In my previous blog post, I explained things I didn't like about previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons. Now I'll explain what I think 4e addressed.
I think 4e addressed the skills problem. Skills checks in 4e (as the reader probably knows) default to 1/2 level + attribute bonus. If are 'trained' in a skill, you get +5 to the roll and you can take a 'Skill Focus' feat for an additional +3. It's simpler, but I like it. The attribute bonus no longer outweighs skill training/experience, so that's better than Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and earlier. Intelligence no longer governs skill points, so a wilderness survival expert no longer needs to be a genius. Any player willing to spend character feats on skills can pick up additional skills for their character. The downside is the default skill rating of 1/2 level, which means high level characters are jacks-of-all trades. I can live with that.
I think 4e addressed the power imbalance between spellcasters and non-casters. Spells now have to-hit restrictions/requirements like regular attacks, so Wizards, Clerics, and so forth do not benefit from auto-hitting attacks. Non-casters get more special abilities to make them powerful, and at higher levels they can dish out tremendous punishment. Conversely, high level Wizards and Clerics can no longer use metamagic feats and scrolls to dish out colossal amounts of pain round after round. I am very pleased by this.
4e addressed the relatively fixed state of player attributes somewhat. Starting ability score generation is pretty generous, with the default ability array now 16,14,13,12,11,10 and more attribute bonuses for race (+2 to one attribute for humans, +2 to two attributes for other default PC races) with no penalties. So the game assumes the PC is already an awesom, tip top talented member of their species at level 1. Characters get +1 to two attributes at 6 different levels and +1 to all attributes at 2 levels. So a character could end up with, for example, 26/24/15/14/13/12 at level 30 (potentially with more based on Epic Path selection). That's certainly good, but there's no possibility for zero-to-hero. PCs start out with very potent attributes and get better. I would have preferred a return to an older 3d6 attribute generation plan combined with a much more generous attribute advancement. For example, replace +1 to all attributes at levels 11 and 21 with +1 to 5 attributes at every level divisible by 5. That's +25 attribute points total, more than offsetting the weaker starting scores. And by having the bonus to 5 attributes, players have at least one attribute they can leave alone, so all characters are not epically endowed across the board.
The dependence upon equipment is mitigated somewhat. Characters can use far fewer magical items and most powerful magical item effects have a once per day limit. Even so, most characters are heavily handicapped if their gear is removed at high levels. On the other hand, that includes spellcasters because casters now also rely on magical item bonuses to ensure that their attacks succeed. I'm pleased with the change.
I was also extremely pleased with the thematic changes to the Cleric and Paladin class, the introduction of healing surges, and Warlords. Now, a Cleric or Paladin in full command of his magical powers may not be necessarily following the will of his chosen deity. I think this is excellent for storytelling reasons - now you can have corrupt priests in good religions, secret good priests in bad religions, and utterly sociopathic mercenaries joining religious orders strictly for access to their magical secrets. It adds very interesting moral ambiguity. Healing surges and Warlords (who give healing through inspiring words and deeds) also remove the all but utter necessity of having a Cleric or Druid included in your PC party from earlier editions. These changes are awesome.
I am very pleased with the new magic rituals rules. Now any player that wants to burn some feats can have their PC learn ritual magic, regardless of class. Ritual magic is powerful and versatile, but expensive. So using divination or magical transport or whatever is an available option, but relying upon PC characters or hirelings to do tasks is more cost effective. The magic is present, but no longer outshines non-casters. This ritual system along with the changes to the way powers are handled also abolishes spell slots as such. That's spectacular.
The multi-classing and paragon path rules (best explained as: everyone gets a prestige class) are good. I liked the general design of multi-classing in 3rd edition (and disliked it in previous editions) but it was difficult. It became too tempting - and annoying from a bookkeeping perspective - to grab a few levels of this or that class here or there in order to get a few bonuses. 4e is a tremendous improvement.
But I do have some problems.
First and foremost, the magical changes I wanted (where magic is highly specialized) never occurred. Both the combat spellcasters and those engaging in ritual magic have access to all kinds of different spells, different elemental effects, invisibility, etc... Second, the super-power of spellcasters was "balanced" against other classes by removing or kneecapping many interesting spells. Summoning, shapechanging, attribute buffs, wands, and so forth are gone or utterly nerfed. I know it's incredibly difficult to stop shapeshifting or monster summoning from wrecking the game, but I feel like they tossed a lot of fun and interesting things in the name of balance.
I think my proposed specialized magic would have been a fix for that. Specific summons spells and shapechange spells would help, like Summon Dire Wolf or Shapeshift: Panther and so forth. I'm not sure what can be done for attribute buffs. Maybe a limit of one buff total, per person, per day, from any source?
The power selection list is now huge. That's great for variety, but difficult for character creation and looking up things.
The 1/2 level bonus to skill checks, attribute checks, and so forth has many perks. But the change brings some odd artifacts with it. An ancient archmage can now defeat a young blacksmith at arm wrestling. I don't consider this a deal-breaker, and I like the simplicity inherent in it. But it will occasionally screw things up.
One of my favorite concepts from Dungeons and Dragons 3/3.5 or Dark Sun were classes that let a PC evolve into a partial or full dragon. The Dragonborn class lets a PC start that way, but I see no way for 4th edition to support something like that, or any other physical evolution class that changes attributes (let alone size).
Am I thrilled with 4e? No. But I consider it notably better than any previous edition.
I know the world needs another review of Dungeons and Dragons 4 like a hole in the head. But here are my thoughts on it. Please permit me to start by identifying my criticisms of the previous editions.
I thought the skill system was inadequate in Dungeons and Dragons up to version 3 and workable but very unnecessarily complicated in version 3/3.5 (In early editions, an Ogre who spent a few weeks working as a silversmith was more skilled than a brilliant human that studied for years. In 3/3.5, Intelligence covered skill points so if you wanted someone with great skill in climbing, jumping, swimming, and moving silently in the woods they also needed to be a member of Mensa).
I thought non-spellcasters were less powerful and more importantly much less interesting to play at high levels in previous editions (Why would the Thief sneak around when the Wizard can make people invisible? Why would the Fighter bother to learn a new language when a Cleric can cast "Comprehend Languages"? Why would the Barbarian fight when the Wizard can summon a Griffon to slaughter opponents better than he ever could? Why would the Bard use his silver tongue to get information when the Wizard can cast Telepathy spells? etc... )
As a related problem, non-spellcasters became increasingly dependent upon equipment. If your high level Fighter had his magic armor and sword taken away, hordes of foes that he used to mow through like a chainsaw are now impossibly deadly to him.
I disliked the organization of spellcasting. If your Wizard is only a master of cold magic, that's a superficial bit of game flavor. The rules let him toss fire, ice, acid, lightning, and sound shockwave attacks, teleport, fly, shapeshift, and manufacture magical items all with equal proficiency. I prefer organizing magic along conceptual lines where each kind of magic, like attacks, telekinesis, summoning creatures, shapeshifting, healing, divination, and so forth, are all distinct enough from each other that no normal mortal can master them all. If Wizards are magical engineers, then Dungeons and Dragons assumes a world class chemical engineer can switch jobs and design a next generation computer processor the following day, engineer a cure to AIDS the next, and then find a harder and more durable replacement for Titanium that costs $0.03 per pound on the day after that.
Ability scores are largely fixed. Conan, Beowulf, Galahad, Merlin, Gandalf, Aragorn... there was no way your PC could imitate those characters using typical game rules.
