrant]

I like both 3e's saves and 4e's defenses.
But I'm especially fond of the shorter controls and debuffs, a bit less bookkeeping is always nice.

It also makes the save or lose/save or suck syndrome much less evident. Control and debuffs are still important, but no longer the single most dominant ability.

I also really like at-wills with their funky powers.

[prufock]

While these things already existed, 4e did sort of nail down at will vs encounter vs daily powers, so that more powerful abilities were useable less often. I like this idea. In 3e, these things were sort of all over the place. I think they got it more down pat in later books, with maneuvers, binder abilities 1/5 rounds, and the factotum. 4e expanded that idea.

[Der_DWSage]

1:Proper scaling of effects.
In 3rd edition, once you hit a certain point, you simply win all skill checks forever. 4th edition messes with this a bit, in the fact that you add half your level to everything-including defenses. Which means the humble D20 stays appropriate at most levels.

2:Fewer 'I win' buttons and more 'I haven't lost yet' buttons.
I admit-I don't like I Win Combat buttons like Stinking Cloud and mass Death effects. The fact that your entire combat can be shut down by one guy failing a will save is kinda lame, when you get right down to it. 4th Edition tried to make it less binary, and more 'Heroic comebacks.' There are even ways for mundane classes to get self-revival techniques, which can be amazingly handy.

3:More interesting combat.
Pulls, pushes, and positioning have never been so important. Not even the 2e Lightning Bolt, which could let you hit someone potentially 50 times, stressed as much importance on placement. And combat became so much more than 'I stand still and full attack' with that edition.



That doesn't mean that 4e didn't do things wrong-my biggest hatred of it is the fact that you're now locked into one or two classes, and can never multiclass. There's less freedom, and everything feels the same. That being said, they did make a lot of solid choices-it's just that they made a lot of flubs as well.

[Kevka Palazzo]

I also liked the divvying of Fort/Ref/Will into more defenses.

I liked that every class gets something at every level. Be it new powers or feats. I also liked that all the official PC races got a lot of feat support.

Also viability for all builds. Not everything's "optimal" but even what isn't optimal is useful.

[TheIronGolem]

Big Things: No caster supremacy, unified power progression system, minions.

Little Thing: Magic Missile not being auto-hit. That sacred cow barbecue was long overdue.

[Adverb]

Healing being scaled to one's HP pool.

[Craft (Cheese)]

No hit point rolls is something I like that hasn't already been mentioned.

[DeltaEmil]

The fact that the 4th edition prestige class (paragon paths) is given automatically at level 11 and is in addition to your main class, making it easier to balance it around, because the game designers know that at this and that level, the ability must enhance action point use, be an utility power, must be an encounter attack power, give more hit points in exchange for no special ability at that level, and so on.

This, combined with the fact that almost no paragon paths has excessively high requirements, means that a player does not have to prepare a detailed build where every feat, skill, or class features must be perfectly timed to enter the paragon path as soon as possible to gain its benefits, and if you really don't want paragon paths at all, you simply do not have to take them (for those play hard mode and won't even take epic destiny features so as to challenge themselves).

[Malroth]

Healing Surges and Static Defenses, Thats all

[Malak'ai]

Only thing I really liked that I now use for my games is the change to Ability Increases.

[Psyren]

Only thing I really liked that I now use for my games is the change to Ability Increases.

That. 2 stats helps the weak classes a lot without pushing the strong ones that far ahead.

[TheThan]

I really like the concept of the 4E powers however I hate the implementation of them.

I like the ability to “activate” an ability and have that ability take effect. It can potentially make combat, you know fun again.

However I HATE the at will/encounter/daily mechanic, it feels like it’s too easy to fall into routine. I feeI routines are boring and not dynamic enough to keep the game fun.

I also dislike the shear amount of powers available to the classes, especially when a lot of those powers are more powerful versions of lower level powers. I’d rather have fewer powers that are strong, or at least powers that improve as you level, than just a crap ton of nearly identical powers.

[ArcturusV]

Things I think they did right?

The Stat Increases. Getting those +1 to all stats when you level up would help a lot of weaker classes. It's the weak classes that tend to be MAD. The strong ones tend to be SAD (And have ways to circumvent having low stats like Polymorphing, etc). Cleric: Needs Wisdom, anything else is just a nice buff, not necessary, doesn't really impact you that much. Paladin: Needs Strength, Con, Wisdom, and Charisma to operate on all cylinders.

Other thing I liked it "minion" enemies. It provides an elegant solution to mooks. 1 HP so any hit will kill them (Except save reduced damage), but they have the stats of whatever level you want the encounter to be so you they can still be a credible threat without having to go into higher optimization. Honestly it's just a simple, elegant solution and I'm kinda surprised no one had put that forth before. We all know things like the level 1 elf warrior company has no chance in hell of actually being any sort of threat against even a level 8ish Fighter (Without possibly breaking out stuff like using a lot of grenades and such). But level 8 elf warriors with one HP each can pose an actual threat and actually gives a Fighter a reason to take something like Cleave. Or a wizard to pick even crappy AoE blasts, and players seem to like the "badass" feeling of mowing through dangerous mobs, something that they rarely get otherwise.

[Actana]

Personally, I think 4e did right by first and foremost trying to make a fun game mechanically. How it succeeded in making a better tactical combat game is up to your own ideas, but personally I far prefer 4e's combat to 3.5. I do prefer 4e in actual play (though 3.5 holds the place of favorite system to theorize upon), so I may be a bit biased in favor of 4e. It's nowhere near perfect, but I enjoy it a lot more than 3.5.

I like the half-level bonus to things as it signifies a sort of universal growth in everything. The more experienced you get the better you become in everything, and I think that's good.

I also like the skill changes, streamlined and made easier. A simple "trained" in a far smaller skill list is welcome, as it removes a big hassle with skill points, multiclassing and class skills.

I find the power system is a good way to streamline and present abilities. The abundance of status effects in powers is also nice. With powers, you present it and everyone knows what it does. The explanations are often quite short unless there's a unique condition involved, and they rely on universal concepts most of the time.
Also, the power system allows for easy creation of "terrain powers" or traps or other unique things. It also means that those effects are documented somehow, and once presented both the GM and the players have an even footing on knowing how it works. In many ways, I think that 4e allows for a far more even footing on mechanics due to how the power system is presented. And it's also easier to make custom effects for it, as there are very general guidelines to adhere to, and the math more often than not makes sense.

I also very much enjoy that PCs and NPCs (including monsters) do not follow the same rules. It makes creating enemies and encounters far more compelling and allows for an easier time in creating varied and interesting challenges for the players. The structured system of enemy roles helps too, and the DDi tools are just amazing in this regard.

Overall, I just find combat in 4e better, more tactical and allows for much more variety than 3.5. Everyone has options, roles and generally can feel useful assuming an even level of power (which is a lot easier to do in 4e than in 3.5).

There are a lot of other things, like race-equivalency, class roles, defenses, the heroic/paragon/epic tier system, and a fair amount of other stuff, but I could talk about what I prefer for ages, and ain't nobody got the time for that. :smallsmile:

Now, the execution of some of these elements might be lacking, and I have my own problems with 4e. However, I still find it a much more enjoyable system to play out of the box than 3.5, which might be better if I decided to put a few dozen hours into houseruling, but I could spend notably less time houseruling my gripes with 4e away.

If you're looking for cues on how to adapt 4e concepts into 3.5, I recommend checking out Star Wars Saga, as I believe has already been mentioned. It's a good mix between the two, though it is Star Wars as the name implies.

[Der_DWSage]

I also like the skill changes, streamlined and made easier. A simple "trained" in a far smaller skill list is welcome, as it removes a big hassle with skill points, multiclassing and class skills.

I agree with much of the rest of your post, but this bit stands out to me. I despise how they made away with the smallest bit of complexity in skills. You can no longer put ranks in things to show you're a mere dabbler, a moderate journeyman, or a master of the art. (With some associated feats and items as well.) It's now merely 'trained, untrained, or trained and you have a feat.'

I do agree that 3.5 could get annoyingly complicated with multiclassing skills, but Pathfinder resolved that quite nicely without doing away with the entire concept of gradually becoming better at a skill.

tl;dr version:I disagree, old chap. But only with a small portion that particularly grates on my nerves.

[holywhippet]

No hit point rolls is something I like that hasn't already been mentioned.

That is one I really liked. It and stat buying rather than rolling for stats are ideas I like. I like the general concept that, as a rule, no one roll has the potential to completely ruin your character. I mean you could fail an attack roll leading to your death, but you aren't going to be running around with a character who has poor HP because you botched a few HP rolls on level up.

[Actana]

I agree with much of the rest of your post, but this bit stands out to me. I despise how they made away with the smallest bit of complexity in skills. You can no longer put ranks in things to show you're a mere dabbler, a moderate journeyman, or a master of the art. (With some associated feats and items as well.) It's now merely 'trained, untrained, or trained and you have a feat.'

I do agree that 3.5 could get annoyingly complicated with multiclassing skills, but Pathfinder resolved that quite nicely without doing away with the entire concept of gradually becoming better at a skill.

tl;dr version:I disagree, old chap. But only with a small portion that particularly grates on my nerves.

I can definitely see that. In fact, in retrospect I don't like 4e's skill system that much more than 3.X's. Both systems have their own perks, and while slightly less "realistic" (oh, how I despise that term), 4e has more streamlining and removes unnecessary skills (like craft, perform, profession). Personally I think 3 "levels" of skill is enough for the simplistic d20 skill system (which really counts among my least favorite resolution systems out there).
On the flipside, if a character in 4e is good at, say, singing and dancing, you can just say that and it is so. There's no need to spend skill points in pure fluff.

In fact, that goes for a lot of 4e in general. It focuses on the mechanics of combat and adventuring, leaving most of the "fluffy" and "roleplaying" things to be decided by the player without the needs for mechanics for these things. Which is again something I enjoy in the system.

On a tangential note, I find it fairly amusing that you use three categories for skill training: "mere dabbler, a moderate journeyman, or a master of the art", and then you have three categories for how 4e does it: "trained, untrained, or trained and you have a feat." Now, I know what you mean there (varying levels of skill beyond the untrained/trained/focused), but it's amusing that you describe a mere dabbler, a journeyman and a master with 4e mechanics (dabbler = untrained, journeyman = trained, master = feat) :smalltongue:

[Der_DWSage]

Hah! I didn't notice myself. I just tend towards the Rule of Three when I'm speaking, and it tends to show up in quirky ways like that.

Still, even the 'Master' in 4e isn't actually that much better than the 'Journeyman.' +8 vs. +5 isn't the hugest jump in the world. Whereas in 3.5, you can go for, say, a level 10 character with a +15 in a skill (13 ranks + 2 stat, let's say) vs. a level 10 character with a +48 in it. (13 ranks + 4 synergy + 3 feat + 4 stat + 2 Masterwork Item + 2 racial + 20 magic item.)

No denying that, while they have the same ranks in the skill, one's on a whole other level in comparison. And that's without using some of the more...abusive tricks in D&D, like item familiars and sites of power and various other things.

And while you enjoy leaving out-of-combat things to fluff in 4e...honestly? It just smacks of lazy design to me. A lot of things released in 4e feel as though they were trying to be as vague as humanly possible so that nothing could truly be nailed down to numbers, dates, or even places. (Try finding where Dragonborn came into play in the Faerun Setting books between 3.5e to 4e. Try. I know I did. All you get is a bunch of 'Oh yeah, they're a wandering race from some possibly fuzzy no-name kingdom.')

But, so I don't spark a debate war here, another thing they did right-Encounter Powers. Powers are no longer locked into 1/day or 1/week, but instead 'Once during the times they're most relevant. No need to take a nap to refresh them.'

Because if there was one thing I hate and try to cut down on with the 3.5 system, it's the Adventurer Spell Clock. Also known as 'We sleep when the Wizard and Cleric are out of spells.'

[Actana]

Hah! I didn't notice myself. I just tend towards the Rule of Three when I'm speaking, and it tends to show up in quirky ways like that.

Still, even the 'Master' in 4e isn't actually that much better than the 'Journeyman.' +8 vs. +5 isn't the hugest jump in the world. Whereas in 3.5, you can go for, say, a level 10 character with a +15 in a skill (13 ranks + 2 stat, let's say) vs. a level 10 character with a +48 in it. (13 ranks + 4 synergy + 3 feat + 4 stat + 2 Masterwork Item + 2 racial + 20 magic item.)

No denying that, while they have the same ranks in the skill, one's on a whole other level in comparison. And that's without using some of the more...abusive tricks in D&D, like item familiars and sites of power and various other things.

3.5 does have a lot of little quirks and potential for awesome things like that which I love, but when it comes to actually playing the game 4e wins. It is, truth be told, not too difficult to create a really good skill monkey in 4e too (wizards can buff their Arcana check through the stratosphere and then have abilities to use it in place of pretty much everything).


And while you enjoy leaving out-of-combat things to fluff in 4e...honestly? It just smacks of lazy design to me. A lot of things released in 4e feel as though they were trying to be as vague as humanly possible so that nothing could truly be nailed down to numbers, dates, or even places. (Try finding where Dragonborn came into play in the Faerun Setting books between 3.5e to 4e. Try. I know I did. All you get is a bunch of 'Oh yeah, they're a wandering race from some possibly fuzzy no-name kingdom.')

This is more a setting issue, and I don't really have anything too positive to say on the hamfisted approach to transitioning settings to new "systems" with in-setting reasons, and I'm infinitely glad they didn't do this with Eberron. It's a bit silly to see the system as an in-game thing. Anyway, my point was that the things that are often overlooked but very flavorful in 3.5, like a fighter having craft: blacksmithing skills or profession skills in general are ignored because they detract from the main focus of character building: creating a character who is competent in combat/skills. In 3.5 you'd have to sacrifice precious skill points for craft skills if your character were a blacksmith's apprentice originally, but in 4e you can just handwave that knowledge and use it as background fluff. It might be a bit lazy design, but it allows for more freedom in terms of character concepts, which I like.


But, so I don't spark a debate war here, another thing they did right-Encounter Powers. Powers are no longer locked into 1/day or 1/week, but instead 'Once during the times they're most relevant. No need to take a nap to refresh them.'

Because if there was one thing I hate and try to cut down on with the 3.5 system, it's the Adventurer Spell Clock. Also known as 'We sleep when the Wizard and Cleric are out of spells.'

The overall structure of 4e I find better than in 3.5, and I think a lot of it boils down to WotC just knowing what they're doing with the system, and knowing the complaints of 3.5, and avoiding them with a massive shift from what made 3.5 popular, which was a questionable choice at best. 3.5 isn't a bad system by any means despite my dislike for it in practice, but it does suffer from a lack of focus. Where 3.5 tries to do a lot of things at once, 4e tries to do one thing very well and emphasizes upon it. 4e might be a bit more restricted on what it does with its mechanics, but I find the mechanics of what it does superior to 3.5.

But, you know, personal preference and all. The last thing I want is to tell people to stop enjoying 3.X. It's a good framework for a system, and has a lot more potential than 4e. It's a bit like optimization between classes. Some classes/systems have a lower starting point and a higher ceiling (3.5 out of the box is terrible, but with enough tinkering it can be excellent), while others have a higher starting point and a lower ceiling (4e out of the box is enjoyable, but tweaking it won't make it tremendously better). And then there are druids, which ruins the whole allegory unless we start talking about other systems entirely, in which case I'd nominate Fate for the allegorical druid.

[Der_DWSage]

Hard to argue with that-4e is definitely easier for a newbie to hop into than 3.5, with its infinite supply of splatbooks, unfair opponents, trap class decisions, and otherwise complicated things. (Another nice thing of 4e-allowing you to retrain feats every level.)

Though that actually brings me to another portion of 4e that I both love and despise! Rituals. Rituals are a great way of showing 'Okay, this is a spell that shouldn't be used in combat, and should probably be kept rare.' So, yeah. That's great! It works wonders.

My issue comes with some of their choices, or how inflexible they are with the casting time. Spending an hour casting Clairvoyance so you can put a sensor in a room for...a minute? Seriously? Why would you ever...? The payoff is not meeting the work put into it. There were other ones, but that particular ritual always stuck in my craw.

[Captnq]

Nothing.

Not a God. Damn. Thing.

Burn it. Burn it with fire. Salt the earth. Murder the first born and leave a pile of skulls as a warning to all who would follow in the footsteps of 4e that these are cursed lands and none should ever travel them again. Create an order of holy men who will watch the cursed lands dressed as extras from an Indiana Jones Movie. One of the good movies, not that last one. That one needs to be burned and the earth salted as well, but I digress. They should lurk in the shadows and pass the knowledge of their holy duty down from generation to generation. Should anyone ever try to do anything that was ever done in 4e in the far flung post-apocalyptic hellscape that will result because America elected Jenna Bush (She will be very popular on the future Disney reality TV show Kardashian's and Friends), even if it is only to reuse a font type, that holy order shall ride out of the hills holding up tablets and spears while chanting, "Weird at last! Weird at last! Thank Gygax almighty, We're weird at last!"

Please take it to the 4e board. Thank you.

[Dr. Cliché]

Other thing I liked it "minion" enemies. It provides an elegant solution to mooks. 1 HP so any hit will kill them (Except save reduced damage), but they have the stats of whatever level you want the encounter to be so you they can still be a credible threat without having to go into higher optimization. Honestly it's just a simple, elegant solution and I'm kinda surprised no one had put that forth before. We all know things like the level 1 elf warrior company has no chance in hell of actually being any sort of threat against even a level 8ish Fighter (Without possibly breaking out stuff like using a lot of grenades and such). But level 8 elf warriors with one HP each can pose an actual threat and actually gives a Fighter a reason to take something like Cleave. Or a wizard to pick even crappy AoE blasts, and players seem to like the "badass" feeling of mowing through dangerous mobs, something that they rarely get otherwise.

I have to say, I never really liked the whole 'minion' idea. It's fine for things like goblins and kobolds, and saves you having to keep track of goblin #47 because the PCs managed to leave it clinging to life on 1hp. However, when you have an ogre with ~300hp, and an ogre minion with 1hp, it just kills my suspension of disbelief. Do all ogre minions suffer from brittle-bone disease and congenital heart-failure? And, even then, I'd have thought they'd still manage 50hp - it's not even like they could have rolled badly for hps. :smallconfused:

In any case, isn't this something the DM can already do in 3.5? I've sometimes used challenges with a lot of relatively weak monsters, and simply said to myself 'if they get hit, they die'.



However I HATE the at will/encounter/daily mechanic, it feels like it’s too easy to fall into routine. I feeI routines are boring and not dynamic enough to keep the game fun.

This is exactly what I found when I tried 4e.

[Encounter Starts]
Round 1 - Use First Encounter Power
Round 2 - Use Second Encounter Power
Round X (when you run out of encounter powers) - Consider using Daily (if it's a boss fight), otherwise use an at-will power.
Round X+1 - Use At-will power
Round X+2 - Use At-will power
...

Repeat for next Encounter.

I guess I just got fed up of every fight turning into a grind-fest - especially considering that monsters could have excessive amounts of health, but we barely gain any damage as we level up.



In terms of things I do like about 4th edition:

- Increase 2 ability scores at the appropriate levels, instead of just 1

- I like that the fighter type classes have some more interesting manoeuvres and such (I just wish it hadn't come at the expense of spellcasting classes losing all their spells).

- Related to the above, I think there are a lot of interesting abilities - both in regard to player ones and monster ones. But, again, I wish it hadn't come at the expense of all spells in the game.

- Not sure it was particularly well-executed (since it basically railroads you into what powers you end up with), but I quite like the idea of classes having a few different paths, which have different starting abilities.

- I don't have the book handy, but am I right in thinking that Regeneration in 4th basically works the same as in Pathfinder? If so, I'll call that a positive, because I find tallying lethal and non-lethal damage during an encounter a massive pain.

[ArcturusV]

Actually I think the 4th edition skills do make a bigger difference between Trained or Not.

Lets take a simple example. Say, third edition, the Diplomacy Skill. I can be 2nd level and basically cannot fail it, at all with a simple bard. Granted, yes, bard will be trained. However hardly "Master" by the metrics you listed as I only have 5 skill ranks, no feats spent on skill focus or anything, a few simple, obvious skill synergy bonuses (Which I'm not even really getting for it so much as because having skills like Bluff is handy on it's own, it's not really a cost to master Diplomacy, I'd have bluff anyway).

It's the price of having fixed DCs, honestly it gets to the point, particularly when you end up with something like +30 magic to a skill, that even a "layman" can easily master a skill and accomplish great feats of it with no real problem at all.

With 4th, yes, you don't get those +40 to a skill, and such. But hte DCs scale with level. More or less how it works is that even a "trained" person only has something like an average of a 70% chance to succeed at any given task they are likely to face. Whereas an untrained person has a 30% chance or so.

So the difference is third edition, the "layman" can have the same 100% chance that a master can. And in 4th there is a usually sizeable 40-50% difference in the odds between a layman and a master at a given task.

Not saying one is necessarily better than the other. Different feels for it. Should the high level master Fighter be hardcore enough that he can barehand climb a sheer cliff without really specializing in climbing? Or should he count on the specialist Barbarian who is expert in climbing to blaze a trail and lower a rope?

Granted in third there's always "Pssh, why even worry about it, just pop a fly spell in that!" of course. With 4th not so much as the Rituals aren't anywhere near as useful as the spells in 3rd for out of combat solutions. So the skills matter more. Which is honestly kinda neat. Your "Rogue" doesn't get negated because the nerd in the dress and pointy hat can just snap his fingers and do everything you can easier than you could, and usually with better results.

Again, not better or worse. Just different on that.

Edit On Minions:

That's why they'd be something like... zombie Ogres, or Skeletal Ogres. Or I'd use Elf Thugs or something. The minion template is clearly meant for "fodder" type monsters so I don't really see it as a problem. Who has entire armies of Trolls or Dragon Wrymlings?

Granted if you're at the point in a narrative where your party can look at an entire army of Trolls or Dragon Wyrmlings and go "... we can take that..." you're probably epic levels anyway and would have been splatting them in 2, maybe 3 hits anyway even in third. So it just makes the slaughter faster to have the 1 HP thing going on. Lets things like a wizard blast with low level slots, dropping a Fireball to wipe out a horde of minions rather than having to go full on meteor swarm and burn a 9th to clear it out. Course... arguements about blasting and such in general. But just a random example. It feels good to go mowing down creatures fast instead of having to pounce power attack and hit two-three times to do the same thing to fewer targets, etc.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Majority of my experience is in 3.5, but I'm currently in a 4th edition group and played in an 4th ed encounters group before sponsored by Wizards of the Coast (It was when I was first getting into d&d). But personally I largely prefer 3.5 and I'll say why below while addressing different parts of the games one by one.

Skills

This is honestly of the things I hate most but also love the most about 4th edition.

Pro's

The part I did like, the grouping of skills. Spot, Listen and Search are now Perception, Hide and Move Silently is now Stealth. 3.5 expanded it's skill options so much you basically had to train in 2 to 3 skills to be competent at using any of them. Like sure may be the master at hiding, but if you don't train in move silently as well you won't get far with it, and if only Move Silently is trained in then the second someone looks in your direction you're screwed.


Con's

What I hate is how being trained or specialized in skill means nothing. "Oh, I have training and a feat? +8, big woop. What's that? I get +15 from my level by end game? Even more if you count the "All ability score" increase? Wow... Guess I'm almost as good as the doctor at surgery now.

The skills became more 'Do you have the matching ability score' than about actually being trained or skilled in it. Really harms character design, role playing and game-play in my opinion.

Other

I noticed some discuss/debate in regards to Crafting Skills. I agree that there were over done in 3.5 and it did hurt roleplaying to not be able to invest in it without harming your build in general. But getting rid of them in 4th edition out right I don't think works either, cause it just gives people a Mary Sue opportunity to try to be good at almost all of these things.

My suggestion is a very common house rule is 3.5.
Give additional skill points for the sole purpose of crafting, profession or perform. It could just be 4 or 8 at 1st level, or an extra 1 or 2 SP per level (4 or 8 at level 1). That way you can have those things you're good at without it getting in the way of build's.

Defenses

Pro's

Makes combat more interesting. Now it's not just my AC that determines if I get hit or not. But to be honest I would still like AC to be the main target most of the time, I just don't like that fact it's in 3.5 it's usually just AC or Spell Resistance you need to be bypassing.

Con's

I miss my saving throws. :(

I personally find the game more engaging when you had to roll your saving throws for an effect rather than pray what you encountered didn't roll high. It makes it more like you're static rather than you just had bad luck one time or the next.

Neutral

Multiple ability scores that can work.

It makes sense with Will saves, you're just too strong willed personally to fall for some things even if you're not that bright. But it makes no sense that Intelligence lets you dodge more often or Strength makes you more resistant to poison or disease.

Ability Score Increases

Pro's

Really helps out the MAD classes catch up. Plus it helps everyone be a more well rounded character rather than focusing purely on one score.

Con's

It's main issue is in combination with it's skill system by effectively making your skills ability based and not training based.

Outside of that, I really can see little issue with this system over 3.5 other than minor balancing concerns.

Daily, Encounter and At-Will Powers

Pro's

The games neater and more organized. People better know how to use power's in battle.

Con's

Everything else. It hurts creativity, it makes the game feel far more like a Grind than a roleplay game.
It's all unrealistic for many classes such as Fighter. Why do certain sword tricks only work once a fight or once a day?

It's other main issue is that it basically replaced spell casting. Now, any spell a Wizard or Druid casts is combat focuses and not something that can be used with much creativity outside of combat. Granted there are rituals, but those take far too long prep time for many creative uses of them to come of use.

Prestige Classes

Pro's

As stated before, it allows characters to clearly progress in a class and pick up new and advanced abilities without the need to divert away from their original class.

Con's

None really in this case. In 4th edition it works fine.

If it were carried over to 3.5 though there's concerns with how it may interact with Multi-Classing to prevent broken combinations. Or become a massive deterrent to multi-classing in general.

Multi-Classing

Pro's

None, you basically have to merge two classes in 4th and be weaker in both and in general almost all the time.
I find any system in 4th that allows you venture out of one class to be very horribly built and put together.

Con's

Everything. 3.5 allowed you easily pick up a new class and progress in it and maybe find creative ways for them to benefit one another.
4th edition basically goes "Well you can try another class... but only one other. And we'll hate you of it and constantly remind you that we hate you for it".



1 HP Minions

Pro's

As also mentioned by others. Level 1 Elf Fighters are nothing to even a Level 8 Fighter. But Level 8 Elf Fighters with 1 HP still hold a real threat against the player while still being weak enough that you can send in a ton of them with little concern.

Con's

If used excessively this can ruin the balance of the game and give some builds too big advantages and others too little.
But if used in moderation as a DM Tool then this was a great addition to the game.



Races

Pro's

Races are better implemented and balanced. Especially when they made the change of +2 to one score and +2 to one of two others.
Granted, in combination of those, racial skills and racial powers there are still preferred races for a class, it is much more flexible in terms of what the races offer.

Con's

The race's themselves although improved actually suffered a downgrade when put in combination with the 4th edition system. Reason being many classes moved from preferred ability scores to 'you require these ones, all others are 100% useless no matter what creativity you use'.

So if took the races from 4th mostly how they were and brought them to 3.5 it would be a welcome change to the system in my mind. But as it stands in 4th addition it really has races divided up into what suits which class the best.



Power Balance - Wizard vs Fighter

Pro's

Well it has the balance. I'll give it that much.
But it does it by stripping away a lot of what makes a Wizard fun to play as.

In other words to took the easy way out.

Con's

It took the easy way out. They balanced the classes by taking the better off one and stripping them down of most of their stuff.

Granted, none of us have even ever found an effective way to balance them without making the wizard no longer a wizard or the fighter no longer a fighter (and for those suggesting the fan-made game where fighters can attack from 30+ ft away with a sword. That's not a fighter anymore, that's a wizard acting as a fighter pretty much).



No hit point rolls is something I like that hasn't already been mentioned.

I think that's because the majority of groups house rule to either strike average or go with the highest possible roll anyways so with that being an almost universal house rule most of us just forget that according to the rules that's something we're meant to be rolling for.


Hard to argue with that-4e is definitely easier for a newbie to hop into than 3.5, with its infinite supply of splatbooks, unfair opponents, trap class decisions, and otherwise complicated things. (Another nice thing of 4e-allowing you to retrain feats every level.)

Though that actually brings me to another portion of 4e that I both love and despise! Rituals. Rituals are a great way of showing 'Okay, this is a spell that shouldn't be used in combat, and should probably be kept rare.' So, yeah. That's great! It works wonders.

My issue comes with some of their choices, or how inflexible they are with the casting time. Spending an hour casting Clairvoyance so you can put a sensor in a room for...a minute? Seriously? Why would you ever...? The payoff is not meeting the work put into it. There were other ones, but that particular ritual always stuck in my craw.

This is why some spells have a long Casting Time requirement. But I agree, 3.5 could of used more ritual like systems.

[kellbyb]

I've always seen the idea of using intelligence to reflex saves like this: dexterity allows you to move out of harm's way before, say, a fireball hits. With intelligence, you instead use your superb intellect to calculate where the fireball will hit and where you will be safe (to an extent). Basically, dexterity lets you move really fast, while intelligence lets you move in the right direction.

As for my edition preference, I like to go with the Legend RPG system. It combines what I like about 3.5 (extensive character customization and the fun vancian magic system) with what I like about 4 (average HP, new powers every level) while being quite balanced (for those who don't know, it was created with the idea of balancing classes during the Test of Spite on this very forum).

[Keneth]

Also known as 'We sleep when the Wizard and Cleric are out of spells.'

Just to nitpick, sleeping doesn't recover a divine caster's spells, they need to pray/meditate at a specific time of day to do that. But yes, 15 min adventuring days are common for parties with arcane casters, especially at lower levels.


I've always seen the idea of using intelligence to reflex saves like this: dexterity allows you to move out of harm's way before, say, a fireball hits. With intelligence, you instead use your superb intellect to calculate where the fireball will hit and where you will be safe (to an extent). Basically, dexterity lets you move really fast, while intelligence lets you move in the right direction.

While this is how I've always seen it justified, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it's complete baloney. Knowing where a blast, or a punch, or whatever is coming from will do you very little good if you plan on avoiding it, you'll just get hit in the face exactly how you expected to be. :smallbiggrin:

[DarkOne-Rob]

So, is it possible (reasonable?) to house rule some/all of the following into the PathFinder rule-set?

- Dual Ability Scores to Saves
- Static Defenses (without removing Saving Throws)
- Passive Level-Based Improvement
- Ability Score Increases (+1 to All/Multiple Abilities periodically)
- Proper Scaling of Effects (Still challenging throughout high levels)
- No Static DCs for Skills/Effects
- Ritual Casting
- Balanced Tiers
- Simplified Skills (Already done?)
- No Stat Increasing Items
- Less Bookwork (Shorter Durations of Statuses)
- Minor Actions (More Options?)
- At-Will Powers (Without boring routine in combat)
- Encounter/Daily Powers (Simplified and consistent) (Without boring routine in combat)
- Few “I Win” Buttons
- More “I Don’t Lose (Yet)” Buttons
- Pulls, Pushes, and Positioning in Combat
- Minions (When Appropriate)
- Healing Scaling with HP Pool
- Fewer Dice Rolls for Permanent Stats (Abilities, HPs, etc…)
- Balanced Races (including Racial Activated Abilities)

Or is this asking too much?

[Keneth]

Some of that is already in Pathfinder, and my own houserules feature a lot of what's on that list. In fact, I'm monitoring this thread for the sole reason of seeing if there's anything else worth implementing in my Pathfinder games. :smalltongue:

[tadkins]

I do like the fact that I don't feel like I'm gimping myself by playing a fighter or a rogue as opposed to a wizard, cleric, or any T1 class.

[TheIronGolem]

So, is it possible (reasonable?) to house rule some/all of the following into the PathFinder rule-set?

- Dual Ability Scores to Saves
- Static Defenses (without removing Saving Throws)
- Passive Level-Based Improvement
- Ability Score Increases (+1 to All/Multiple Abilities periodically)
- Proper Scaling of Effects (Still challenging throughout high levels)
- No Static DCs for Skills/Effects
- Ritual Casting
- Balanced Tiers
- Simplified Skills (Already done?)
- No Stat Increasing Items
- Less Bookwork (Shorter Durations of Statuses)
- Minor Actions (More Options?)
- At-Will Powers (Without boring routine in combat)
- Encounter/Daily Powers (Simplified and consistent) (Without boring routine in combat)
- Few “I Win” Buttons
- More “I Don’t Lose (Yet)” Buttons
- Pulls, Pushes, and Positioning in Combat
- Minions (When Appropriate)
- Healing Scaling with HP Pool
- Fewer Dice Rolls for Permanent Stats (Abilities, HPs, etc…)
- Balanced Races (including Racial Activated Abilities)

Or is this asking too much?

Some if it already is there.

Races in Pathfinder are pretty decently balanced in my opinion. Pushes/pulls are in via the drag and reposition combat maneuvers.

I homebrewed a minions system into my own Pathfinder campaign and it worked remarkably well, so that's certainly possible.

Much of the rest is in Legend, and while Legend isn't Pathfinder, it does at least prove that it's possible to do in a d20-based system.

[WhiteShark]

Everybody should just play Legend, it's totally rad and needs more attention

although it would help if the monster manual was already out...

[molten_dragon]

I like the smaller skill list, though I don't like the other things they did to skills in 4e.

I also really like the "Every direction is 5 feet on the combat grid" rule. The 15 feet every two squares rule in 3.5 is awful.

[Dr. Cliché]

The 15 feet every two squares rule in 3.5 is awful.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean.

[ArcturusV]

The reference is that the rule is, if you're traveling diagonally, every 2 squares diagonally is 15' of movement.

[Eulalios]

I also really like the "Every direction is 5 feet on the combat grid" rule. The 15 feet every two squares rule in 3.5 is awful.


The reference is that the rule is, if you're traveling diagonally, every 2 squares diagonally is 15' of movement.

Wizards, preserve us from Pythagorean torments.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So, is it possible (reasonable?) to house rule some/all of the following into the PathFinder rule-set?

- Dual Ability Scores to Saves
- Static Defenses (without removing Saving Throws)
- Passive Level-Based Improvement
- Ability Score Increases (+1 to All/Multiple Abilities periodically)
- Proper Scaling of Effects (Still challenging throughout high levels)
- No Static DCs for Skills/Effects
- Ritual Casting
- Balanced Tiers
- Simplified Skills (Already done?)
- No Stat Increasing Items
- Less Bookwork (Shorter Durations of Statuses)
- Minor Actions (More Options?)
- At-Will Powers (Without boring routine in combat)
- Encounter/Daily Powers (Simplified and consistent) (Without boring routine in combat)
- Few “I Win” Buttons
- More “I Don’t Lose (Yet)” Buttons
- Pulls, Pushes, and Positioning in Combat
- Minions (When Appropriate)
- Healing Scaling with HP Pool
- Fewer Dice Rolls for Permanent Stats (Abilities, HPs, etc…)
- Balanced Races (including Racial Activated Abilities)

Or is this asking too much?

Some of that is, such as the ones I have bolded.
But even then those would need you to balance it out against monsters. Easiest way being to use a higher XP scale (XP needed to level up) and throw slightly more monsters at players per encounter.

Some of those I didn't bold could still probably be added, it just wouldn't be as easy and require more work. Not stat increasing items is as simple as banning/not allowing the items that do increase stats.

However, with Balance Tiers is a huge challenge. At least if you want to remain true and honest to the classes. You want wizards to have magic and for that to be more useful than some simple combat spells, and you want Fighters to still be very skilled warriors.

But even if you restrict the higher spell levels Wizard still has far more power and potential than a Fighter due to the pure versatility that Magic has. Making a Fighter more of a combat beast (better numbers) and giving them some more skills might be a good start though.


Everybody should just play Legend, it's totally rad and needs more attention

although it would help if the monster manual was already out...

Not really.

It's what I was referring to in my earlier post where I said "Granted, none of us have even ever found an effective way to balance them without making the wizard no longer a wizard or the fighter no longer a fighter (and for those suggesting the fan-made game where fighters can attack from 30+ ft away with a sword. That's not a fighter anymore, that's a wizard acting as a fighter pretty much)".

Legend took the easy way of saying, "You know the Fighter? He does all this stuff a Fighter wouldn't actually be able to do! Why? Because it looks cool!". Essentially it's a massive diss against anyone who just want's to play a skilled person with a sword, because now it expects you to doing stuff like tossing trees and hitting people 30 feet away with your sword.

If that's a character concept you like it's fine, but it doesn't actually fix the Fighter vs Wizard issue. It just makes a completely different kind of class and claims that it's a Fighter when it's in practice no where close.

[kellbyb]

It's what I was referring to in my earlier post where I said "Granted, none of us have even ever found an effective way to balance them without making the wizard no longer a wizard or the fighter no longer a fighter (and for those suggesting the fan-made game where fighters can attack from 30+ ft away with a sword. That's not a fighter anymore, that's a wizard acting as a fighter pretty much)".

Legend took the easy way of saying, "You know the Fighter? He does all this stuff a Fighter wouldn't actually be able to do! Why? Because it looks cool!". Essentially it's a massive diss against anyone who just want's to play a skilled person with a sword, because now it expects you to doing stuff like tossing trees and hitting people 30 feet away with your sword.

If that's a character concept you like it's fine, but it doesn't actually fix the Fighter vs Wizard issue. It just makes a completely different kind of class and claims that it's a Fighter when it's in practice no where close.

And this is a point where stormwind is not a complete fallacy. Take the fighter as a regular, but skilled sword-swinger, the wizard with all of his fun spells, and a situation where the classes are balanced with each other, then pick two. You can't have all of those factors at the same time.

EDIT: also, I see nothing in the Legend rulebook that suggests barbarians (closest fighter analog) can attack with swords from 30 feet away, barring feats or magic items.