4e; good and bad

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Here follows an accumulation of my ideas and opinions of the new edition, comparing good and bad.

Disclaimer:
The advantages and disadvantages I point out here are my opinions. Other people may not agree with them-or the reasons I label some features good or bad on.


Good points:

Generally speaking, 4E is streamlined, balanced, with simple rules that function well and fast together. It also has much better support for both players and DMs and gives a great deal more insight into how the rules are supposed to work. Rules as Written are clearer and much easier to understand and are backed up by sections of the books writing down how rules are intended to work so the greatly sought phantom of Rules as Intended which players and DMs alike always desired in 3rd edition is now a reality-and it is core. Now, let's take a look at how some of the better ideas of the new edition function and why they are good things;

Many options, few combos;
4E is full of different options in classes, powers, feats, magic items, and racial/paragon/epic abilities. All in all, the new core has slightly more options than the old core if you look at just the number of things. Unlike 3E, in the new rules most things are stand-alone. Boosters to one ability are possible-but the designers have taken their time to look into the available combinations and make sure only the boosts intended are actually available. So, feats are stand-alone instead of in chains, most powers cannot boost one another, magic item and special ability bonuses cannot stack to unintended levels. Instead of the old types of bonuses based on the way something was given (e.g. insight bonus for divinations, morale bonus for enchantments and profane bonus for vile magic) we now have power bonus for powers, feat bonus for feats, item bonus for items and some unnamed bonuses. Why this is a good thing is threeofold;
1) As things do not form combos-at least not complex or hidden ones-it is equally easy for a novice player and a master to get what and how things work-it is also faster. So the new edition is easier to learn. In fact, it is possible to play without learning it at all by just reading the descriptions because the difference between good options and bad options wether in character building, loot or tactics is much smaller.
2) In the end, almost half the time needed in 3E to decide tactics, find the best combos and add up bonuses-or resolve arguments on how bonuses function-is gone. This accounts for much of the increased pace in 4E.
3) Because combos have severely been limited, it is not possible to powergame or munchkinise-at least not to the point of breaking things. Yes, some options are still better than others but the difference in effectiveness is around 50% not the difference between casting a timestop combo with five spells and casting a single meteor swarm.

All in balance.
Every combat option in 4E is roughly equally effective among powers of the same level and equally optimised and equipped characters. It doesn't matter if you're a wizard or a ranger or a cleric-a single target ranged power of the same level deals roughly the same damage if all buffs, abilities and items are equal. Some classes deal more damage to single targets because they have more powers for single targets-or perhaps slightly stronger single-target powers-not because there are great differences between the total damage output. The classes who deal less damage in a single enemy deal it on more than one target or at a range instead and the classes that deal less damage in general have better defences. In the end everything evens out. That is a good thing because:
1) Now fighters can be just as effective as wizards in combat-the same applies to all classes regarding combat effectiveness.
2) Class choices do not change group dynamics overall-now there are no more weak parties of meelers vs strong parties of casters.
3) It is much easier for the DM to find appropriate challenges and judge rewards because he knows the exact group strength.


Different classes of powers
We now have at will, per encounter, per day and ritual powers. This makes it much easier to have both relatively weak effects along with extremely strong ones and combat effects along with utility ones without making a very powerful power better to have than a relatively weak power of the same level-the relatively weak power you can use many times while the very strong one only once. This is good because;
1) It is easier for designers to balance the various powers.
2) It is easier for players to know how and when to use every power.
3) The system is able to support very powerful effects without breaking combat by moving them on to rituals.
4) It is cooler than having only one type of powers per class like only at will attacks for fighters while only per day powers for casters.

Here there be monsters
Monsters-with the help of monster tiers-are easier to handle, faster to work in combat and easier to match against PC capabilities. The monsters are separated in tiers-as we already know-and this works in the DMs favor because;
1) Combat is faster because the monsters are easier to handle.
2) Combat planning is easier and faster because tiers and monster levels are both more accurate and more helpful than the old CR-especially in the loots and rewards department.
3) The system is better able to accomodate powerful monsters and weak monsters at the same levels without problem. In fact, it is made for it.

DM support/Rules as Intended
Perhaps the biggest plus of 4E, even bigger than balance. There are now explanations of how stuff are supposed to function in core-including detailed tables for average monster stats, XP rewards, treasure allotment, encounter creation, monster allotment by tier, customisation, monster advancement, traps and obstacles, noncombat encounters, NPC guidelines and other stuff. Sure, 3E had some of those things but not nearly so detailed and not nearly so extensive-or accurate. Some may accuse the designers of treating DMs as if they lack intelligence but in reality, the charts and guidelines help immensely in homebrewing of any sort (yes there are guidelines for homebrewing rules too) and they contain the mechanics of the game and expected numerical values for all kinds of stuff rather than just advice. That's good;
1) A DM automatically knows when something is overpowering, broken or not supposed to work that way by comparing it with the expected values tables for stats, treasure, monsters and the like.
2) A DM better understands how and why the rules work due to some background info.
3) There are rules for customising and homebrewing that are actually core. You don't have to follow them but as long as you do, anything you make should be playable by anyone with no worries of getting the numbers or the power level wrong.



Bad points:

Generally speaking, 4E core is simplistic, lacks variety, flavor has been downgraded, the mechanics have been downgraded, there's more focus in the mechanics themselves than the flavor, there is no real variety in powers or items, alot of mechanics are not adequately used and all in all the entire edition feels kind of... empty. As if the designers spent so much time making the new mechanics and coming up with cool rules ideas that there was little time left to fill up the edition with more stuff.


All the same
Almost all powers rely on damage. With damage as the only way to actually kill stuff (pc-wise), all the PCs do is whack things to death or defend themselves from attack. There is no real variety in attacks because in the end there are 5 different things powers do in combat; damage, reduce damage/hit chance of enemies, increase hit chance/damage of allies, healing, disabling. In the end, the new edition has lost a very great part of variety in killing stuff (ability damage/drain, death effects, energy drain), defeating stuff without killing them in any way that lasts more than a round or two (polymorph, mind control, imprisoning) and some of the cooler in-combat effects (polymorphing, summoning, conjurations) that last for more than a round or two.

Items
What was said of powers applies in items too. It is not just that items have been made weaker and less numerous. They have also been seriously lacking in variety-and they are considerably fewer.

Feats
Well now characters can gain as many as 18 feats. That's good, right? Nope. Why? Because all the feats, even the most powerful, are just very weak compared to powers and items-and they don't stack. Sure, you can get +3 damage to fire powers with the epic version of a feat that increases damage. But when a power does 50-70 points of damage, 3 points are insignificant.

Downgraded/unused mechanics
The rules themselves-which are pretty good-allow for a plethora of mechanics other than dealing damage to defeat stuff or regain HP to protect/heal yourself. But the majority of mechanics are not used to their full extent for three reasons;
1) Effect duration (other than damage) ends in a round or two. That means that even epic characters cannot mind-control/curse/poison/paralyse a 1st level monster or NPC for more than 12 seconds.
2) HP and the 4 defences are the only thing that really matters in combat. For example, the game mechanics have all these resistances. By the time the monsters have resistance 10 to a damage type, the PCs do 40 points of damage or more so the resistance amounts to only a single negated attack over the entire combat. Elite and Solo monsters just have doubled or quardoubled HP and increased defences instead of actually using the resistance mechanics, regeneration, immunities and buff powers they could have used instead of just an increased number or two.



The ugly

Here are a couple of points that are very serious deterrents against buying 4E. They seriously damage the quality of play, DMing and homebrewing.


PC incompetence
Ever played the 5th level wizard that had a few magic missiles and burning hands memorised at 1st level, 2-3 stronger 2nd level spells like scorching rays, a couple utilities and 2 fireballs for the big hitters? Then, 3 or 4 rounds into a long encounter, you were reduced to casting magic missile and polar ray because you had nothing else? Well, that's EXACTLY how 4E characters play. ALL 4E characters. Of ALL levels. Why? Because at 10th level you know 2 at will, 3 encounter and 3 daily powers. That means you know a grand total of 8 different powers, barring utilities. And guess what? After 10th level you no longer gain new combat powers. You only exchange the old ones for new. So a 30th level character would have, from his class, 2 utility, 3 encounter and 3 daily powers. A grand total of 8 class powers is the maximum you can know at any level.
Do you know why this is bad? Let's see;
1) It's ridiculous. The grand hierophant that is well on his way of becoming a demigod and is the greatest servant of his deity on the world knows only 8 different prayers.
2) Barring at will powers, you can only use a power ONCE. You do not even have the option to memorise it twice. So the most powerful archmage in the world can only cast a single fireball before having to catch his breath for it to recharge even though he can cast other powers.
3) It kills the cool. Yeah, you have access to cool powers. But you can only learn 8 spells despite being the grand pooh-bah of the Warlock Consortium even if you are 30th level.
4) It is boring. Due to the change of rules and the pace of combat, encounters can last 10 rounds or more. So, after the 3 initial rounds where you'll have spent your encounter powers you'll have to either spend your daily powers or just cast magic missile over and over again. Bad.


Mechanics over realism.
Yeah, that. Suspension of disbelief makes DnD better than WOW. Now, DnD has a few good realism-killing qualities and the only reason for them is that the rules have moved from describing a fantasy setting and helping with the story into a calculator that enables players to kill stuff easily.
1) Ranges are irrealistic. No-one can shoot anything further than 20 squares. That's roughly 30 meters-closer than the average human could run in a 6 second DnD round.
2) Death and damage are irrealistic. The PCs are too tough to kill and too easy to heal. A fighter could be beaten to within 1 HP of unconsciousness and with a standard action go to 50 HP. Most PCs could heal twice their normal HP without extended rest-go from beaten to negatives to fully healed in 5 minutes without magical intervention twice a day.
3) PCs are tough, monsters are fodder. Just look at the damages-especially at high levels. Even high-level monsters cannot do more than 40 damage in a critical hit. A high-level fighter can do more than 70 points of damage with a daily in a normal hit. PCs heal and are tough to kill. Monsters never, ever get unconcious-they go from bloodied to dead.


Unsupported flavor
No monster has a single non-combat ability. Not even one in 500 monsters. The NPC-building guidelines also don't give non-combat abilities to NPCs. Monster flavor is not supported by the combat stats either. Monsters that are supposed to be infiltrators and assasins or abominations that kill anyone but themselves (that is, flavor-wise you'd encounter them solo) are elite monsters or even standards meaning that encounters have them pair with half a dozen other friends to be challenging.
In addition, there are very few powers that allow a monster to accomplish its flavor role as opposed to its mechanics role. Said infiltrators/assasins? No sneaking powers. Dominators? No power to make thralls. Liches? No power to make or control undead.




Verdict:
All in all, a much better ruleset, better support, solid guidelines for everything that might need them, balance and ease of play. Yet, despite the very well-made base rules, 4e is largely empty of content and flavor both in PCs and monsters and what content there is it is rendered unusable by quite a few bad calls in class, power and monster content.

I feel that by changing to 4e one simply exchanges one serious problem with another. You no longer get the imbalances and broken stuff-which 3.5 has more than any other edition-but in 4e you don't get the content even 3.5 core has.

[SamTheCleric]

After 10th level you no longer gain new combat powers.

This is incorrect. You continue to advance on the leveling path set out by the table, as well as getting powers from your Paragon Path (Encounter, Daily and Utility)

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Correct. But the leveling path does not give any new combat powers-you just exchange the old ones for new. Pretty ridiculous that you will have to forget the fireball power in order to learn Astral Storm.

The total number of powers at 30th level, including those from your paragon path that aren't class powers, are 2 at will, 4 encounter, 4 daily and 7 utility, only 10 of which are going to be combat powers. So, after 10th level, you stop gaining new combat powers.

[SamTheCleric]

I respect your review and just have to say that its not your playstyle. A lot of people won't like it and a lot of people will.

For me, its nearly perfect.

[Emperor Tippy]

I respect your review and just have to say that its not your playstyle. A lot of people won't like it and a lot of people will.

For me, its nearly perfect.

So long as I can abuse LSC I could have fun in 4e, at least for a while. I will have a better opinion when I finish the book.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

It is not the mechanics in general that I don't agree with-those are a vast improvement over the old edition. What I don't like is that most classes (everyone except rogue and fighter) have had their options reduced to 8 regardless of level, flavor takes a backseat-even though it could be supported easily-and mechanics not being used to their full extent.

So, it is not the rules but the content of the edition that suffers.

[SamTheCleric]

There is very little content beyond the rules in any of the books. I haven't made it to the DMG yet... but I think the "content" you're seeking... is up to the DM and the Players to create.

I think half of all 4e viewpoints are going to be skewed by people looking at it as a comparison of 3e. That will cause a lot of downfall... you must look at it as its own entity, completely separate from any previous edition...

[Indon]

I think half of all 4e viewpoints are going to be skewed by people looking at it as a comparison of 3e. That will cause a lot of downfall... you must look at it as its own entity, completely separate from any previous edition...

If the prospect is converting to 4'th edition from another game, then I should think it should be compared to that other game.

For most of us, that other game is D&D 3.5 (For me, it's kinda that and kinda Exalted, and Exalted's pretty much superior in every way over 4.x as far as I've seen).

[SamTheCleric]

Yes, much like everything in life, we as humans like to categorize and organize, and we are going to compare it to other editions that we've played... which is where a lot of confusion is going to come in. I'm trying to read it as though its a brand new system, new rules.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Belial - I agree totally.

4e is a fairly good miniatures wargame with warbands, but it's lacking the RPG elements to be a full RPG - like, for example, immersion). There are also problems with the mechanics - I too was horrified that you can't prepare spells more than once.

I mean, Avernum's got a better immersion/system balance, and it's shareware. That has, however, given me a very good idea.

It wouldn't be too hard, with these streamlined rules, to code a proper game version of 4e, would it?

[Project_Mayhem]

Frankly, from what I've seen it looks very good, for reasons stated heatedly be a large amount of the playground community elsewhere. I like the look of it.

However, I doubt I'll play it. Too much effort re-teaching my group, and too many wasted quids on splat-books.

I'm still buying the new books though ...

[Jorkens]

Belial - I agree totally.

4e is a fairly good miniatures wargame with warbands, but it's lacking the RPG elements to be a full RPG - like, for example, immersion).

This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?

[TempusCCK]

This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.

Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?

Also, I'm kind of glad 4e is finally shipping, because dang was I tired of all the "let's speculate about the good things in 4e, but when people speculate about the bad let's just fall back on 'IT'S NOT OUT YET SO YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING BAD!!!!11!' defense"

[valadil]

I like the powers as they pertain to fighter types, but they gimp wizards just a little too much for my liking. I've always felt that melee characters needed more things to do and 4e happily provides them. I even like the shift to daily/encounter/round based abilities. But casters have way too few powers and what they do have doesn't interest me at all. All their abilities are like the orb spells - some damage and a minor effect. Great spells, but rarely do you take more than one on a single character.

Long story short, I won't be pushing my groups to switch to 4e any time soon. If they decide to switch on their own I'll still play, but I'll have to stop being the group's resident caster.

[Illiterate Scribe]

This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?

• lacks all but a few noncombat solutions to problems
• combat systems are now almost entirely damage based
• too fixed to a grid system

Are a few.

[Starsinger]

No monster has a single non-combat ability. Not even one in 500 monsters. The NPC-building guidelines also don't give non-combat abilities to NPCs. Monster flavor is not supported by the combat stats either. Monsters that are supposed to be infiltrators and assasins or abominations that kill anyone but themselves (that is, flavor-wise you'd encounter them solo) are elite monsters or even standards meaning that encounters have them pair with half a dozen other friends to be challenging.
In addition, there are very few powers that allow a monster to accomplish its flavor role as opposed to its mechanics role. Said infiltrators/assasins? No sneaking powers. Dominators? No power to make thralls. Liches? No power to make or control undead.

Can't the succubus extend her charm indefinately by kissing the be-charmed once per day?

[Rutee]

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.

You need a solid hit to kill them, and that's immersion breaking?

Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?

That would be a realism killing quality, certainly. It hardly turns the game into a miniatures based wargame. The concept of the dramatic scene as a unit of measure (which is effectively what an 'encounter') is hardly turns other games into miniature based wargames.

[Jorkens]

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.

Yeah, that seems a bit unneccessary, particularly given that 'easy to kill' is practically a defining feature of minions...

Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?

Yeah, that's the bit that I find most jarring. I like the idea of cool things that you can only do once in a while, but defining them as 'per encounter' seems very kludgey and inelegant. It is possible to rationalize around to some extent, though (like people have said, maybe it's something that the same enemies won't fall for twice, or something that you only get the opportunity to do once per encounter on average) and if you're willing to view it as a bit of an abstraction and not think about it too hard, I'm not sure it justifies calling the whole game into "a minatures combat system that's no use as an RPG." More "an RPG with a couple of combat mechanics that aren't ideal for keeping the players in character." People have had good roleplaying experiences around nastier rules sets, I'm sure...

[Rutee]

Fighter powers work on minions. Tempus is referring to On Miss: Damage not killing minions.

He has to be. There's no other reason a Fighter couldn't kill a minion with his powers. Cleave pretty explicitly allows a Fighter to kill 2 with one action.

[Starsinger]

Yeah, that's the bit that I find most jarring. I like the idea of cool things that you can only do once in a while, but defining them as 'per encounter' seems very kludgey and inelegant.

I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.

[ghost_warlock]

In the end, the new edition has lost a very great part of variety in killing stuff (ability damage/drain, death effects, energy drain), defeating stuff without killing them in any way that lasts more than a round or two (polymorph, mind control, imprisoning) and some of the cooler in-combat effects (polymorphing, summoning, conjurations) that last for more than a round or two.

This makes me a very sad necromancer.

[AKA_Bait]

You need a solid hit to kill them, and that's immersion breaking?

By itself, no. But when you can hit their friend and deal the same amount of damage to them without a roll... yes. If didn't need to roll = not a solid hit, then cleave ought not work either.

I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.

I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?

[Rutee]

This makes me a very sad necromancer.

Yeah, the part of me that loves pet classes is exceedingly disappointed that some way to balance summons of any sort was not found.

By itself, no. But when you can hit their friend and deal the same amount of damage to them without a roll... yes. If didn't need to roll = not a solid hit, then cleave ought not work either.

Rules, damage, etc, are all abstractions. The stats do not describe the world, or how it works. (See: Drowning healing you) The stats are there to provide us a basis of interaction, upon which we layer the world. Nothing more, nothing less. AT least, with DnD. The stats sure as hell do describe the world in games like GURPS or if I recall, HERO.

I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?

You're missing the post right there. Using the scene as the unit of measure can hurt realism, but hardly 'needs' to. It most certainly does not turn games into wargames. See: Every game that has used them before DnD.

[Scintillatus]

It's possible we might see better summoner mechanics when the Druid and such come out. I imagine there'll be a "Necromancer" of some sort too, really.

[Farmer42]

Personally, I'd like to see some better support for gishes. The multiclassing rules are nice, but they don't really do it for me. I love the system to death, but right now, short of homebrewing, we don't have anything on par with the duskblade.

[Jorkens]

I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.

I don't know - to some extent it seems to require more metagaming than it really should. The character has to think 'hey, if I do my awesomest move on this bad guy, I won't be able to do it on any other bad guys until we're finished fighting this particular group.'

I think the difference is that it makes sense from an external narrative point of view - it's natural for the heroes to only break out their really super move about once per fight, at a key dramatic moment - but it doesn't make so much sense from an in-character point of view.

[Kurald Galain]

I agree with most of what the OP is saying. Surprisingly, I also find myself agreeing with the Alexandrian's review.

See, here's the thing: after all the talk of how versatile and multi-powered 4E characters would become, they end up with ten (10) combat powers, a limit which is reached at level 20, and four of which are once-per-day only.

That means they have less invocations than a 3E Warlock, less maneuvers or stances than a Warblade, and less spells known than a Duskblade - none of which restrict any of their powers to one per day. Comparing them to actual 3.5E casters is so skewed it's not even funny - a Sorcerer gets 10 powers as early as sixth level, or second level if you count cantrips. And don't forget that many of the better feats in 3.5E are the equivalent of 4E powers.

Yes, it's more versatile than a 3E fighter - but guess what? That's why many people didn't like playing 3E fighters.

So I stand by my earlier assessment that 4E is a quite good tactical boardgame. It seems a lot like Descent on steroids. And before people start flaming, let me point out that yes, I have the books, and yes, I will be DM'ing this on a release day event.

[Starsinger]

I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?

I said realism in quotes because I couldn't think of a better term. What I mean by that is people who play D&D tend to be used to something taking the same time, and being available at any time unless they've used it, in which case it's either gone for good or at will. The, frankly, unrealistic but not necessarily immersion damaging, concept of /encounter hurts this somewhat. A scene as a unit of time, to borrow vernacular from Rutee, is not something most D&D players are accustomed to, and it's a bit of a jarring experience for them.

[Scintillatus]

We're getting an entire Gish class with FRCS. For now you'll just have to suffer and play the Wizard of the Spiral Tower Path, who has the totally uncool power of being able to whirlwind attack with a sword and teleport all his enemies into the Feywild.

Or you could bear the horrible pain of the Battle Mage, who can insult people until they go prone from bed-wetting ego-destruction.

[TempusCCK]

"One solid hit kills them" is fine, but when a not solid hit is hurting enemy X, but no enemy Y, there's no in game explanation for that, except for "HP as an abstract in willingness to fight" to which I say "HP damage with Intimidate checks?" No? Internally inconsistant.