[4E] What DO you like about it?

[Ceaon]

Certainly, since so many people seem opposed to 4E, there are some things wrong with the new edition.
But what are the new mechanics and additions that people are glad about that they were included?

For one, I feel the half-elves are far more useful and tasteful. In fact, all races seem more balanced to me, and the absence of ability penalties means any race is at least capable of being any class (although maybe not suited for it.)

I also like how the simplicity of the game creates more room for ad hoc ruling and roleplaying, but I feel I should play more to make sure this really is the case.

My plan is to create a list of things people enjoy. If something makes it on the list and you don't like it, feel free to challenge it. Make sure to say why you don't like it.

What we like about 4E
- Races are more balanced and no race is unsuited for any class.
- Casters and other classes seem to be on about equal footing.
- The at will abilities make Wizards fun to play at low levels
- Minions make big fights more manageable.
- The simplification of ECL and LA leaves less room for theoretical gamebeaters.
- Combat is simpler and faster.
- The Warlord class fills a gap that existed in 3.x.

[Hoggmaster]

Half Elves may become most everyone's default race as one of their racial abilities is to have an at will power of any class be an encounter power.

[Learnedguy]

Half Elves may become most everyone's default race as one of their racial abilities is to have an at will power of any class be an encounter power.

Dunno about that. I'd say humans are better still

Anyway, what I like:

Not getting trumped by the casters regardless of what I try to do.

[random11]

You're doing it the wrong way.
People like to complain, so instead of "what do you like about the 4th edition", you should rephrase it to something like "what did you hate about 3.5 that the 4th edition fixed?"

[Ceaon]

I know people like to complain. The first post was complaining about unbalance of half-elves.
However, I wanted this thread to become a positive thread. "What do you like", instead of "what do you not hate anymore".

[Kurald Galain]

Half Elves may become most everyone's default race as one of their racial abilities is to have an at will power of any class be an encounter power.

I don't find that ability all that good. Dwarves, Elves and Eladrin get better racial abilities each.

See, the problem with using this additional at-will is (1) that you need ability score synergy for it to be effective, and (2) since the at-wills are "basic" attacks, they aren't all that diverse. For almost any class combination, your own dailies are going to be more useful than another class's at-wills.

[Starsinger]

I don't find that ability all that good. Dwarves, Elves and Eladrin get better racial abilities each.

See, the problem with using this additional at-will is (1) that you need ability score synergy for it to be effective, and (2) since the at-wills are "basic" attacks, they aren't all that diverse. For almost any class combination, your own dailies are going to be more useful than another class's at-wills.

I find Scorching Burst to be a good ability to choose with Diletantte, if only for the minion slaying.

[SamTheCleric]

I've found that the DMG is one of the better RPG books published in the last 5-10 years... its a good read all around.

I like that there are multiple examples of each monster and that they are all really easy to customize.

I like that they took out the LA/ECL monsters and templates that made for rediculous theoretical builds and stuck with simplicity.

I like that combat runs smoothly and every contributes.

I love the skill system.

...

I could go on. But instead, you could read my review of the 4e books or one of the several battle reports generated from games I've run.

[bosssmiley]

• Low power at-will effects for wizards (no more "I cast sleep then *sigh* pull out my crossbow" at 1st level)
• Fighters aren't the red-headed stepchild in the party any more.
• The simplified combat system has some merits.
• Delicious status-affecting strikes
• Binary (1 hp) minions
• Some of the MM art

Not enough to make me switch, but a couple of good ideas worth yoinking

[its_all_ogre]

hey i've already yoinked the minion idea for my 3.5 campaign, players don't know which is cool.
basically i've just given +5ac and +5 to hit to creatures tha would otherwise need nat 20's to hit but made them one failed save vs damage slays them, one normal hit slays them.
will adjudicate as necessary. (i'm aware this means a minion may take 10 hps from a melee hit and die but another may take 15 from a fireball with a passed save so survive...but i have a brain and can work my way round it)

i like the extra possible stuff 4e brings, looking forward to actually playing it

[PnP Fan]

1. the new skill system, much simpler, and less prone to abuse.
2. the Warlord class: at last a Captain America style class that actually does something effective! Much better than the old Marshall 3.5 class.
3. Fighters now have non-damaging effects too!!!! :-)
4. Doing damage as well as non-damaging effects at the same time, without losing an action!!! woo hoo!
5. TWF that doesn't suck!
6. As others have said, Half Elves that are fun to play now.

There's more I'm sure, I just haven't had time to read much of the phb.

[SamTheCleric]

Holy crap. I'm making a tactical warlord based off of Captain America now.

You have inspired me!

[Indon]

Things I like:

-Minions. An extra mechanic is an excellent DM tool.
-Streamlined attack vs. defense mechanic. This is the next evolution of the THAC0-BAB and saves changes that I liked from AD&D to 3'rd edition.
-Quicker NPC construction, always good.
-Traps were made streamlined, while simultaneously making them more intricate and dynamic. Improvement in every way in this area.

I like that they took out the LA/ECL monsters and templates that made for rediculous theoretical builds and stuck with simplicity.

So you like that the game became less interesting to discuss, and that the game offers fewer exotic options to players for races?

[SamTheCleric]

So you like that the game became less interesting to discuss, and that the game offers fewer exotic options to players for races?

I dont think that an ECL/LA if +19 with one level of fighter is interesting. I think its one of those things that only exist on the internet and no one actually plays.

I like to stick with what plays.

[Valairn]

Alternatively the monster manual has converted some of the monsters into playable races at the back of the book. Even minotaurs are there and they have no level adjustment, its quite nice really, to be able to pick a race and not worry about how it will cripple your character at higher levels.

[Indon]

I dont think that an ECL/LA if +19 with one level of fighter is interesting. I think its one of those things that only exist on the internet and no one actually plays.

I like to stick with what plays.

Same here. I just like to see things made more playable, myself.

In 3.x, that consists of reworking ECL/LA into a better system. In 4'th edition, that consists of, sadly, not playing 4'th edition, going back to 3.x, and reworking ECL/LA into a better system.

[marjan]

I don't find that ability all that good. Dwarves, Elves and Eladrin get better racial abilities each.

See, the problem with using this additional at-will is (1) that you need ability score synergy for it to be effective, and (2) since the at-wills are "basic" attacks, they aren't all that diverse. For almost any class combination, your own dailies are going to be more useful than another class's at-wills.

True, but you use the ability as an encounter power. On the other hand humans get bonus only to one stat, so they are a little behind there. And while the MAD is gone in 4e you can always use at least one more stat aside from your primary.

[Person_Man]

1) Races are more balanced, and each has an interesting power.
2) Every class has at will, per encounter, and per day abilities.
3) Skills are consolidated and easier to manage.

It's too bad they screwed up multiclassing, feats, class customization is severely limited, you have to swap out powers, etc...

[Hoggmaster]

I know people like to complain. The first post was complaining about unbalance of half-elves.
However, I wanted this thread to become a positive thread. "What do you like", instead of "what do you not hate anymore".

I wasn't complaining!!! It was just a statement.

I have no real complaint about 4e, everything looks good and from the brief contact with playing at the WWGD event, seems to run smooth.

My favorite thing is that rangers are somewhat unique!

[tumble check]

I'm more of a 4e hater than liker. But I will tell you what I liked about it before they showed those preliminary character sheets...


<3 elimination of full attacks. no more "approach, full attack till dead"

<3 static defenses instead of saving throws. I know it's the same thing, but it makes more sense that one's fortitude or willpower is static, while those trying to overcome it are the ones whose performance can vary with situation

<3 healing surges. no longer must a cleric be in every party

sort of <3 rituals. no longer must a wizard be in every party, although casting time and components have significantly changed the circumstances of magic usage

<3 lack of racial ability penalties. now, every races/class combination can feasibly be made

alright, enough of this warm-and-fuzzy stuff, I'm gonna go hate on 4e in another thread

[Prophaniti]

I do have something they did in 4E that I like, actually; Alignments. I used houserules for alignments a long time ago, and I enjoy games where it is less mechanically significant. Dragon color no longer synonomous with a specific alignment? Already did that myself, so I do like it being the default now.

I still don't plan on playing it, nor does anyone I game with, but hey. They did a few things I really like.

[Talya]

The artwork is spectacular.

I really like the magical equipment design (though not the way weapons themselves are designed, just the enchantments on them). Racial design, too (though not necessarily the choice of races.)

[Sir_Leorik]

I only got my Core rulebook set in the mail yesterday, so I'm still digesting the rules, let alone having had a chance to play an actual game yet. That said I do like the way the PHB is laid out; unlike previous editions, the rules for each class are mostly kept together. Looking through the MM, I already miss the fluff text in the 3.5 MM, which enabled a DM to describe the monster in question quickly and (usually) efficiently, while still keeping it's identity a secret. I also like that the races in the PHB are kept balanced yet unique. An Eladrin is not necessarily more powerful than a Human or Tiefling, Dwarves keep many iconic abilities, while not having the laundry list of racial abilities from 3.X, and the Humans are not the must play race they were in 3.X. My fears that the classes would be homogenous seem to be allayed somewhat. A wizard is clearly not getting the same powers as a fighter, even if they have the same number of powers usable per day. Rogues continue to get the short end of the stick; while more powerful and useful than their 3.X counterparts, they can't hold a candle to their fellow Striker, the Ranger. See this post on the WotC boards and this onefor a discussion of what a ranger with a high wisdom and the Rogue Multiclass feat can do better than a Rogue.

[Saph]

It's ideal for one-offs and filler games with lots of newbies. You can make characters very quickly and get busy hacking things to death, and it's easier to teach to new players.

I think I'm probably going to switch to 4e for when I have to DM at short notice.

- Saph

[Vortling]

The quick character creation and simplicity is nice. At-will powers for magic classes like the wizard is nice so they don't have to use crossbows anymore. A new edition may bring more players in to the game, especially if WotC can get the online portion working. That's all I got.

Saph, have you heard of Savage Worlds?

[ImperiousLeader]

1. Streamlined Monsters and an overall reduction in the DM's workload. I tried to DM 3.5, didn't enjoy it. 4e has me wanting to try again.

2. Fun PC creation. Creating a PC at any level just became a lot less accounting, I was annoyed by skill points and the WBL table was frustrating in 3.5. Now I've been making PCs at several different levels and they're ready to go. And they're full PCs, I'd only do half the job in 3.5. Plus, I feel that there's a little less need for system mastery at the PC creation level, more can be done by smart tactics in the field.

3. Races. The lack of penalties makes for a real feeling of choice. Everyone feels playable and interesting.

4. Warlords. Such a fun class.

5. Rituals. While I think some casting times are a little too long, in general, I like the system.

[Saph]

Saph, have you heard of Savage Worlds?

No, why?

- Saph

[Glyde]

Dragonborn and the way powers are handled.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This is, by far, the most DM friendly (dice-rolling RPG) system out there.

The out-of-the-box MM has more than enough interesting choices for parties of varying ranges, the Skill Challenge framework neatly covers non-combat "encounters" and the new "suggested treasure" system is loads better than WBL or "treasure tables."

Plus, guidelines for systematizing random things your players do? Superb!

Races
They really *are* pretty well balanced. Half-Elves may look like the superior general choice, but Dilettante, while providing some neat synergies (Rogues with Eyebite!) is not the be all and end all. Humans getting an extra At-Wills and Feat, plus being able to place that +2 where you like it is pretty nice. Nobody feels like the "sad sack" race anymore.

[FoE]

Gnomes out as a core race! Tieflings in! HURRAY!