Yin and Yang Version 4E

[Capfalcon]

Ok, I saw this thread in the RPG.net forum, (I believe...) and I thought it was a pretty cool idea.

Anyway, the basic idea is that if you are a fan of 4E, you post five things you don't like about 4E. If you don't like 4E, then you post five things you do like about 4E.

Now, while all of the following are going to be opinions, I would appreciate it if people specific examples. Saying "It isn't D&D anymore" is nice and all, but doesn't really say anything. Saying "I don't like healing surges" is a better example.

In advance, please don't try to be clever and post things along the lines of "Now I can get 3E books cheaper," or other such nonsense. It isn't clever, and it goes against the whole point of this exercise. If you don't have anything nice/not nice (depending on your feelings towards 4E) to say, just don't say anything at all.

I thank you in advance for the maturity and self-control required to do so.

Anyway, I like 4E, so here's some of the things I don't care for.

1. The equipment list is pretty sparse.

To be fair, it does cover the basics, but I do miss the nice long chapter in the 3.5 PHB with all the different tools, alchemic items, and miscellaneous gear.

2. Missing rules for making traps.

Yeah, Yeah. Page 42 of the DMG and all, but I would have at least liked an example of creating a trap using the page.

3. Far Too Rituals.

I love Rituals. I really, really do. But the list in the PHB is maddeningly short. It gives some basics, but a good number of the rituals are Divinitation, Divinitation +, and Divinitation ++. In all honesty, I felt the whole point of having skill checks used in rituals was that you could have things like a divinitation ritual, and have it allow access to better information by making a better check.

4. Something can only be marked by one person at a time.

I like marking. I think it's a decent representation of having someone harried and makes attacking the squishy wizard or rogue instead of Mr. Big Bad Fighter/Paladin a poor idea. Honestly, I can even buy the idea that the Paladin will overwrite another Paladin's mark, since, you know, it's magic and all. But if Mr. Paladin decides to get in the wizard's face, Mr. Fighter has to twiddle his thumbs. That make my brain hurt.

5. Feats put me to sleep.

Ok, I know that the original 3.5 feats aren’t much better, but seriously, after all this time, you think that the feats would be mildly interesting. Almost everyone has their no-brainer feat (Backstabber, Deadly Hunter, etc,) but after that it becomes rather slim pickings.

So, what do you think?

[Viruzzo]

The fact with feats is that you get many more than in 3.x, so they have a different value.

Anyway, I like the idea of the thread, I hope people who post will keep honest.
My 5 "don't like" points:

1) Having to use miniatures
Not much to say, after trying it I hate this thing less but it still bugs me (and I have no minis to begin with). By far my biggest complaint, probably the only serious one.

2) Too much out-of-combat healing
I don't like this, but bear in mind that is a problem prior versions had too. Probably there is little that could be done in a HP-only system.

3) Multiple manual spreading
Most games need only 1 manual. D&D needed more, I can cope with it. But they're stretching it.

4) Could use more (and more varied) power effects
Not a big issue, but still...

5) Tieflings are not natural Infernal Warlocks
They get +Cha, where I would have given them +Con. Heck, I'll just houserule whenever I DM that they are +Con/+Int.

[JackMage666]

I like 4e, so in that sense...

1. Feats are unimportant now. +1 Damage, scaling up to +3 by 21st level? Boring... Most of terribly useless. Some are good, like Improved Initiative and some racial feats, but for the most part, blah. And the Epic feats are the worst, oftentimes I can only see one or two that would work for any character I make.

2. Multiclassing. While I like the solid class settup, I hate that you need to give up Paragon powers just to Swap and At-Will from your second class. In other words, you can't even touch your second classes most basic ability, even as a Daily power, until 11th level, in which case you have to give up one of your own. I get the balance thing, but it kinda makes the Rogue-Wizard feel more like a Rogue, with a slight tiny hint of magic. Same can be said for any other multiclass combo.

3. Iconic Race removal. The first time I played D&D, I was a were-rat. Now the only thing that comes close to that is the Shifter. It'd be nice to have some of the more iconic race templates available to players (vampire, were-X, things such as that.)

4. Int dump stat. Int is now the weakest stat, really, unless you're playing a Wizard or Warlock (or, soon enough, a Swordmage.) It used to be the Int was useful for at least skills, but now, it only effects 3 skills (Arcana, Relgion, and History, useless if your not the scholarly type, so can be neglected mostly), and effects a limited such a limited number of things that even a Rogue could easily survive with 3 Int. Yes, I know it can be used for Light Armor/Reflex Saves, but oftentimes a high Dex is more useful anyway if you're not a Wizard or Warlock. I guess I missed when high Int was rewarded, even if not needed.

5. Tieflings as base race - Seriously? Did we need the angst to be so easy to acquire? Furthmore, if you're going to have the "Hellocked adventurer" archetype, you need to even it out with the Aasimar somewhere! He's not even in the MM races!

[Tengu_temp]

I like 4e, so I'll list the five things I don't like about it:
1. One encounter and one daily power at level 1? Not enough variety.
2. I'd rather have the rules for creating PCs and NPCs/monsters more standarized with each other.
3. Monster experience increases at a much slower pace than monster power - a level 3 encounter is much more dangerous than a level 1 encounter, but is worth only a little more experience.
4. Skill challanges put me to sleep.
5. Why do emolings have tails and dragonborn not?

EDIT: (6 and 7: Points 4 and 5 from the post above.)

[Siegel]

I like it

what i have problems with is

1. You 'need' to make fluff for powers etc, if not it can become really boring

Not a problem for me really but it can really hurt uncreative players

2. Miniatures

Me as a GM never used them and so i have to get used to the System. I have to get 'spare minis' (lego or something like that) and most importantly ! I have to make a combat map for every encounter

3. Warlock Paragon Paths

yeah. If you are Warlock Variant A take Path A, if B - > B and if C ->

4. Feats

like said abothe

5. Tiefling looks. They look to fiendish. They all have horns and tails and stuff

There should be feats that allow me to use my tail to do X or Y.
Some Horn Variants are kick ass ^^

[Oracle_Hunter]

1) Dragonborn
Frikkin' Dragonborn. They have the best general stat bonuses (+2 STR; nearly everyone can use STR, and many classes that need STR also uses CHA as a secondary stat!), tons of inherent powers, lots of good racial feats, and boobs.

I despise such a gimmicky race to be in the PHB; they're good for everything and their aimed at youngin's who say "oooo, dragon, I want to be that!" which not only removes them from playing classic fantasy races (which are easier to believably RP - they're just humans with funny hats; how does a reptile think?)

God. I. hate. Dragonborn.

2) Erratas
WotC basically re-wrote two huge sections of the DMG (whole mechanics!) mere months after the system came out. This speaks either of sloppy design, or poor playtesting. It makes it seem like WotC isn't running a class act with 4e, that they're just going to slop stuff out for people without thinking how it'll interact with what they made before.

I don't want 4e to turn into another 3e, with it's Pun-Puns and it's unbelievably broken classes and feats.

3) Swordmages
Swordmages. I understand people like to make gishes, but come on - fighters use swords and wizards use magic; it's pretty much all they have! Once you start bleeding the two together in highly efficient packages, you're going to eliminate one role or the other. 4e already has a neat way to give your Fighter a bit of magic, or your Wizard a bit of fighting - no, they're not great at the other side, but they have enough to satisfy that itch to make fireball shooting fighters.

Hell, Infernal Warlocks already make great tank mages - it just takes a lot of effort to make it work, which is how it should be!

4) Tieflings
OK, I'm not all that angry about Tieflings. The way they're fluffed in the DMG is dumb ("Angst" as a name? Really?) but there's a lot about them I can use with little alteration. INT + CHA bonuses aren't as good as STR + CHA, and their inherent powers aren't quite so good. Also, the idea of a true-breeding sub-race of devil-men is something I can play with.

So, Tieflings are meh because they seem like a gimmicky race for Emo players, just like Dragonborn are for the Awesome McAwesome players. They don't cause quite as many mechanical difficulties for me as Dragonborn, so I have only a mild distaste for them.

5) Alignment Change
This is just irritating. I've never understood how people could get "confused" by the alignment system, so simplifying it for them is annoying to start with. Secondly, they confused their purpose by keeping LG and CE when they actually mean Pure and Depraved. Fortunately, it's really easy to just ignore it and go back to the Traditional Alignment System and pretend it didn't happen.

[Morty]

I don't like 4ed, but here are few things I do like about it:
1) Easier encounter design. I can take few monsters or NPCs and put an encounter together far easier and faster than in 3ed, in which I have to wrestle with CR system.
2) More moving around in combat. Combat becomes dynamic instead of people standing next to each other and beating each other up.
3) Powerful magic requires time and expenditure of resources. As much as I don't like ritual system, effects like teleporting, scrying and the like are supposed to take time and expensive materials to produce. In 4ed they do, and that is good.
4) Options for martial characters. While not what I expected, martial exploits provide for more variety than "I hit", "I trip" etc.
5) Non-godlike spellcasters. As butchered as they are, 4ed wizards and clerics no longer stomp other classes with ease as soon as they hit mid levels, and low-level wizards aren't glass canons.

[nagora]

3) Powerful magic requires time and expenditure of resources. As much as I don't like ritual system, effects like teleporting, scrying and the like are supposed to take time and expensive materials to produce.

I'm not arguing, just curious as to what you mean by "supposed to"? Are you thinking of a particular book or film or something?

[EvilElitest]

1) Dragonborn
Frikkin' Dragonborn. They have the best general stat bonuses (+2 STR; nearly everyone can use STR, and many classes that need STR also uses CHA as a secondary stat!), tons of inherent powers, lots of good racial feats, and boobs.

I despise such a gimmicky race to be in the PHB; they're good for everything and their aimed at youngin's who say "oooo, dragon, I want to be that!" which not only removes them from playing classic fantasy races (which are easier to believably RP - they're just humans with funny hats; how does a reptile think?)

God. I. hate. Dragonborn.

2) Erratas
WotC basically re-wrote two huge sections of the DMG (whole mechanics!) mere months after the system came out. This speaks either of sloppy design, or poor playtesting. It makes it seem like WotC isn't running a class act with 4e, that they're just going to slop stuff out for people without thinking how it'll interact with what they made before.

I don't want 4e to turn into another 3e, with it's Pun-Puns and it's unbelievably broken classes and feats.

3) Swordmages
Swordmages. I understand people like to make gishes, but come on - fighters use swords and wizards use magic; it's pretty much all they have! Once you start bleeding the two together in highly efficient packages, you're going to eliminate one role or the other. 4e already has a neat way to give your Fighter a bit of magic, or your Wizard a bit of fighting - no, they're not great at the other side, but they have enough to satisfy that itch to make fireball shooting fighters.

Hell, Infernal Warlocks already make great tank mages - it just takes a lot of effort to make it work, which is how it should be!

4) Tieflings
OK, I'm not all that angry about Tieflings. The way they're fluffed in the DMG is dumb ("Angst" as a name? Really?) but there's a lot about them I can use with little alteration. INT + CHA bonuses aren't as good as STR + CHA, and their inherent powers aren't quite so good. Also, the idea of a true-breeding sub-race of devil-men is something I can play with.

So, Tieflings are meh because they seem like a gimmicky race for Emo players, just like Dragonborn are for the Awesome McAwesome players. They don't cause quite as many mechanical difficulties for me as Dragonborn, so I have only a mild distaste for them.

5) Alignment Change
This is just irritating. I've never understood how people could get "confused" by the alignment system, so simplifying it for them is annoying to start with. Secondly, they confused their purpose by keeping LG and CE when they actually mean Pure and Depraved. Fortunately, it's really easy to just ignore it and go back to the Traditional Alignment System and pretend it didn't happen.

agree entirely

5 things i like

1) Having a picture in ever monster article

2) the fell wild

3) Um, the balance i suppose, it just the massive cost

4) The new monsters/gods/races (and i mean knew, not remade) aren't bad on their own, just the way they are made

5) the cards

from
EE

[Morty]

I'm not arguing, just curious as to what you mean by "supposed to"? Are you thinking of a particular book or film or something?

They're supposed to because they're powerful, and powerful effects need to be less than easy to achieve or else they become too trivial which ruins game balance and the belivability of the world.

[Grynning]

I like it, and have been enjoying playing in a campaign for a while now. Here's what I don't like:

1) Unimportance of skills/lack of skill based characters - While the skill challenge mechanic was meant to shine the light on skill checks, it doesn't really work and I have yet to hear of anyone running a skill challenge that worked out well. You can't build a "skill monkey" anymore because the rules don't support it, and even if you could there'd be no point, because the only skills that matter are the ones that everyone can do. The only exception to this is ritual casting, which I think was handled pretty well.

2) Lack of long term buffs- I felt like buffing up was a time-honored part of D&D strategy and fantasy games in general. I know that long-term buffs were the main reason spellcasters were completely broken in 3.x, but I still kinda miss being able to beef up the party before going into a big fight.

3) Saving throws - I think the "save ends" thing is too random, and that saves should have remained as a check vs. a scaling DC. Anytime our DM hits the party with status effects, about half of us save the first time and the others get screwed over and over. While this is kind of similar to the way the one-time save in 3rd and previous editions worked in practice, I think they could have done better.

4) Lack of multiclassing - The "multi-classing" feats, while good at supplementing your existing class, don't really have the feel of creating a true hybrid character, and the paragon multiclassing option is so terrible that no one in their right mind would build around it (except maybe for some kind of wonky theorycrafting).

5) Tieflings and Dragonborn, for pretty much the same reasons as Oracle Hunter described.

Runner-up: Warlock and Ranger Paragon Paths being either unaccessible to multi-classing characters (Ranger, because you don't get a combat style from the MC feat) or useless to multiclassing characters (Warlock, since multiclassing in doesn't give you the curse).

[Oracle_Hunter]

1) Unimportance of skills/lack of skill based characters - While the skill challenge mechanic was meant to shine the light on skill checks, it doesn't really work and I have yet to hear of anyone running a skill challenge that worked out well. You can't build a "skill monkey" anymore because the rules don't support it, and even if you could there'd be no point, because the only skills that matter are the ones that everyone can do. The only exception to this is ritual casting, which I think was handled pretty well.

You actually can build a Rogue skillmonkey pretty easily. Be Human or Eladrin and you start with 7 skills out of 17 possible. Then you can take Skill Training with every Feat, or have an INT 13 and take Jack of All Trades. Either way, you'll be pretty sweet at everything. The only difference is that no one character can be absolutely better than the others in terms of skills - but they can be good at a wide variety of skills.

Skill Challenges though, they're tough. I've had Social Skill Challenges work out pretty well (don't tell your PCs that it's a skill challenge and just RP. After the PC has made a point, tell them which die to roll before responding. Successes get favorable responses, failures get unfavorable ones), but Physical Skill Challenges still are difficult for me. For locks & traps, they're straightforward, but for most other things I just can't get them to work properly either.

I think the trick is to make your Challenge narrowly focused (locate the secret entrance into the Castle) with clearly defined results for success and failure. Failure can sometimes still be success (you will climb up the mountains) but usually with a downside (everyone is exposed to a rockslide).

Anyhoo, that's my thinking on the matter.

[Starbuck_II]

I really like 4E so my complaint list:

1) No rules for Traps.
Sure, I can fudge it by looking at the page 42 and trap section (100?) but a table for trap creation would be nice.

2) Ranger Multiclasses don't qualify for Ranger Prc: That seems wrong.

3) Less Mundane gear in PHb. I'm surprised that they are missing some. They added back oil in the errata though.

4) Alchemy: I know they are adding them in the Adventurer's Vault, but I wanted them now.

5) Paragoning into your Multiclassing is weak. They should give general suggestions for class features or say you choose one from the class.
Instead, you just gain powers... it seems so unfinished.

All the other Paragons give Class features...why not Multiclassed Paragon?
I'm refering to a Class that takes multiclass feats then chooses to Paragon into second class not the other classes Paragon choices.
Example, Fighter takes Wizard multiclass feats: If he takes a Wizard Paragon like Battle Mage, he gets Class Features.
However, if he takes Wizard as his Paragon: He gains no class feature.

[AmberVael]

Personally I dislike 4E overall (it's not a bad system, but I prefer 3.5, even with its unbalance) but...

1) Power System. I love the fact that all classes have at-will and encounter powers. I always hated the "Rest 8 hours and regain" crap that the spellcasters went through to be able to do anything, and also that the mundane people just had to twiddle their thumbs during that time (and always used standard attacks). I think the At Will/Encounter/Daily system is a fairly good idea.

2) Class roles. I think it was a good idea to base each class around a certain type of role- DnD is definitely based on a party system, and they don't want to end up making a class again that doesn't have a specific way to contribute.

3) Lack of Racial Penalties. Thank heavens. Now certain races might still be better at certain things, but at least all races will be able to actually contribute with any given class. I hated not being able to make something like, say, an Orc sorcerer. I wanted to make someone who went "FEAR THE POWER OF WAAAAAAAAGH!"

4) Healing Surges. Wow those are nice and useful. You may still really benefit from having a healer in the party, but at least you're not totally doomed without one.

5) Defense/Roll Unification. Combining AC and saving throws really helped out, as well as unifying how to attack said defenses. Makes it a lot simpler and more streamlined.

[The New Bruceski]

Things I dislike:

Skill Challenges -- I like the idea, but it always seems to end up clumsy when implemented in the campaigns I'm in. Forcing people to contribute, when my Dumb Brute has enough wisdom to know someone else should do the talking.

Teleportation -- sometimes it's limited, sometimes not, but whenever we fight enemies with it, my Walking Obstacle of a Fighter may as well get a cigarette. Let the Grab action stop that or something.

Magic Item Packages -- 4 items/level in a 5-player standard? It makes it difficult to divide loot without breaking character.

Suggested Tiefling names.

Foolish Party Members -- not inherent to the system, but come on! If we're on a time limit to get through the tomb, and the animated statues are guarding the doorway without a need for food or sleep, "sit here in cover and let them come to us" isn't going to work!

[Jerthanis]

I like 4th edition, and can't wait for them to come out with a giant tome of 100+ extra rituals so I can do all kinds of cool and obscure stuff.

Anyway, things I dislike:
1.) Dragonborn.

My reasons are similar to Oracle_Hunter's... they have two of the best stat bonuses, making them good at something like six of the eight classes, and are probably the very best at two or three of them. However, another reason I dislike the Dragonborn is that I'm a huge fan of reptilian player characters, with truly alien thought processes and so on... but Dragonborn are pretty much fluffed as "Proud Warrior Race Guys" and little else. I thought we already had Dwarves to be our Klingons! They also have boobs, but no tails? What was the thought process there? Are they mammals? Are they Reptiles? I actually like Tieflings though, so to all y'all who hate them.

2.) Has driven wedge between people who would otherwise be more unified.

Mostly dealing with my personal gaming group, but I can't imagine it hasn't happened in countless other groups as well... but there are some who like the new edition, and others who don't. These people like the same hobby, but because 4th edition came out are probably not on the same page anymore about this or that. Specifically, one of my friends is running a 3.5 game that a lot of us are unsatisfied with because it feels like a step back, and the other game, a 4th edition game, contains some people who can't stop treating the game like a cartoon because they want 3.5.

3.) No recovery mechanics for Encounter powers.

Except for a few very specific paragon paths, and one level 30 ability, you really cannot get back an encounter power once you've used it. This was one of my favorite things about Tome of Battle classes, was that their encounter powers were recoverable, so if you needed to use one specific power to overcome DR or whatever, you could use it every other round if you needed to. In 4th edition however, if you've got the right tool for the job and it misses, you're just out of luck, and there's nothing you can do to recover that power and try again. Personally, I might just houserule letting everyone recover one expended encounter power with an action point.

4.) The rate at which gold piece values for magic items increases.

The first few previews we saw had magic items priced in the few-thousand range, so I thought this game would have less inflation as levels increased, and at first it seemed to be the case... simple magic items were relatively cheap, 300-500 gold for some useful trinkets. Then I noticed upgrading a +1 Amulet of Protection to a +2 Safewing Amulet was something like 5 times the GP value, and from a +5 to a +6 weapon was practically four mountains of solid gold next to the first one. My reason for hating magic item inflation is that some adventurers have the motivation: To make sick amounts of dosh and retire. When you could sell your equipment for 150,000 gold pieces at a quarter of its real value, that motivation starts wearing pretty damn thin.

5.) Rituals as money-sinks

I love the idea of rituals, and for me really puts the magic back into magical classes. Batman, who always has the right tool right on his belt isn't a magician. Jason Blood, who inscribes magic circles of silver and chants to dark gods and houses a demon in his breast who he calls forth with an incantation is a magician. However, they're too damn expensive. This could play into my problem with the GP inflation of higher level items, but if you're playing a Mage who wants to get rich, you're never going to want to cast spells. Also, certain spells are practically worthless at the speeds you need to cast them at. If you're eavesdropping on a conversation in orcish and no one speaks it, that's the perfect time to cast comprehend languages, but the problem is, in 10 minutes, the orcs are going to finish talking and move on to their patrolling. If I ran a 4th edition game I'd say that you can do one of three things when using a ritual: Cut the casting time to 1/10th the listed time, cut the GP cost of the materials to 1/10th the listed cost, or gain a +5 to the skill roll to determine the effects.

There are plenty of complaints I have that I didn't want to list because splatbook proliferation will eventually take care of them, like my issue with too few rituals and too little variety in the magic items, or the lack of specific classes and races. These are the issues I have that I feel will always be problems with the game, and I don't think can be fixed by WotC, and demand houserules to address.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Things I dislike:

Skill Challenges -- I like the idea, but it always seems to end up clumsy when implemented in the campaigns I'm in. Forcing people to contribute, when my Dumb Brute has enough wisdom to know someone else should do the talking.

This has been errata'd so that you no longer "force" PCs to participate, among other things.

[Starsinger]

2) Class roles. I think it was a good idea to base each class around a certain type of role- DnD is definitely based on a party system, and they don't want to end up making a class again that doesn't have a specific way to contribute.

*Cough* Monk *Cough*

Now let's see, 5 things I dislike about 4e.

1 4e is less flexible than I'd like. You want charisma to be your primary stat? Here are your options. Feylock, Tankadin.

2 Opportunity attacks and Charisma based paladins. Ideally, if you're a Charisma paladin you have a low strength. Therefore, for opportunity attacks you're screwed, unless you took Heavy Blade Opportunity to use an at will. Wait, what's that, Timmy? HBO requires 15 strength?

3 Charisma, it's still useless unless you want it. Whenever I've seen people with a choice of whether to put points in Charisma or Wisdom as auxillary scores, they go with Wisdom for better Perception and Insight.

4 Wizards. I've been looking at them with the same eye that people look at say, monks in 3.5. Wizards have to have some redeeming value, right?

5 Strength, the stat of kings! Let's count the classes that use strength: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Warlord. And half of rogue since it's just a secondary stat for them. Still that's 5.5/8 classes who actively use strength. Damn.

[Ifni]

I don't think 4e is a good replacement for 3.5, for me, and don't intend to play it seriously (I can have fun playing 4e one-shots, I just find 3.5 far more interesting). So I'll post five things I like about it.

(1) Cantrips! My 3.5 sorcerer loved spamming cantrips, and would even spend L4 slots on quickened cantrips (quickened open/close and dancing lights can be surprisingly useful). When I first saw the 4e version, I thought that maybe the 4e designers shared my ideas of what a mage should be... then all the other powers were published, and I realized that was not the case, but I still love 4e cantrips.

(2) How the game handles dying characters. I like the scaling-by-HP death threshold, the "three failed saves and you're out" method of stabilizing, and the fact that healing takes you back to zero and then heals you on top of that.

(3) The principle that characters should be able to do healing or buffs as a rider on an offensive action, avoiding the heal-bot problem - unfortunately I think the implementation is flawed in a lot of cases, but the idea is really good.

(4) The new monster design paradigm probably makes encounters easier to both construct and run as a GM, although I haven't tested this.

(5) In most (all?) situations, every character should have something they can do to contribute (at least, that's my impression from reading the books - my play experience isn't very extensive).

[Xyk]

I am laughing that there is nobody on this thread who has said they dislike 4e.

I also like it, however.

Lack of customization.

That bothers me somewhat. There is less customization than in 3.5 by a large margin. That is probably just because there are not 50 bazillion splatbooks.

Tieflings.

They are portrayed as emo-kids and it's dumb.

Ritual components.

I think the way those work is a lousy mechanic.

Reliance on grids and minis.

I often don't use grids for 3.5 and 2e combat but I feel more forced to.

No gnomes

I'm less disappointed by that after finding them in the MM but still, they should be a dwarflike PHB race.

[arguskos]

I'm not a huge 4e fan, so I'll give 5 things I enjoy about it:

1. Balance, to a point. Let me say that I feel too much balance != a good thing, but I've got to give props where they're due. 4e is insanely well balanced. No one feels unloved anymore, and that's a great thing.

2. Encounter powers. Not daily's or at-wills, but encounter powers specifically. This is something I wish had been more heavily used in 3.5, and that I feel 4e really nailed on the head.

3. Improved creature creation rules. Now, I like the diversity of 3.5 more, but 4e really provided an excellent system for creating monsters on the fly, which I really like. It's pretty well done, and I can't complain about it.

4. The fact that spellcasters don't own everything in the universe anymore. I loved 3.5's magic system, but I'm the first to admit that unchecked, it ruined life. 4e improved that, and made it so that wizards/clerics didn't own the universe anymore.

5. Combat is more dynamic now, and I feel that's a good thing. Combat in 3.5 had the potential of being really slow and dull, and even though 4e has that potential as well, it doesn't come up as often.

-argus

[EvilElitest]

I am laughing that there is nobody on this thread who has said they dislike 4e.

.

Um, the people who say things they liked about 4E are the ones who dislike 4E, like you know, ME and M0rt
from
EE

[Xyk]

Um, the people who say things they liked about 4E are the ones who dislike 4E, like you know, ME and M0rt
from
EE

My bad, i missed you guys. Also the one that ninja'd me.

[EvilElitest]

My bad, i missed you guys. Also the one that ninja'd me.

fair enough, but there are around the same number of 4E/anti 4E people, maybe the former has a few more but still
from
EE

[Cybren]

Overall I like 4E, but there are some issues I have with it.

1) Ability scores are "what number you add to your abilities", rather than representations of your characters capability. It gets weirder when you throw in melee attacks based on charisma, and other such things.

2) "If you want to look like a dragon"

3) Tieflings. They get a cha bonus, when in the last edition they had a cha penalty. Not only would con serve them just as well as "teh warlocky guyz", but it would at least show that they are borrowing more than the name. Now, the backstory and fluff is still horrible, but that's ignorable. [ugh just how many lost empires are there?]

4) Currency. 50 gold plate armor? huh? Certainly the player characters are experienced and wealthy, but a standard adventuring troupe shouldn't be able to afford twelve suites of plate armor. I would also have preferred if the armor selection mirrored the weapon design, in that armors aren't in general better than each other but have their own function and use. (rather than plate armor, better plate armor, bestest plate armor)

5) Paragon paths and epic destinies. It's not that they're, as a concept, bad, but I dislike 80% of the PPs and EDs offered. (plus, like half of them have "sword" or some variant there of in the title)

[Shosuro Ishii]

I'm not the a huge 4ed support so here's my list:

1) Warlock pact system- I wish 3.5 warlocks were this cool. Any game I can legally, and without penalty worship Cthulhu gets bonus points from me.

2) Character survivabilty- While I think that 4ed may be too lineinant on the players (I may just not be used to creating really threatening encoutenrs yet), it is nice to see that I'm not going to accidently kill a PC that it's player realy likes because a kolbold get a little lucky.

3) Ease of the rules- Sure I'll complain about the issues with the homogoezation of the system, but I won't argue that it has made making rulings a breeze. Nothing with ridicolous or complicated effects that make combat a hassle to keep track of.

4) Flow of combat- I'll admit that I hate spellcasting reduced to 'I shoot my bow....I mean magic bolt at the mob', but it does elimante my least favorite of 3.5, patiently waiting as each of the groups 4 casters strategically selecting which spell cast, exactly who to cast it on, and exactly where to aim it. Massive combat actaully moves at a reasonable pace now

5) Less subtle jank builds- Nothing screwed a 3.5 game more than a player building for a stupid combo and abusing the hell out. I once made the mistake of allowing a player to play a weird charge based build, and he trampled my entire enemy fleet in a single round thanks to a few spells/PrC. Not game shattering, but really, really annoying and something I had to build around for the rest of the campaign. In 4ed, pretty much everything is laid out to everyone and no one is going to show up at the table and surprise everyone by doing 1.5K damage in a single round. Yet.

[firepup]

Hit:
1. Quick char creation allows me to kill off many would-be adventurers.
2. Fighters no longer have to just I attack, I attack, I attack.
3. somewhat balance. all classes have spell-like abilities, stopping wizards from being so quadratic and fighters from being so linear.
4. (insert reason here)
5. (insert reason here)

Miss
1. Minions. there should be no such things. If players need the ego boost, send low level encounters at them.
2. Rituals. Because mages and clerics no longer need their utility spells.
3. Skill system regression. Ugh, something smells like poo, and it's the skill system. you choose to add a +5 to x skills of your choice. and you have to get a feat to choose more. Sounds like a proficiency of some sort.
4. Wizards can no longer possibly blow all their spells on the first encounter they see.
5. races suck. Monster races (such as the gnome) are insanely underpowered, and player races have no penalties. ECL is gone, and kobolds are almost as good as a player race. (using two standard action choice allows him to attack and shift at the same time he gets attacked, negating the attack on him before he can get touched. rangers eat him for breakfest.)

[Skyserpent]

As much as I love 4e:

1. Theater of the Mind gameplay is much more difficult now that the focus is on tactical movement.

2. Monster spread is a bit too level-specific for my tastes.

3. Swords aren't that great anymore.

4. Limited fighting style options, particularly in At-Wills.

5. Heroic Tier feats are a bit dull.

[Capfalcon]

Since it came up on the other thread, I don't mind if people talk about other people's list, but if it looks like it's going to be more than 3 or 4 posts, I'd apprecate it if you take it to PM's or make a new thread.

To Illustrate

4) The new monsters/gods/races (and i mean knew, not remade) aren't bad on their own, just the way they are made

5) the cards

I'm sorry but could you clarify four and explain five. I don't really understand them...

[Saph]

I'm split, since I like it in some ways and dislike it in others . . . I'll do both. :)


Pros

1. More balanced classes.

2. Melee types have more options.

3. Much more fun at level 1; characters are more survivable and have way more abilities to use.

4. All the race choices are good in their own way; there are no more pathetically underpowered races (3.5 half-elf, I'm looking at you).

5. Skill system is standardised and pretty well-designed, though I'd have preferred to have some noncombat skills in there.


Cons

1. Rituals are overpriced and take way too long to cast. I don't want to pay money and hold the party up for 10 minutes to create a trivial effect.

2. At-wills get real boring after the 20th time you use them.

3. Classes feel too samey, not enough mechanical variety.

4. Too many of a character's abilities focus around combat.

5. The Monster Manual comes across as nothing but a shopping list of stuff to kill. Would it be so bad to have stats for dogs and cats, and maybe a few Good-aligned things?

- Saph