PDA

View Full Version : Adjusting to 4e, worth it?



WFB Phish
2009-02-11, 11:11 PM
Okay, i used to be a pretty decent Dnd player about 2 years ago, i had a steady campaign with some friends mostly goofing off :). We got to like level 14ish then we all went off to different schools. I recently got the itch to play again and i realized there was a new edition! At first i was excited who doesn't like new rules?

Yet i was thouroughly dissapointed. Everything was simple...and wizards were ruined! I like the paragon paths and stuff they are pretty cool. But i would much prefer epic classes!

Speaking of which, after writing this I have decided that since my favorite class is somewhat dead in my opinion, what's the best way to level a wizard and whats the most fun class combos with it? Epic in particular. When I leveled mine i kept it straight wizard.

holywhippet
2009-02-11, 11:20 PM
4E is a different experience than all previous editions. The system is intended to be more balanced now - no class stands out as being far more powerful, they just have different roles to fill.

"Straight" is a bit irrelevant in 4E. Multiclassing is nothing like what it was in 3E. You basically either make your class feature some of the abilities of another class or you swap out some of your powers for those of another class. However, when your reach level 11 you can take a paragon level class that isn't from your original class if you have the right multiclass feats.

It is a bit simplified, although you might consider it streamlined. There is a greater focus on tactics in combat.

Kaihaku
2009-02-11, 11:22 PM
I'm playing a 4e Wizard for the first time now, I'll let you know in a few levels.

As I see it, basically, 4e is extremely balanced, plays very smoothly, and is generally awesome for a certain style of game. Unfortunately, if one wants to play a different style of game then it doesn't work so well. It has more in common with 2e than 3.5, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is limiting in many respects.

WFB Phish
2009-02-11, 11:25 PM
I definitely agree, the best word i could come up with to describe the 4e experience is "limiting". I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting. But still something in me just wants to see my section of spells at the end of the players hand book :/

Artanis
2009-02-11, 11:29 PM
I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting.
That's your problem right there :smallwink:

RTGoodman
2009-02-11, 11:36 PM
I definitely agree, the best word i could come up with to describe the 4e experience is "limiting". I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat, just been making character sheets so i can't comment on the tactical fighting.

It might seem "limiting" as far as powers and stuff like that, but remember that 4E is still young (only 7 months and a few days, I think) - give it several years and enough time for 3 Player's Handbooks, a handful of X Power sourcebooks, and whatever all else they publish, and then you'll find just as many options as 3.x gave you, I think.

I think you'll also be surprised about flexibility in the actual game, too. The big thing to remember that, unlike 3.x, 4E is focused on the PARTY, not the individual. While you might not be able to, as a Wizard in 4E, handle things single-handedly, you'll (ideally) be coordinating with your party to make optimal tactical choices, pick the best spells/exploits/powers for each situation, and still have to worry about whether or not to expend your limited resources (action points, daily powers, item powers, etc.).


But still something in me just wants to see my section of spells at the end of the players hand book :/

Why would you need that when EVERY class has a 10-page spell list, PLUS a slew of Paragon Paths with their own powers. And the sourcebooks and Dragon Magazine articles all multiply that, too, with Martial Power (and probably Arcane, Divine, Primal, etc. Power books, too) having MOST of the book dedicated to class powers.


As to your original question as to the "best" way to play a Wizard, the answer is that there's really not one. 4E doesn't really require a huge amount of optimization - as long as you've got a good score in your prime ability and a decent one in your other, you're pretty well set. Some powers and feats and stuff are definitely better than others, but you're never going to be really USELESS.

Innis Cabal
2009-02-11, 11:39 PM
You don't get spells. They are rituals, and anyone can take them

As to the question, I think its not. It is very limited, and there is not a whole lot of styles you can play, combat is slower then it is in 3.5 and thats saying something. I found my few games to be..boring

Mando Knight
2009-02-11, 11:43 PM
I have yet do to any actual fighting/combat,

This is the problem. Character sheets and abilities in 4E are geared almost exclusively towards their use in Skill Challenges (for skills) and combat (Powers, most class abilities). Really, the tactical side of 4E is about 90% of its crunch.

Instead of 3.5's epic class progression, WotC decided to instead use Epic Destinies. IMO, EDs are a lot more interesting, discounting the Epic Spellcasting cheese from 3.5.

The main reason why the Wizards lack 50-70% of their old spell lists is that WotC had to spend far more time and resources developing the Not-Cleric-Or-Wizard power lists. Fighters, Paladins, Rogues, and Rangers have as many power selections as a Wizard in core. The Martial characters (Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord) approximately doubled their power, Paragon Path, and Epic Destiny selections in Martial Power, the Wizard will easily gain back a significant fraction of his old 3.5 spell list in Arcane Power (with Rituals filling in a large amount of the Cleric/Wizard spells that weren't for combat use).

Avor
2009-02-11, 11:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

KKL
2009-02-11, 11:49 PM
{Scrubbed}

AgentPaper
2009-02-12, 12:16 AM
I'm really not seeing why people think that 4E is like WoW. I play WoW, and I play other games, and I play 3.5 and 4E, and I just can't see where in the hell this comes from. Do you think the art looks similar? Is it because of it's focus on balance? I could maybe see it being compared to a videogame because it draws some good ideas that are also used in game design, but that doesn't make it a video game. :smallconfused:

Anyways, adjusting to 4E is always worth it, in my opinion, as it's a very easy system to learn compared to 3.5, and even easier if you know 3.5. That said, whether or not you should convert depends on whether you want to play a game or a simulation. 3.5 is more "realistic" in a loose sense of the term, whereas 4E, while more balanced, is also more abstract. It's all up to playstyle. If nothing else, try it out if you get the chance. You may like it, you may hate it, but you can't know until you try.

RTGoodman
2009-02-12, 12:22 AM
{Scrubbed}

:smallsigh:

I was even going to (jokingly) put "In before the WoW accusation" in my first power...



If nothing else, try it out if you get the chance. You may like it, you may hate it, but you can't know until you try.

I was actually coming back to say thing same thing, but with the lag AgentPaper beat me to it. If you can get people together to try it out, well, do it. I mean, there are worse things you could spend your time with friends doing than trying out a game to see if you like it or not. The only things I suggest are: (1) GET THE ERRATA from the WotC website - it'll make things a LOT better; (2) don't try to do skill challenges exactly by the rules, and especially not the stupid ones originally printed - winging it is kinda the best way I've found; and (3) don't use the MM races, especially not the ones with the Oversized trait - they're not particularly great for PCs, so I'd just wait until they're actually published to play one if you can.

KKL
2009-02-12, 12:24 AM
(3) don't use the MM races, especially not the ones with the Oversized trait - they're not particularly great for PCs, so I'd just wait until they're actually published to play one if you can.

Pretty much all of the MM races are fine as they are, Oversized aside.

Random NPC
2009-02-12, 12:26 AM
I played 4e and after a while, it got tiring.

It does feel like WoW in the sense that when we are fighting, it seems like we have mana and health bars. It's too out of touch with reality. It doesn't make sense sometimes. It's balanced, but it doesn't -feel- real.

Colmarr
2009-02-12, 12:29 AM
I'll second the "yes" vote.

I don't really believe that 4e is any more limiting than 3e was. The people who pursue that argument are usually talking largely about the loss of the spell lists.

While wizards/clerics/druids might have lost a lot of their options in the transfer to 4e, virtually everyone else picked up a bucketload more.

RTGoodman
2009-02-12, 12:34 AM
Pretty much all of the MM races are fine as they are, Oversized aside.

The ones without Oversized might be okay, but I figure they've done a bit of changing on all the ones updated in Dragon, so the rest will probably change, too. I know Minotaurs, Gnolls, Warforged, and Drow, and I think Shadar-Kai (later this month), plus the Gnome (among others) in the PHB2, have all gotten re-writes that occasionally change big things about the racial stats, so I'd just err on the side of not using them anyway.

Plus, the lack of racial feats SUCKS. I mean, the races MIGHT be on par with PHB races as far as abilities go, but they do lose out on a lot of cool stuff.

BobVosh
2009-02-12, 12:46 AM
I miss skills, and I miss the bucket of neat spells.

That said if you treat it less as a roleplaying game, and more as a mini game its fun.

As for being like wow, it is pretty easy to see: there is an actual aggro like mechanic, fighters and paladins have it I believe (they take damage if they don't attack the aforementioned characters)
All classes get 1-2, 3? haven't looked much further than level 10, powers per level
All classes are made to be even, with 3 roles, healer, tank, and dps.
Tieflings and whatever that new dragon race is called suck. Nothing really to do with wow, but I hate them so
It is popular to say things you hate resemble WoW, which is popular to hate because so many like it

As one of my friends said: D&D has gone full circle from minis game to RPG, back to a Minis game.

Kaihaku
2009-02-12, 12:48 AM
I don't really believe that 4e is any more limiting than 3e was. The people who pursue that argument are usually talking largely about the loss of the spell lists.

I'm not.


While wizards/clerics/druids might have lost a lot of their options in the transfer to 4e, virtually everyone else picked up a bucketload more.

Everyone else was transformed into a caster, a modified sorcerer to be exact. There may be different roles but each class at its core works in exactly the same way. That's great for balance but it sucks for diversity. 3.5 had some serious balance issues because WotC either wouldn't or couldn't devise how to balance non-casters with casters. In 4e (and it's prototype Tome of Battle) they "resolved" that by just making everyone a caster. That's great for people who wanted to play a caster, who wanted their abilities to be limited to what specific powers they had. It sucks for those of us who liked having more open-endedness.

Now, I enjoy playing a sorcerer but sometimes I want to play a rogue or a fighter. Sometimes, I want to do something really crazy and play a completely social-oriented changeling, a healer who never harms other living beings, or a sickly thief who solves problems solely through subterfuge. Yes, you can still do those in 4e but they suck far more than they did in 3.5.

Yes, the 3.5 skills system was flawed. Yes, martial combat in 3.5 was flawed. Yes, the 3.5 magic system was seriously flawed. Making everyone into pumped-up sorcerers with different flavor attached "fixes" that by amputation. It's still a great game and I enjoy playing 4e, but it's not what it could have been; it's better than 3.5 but less at the same time.

Panda-s1
2009-02-12, 01:42 AM
Is it worth it? Well it was for me, but for you... Hmm, well wizards may not have a quarter of the PHB to themselves anymore, but they still have the practiced spellcaster feel to them. They get more automatic rituals than any other class (and seem to be the only class that gets more as they level up). And the cantrips, gotta love those. Wizards get to do all kinds of fiddly tricks with their magic.

Unfortunately though, while I loved being cleric in 3.x, I never was one for being an arcane caster, but now wizard doesn't seem like a bad class to play IMO. And seeing the new sorcerer they're no longer the class that follows in the shadow of the wizard, they actually do cool magic tricks for being a non-practiced spellcaster.

But I'm really getting ahead of myself. Go ahead and try it, be an awesome wizard, and just remember wizards are the only class (without using a feat) that can choose one of two daily and utility spells for the day for every daily/utility slot they have.



Now, I enjoy playing a sorcerer but sometimes I want to play a rogue or a fighter. Sometimes, I want to do something really crazy and play a completely social-oriented changeling, a healer who never harms other living beings, or a sickly thief who solves problems solely through subterfuge. Yes, you can still do those in 4e but they suck far more than they did in 3.5.

I really can't see how social characters suck more in 4e than in 3.5. Sure you lost some skills like disguise. And perform... and.... um.... Yeah. Honestly, I'm just not seeing it. And considering the majority of class abilities in 3.5 were combat oriented anyway, I can't see how that's changed either.

I mean 4e bards get a class power that gives them a +5 to Diplomacy for crying out loud.

TheOOB
2009-02-12, 02:04 AM
4e dramatically increases your actions in combat unless you are a wizard or cleric, in which case you have roughly the same options as everyone else (wizard actually has much more, keeping something similar to their old memorization mechanic and having access to a lot more rituals).

Characters do start off very simple at level 1, but they gain more variety quickly. At level 10 you will have 2 at-will powers, 3 encounter powers, 3 daily powers, 3 utility powers, a racial power, probably 1-3 class powers, 6 feats, 5+ magic items(many with their own powers), and still have all the powers available to everyone(basic attack, second wind, bull rush, ect). Your looking at an extreme amount of customization, and plenty of choices of what to do each round of combat (heck not counting class inherent, racial, item, or feat powers you have 11 powers, that's plenty of options right there).

Also, as mentioned above, you are building a party, not a character. Characters need to mesh well together. A warlord may use an attack that allows all their allies to make a ranged attack, or a wizard may use thunder wave to push an enemy into a paladins damage zone for a deadly combination. Positioning, tactics, and synergy are the name of the game, creating an infinite amount of ways to use your power selection.

There are some aspects of 3.5 I miss. I miss having the toolbox of spells, even if it was overpowered(wizards and clerics have lots of useful powers and anyone can use rituals, but it's not quite the same), I miss the ease of multiclassing to create strange character archtypes(though the multiclassing system is very good, if limited, and paragon paths and epic destinies manage to capture the coolness of prestige classes without all the balance problems.)

4e is not for everyone, but it is a great game. It started out great, and it is only getting better. Dragon has release numerous cool additions to the system(powers, paragon paths, feats, ect), and martial power really fleshed out the martial classes, tremendously increasing their play options and fixing many of the problems with the classes(mainly that some of the classes had levels with powers that were not greatly useful to particular builds, roughly doubling the number of powers seems to have fixed this.)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 02:12 AM
Yet i was thouroughly dissapointed. Everything was simple...and wizards were ruined! I like the paragon paths and stuff they are pretty cool. But i would much prefer epic classes!

Speaking of which, after writing this I have decided that since my favorite class is somewhat dead in my opinion, what's the best way to level a wizard and whats the most fun class combos with it? Epic in particular. When I leveled mine i kept it straight wizard.

So, what I'm hearing here is that you're missing the following:
(1) The power level of 3E Wizards
(2) The "build" side of the game

If this is what you found most fun about 3E, then 4E just isn't for you. "Builds" are necessarily less complicated, since multiclassing does not offer the sort of dip-builds popular in 3E.

Wizards have been brought more in line with the power levels of other classes to make for more of a "team" game, rather than a "niche" game. That is to say, 4E PCs must work together to solve problems, while 3E PCs often operated independently inside their own niches.

What 4E does have to offer is:
(1) A better non-caster gaming experience
(2) A more "beer and pretzels" and less "spreadsheets and encyclopedias" method of character design.
(3) Dynamic combat (particularly for non-casters)
(4) Less "save or suck" combat, and more "meat grinder" combat

Below are assertions made already in the thread that I disagree with:
(1) 4E Combat is Too Slow
4E combat appears to be slower because no fight can be "solved" by the application of a single "save or suck" spell. HPs are important once again, and position and teamwork are now key to winning battles.

The actual combat mechanics are at the very least simpler than 3E's mechanics. Grappling rules, AoO rules, and the amount of miscellaneous modifiers have all bee paired down and streamlined; heck, Bull Rush can now be described in a few short lines. Your combat options are helpfully compartmentalized into "powers," each of which can be easily written on an index card apiece. This is compared to the sort of page-thumbing a wizard might have to do before deciding which version of Summon Monster to cast, for example.

I have found the tactical combat experience to be generally rewarding and, after a little practice, much quicker to resolve (at the very least, when measured by the time it takes the average player to declare and enact their action for a round).

(2) 4E is not a RPG, it is a tactical battlefield game
What does that even mean? :smallconfused:

Anyhow, this sort of comment stems from the fact that the 4E rulebooks are long on combat rules, and short on rules regarding the tying of rope. Many of the out-of-combat mechanisms have been simplified, to be sure, but they were done so in response to a gaming public which was much less interested in the encumbrance rating of a flying carpet, and more interested in blowing up orcs.

The thesis of this gaming philosophy is this: if it's not important for the story, don't roll for it. Generally speaking, a story does not hinge on exactly how good a meal your fighter cooked for breakfast, or how well your Rogue can sing, so the DM can either make an ad hoc ruling (relying helpfully on the table presented on DMG 42), or just say "OK, you do it." You are adventurers, not bakers - why do you want to invest your hard-earned training time in making the perfect bundt cake?

This does not, mind you, make it any less of a role-playing game since, at least in my games, you do, in fact, play the role of an adventurer in a fantastic realm. You can still pinch the wenches and paint funny faces on your sleeping party members, and have epic tales of pain and sorrow. You don't need any rules to do that, and the 4E system certainly does not inhibit you from acting as you'd like.

(3) 4E is like WoW
And if it is, so what? Having never played WoW (though I have played other MMOs) I can't really see the comparison. In my experience, the major restrictions I've found in MMOs are as follows:
- Difficulty in conveying the sort of RP experience in-person gaming provides
- An inability to "go off the rails" of the story
- An inability to take actions which are not strictly allowed by the rule set
- A limited palette for depicting characters

None of these problems come up in 4E. Since nobody who claims "4E is WoW" ever explains what substantive problems this presents, I'm afraid I may be missing whatever irks them so.

Those are my thoughts. I do hope you at least try a couple of games (though not the KotS module!) to see if you can like it. An open mind in gaming (as in many things) keeps you from missing out on enjoyable experiences where you would not expect them.

kieza
2009-02-12, 03:11 AM
The group I DM switched to 4e the moment it came out, and except for one or two of the 11 in two groups I'm now running, everyone likes it better than 3.5. Thinking on it, we can sort of boil it down to a handful of reasons:


All classes are equally fun to play, personal preference aside. The role of healer (Note: not the role of Cleric; that's different) is no longer less fun, the Fighter is not overshadowed at higher levels, and the Rogue is effective against all enemy types, among other things.
The system is less complicated. There are no differing subsystems for spells and weapon attacks, AC and saves, grappling, bull rush, etc. Everything runs off of the concept of d20+one or more ability scores vs. target number.
There are no longer lists of rules for everything under the sun, and anything not covered in the rules can be handled via a quick ruling from the DM via page 42. The page gives a variety of DCs, damage, and other stuff appropriate for every level. (Tonight, I handled the party wizard repurposing one of his spells to knock over a pillar with five words: "Intelligence check vs. DC 20.")
Magic Items are a complement to a character, not a necessity. You can be completely functional with three items: weapon or implement, armor, and amulet or cloak. They don't have to even have powers, and the ones that do don't overshadow the character's powers.
I as the DM love that it's easier to prep for sessions: monsters run off of simplified creation rules and are structured to be run easier in combat. I no longer have to worry about spells that can bypass an interesting, plot-important adventure in ten minutes.


If I have one piece of advice, it's this: find a DM with an active imagination and a good grasp of the rules, especially page 42. The simplified system makes it much easier to push rules and combat to the background and focus on character development and storytelling.

Asbestos
2009-02-12, 03:28 AM
You don't get spells. They are rituals, and anyone can take them


Yes, but some get much much more of them and not everyone is at all likely to get them. Personally, rituals and cantrips have made my Wizard incredibly fun to play, outside of combat the wizard is still, easily, the utility guy. It just takes him more time and costs him more gold sometimes.

cupkeyk
2009-02-12, 03:33 AM
In 3.5, i played spell casters too, including a coma-mancer wizard (reduce an ability to zero for the win) and a bard/sublime chord buffer.

I initially tried playing as a warlord because it seemed similar in gameplay to my bard, I get to fight and provide additional attacks with bonuses. It didn't sit well with me and I switched, with dm blessing, to an Orb wizard.

it is exactly like having my coma-mancer back except i am stuck with sleep as my only comamancer spell. i have other options, particularly with battle field control. I create zones and walls to grab advantage. 4e wizard plays differently from 3.5 wizard that you will unlikely have the right spell somewhere for every possible situation. You will never be batman again, but other than your utility belt, you can still kick ass with the same tactics.

Kaihaku
2009-02-12, 04:20 AM
I really can't see how social characters suck more in 4e than in 3.5. Sure you lost some skills like disguise. And perform... and.... um.... Yeah. Honestly, I'm just not seeing it.

There are a number of character options that have been lost but I'll stick to ones that I've used that I don't expect will appear in future supplements to 4e.

Leadership was nasty, buggy, and beautiful. A decent player using it to form their own gang, business, or random other social entity.

Craft(Wordsmith) allowed the opportunity to be mechanically be a renowned author in a campaign. If someone wants to field a middle-aged goblin who does investigate reporting for the city paper that's now all fluff. Craft was poorly balanced against other skills but instead of fixing it WotC just axed it completely.

Profession was basically useless for anything save fluff in 3.5. Instead of making it more relevant it was axed, which sucks for people like me who used it to give substance to claims of being the City's Healer or having my own Brewery.

Perform was, as you say, a nice skill to use to interact with vast amounts of people. Oration, Comedy, and Acting allowed for unusual ways of influencing masses. It is true that few ever took advantage of those means because, mechanically, they were mostly useless without some imagination. Instead of making them useful, WotC axed them.

Now many of those things you can still do with the grace of your Dungeon Master. That's great but it has absolutely nothing to do with system changes. I doubt there is a system in existence that can't be fun with the right Game Master and the right players. The point is that those elements are mechanically gone.


And considering the majority of class abilities in 3.5 were combat oriented anyway, I can't see how that's changed either.

That is certainly true. Dungeons and Dragons has always leaned heavily towards combat, I feel that 3e took a few steps away from that tradition and that 4e is a step back. It's only a step, 4e still allows a great deal more than 2e did and it is a beautiful system... It plays like a charm for one of the most popular styles of play.

I like the concept of Skill Challenges, it's a great idea. Including guidelines for something that most skilled Dungeon Masters have learned to do innately is wonderful. I wish these sort of guidelines had been around when my original Dungeon Masters were learning.

What I don't like is how linearly Skill Challenges, especially social ones, are presented. In 3.5 the Diplomacy skill was broken but it left open a wide range of options for a player to attempt. Now, in 4e the Diplomacy skill isn't "fixed" instead it's been regulated to a step in a path towards an ultimate goal. It isn't open ended anymore. Now, by the grace of the Dungeon master it may drastically change things but that's not necessarily the case.


I mean 4e bards get a class power that gives them a +5 to Diplomacy for crying out loud.

Really, crying out loud?

What is Diplomacy is 4e? It certainly is not broken as it was in 3.5 but what is it's place now? Is it important, capable of drastically changing the path a campaign follows...or is it one optional stepping stone among many in the greater path of plot?


All classes are equally fun to play, personal preference aside. The role of healer (Note: not the role of Cleric; that's different) is no longer less fun, the Fighter is not overshadowed at higher levels, and the Rogue is effective against all enemy types, among other things.

The role of the healer (Note: not the role of the Cleric; that's different) no longer exists as such. Hit something to heal something else is not archetypically the role of the healer. Personally, while it takes a bit of doing I have always greatly enjoyed playing the role of the healer in 3.5.


"Builds" are necessarily less complicated, since multiclassing does not offer the sort of dip-builds popular in 3E.

Which is definitely a major plus for 4e.


Wizards have been brought more in line with the power levels of other classes to make for more of a "team" game, rather than a "niche" game. That is to say, 4E PCs must work together to solve problems, while 3E PCs often operated independently inside their own niches.

Two more big pluses.


What 4E does have to offer is:
(1) A better non-caster gaming experience

Definitely more balanced.


(2) A more "beer and pretzels" and less "spreadsheets and encyclopedias" method of character design.

Some people enjoy "spreadsheets and encyclopedias", complicated isn't necessarily a negative.


(3) Dynamic combat (particularly for non-casters)

Another plus.


(4) Less "save or suck" combat, and more "meat grinder" combat

This is one that I don't see as a positive. I don't like the new emphasis on damage. Instant win spells were a problem but making damage the centerpiece of everything was not the only, or in my opinion the best, solution.


(1) 4E Combat is Too Slow

As I've seen it, 4e Combat is only slower in the learning stage. Once people have a grasp of the changes it tends to move more quickly.


(2) 4E is not a RPG, it is a tactical battlefield game

As I see it...
1E was a tactical battlefield game. 2E less so than 1E. 3E much less so than 2E. 4E more so than 3E but less so than 2E.


Many of the out-of-combat mechanisms have been simplified, to be sure, but they were done so in response to a gaming public which was much less interested in the encumbrance rating of a flying carpet, and more interested in blowing up orcs.

You are making the assumption again that complicated is a negative in the minds of most people. That is not true, there is a substantial portion of the "gaming public" that enjoys complexity and depth. There could have been a better balance than the one 4e struck.


The thesis of this gaming philosophy is this: if it's not important for the story, don't roll for it. Generally speaking, a story does not hinge on exactly how good a meal your fighter cooked for breakfast, or how well your Rogue can sing, so the DM can either make an ad hoc ruling (relying helpfully on the table presented on DMG 42), or just say "OK, you do it."

There's something to be said for that gaming philosophy but there's also something to be said for investing mechanically in hobbies, skills, interests... It adds a certain stability to character depth. I'm not just saying that I'm a good cook, I have the ranks in Kraft(Foods) to prove it. I've played freeform for years and there's something to be said for having a character's skillset more completely fleshed out.


You are adventurers, not bakers - why do you want to invest your hard-earned training time in making the perfect bundt cake?

Adventurers have to come in one shape and form? They have to "train" at adventuring constantly and they can't have other hobbies, even professions, that might be relevant at some point in an epic tale?


This does not, mind you, make it any less of a role-playing game since, at least in my games, you do, in fact, play the role of an adventurer in a fantastic realm. You can still pinch the wenches and paint funny faces on your sleeping party members, and have epic tales of pain and sorrow. You don't need any rules to do that, and the 4E system certainly does not inhibit you from acting as you'd like.

Precisely right. I've played freeform a great deal and you don't need rules to roleplay. You don't even need a game. But sometimes it's nice to have that structure, even for "unimportant" things like professions, musical talents, and hobbies.


(3) 4E is like WoW
I can't say as I've never played WoW.

Curmudgeon
2009-02-12, 05:31 AM
There is much less flexibility in each class in 4E. You used to be able to make a pure skillmonkey Rogue (spend all your feats on things like Quick Reconnoiter, Magic Aptitude, & c.). Now the Rogue is designated as a Striker -- a martial class, and everything they get at 1st level is an Attack of some sort.

Most feats are restricted to particular class and/or race combinations. This keeps class overlap to a minimum. If you want to mix together disparate class elements you really need to stick with 3.5.

In contrast, there are many more options in combat built into the power system. Very few attacks are "basic" roll-to-hit vs. AC; most of the time you'll be using some sort of class-specific power which gives you different ways of going about hitting the enemy -- something like using a 3.5 skill trick every round.

WotC really started with a clean slate. Was it worth it? I don't know yet. While the classes all seem pretty balanced, they also seem quite restrictive to me. Maybe more supplements will help.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-12, 05:50 AM
depends largely on playstyle.
my group prefer 4e because it relies on them working as a team, where 3.5 didn't.
i'd say it was worth it.
character creation is simpler, but there are decisions made which carry massive consequence.

i'd also disagree about lack of options compared to 3.5.
technically there are less, but in reality i find that there are more options which are good and less which are pointless and lead to massive suckage.

feats which were pointless abounded in 3.5, not so in 4e.
so in reality there are more good options in 4e than there were in 3.5 is my experience.
also race makes a massive difference in certain cases, while still allowing you to play unusual combinations effectively: eladrin race are a good example, have a ranger in my game who pulls their weight despite being a 'suboptimal' race for the class.
halfling makes a surprisingly good paladin. dragonborn make unexpectedly good clerics.
it is much harder to make a crappy character without doing so deliberately when compared to 3.5. and the phb recommendations are actually good whereas in 3.5 they were rubbish. (level one fighter take weapon focus and imp initiative if human? NO! power attack and cleave!)

you do need to play a few combats though to really grasp the tactical changes to the game:
rogues tend to do the most damage but need help to do so
fighters can keep lots of enemies fighting themselves, but do it without back up and they'll just die
warlords and clerics cannot do a fighter job well enough(hard lesson for me!)

play a few one off encounters with a bunch of mates just to learn the combat system and use index cards for powers and you should be fine.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 06:55 AM
It doesn't add anything that previous editions didn't have (beyond the OMG it's new factor).

It has a tendency to get repetitive - both on the short run (after a few rounds, combat tends to stagnate as both sides have run out of encounter powers) and in the long run (too many high-level things are simply a palette swap of low-level things).

It has failed to make combats run faster.

And it doesn't allow for several archetypes that in other games are available straight out of the box. Future splats may alleviate that, but it appears to be by design that you shouldn't try to make a power/utility tradeoff.

That doesn't mean it's a bad game, certainly not. But once the initial "OMG new shiny" has worn off, it isn't all that impressive either. I've seen several players think that it was nice but we should now get back to the games we were playing earlier.

AngelOmnipotent
2009-02-12, 07:54 AM
To be honest I hated it. Sure it was novel when the idea first came out, but during the game I felt like all of my freedom had been ripped away from me only being able to do what these powers said I could do.

That being said some of the powers are interesting, but at lower levels you couldn't use most of them because if you did you'd be sending them into the wind. Your normal attacks had a better chance to hit and did considerably more damage. It also seemed like the monsters could do more interesting things than we could. And a single Kobold with the capacity to wipe out an entire party is a bit silly.

Each combat feels the same, you have a "rotation" of powers that you do in certain orders, of where characters stand for the most efficient combat, and once you've figured that out it becomes deathly boring. The Wizards-written campaigns are also just hack-and-slash Dungeon crawls that seem to have no thought put into them whatsoever. For example our group ended up in a Dungeon for what seemed to be no apparent reason. We got to the point where each room was a full scale combat - no puzzles, no traps, no thinking involved, just hitting things.

He turned to us and said: "Well all I can see right now is that you have 4 rooms to go. They're all the same and the boss in the last room. There's no real reason for going in there apart from XP, as there's no advance of the non-existant plot in this game. Shall we just skip it and say you did it?" Yeah... a game shouldn't leave you feeling that way.

The combats last too long with you doing exactly the same thing each round, and in all honest if you make a character that tries to focus on skills rather than combat, you'll hardly be doing anything at all.

Spellcasters no longer come as varients - they'll all have the same optimized spells because if you don't you make your character redundant. Clerics can't focus on turning undead, or healing, or raising undead, or a battle-cleric, or spellcasting, it's just a tidy little package that does a bit of both and sucks at it all.
Fighters can't focus on archery anymore, or any kind of specific tactic. They get to push enemies around, slide them a few squares and force them to hit the fighter rather than the party. I miss tripping, grappling, disarming them and sundering their weapon into pieces leaving them completely defenseless.

The roleplaying aspect seems to have been mercilessly ripped out of the game like it was a tumor that no one paid attention to. Sure, most roleplaying comes from the player, but it doesn't feel right when you're having to make things up about your character because the option isn't there on your character sheet. For example your Rogue may be good at lying but not very diplomatic, but in 4e it doesn't matter because they're all in the same skill! A Ranger may be good at spotting things but not good at searching for hidden things, but of course it doesn't matter because it's all in the same skill!

In short: I hated it. Unless you build -the- optimized character you're going to find yourself as useful as a wet lettuce. If you're built around non-combat situations like a trap monkey or a skills based person you're going to be finding yourself doing nothing at all. Deviation from the normal seems to be punished as we're all pushed down the same, very narrow corridor.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 08:11 AM
Some of the powers are interesting, but at lower levels ... your normal attacks had a better chance to hit and did considerably more damage.

Odd. That's not my experience at all. Could you given an example?


your Rogue may be good at lying but not very diplomatic, but in 4e it doesn't matter because they're all in the same skill!

Bluff and Diplomacy and Intimidation are all different skills in 4e, just as in 3.5e.

AngelOmnipotent
2009-02-12, 08:36 AM
Odd. That's not my experience at all. Could you given an example?

Bluff and Diplomacy and Intimidation are all different skills in 4e, just as in 3.5e.

Ok I didn't pick the right skills as an example. I haven't seen a 4e character sheet in a while. Instead substitute:
Climb, Jump, Swim
Open Lock, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand.
Many other skills that have been squished into one.

As for the powers I can't recall any right now, but all I know is that the only way we were able to hit anything efficiently was to ignore the powers and take advantage of the proficiency bonus to hit on a normal attack to make sure that we were going to hit something, and it tended to be a lot harder.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 08:37 AM
4e is good if:
* You are new to role-playing games.
* You prefer a "rules light" approach outside of combat
* You are the DM.

3.5e is good if:
* You want a dizzying array of wildly different options.
* You want rules-mastery to be rewarded.
* You want a high-power campaign.

Shpadoinkle
2009-02-12, 08:41 AM
4e is basically WoW on paper. That's fine, but I prefer D&D, not WoW.

kamikasei
2009-02-12, 08:50 AM
4e is basically WoW on paper.

I'm pretty sure World of Warcraft d20 is WoW on paper.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 08:51 AM
The only way we were able to hit anything efficiently was to ignore the powers and take advantage of the proficiency bonus to hit on a normal attack to make sure that we were going to hit something, and it tended to be a lot harder.

You also get the proficiency bonus to hit when you use a power with the "Weapon" keyword. Perhaps you missed this?

KIDS
2009-02-12, 09:00 AM
I found 4E to be incredibly balanced and easy to play. To be honest, I do often miss some of the diversity of 3.5, but the potential to pick up whatever abilities/powers you like for your desired fluff and never have to worry about sucking by level 3 like you had to before wins it for me and I'm having much more fun now.

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-12, 09:04 AM
4e is basically WoW on paper. That's fine, but I prefer D&D, not WoW.

Come on, in Wow classes are more flexible. This statement is offending toward Blizzard designers. *


*BTW I played WoW. A lot. There a Mage is Striker AND controller. With the same built, just as an example.

banjo1985
2009-02-12, 09:10 AM
I'm glad that the OP got to try out 4E and found it to their liking. 4E is good for a number of playstyles and approaches to the hobby, and is a heck of a lot more accessible for newcomers. It's also very balanced and easy to get a game going quickly.

I however hated it, and for my gaming group it was a waste of time and money buying the books. The battle system didn't really do it for us, and after a few sessions we all basically admitted that we weren't having fun with it.

AgentPaper
2009-02-12, 09:23 AM
4e is basically WoW on paper. That's fine, but I prefer D&D, not WoW.
{Scrubbed}


To be honest I hated it. Sure it was novel when the idea first came out, but during the game I felt like all of my freedom had been ripped away from me only being able to do what these powers said I could do.
How are words on paper ripping away your freedom? If you don't like your powers, or how the game says they could work, think up a new way! I let one of my player play a paladin themed to draw power from dark forces instead of good and justice, and it worked perfectly fine with the system, no worrying about spell lists and such nonsense.:smallamused:


That being said some of the powers are interesting, but at lower levels you couldn't use most of them because if you did you'd be sending them into the wind. Your normal attacks had a better chance to hit and did considerably more damage. It also seemed like the monsters could do more interesting things than we could. And a single Kobold with the capacity to wipe out an entire party is a bit silly.
{Scrubbed} Powers are better than basic attacks by definition because they ARE basic attacks with some extras thrown in. There is pretty much no situation you could be in that you would want to use your basic attack instead of a power, unless you specifically tailored your character and chose your items to boost only your basic attacks and not any others, and even then it's only a bit better than at-wills, and encounter/daily powers will still blow your basic attack out of the water. Also, what is this kobold that is destroying your party? How does he have the capactiy to wipe you out? I mean, maybe if you all promised to stand real still for a few minutes...:smallconfused:


Each combat feels the same, you have a "rotation" of powers that you do in certain orders, of where characters stand for the most efficient combat, and once you've figured that out it becomes deathly boring.
I could see this happening if you fought the same monsters, in the same place, with the same resources, with the same/similar rolls, time after time after time, but unless your DM is really that bad, this won't happen. I don't think my players have ever used the same powers in a row more than once.:smallsigh:


The Wizards-written campaigns are also just hack-and-slash Dungeon crawls that seem to have no thought put into them whatsoever. For example our group ended up in a Dungeon for what seemed to be no apparent reason. We got to the point where each room was a full scale combat - no puzzles, no traps, no thinking involved, just hitting things.

He turned to us and said: "Well all I can see right now is that you have 4 rooms to go. They're all the same and the boss in the last room. There's no real reason for going in there apart from XP, as there's no advance of the non-existant plot in this game. Shall we just skip it and say you did it?" Yeah... a game shouldn't leave you feeling that way
So, you hate the campaign, and/or it was poorly DMed. How is this relevant at all? 4E has some rule that means all campaigns must be unimaginative dungeon crawls?:smallconfused:


The combats last too long with you doing exactly the same thing each round, and in all honest if you make a character that tries to focus on skills rather than combat, you'll hardly be doing anything at all.


Spellcasters no longer come as varients - they'll all have the same optimized spells because if you don't you make your character redundant. Clerics can't focus on turning undead, or healing, or raising undead, or a battle-cleric, or spellcasting, it's just a tidy little package that does a bit of both and sucks at it all.
No. Just no. All of the spells on the wizard and cleric list are viable, though you may need to know when and how to use them for some of the more subtle. While clerics can't focus on one little class feature to the point where it's all he can do, that doesn't mean he sucks. And you CAN specialize in being a battle cleric, or a support cleric, or even one that specializes in fighting undead. You just don't do it by buffing class features to all hell, you do it be choosing your powers right. Want to be a battle cleric? Choose powers that are close-range and high damage. Want to be a support cleric? Choose long-range and buffing powers. Want to specialize in fighting undead? Choose powers that deal radiant damage. Most to all undead are weak to radiant damage, so you'll be blasting them to bits left and right. And you know what? You'll still be able to pull your weight in an encounter with no undead at all. Imagine that!:smalleek:


Fighters can't focus on archery anymore, or any kind of specific tactic. They get to push enemies around, slide them a few squares and force them to hit the fighter rather than the party. I miss tripping, grappling, disarming them and sundering their weapon into pieces leaving them completely defenseless.
Fighters in 4E are not the generic-martial class that they once were. Now they are a proper class, that does something unique instead of just being, "Here's a crap-ton of feats, go do something. Now let me get back to making wizard spells...." You want to be an archer? Be a ranger, and specialize in archery. And why can't you grapple anymore? The rules are there, and are actually seen as far improved from the 3.5 rules. I haven't seen a single person yet say they wish 4E had the old 3.5 grapple rules. It's true that tripping, disarming, and sundering are gone without homebrew, but you have so many options, that you should hardly miss them.:smallwink:


The roleplaying aspect seems to have been mercilessly ripped out of the game like it was a tumor that no one paid attention to. Sure, most roleplaying comes from the player, but it doesn't feel right when you're having to make things up about your character because the option isn't there on your character sheet. For example your Rogue may be good at lying but not very diplomatic, but in 4e it doesn't matter because they're all in the same skill! A Ranger may be good at spotting things but not good at searching for hidden things, but of course it doesn't matter because it's all in the same skill!
OMG! This book does not tell me if my paladin should be happy, sad, crazy, or oragutan! Good roleplaying never comes out of rules, use your imagination! I can't know if my paladin can like bundt cakes because the rules don't say anything about it! :smallannoyed:

Your character likes bundt cakes. Or gets explosive diarrhea from them. You choose, it's your character. It has no affect on the balance of the game, so your DM shouldn't care much either, unless it departs from the theme and setting. You're a sentient, intelligent, thinking (hopefully) person, so act like it.


In short: I hated it. Unless you build -the- optimized character you're going to find yourself as useful as a wet lettuce. If you're built around non-combat situations like a trap monkey or a skills based person you're going to be finding yourself doing nothing at all. Deviation from the normal seems to be punished as we're all pushed down the same, very narrow corridor.
This sounds like someone making fun of 3.5 to me. :smallconfused: One thing that I know is true about 4E: Pick a race. Pick a class. Pick a weapon you are proficient with, or two. Pick some powers at random. Pick some feats you qualify for at random. You now have yourself a character that can pull his weight. Sure, he's most likely not the best he can be, but he gets the job done. :smallamused:

Now pick that same race and class, and put a bit of thought into the rest of the process. You now have a very viable very effective, and most likely very unique character. There is no best race for a class. Eladrin fighters are as good as any other race. I know! I've played one! Intelligence boost means you can multi-class to wizard a bit and get some nice control abilities. Dexterity helps you qualify for heavy sword feats down the line. (very important!) Teleporting 5 squares can get you past those monsters and in front of people you need to protect, or a billion different utility purposes. Teleport across gaps! up walls! through jail bars! and that's just some of the more common ones. And then take Eladrin Weapon Training. +2 damage and proficiency in all spears and longswords. You have longswords, sure, but all spears includes exotic ones, which is great for making a spear-fighter!

banjo1985
2009-02-12, 09:43 AM
The above is a decent argument to explain why the poster likes 4E. It also shows why many people hate it, or at least would rather play other things. 4E strips away a lot of the fluff and intricacies of the previous edition, leaving a streamlined battle system and easy character creation. However, many people like the slightly constraining fluff, and having classes that you had to put some thought into to make work properly. It goes on, for every argument of why 4E is good it raises a perfectly valid point to show why some people like 3.5 better. There's no right or wrong choice without context, it's all up to your preferred playstyle and whether you can get used to the new system.

It would just be nice to have a discussion about the definite merits of 4E without it becoming a tit for tat fight over which edition is better. I don't like bloody Nutella, but I don't jump on the first person I see eating it on a sandwich. The OP wanted to know whether 4E was worth changing to, what it did well and what it did not so well. We can do that without mentioning 3.5 and opening a can of worms can't we?

Morty
2009-02-12, 09:46 AM
Weird. I don't see OP asking for people to fanboyishly defend 4ed from people who don't like it. I also find it funny how "keep an open mind" apparently translates to "play 4ed".
In any case, I say it might be worth it or it might not, you really can't say unless you try. I myself have given 4ed a thought, but after some consideration, I decided that there are just too many elements there I plainly can't cope with. Homogenization of classes, oversimplfication of skills and abstractiveness of rules are just several of them.


We can do that without mentioning 3.5 and opening a can of worms can't we?

As utterly alien it seems to me, apparently we can't. Looks like some people just can't refrain from "proving" that they have monopoly on being right.

AgentPaper
2009-02-12, 09:54 AM
Fanboyish defense of 4E? Well, most of that was fact, and what was opinion is my honest opinion. As was stated above whether the facts made 4E seem good or bad depending on the reader. I don't hate 3.5, I just play it and 4E, and know the strengths and weaknesses of both. My playstyle happens to make 4E a better choice, so I prefer it, and will recommend it readily to anyone who has a similar playstyle, or to at least try it otherwise.

And the version debate is actually completely on-topic here, though that's no excuse to troll or flame-war. The OP asked if the new edition was worth learning and converting to. What else could that be asking for but which edition is better? It might have helped if he clarified his playstyle, though...

Another_Poet
2009-02-12, 10:06 AM
Hi Phish, if you like new rules but you don't like 4e may I suggest you take a look at Pathfinder. You can download the entire book for free (legally) (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG) and, since you used to enjoy 3rd edition, this will definitely be for you. It's basically a clone of 3.5 except with some of the more troublesome rules streamlined and a lot more options for the core classes. I think you'll especially like the wizard's new d6 hit die and first level abilities.

ap

Hal
2009-02-12, 10:16 AM
This thread is starting to take on a life of its own, so I'll put my answer in to the OP before it gets too far away.

Switching to 4e was worth it to me for the following reasons:

1) Simplicity. I could build an effective character from all of the available classes without having to buy 15 different books. If I play a caster, I don't have to decide which 5 spells I want to prepare out of the 200 I know.

2) Balance. The classes are all in relatively the same power bracket. Now the only reason someone might suck during combat is poor decision making or terrible dice luck.

3) Character freedom. Here's where I disagree with a lot of people in this thread. While there's not as much in the rules centered around non-combat experience, I like that. It means I don't have to look up the rules for being left-handed, don't have to spend precious skill points to say that my character is an incredible chef, and don't have to spend a feat to give my character the ability to chew gum and walk at the same time. It's nice to not have a rule for everything.

4) Class fun. All of the classes are fun to play now. I'll agree that casters were more fun to play in 3.5 because of their myriad options. While casters have fewer options in 4e, everyone has a similar number of them. This means that melee classes can do things besides charge or full-attack.

Here's how I'll sum it up: Did you like Tome of Battle? A lot of people feel like ToB was the precursor to 4e. As much as people love ToB for making melee classes competitive with casters in 3.5, it seems like 4e is a natural progression of that design philosophy.

In the end, if you try it and like it, then it's worth it. If you like 3.5, then stick with that. Play what you find fun.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 10:53 AM
Just to prove it's all an apples-or-oranges debate, all arguments (from either side) are easy to counter.

1) Simplicity. Yes, you can build a character in 4E without having to buy 15 different books, because there aren't that many books yet. In a few years, expect any character design thread in this forum to reference the Adventurers Vault 2 for their items, Heroic Heroes' Heroism for an alternative class build, and Real Ultimate Power for a feat or two.

2) Balance. Yes, everybody agrees that 4E is more balanced. However, surprisingly many players don't really care about balance - some of them because they want to play a character and don't care about the rules, others because they want to twink out. 3E allows you to play the whole spectrum from "such a wimp that you can die from any sword hit", up to "massively overpowerd epic archmage". Granted, neither of those two extremes are balanced, and of course neither exists in 4E. Turns out that some people are really fond of the extremes anyway!

3) Character freedom. Yes, in 4E you can claim to be a good chef without needing rules to back it up. The problem is that the moment this actually comes up in play (and if you have a DM who cares about your character background, it will) it turns out that according to the rules, you actually aren't. The lack of rules for cheffing mean that you're likely to either get a debate on how to make a check for this, or to have the DM ask you to "make a wisdom check" (or whichever attribute) at which point you are unexpectedly upstaged by the party cleric.

4) Class fun. Again perhaps surprisingly, many people disagree that "casters were more fun to play in 3.5 because of their myriad options". In 3E you could play a character with few options (such as a fighter) if you were the kind of player who didn't care about having options. This also meant you might be limited in combat, but hey if you're the kind of player who doesn't care about options, that's not a big deal. Point is, in 4E you can't. Every character has the same number of options, no tradeoff allowed.


At any rate, there is a wide range of playstyles that 4E (or indeed, whichever system you care to name) simply doesn't work with. This is never obvious to people who simply don't like those playstyles, but it does mean that proclaiming any system as Objectively Best is naught but marketing hype. In the end, everybody should just switch to Fifth Edition ASAP, it'd make forum debates a lot easier :smallbiggrin:

Darth Stabber
2009-02-12, 11:03 AM
The biggest difference between 4e and 3.5 is mechanical differentiation.

In 4e every class's mechanics are Identical, A Fighter's base mechanic is @will, encounter, daily utility, Which is the same as wizard, warlock, ranger, rogue, and any other class that ever gets printed will use that same mechanic for their special abilities, though the effects of the abilities themselves will vary. Even though a rogue and a warlock are very different in flavor, they still follow the same formula for gaining power and using power, only the effects of powers differ.

Where as in 3.5 Mechanics serve to further differentiate the disparate power sources in classes that the fluff lays out. For one of the best examples of this look @ the difference between Wizard and Sorcerer: Wizards learn their magic through study concentration and effort, sorcerers just do it. Mechanically wizards sit down and must plan out what spells they are going to cast that day, but they can any spell that they can get their grubby little mits on, Sorcerers only know a few spell that they learned naturally, but when they need to cast a spell they just pick one the know on the fly. They both cast spells from the same list, But the Wizard's study and preparation comes through in the mechanics (Prepared spells from a book that can be added to whenever a new spell comes in to their grasp), Differentiated from the Sorcerer's naturally developed powers that they just know, and just do. Compare a Psion and a Wizard. Very different mechanics. Warlock very different from the rest of the arcanists. Incarnum classes, Fairly big departure from the other magic using classes, both mechanically and flavorfully. ToM a book with 3 classes of Magic user, all very different flavorfully mechanically each other, and anything else printed. If you put an incarnate or a truenamer into 4e, they will boil down to same formula as every one else and lose everything that made them different from everyone else (Magic outside of the vancian system).

So In 3.5 mechanical support for class fluff was rated more important than simplicity (and in several cases balance), where as 4e makes the opposite decision which is neither wrong nor right, just different. Honestly if I had never played 3.5 I would like 4e, but since I like a certain lvl of complexity and have spent alot of time gaining some semblance of rules mastery, I can just save myself some money on books and keep playing what I'm playing. If you want the simpler, balance focused system, you have 4e. (and before anyone says i'm flaming 4e and calling it "simple", keep in mind that it is simpler to master the rules, tactically it is just as deep (or deeper given that you there are no save or dies, you actually have to have a good tactical gameplan).

No Flavorwise, 4e is terrible, It's like they mixed some eberon, some greyhawk and a few other settings, with a fair amount of bleach, to produce a bland universe of crap. Seriously, they didn't alter the fluff that much on the switch from 2 to 3, why do they flip off all the people who fell in love with the original settings. 4e is dead to me. Dead i tell you. Just not for reason of mechanics.

Tehnar
2009-02-12, 11:29 AM
I think Kurald made very valid points. I'll add my thoughts on a few subjects:

1) Combats take about the same amount of time. The difference is a typical combat in 4E lasts about 10 rounds, while a typical combat in 3.5 lasts about 5. Ill offer the explanation in the next point.

2) In 4e combat gets predictable, fast. You can tell how the fight will end within one round of combat (outside of unexpected reinforcements arriving for either side). The rounds play out quicker because you don't have much choice what powers to use. After using your encounter powers, you have your at wills left, which are nothing more then basic attacks with a tiny effect added to them, or targeting a different defence. Daily powers are usually hoarded for very tough or boss encounters. Players quickly develop the strategy to use these well, and they go down fast.

3) Minions are a failed concept (Minions are monster conceived with the purpose of posing a threat yet being easy to kill, however they gave them only 1 hp), because once players identify that there are minions in the encounter, their hearts leap with joy knowing that the encounter is easier now. They are extremely easy to kill, dying at so much as a glance from anyone, while posing little to no threat to anyone. Some players actually use them to their advantage to trigger certain abilities that key of killing or hitting a monster.

4) Except for a certain few, rituals are useless. There is no real benefit in learning or using them.



The above statements are my personal opinion based on my playing 4th E, as a fighter, from levels 1 to 8 (currently). These are just the misgivings I have about the system, which my group has solved with houserules or by ignoring them. I like playing 4th E, and I like playing 3.5 even more. Thankfully I can play both.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 11:37 AM
Without wishing to be a fanboy...


3E allows you to play the whole spectrum from "such a wimp that you can die from any sword hit", up to "massively overpowered epic archmage". Granted, neither of those two extremes are balanced, and of course neither exists in 4E.

In 4e, you can play a level 30 epic archmage, and you can play a level 1 minion, and if you really want you can play both in the same party. I'll grant you that this isn't the same power range as 3.5, but it's certainly sufficient to have an unbalanced party if a group wants that.


The lack of rules for cheffing mean that you're likely to either get a debate on how to make a check for this, or to have the DM ask you to "make a wisdom check" (or whichever attribute) at which point you are unexpectedly upstaged by the party cleric.

Both those options are terrible DMing, and could happen in both 3.5 and 4e. Clearly if it's a challenge for the trained chef, it's an auto-fail for the cleric.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 11:53 AM
In 4e, you can play a level 30 epic archmage,
No, you can play something that has the labels "epic" and "archmage", but these are defined very differently than they would be in fantasy literature, or indeed, earlier editions. For an obvious example, check whether the "epic archmage" can easily affect something 50 meters away from him.

4E supports only the level range of 6-12 or thereabouts in 3E, the so-called "sweet spot". This is a design feature, as pointed out in the developer blogs, because it is the level range where "3E works best". However, people who disagree with the opinion that "3E works best in that range" are looking for a game that 4E doesn't support.


and you can play a level 1 minion
Not without houseruling you can't.



Both those options are terrible DMing, and could happen in both 3.5 and 4e.
Yes, both are terrible DMing, but the second option is essentially what the DMG suggests. Note that this wouldn't happen in 3E because it has the profession skill.

Hal
2009-02-12, 12:20 PM
At any rate, there is a wide range of playstyles that 4E (or indeed, whichever system you care to name) simply doesn't work with. This is never obvious to people who simply don't like those playstyles, but it does mean that proclaiming any system as Objectively Best is naught but marketing hype. In the end, everybody should just switch to Fifth Edition ASAP, it'd make forum debates a lot easier :smallbiggrin:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Those are not objective reasons why 4e is "teh bestest evar." Those are the reasons why I liked switching to 4e. And as I said at the end of my post, if a person tries it and doesn't like it, let them stick with the system they enjoy. Play the game you find most fun.

Except those people playing FATAL. They are just wrong.

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 12:35 PM
Kurald - I essentially agree with you with respect to the greater power range in 3.5. I was talking about imbalance, but it seems I missed your point.


The second option is essentially what the DMG suggests.

Not as I read it:


Using character backgrounds ... Invent situations where their backgrounds are useful. Let the character who was raised by a blacksmith charm some important information out of the baroness's blacksmith - or notice an important fact about how a metal lock was forged. Give the characters important information they know because of their past history, such as the location of a particular shrine or magic location that appears in the lore of their original homeland.

The point is that these are things that you give to the blacksmith's daughter, because she is the blacksmith's daughter, and you don't give them to everyone else. So, I would tend to have the chef auto-succeed, or the cleric auto-fail, or both. You might read this advice differently.


Note that this wouldn't happen in 3E because it has the profession skill.

If someone used to be a trained chef before they started adventuring, they have, at most, four ranks in profession (chef), and they may or may not have a decent wisdom score. You could easily have a situation where the cleric ends up outshining the ex-chef, if you have a terrible DM. Fortunately, a good DM in 3.5 is going to say that cooking a gourmet dinner to impress the king is a trained-only use of the profession (chef) skill, and the cleric can pray for the chef's success if he wants.

lsfreak
2009-02-12, 12:52 PM
Again with the WoW connection. Back that up or you're just trolling. :smallannoyed:

--clip--

One thing that I know is true about 4E: Pick a race. Pick a class. Pick a weapon you are proficient with, or two. Pick some powers at random. Pick some feats you qualify for at random. You now have yourself a character that can pull his weight. Sure, he's most likely not the best he can be, but he gets the job done. :smallamused:

Now pick that same race and class, and put a bit of thought into the rest of the process. You now have a very viable very effective, and most likely very unique character. There is no best race for a class. Eladrin fighters are as good as any other race. I know! I've played one! Intelligence boost means you can multi-class to wizard a bit and get some nice control abilities. Dexterity helps you qualify for heavy sword feats down the line. (very important!) Teleporting 5 squares can get you past those monsters and in front of people you need to protect, or a billion different utility purposes. Teleport across gaps! up walls! through jail bars! and that's just some of the more common ones. And then take Eladrin Weapon Training. +2 damage and proficiency in all spears and longswords. You have longswords, sure, but all spears includes exotic ones, which is great for making a spear-fighter!

As someone who's barely looked at 4e but played WoW for 5 years, I believe you answered your own question. WoW is a game where you can pick a random class with a random race and a random talent tree and do decently with a bit of practice. Looking at some of the best guilds in the world and I see people doing this, getting by on teamwork and the fact that having a basic understand of your role means you can fulfill 80-90% of what anyone else can.

3.5 doesn't even have that option. Pick classes, feats, and spells at random and you not only can't pull your weight but can instead force the group and DM to compensate (and some of us don't mind that, either). For some people the requisite knowledge you need to pull off a good character is a bad thing, but for some of us that's part of what we like. And so, especially for those of us raised on 3.0/3.5, the simplicity, the merging of different skills, the comparatively tiny spell lists, and so on seems very WoW-ish.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-12, 12:54 PM
If someone used to be a trained chef before they started adventuring, they have, at most, four ranks in profession (chef), and they may or may not have a decent wisdom score. You could easily have a situation where the cleric ends up outshining the ex-chef, if you have a terrible DM. Fortunately, a good DM in 3.5 is going to say that cooking a gourmet dinner to impress the king is a trained-only use of the profession (chef) skill, and the cleric can pray for the chef's success if he wants.I've had situations here someone made "the best souffle ever, the mere scent of which causes the nobles attending the party to promise to go to war in your name if you would but cook again". Natural 20 with about +30 in modifiers. That doesn't happen if you 'just roleplay the skill'.

Asbestos
2009-02-12, 01:11 PM
Myself, I'm not a fan of Soup and Saucerery type games.

kamikasei
2009-02-12, 01:42 PM
The phase space of all possible games is not a line with 3.5e D&D at one end and WoW at the other. I would be interested in seeing an actually fairly objective overview, perhaps from an experienced designer or well-traveled player, of what changes from 3.5e to 4e moved it in the direction of which other games or game elements. This business of declaring 4e "WoW on paper" for reasons as thin as lsfreak's "it's easier to make a decent character" is rather grating.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying lsfreak's incorrect, as it would be pretty hard for him to be wrong about why he holds his opinion (well, actually it would be pretty easy, but rude and pointless to delve in to it in a discussion). What I'm saying is that perhaps if he had a wider base of experience in different games and systems (I get the impression from his post that 3.5e and WoW make up the bulk of his gaming experience - apologies if that's unwarranted) he might see 4e less as "WoW-like" and more as "different in a number of ways, some of which move it more towards WoW, some of which move it a little towards WoW but much more towards WoD, some of which move it away from WoW and towards GURPS, some of which are innovations", etc. (Actual system names used for no particular reason and with no experience of the systems involved.)

Dairun Cates
2009-02-12, 01:59 PM
The phase space of all possible games is not a line with 3.5e D&D at one end and WoW at the other. I would be interested in seeing an actually fairly objective overview, perhaps from an experienced designer or well-traveled player, of what changes from 3.5e to 4e moved it in the direction of which other games or game elements. This business of declaring 4e "WoW on paper" for reasons as thin as lsfreak's "it's easier to make a decent character" is rather grating.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying lsfreak's incorrect, as it would be pretty hard for him to be wrong about why he holds his opinion (well, actually it would be pretty easy, but rude and pointless to delve in to it in a discussion). What I'm saying is that perhaps if he had a wider base of experience in different games and systems (I get the impression from his post that 3.5e and WoW make up the bulk of his gaming experience - apologies if that's unwarranted) he might see 4e less as "WoW-like" and more as "different in a number of ways, some of which move it more towards WoW, some of which move it a little towards WoW but much more towards WoD, some of which move it away from WoW and towards GURPS, some of which are innovations", etc. (Actual system names used for no particular reason and with no experience of the systems involved.)

You know. I'd offer my own opinion on it as some one that has read the main sourcebooks for about 30 different systems (Half-price books is your friend), but amusingly enough, I haven't gotten to go through 4e yet.

On top of that, I have two groups I run with. One of them runs something new every campaign, but D&D isn't one of them. The second one runs D&D but a couple of members in that group have made every argument against the system without actually reading through it.

Eh. Maybe I'll borrow my roommates copy and finally get around to thumbing through it.

Oh, and instead of ending the WoW comparisons to 4e, can't we just start making comparisons of 3.5e to Everquest? :smallwink:

hamishspence
2009-02-12, 02:49 PM
3.0 to Diablo 2: Whirlwinding characters, expecially Barbarians :smallbiggrin:

Lappy9000
2009-02-12, 03:15 PM
Just to prove it's all an apples-or-oranges debate, all arguments (from either side) are easy to counter.

1) Simplicity. Yes, you can build a character in 4E without having to buy 15 different books, because there aren't that many books yet. In a few years, expect any character design thread in this forum to reference the Adventurers Vault 2 for their items, Heroic Heroes' Heroism for an alternative class build, and Real Ultimate Power for a feat or two.

3) Character freedom. Yes, in 4E you can claim to be a good chef without needing rules to back it up. The problem is that the moment this actually comes up in play (and if you have a DM who cares about your character background, it will) it turns out that according to the rules, you actually aren't. The lack of rules for cheffing mean that you're likely to either get a debate on how to make a check for this, or to have the DM ask you to "make a wisdom check" (or whichever attribute) at which point you are unexpectedly upstaged by the party cleric.
I respectfully disagree, particularly with option #1. #3 doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything :smallconfused:

My personal experience with 4e wasn't quite as I had expected it. When I first saw the book, I had a distinctly different reaction than from the 3.5 book. The awesome designs on the 3.5 book made it look like you were delving into an ancient tome, bound in leather and studded with precious gems. The pages themselves looked like weathered, stained paper full of sketches (likely by some archivist or mighty wizard). The 4e book, well, To be quite frank, looked like a strategy guide for World of Warcraft. It really took out a lot of my enthuiasm away. No, I'm not "trolling" by making an observation. I honestly think it does look like a World of Warcraft strategy guide, which for me, is a killjoy.

Well, when writing up a character, I immediately turned to the Feats section (my favorite class from 3.5 being the fighter). My response was, "Why do all the feats suck?" The DM told me that feats weren't as integral to 4e, which is cool, I suppose. One thing about 4e, I really really hate the flavor text. The fighter section disappointed me greatly; I don't like playing "Great Weapon" or "Guardian" fighters as I find them to be cliche. I don't like heavily armored tanks; I enjoy playing a tactical-unarmed brawler, rapier-wielding duelist, an exotic warrior wielding alien weaponry, or strong-armed archer (all of which can be done with core 3.5, which is why I disagree with Kurald Galain). Yes, I know that these can be done, but they are unsupported by the fighter's powers, which makes it a terrible idea optimally, and this is coming from someone who almost never optimizes.

I ended up playing a wizard, but found the lack of control spells and the feeling of spellcasting in general to be a bit of a bummer (the spells are just encounter powers and some rituals, making them look just like everything else). For personal reasons, I also don't like the clumping of skills, healing, the races (Eladrin :smallyuk:), paragon classes, and the distinct lack of 10-foot poles. However, most of these are just personal preference and many can be changed by tweaking the fluff a little.

Now, for the good: dragonborn are awesome, spell components feel more essential, balance between classes is quite a bit better.

Overall, 4e is not my thing; I just don't like the "feel" of it. I suggest you try it for yourself, and if not, 3.5 is still going strong in the homebrew section :smallwink:

Hatu
2009-02-12, 03:17 PM
Oh, and instead of ending the WoW comparisons to 4e, can't we just start making comparisons of 3.5e to Everquest? :smallwink:

Nah, EQ set too many of the genre standards that WoW adopted. You'd need to compare 3.5 to Ultima Online.

More on topic, I think the value of adjusting to 4e depends on what you want from the system. 4e is a very streamlined system that puts play balance, ease of use, and tactical positioning as its top design goals. If that's what you want, it's definitely worth adjusting. If that's the sort of thing you loathe, do NOT adjust under any circumstances. If you fall somewhere between those extremes, well, you'll have to decide for yourself.

From what I've seen, 4e is much easier on the DM: monsters snap together into reasonably balanced encounters like Duplo blocks, and you'll almost never have your players accidentally wind up in a curb-stomp/TPK scenario. I know my DM loves the switch. Moreover the monsters have a very custom crafted feel to them. They all feel different from each other in interesting ways. (Although the downside of this is that fighting the same set of monsters too many times in a row can get somewhat repetitive.)

As a player, however, I find the system extraordinarily constraining. My abilities are fairly explicit and have little room for variation, creativity or synergy. I've played many an RPG before, but I've never felt as straightjacketed as I have in 4e. I go into every fight with the a bundle of powers and abilities, and suddenly I feel like it's my job to make each fight as the same as possible in order to get the most out of those tricks. As much as the monsters all feel different, as much as 4e emphasizes the use of different terrain and the like, somehow all of those features utterly fail to gel when it comes time for me to decide what I actually want to do.

It probably doesn't help that I'm playing a quasi de-optimized two-handed weapon Fighter: my various powers almost always prove less effective than just using Reaping Strike again and again. But there's something about the system that makes me focus on the way all my powers are the same, rather than on the things that make them different and interesting. And not just my powers: everything in the game feels the same to me.

Now, there are some things I like about 4e and I'm curious to see if the experience changes if and when we get to the Paragon tier. But for now I'd have to say the 4e is not for me. YMMV.

-H

Olo Demonsbane
2009-02-12, 03:23 PM
I like playing 4e, but I like 3.5 better.

I like 3.5 because it has many options:

Now don't say that this is just because 4e doesn't have many sources, but because you can't make any different kind of character from them, like you can in 3.5. I know you can choose different options based on what you want to do, but it will end up being max 2 different playstlyes for each class.

Also in 4e, there are no skill mechanics (Craft, Proffession...). I know you are supposed to have them based on your background, but as a player/DM, it is nice to be able to say: "Roll a proffession (cook) check to see how good it is.

Althogether though, 4e is fun, though I still prefer 3.5.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 03:57 PM
The fighter section disappointed me greatly; I don't like playing "Great Weapon" or "Guardian" fighters as I find them to be cliche. I don't like heavily armored tanks; I enjoy playing a tactical-unarmed brawler, rapier-wielding duelist, an exotic warrior wielding alien weaponry, or strong-armed archer (all of which can be done with core 3.5, which is why I disagree with Kurald Galain). Yes, I know that these can be done, but they are unsupported by the fighter's powers, which makes it a terrible idea optimally, and this is coming from someone who almost never optimizes.

Tactical Brawler - not supported, because orcs with swords aren't too worried about the dude with meaty hands. Monk will be out in time, if you really want to punch folks out. Tavern Brawlers (daggers and light armor) are well proxied by STR Rogues through.

Rapier Duelist - Rogue. They make really, really good swashbucklers... better than any in 3E, IMHO

Exotic Warrior - Fighter; pick up Adventurer's Vault for Double Swords and such.

Archer - Bow Ranger

The trick is not to be hung up on labels. You can make all of these character types; they're just not all "fighters."

lsfreak
2009-02-12, 04:01 PM
The phase space of all possible games is not a line with 3.5e D&D at one end and WoW at the other. I would be interested in seeing an actually fairly objective overview, perhaps from an experienced designer or well-traveled player, of what changes from 3.5e to 4e moved it in the direction of which other games or game elements. This business of declaring 4e "WoW on paper" for reasons as thin as lsfreak's "it's easier to make a decent character" is rather grating.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying lsfreak's incorrect, as it would be pretty hard for him to be wrong about why he holds his opinion (well, actually it would be pretty easy, but rude and pointless to delve in to it in a discussion). What I'm saying is that perhaps if he had a wider base of experience in different games and systems (I get the impression from his post that 3.5e and WoW make up the bulk of his gaming experience - apologies if that's unwarranted) he might see 4e less as "WoW-like" and more as "different in a number of ways, some of which move it more towards WoW, some of which move it a little towards WoW but much more towards WoD, some of which move it away from WoW and towards GURPS, some of which are innovations", etc. (Actual system names used for no particular reason and with no experience of the systems involved.)

I don't think I made myself entirely clear, sorry about that. I wasn't saying that 4e is like WoW, or that they're even really comparable, or that I myself think of them in such terms. It's simply easy to say that because of a few things that are similar, and many people latch onto that because it's either an easy insult or something that the person is familiar with. It's an easy way to say the game has been dumbed downed without actually taking the time to articulate your meaning, and oftentimes without even thinking. How many people have actually played both enough to try and make a comparison?

(I was also trying to explain how the complexity of 3.5 appeals to some of us, compared to what I've seen of 4e. When I still played, I took WoW pretty seriously too, spending a lot of time learning everything I could about every class and the math behind them. Most people don't, and perhaps see WoW as something for those who don't have the time and patience for something like D&D; WoW is like Halo in that every idiot plays it.)

Personally, I don't think comparing a pen-and-paper to a computer game, especially an MMO, is useful. There's simply too many differences between the two.

Lappy9000
2009-02-12, 04:15 PM
Tactical Brawler - not supported, because orcs with swords aren't too worried about the dude with meaty hands. Monk will be out in time, if you really want to punch folks out. Tavern Brawlers (daggers and light armor) are well proxied by STR Rogues through.

Rapier Duelist - Rogue. They make really, really good swashbucklers... better than any in 3E, IMHO

Exotic Warrior - Fighter; pick up Adventurer's Vault for Double Swords and such.

Archer - Bow RangerFacing the challenge of fighting an orc with a sword while relying on nothing but bare hands and tactical feats is half the fun :smallwink:

No, it wasn't optimized. But it was effective enough and great fun to play.


The trick is not to be hung up on labels. You can make all of these character types; they're just not all "fighters."That kind of ruins the point of playing classes (something some folks like; but I like D&D classes). If that was the logic I used, I'd just pick out four 3.5 wizards and give them 4 different sets of spell/feat combinations that did the job of each of the other classes. The point is, I can't do it as a fighter effectively in 4e. If I didn't care about that, I'd be using generic classes.

Nightson
2009-02-12, 04:43 PM
As for being like wow, it is pretty easy to see: there is an actual aggro like mechanic, fighters and paladins have it I believe (they take damage if they don't attack the aforementioned characters)

There is no aggro in 4th edition. Defenders cannot force creatures to attack them.


All classes get 1-2, 3? haven't looked much further than level 10, powers per level

As opposed to not gaining stuff as you level up?


All classes are made to be even, with 3 roles, healer, tank, and dps.


WoW has those three roles, 4th edition has four roles and 3rd edition had roles too, just unstated ones.


it seems like we have mana and health bars.

4e has HP like all the other editions and you don't have a mana bar.

Sebastian
2009-02-12, 05:31 PM
If what you want from D&D is just, how someone put it, "blowing up orcs" then it is probably worth it, I even going to say that is the best version of D&D for it.

If you want something more, or even different, IMHO, it is not worth the effort.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-12, 06:54 PM
That kind of ruins the point of playing classes (something some folks like; but I like D&D classes). If that was the logic I used, I'd just pick out four 3.5 wizards and give them 4 different sets of spell/feat combinations that did the job of each of the other classes. The point is, I can't do it as a fighter effectively in 4e. If I didn't care about that, I'd be using generic classes.

Then... why don't you just call yourself a "fighter" when in fact your class is Ranger or Rogue? Or just ignore the "class" name and think of it as a skill tree or something?

Is it really just that you wanted someone of class Fighter who could be a jaunty duelist? :smallconfused:

And what is a "generic class?"

KKL
2009-02-12, 07:03 PM
If that was the logic I used, I'd just pick out four 3.5 wizards and give them 4 different sets of spell/feat combinations that did the job of each of the other classes. The point is, I can't do it as a fighter effectively in 4e. If I didn't care about that, I'd be using generic classes.

That's because Wizards were dripping with enough options TO make four different types of wizards using spells alone. And if you went with it, you could've made an entire six person party with a Wizard and have all the roles covered.

And yes, you can do that with Fighters in 4e. Grab a bit of think. You have Sword and Board Fighters, The Guy With The Big Weapon, The Adrenaline Junkie That Can't Be Put Down (in melee), Douchebag with a Spear, The Bow Fighter Build (Which technically might not count since it's just a build), and The Two Weapon Fighter.

There, all off the top of my head, no repeating schticks (to a degree).

MartinHarper
2009-02-12, 07:24 PM
Tactical Brawler - not supported, because orcs with swords aren't too worried about the dude with meaty hands. Monk will be out in time, if you really want to punch folks out.

If you can convince your DM to follow the advice of Wizards in this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a), and cut you a bit of slack, you don't need to wait for the monk class.

1. Choose the two-blade fighter build ("tempest fighter"? I forget the names)
2. Give up your martial weapon proficiencies. Grant your unarmed strike a +3 proficiency bonus, increase the damage to 1d8, and add the off-hand property.

Oberoni fans: this is a suggestion, not a logical argument, and therefore is not a fallacy


That kind of ruins the point of playing classes

What do you think is the point of playing classes? How does using the Ranger class as the chassis for an archer character concept ruin that point?

FoE
2009-02-12, 07:30 PM
Then... why don't you just call yourself a "fighter" when in fact your class is Ranger or Rogue? Or just ignore the "class" name and think of it as a skill tree or something?

No. All facets of life must be defined by class. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 07:44 PM
I enjoy playing a tactical-unarmed brawler, rapier-wielding duelist, an exotic warrior wielding alien weaponry, or strong-armed archer (all of which can be done with core 3.5, which is why I disagree with Kurald Galain).
Wait, how is that disagreeing with me?

My point isn't that in 3E you can't make characters out of one book (I'm well aware that you can, but if you ask on a message board you'll probably get suggestions out of many books). My point is that the only reason why you don't get suggestions out of many books for a 4E character, is that few books have been printed yet.

(oh, and spell components in 4E are not "more essential" because many casters will never use any at all)



There is no aggro in 4th edition. Defenders cannot force creatures to attack them.
Except that beginning DMs are suggested that monsters should be used to attack the guy who marked them. Incidentally, this is a bad suggestion, because frequently it is a good monster tactic to bypass the defender and whale on the casters.


4e has HP like all the other editions and you don't have a mana bar.
No, but monster attacks recharging over time does feel like one.



Then... why don't you just call yourself a "fighter" when in fact your class is Ranger or Rogue? Or just ignore the "class" name and think of it as a skill tree or something?
Because it isn't a skill tree. If you're a rogue, you're mandatorily good at stealth and thievery; you get less healing surges, have to make a significant investment to be able to wear chain mail, and are nerfing yourself while you're not wielding a dagger.

The problem is that class abilities comes in discrete packages, so if none of the packages matches your character concept (which is easy enough because there aren't that many packages), then your character isn't feasible.

Mando Knight
2009-02-12, 08:10 PM
No, but monster attacks recharging over time does feel like one.

Wait... a monster power-recharging ability makes it seem like the PCs have a mana bar? :smallconfused:

And on the character concepts fitting/not fitting bit, I randomly thought of a "Hammertime" Rogue, and it works. :smalltongue: (So long as the DM allows Martial Power, that is...)

Jerthanis
2009-02-12, 08:12 PM
I've played a good bit of 4e now and I can say this: I like everything about it except the combat.

I love everything about combat player-side. From hit point economies to daily usage or saving, teamwork and tactics, party roles and what-have-you. I hate every published monster. That's an exaggeration, but Monsters' roles are actually really poorly established. Some of the best monster controllers I've seen have been artilleries, and soldiers are Just Better than brutes. Also, complete lack of flavor descriptions make every battle with something that has an exotic ability just yank you right out of immersion like someone shot a gun on an airplane. Ranged 5: Hit: 2d10 necrotic and the target is immobilized? Is it sticky gum sticking you to the floor? Is it a numbing pain in your legs? Is it a giant ethereal spike that nails you to the floor? It can be really awesome when a DM evokes an awesome spectacle of flavor that's all his own, but it'd be nice if the DM had even some basic flavor put together for if he just flipped to a level appropriate monster to wing a session.

The game is awesome though, for a sense of gritty desperation that is brought to every battle. Hit points drop like they got sucked out of a depressurizing airplane, and you've got some easy healing available... but once that's gone you start sweating bullets, because the battle's probably not yet half over. Also: Where in 3.5 eldrich monsters like Beholders were one cavalry charge away from deadsville, in 4e they're untouchable until high level, and even one would pretty much lay waste to a kingdom. The back of 4e's Player's handbook is accurate, The World Needs Heroes. 4E is a more gritty, down to earth game where even wizards abide by the "Donkey rule" (If something's cheaper to do with magic than with a donkey, it will always be done by magic instead.), and the plot can't be radically changed in 6 seconds, where each battle is a struggle, and where monsters are dangerous and heroes are special. That's 4th edition to me.

It's not flawless, and I can see preferring any individual game over it... but I would say too that I infinitely prefer 4e to 3.5, and don't trust anyone who says it's worse for roleplaying, because the GROUP supplies roleplaying, not the rulebook. And the 4e book devotes a good chunk of the first two chapters to the means of making a unique character and personality, so...

Kaihaku
2009-02-12, 08:15 PM
1) Simplicity. Yes, you can build a character in 4E without having to buy 15 different books, because there aren't that many books yet. In a few years, expect any character design thread in this forum to reference the Adventurers Vault 2 for their items, Heroic Heroes' Heroism for an alternative class build, and Real Ultimate Power for a feat or two.

I disagree solely because in a few years there will be a further division between those who have bought the various books and pieced them together, and Insiders who get everything in the books plus bonus material.


2) Balance. Yes, everybody agrees that 4E is more balanced. However, surprisingly many players don't really care about balance - some of them because they want to play a character and don't care about the rules, others because they want to twink out. 3E allows you to play the whole spectrum from "such a wimp that you can die from any sword hit", up to "massively overpowerd epic archmage". Granted, neither of those two extremes are balanced, and of course neither exists in 4E. Turns out that some people are really fond of the extremes anyway!

Agreed. 3.5 definitely could have used more balance. There are few who disagree with that, but many feel that 4e went too far.

It's now difficult to suck and, maybe this is weird, I enjoyed fielding flawed characters; like a favored soul with a negative wisdom modifier or a weak sickly rogue who couldn't take even one hit.


3) Character freedom. Yes, in 4E you can claim to be a good chef without needing rules to back it up. The problem is that the moment this actually comes up in play (and if you have a DM who cares about your character background, it will) it turns out that according to the rules, you actually aren't. The lack of rules for cheffing mean that you're likely to either get a debate on how to make a check for this, or to have the DM ask you to "make a wisdom check" (or whichever attribute) at which point you are unexpectedly upstaged by the party cleric.

Excellent. If I wanted to waste a skill point per level in 3.5 to make myself the best chef ever, it meant something when the Dungeon Master or other Players actually acknowledged it. In several of my groups we would have group performances, cook-offs, or gamble against each other. That's gone now and nothing has taken it's place, itself it's up to attributes and freeforming it.


4) Class fun. Again perhaps surprisingly, many people disagree that "casters were more fun to play in 3.5 because of their myriad options". In 3E you could play a character with few options (such as a fighter) if you were the kind of player who didn't care about having options. This also meant you might be limited in combat, but hey if you're the kind of player who doesn't care about options, that's not a big deal. Point is, in 4E you can't. Every character has the same number of options, no tradeoff allowed.

Every class is now a pumped-up sorcerer with different fluff and a different spellset. Every class has to be combat oriented now. That's great for balance but not for diversity.


How are words on paper ripping away your freedom? If you don't like your powers, or how the game says they could work, think up a new way! I let one of my player play a paladin themed to draw power from dark forces instead of good and justice, and it worked perfectly fine with the system, no worrying about spell lists and such nonsense.:smallamused:

First, that is absolutely true. Second, freeform and homebrew have no place in a decision on differences in system mechanics. With a good group of people and a few customized rules you could find that Risk makes for great roleplaying. That doesn't make the core system of Risk any more suitable in general.


It's true that tripping, disarming, and sundering are gone without homebrew, but you have so many options, that you should hardly miss them.:smallwink:

What I miss is that tripping, disarming, sundering, etc will eventually enter 4e as "spells".


Tactical Brawler - not supported, because orcs with swords aren't too worried about the dude with meaty hands. Monk will be out in time, if you really want to punch folks out. Tavern Brawlers (daggers and light armor) are well proxied by STR Rogues through.

Rapier Duelist - Rogue. They make really, really good swashbucklers... better than any in 3E, IMHO

Exotic Warrior - Fighter; pick up Adventurer's Vault for Double Swords and such.

Archer - Bow Ranger

Then how about the examples I pointed out previously?

The social-oriented changeling with no combat ability, the healer who refuses to harm other living creatures, and the sickly rogue who relies solely on subterfuge to solve problems (because his weak body can't handle fighting).


4E supports only the level range of 6-12 or thereabouts in 3E, the so-called "sweet spot". This is a design feature, as pointed out in the developer blogs, because it is the level range where "3E works best". However, people who disagree with the opinion that "3E works best in that range" are looking for a game that 4E doesn't support.

Bingo.

As I said earlier...

Yes, the 3.5 skills system was flawed. Yes, martial combat in 3.5 was flawed. Yes, the 3.5 magic system was seriously flawed. Making everyone into pumped-up sorcerers with different flavor attached "fixes" that by amputation. It's still a great game and I enjoy playing 4e, but it's not what it could have been; it's better than 3.5 but less at the same time.


Yes, both are terrible DMing, but the second option is essentially what the DMG suggests. Note that this wouldn't happen in 3E because it has the profession skill.

That was my reading as well.


The point is that these are things that you give to the blacksmith's daughter, because she is the blacksmith's daughter, and you don't give them to everyone else. So, I would tend to have the chef auto-succeed, or the cleric auto-fail, or both. You might read this advice differently.

Yes, probably a wise solution, but then it becomes a requirement for every aspect of a character's background to be previously written out or else ignored. In other words, the process is simplified for people who didn't care about their backgrounds and made more much complex for everyone else.


If someone used to be a trained chef before they started adventuring, they have, at most, four ranks in profession (chef), and they may or may not have a decent wisdom score. You could easily have a situation where the cleric ends up outshining the ex-chef, if you have a terrible DM. Fortunately, a good DM in 3.5 is going to say that cooking a gourmet dinner to impress the king is a trained-only use of the profession (chef) skill, and the cleric can pray for the chef's success if he wants.

Yes, the 3.5 skillset was flawed in that regard. Instead of fixing it, WotC axed it. In this situation the "fix" presented by 4e is even worse until the Dungeon Master takes it into their own hands to reward players who wrote five-page backgrounds that include how they use to bake bread for their entire village.


There is no aggro in 4th edition. Defenders cannot force creatures to attack them.

On your Mark?

Ahem, Divine Challenge?


Again with the WoW connection. Back that up or you're just trolling. :smallannoyed:

In my opinion, the biggest reason that 4e is compared to WoW is because of the flavor not mechanics. The book and character designs resemble WoW, mechanically while there are some similarities they aren't that great.

In fact, my two biggest problems with 4e have nothing to do with mechanics. The first is the flavor that WotC gave 4e (particularly in the PHB and Forgotten Realms) and the second is the change from OGL to GSL. If 4e was still under the OGL I'd be cooking up variants to introduce profession, craft, and perform into the system using some sort of "fluff skillset."

Jerthanis
2009-02-12, 08:29 PM
On your Mark?

Ahem, Divine Challenge?

Marks never force a character to do anything. Marks simply make it a slightly statistically bad idea in certain situations. When a Paladin divine challenges an Artillery, and the Mage in the back is at 1/5th HP, stepping back and soaking up the 6 or so damage to finish off the party Mage with a ranged attack is a good idea, so Mark won't force the monster to attack the Paladin in that case.

I prefer the Monsters making tactical decisions based on the battlefield situation.

KKL
2009-02-12, 08:36 PM
{Scrubbed}

Mando Knight
2009-02-12, 08:36 PM
The social-oriented changeling with no combat ability, the healer who refuses to harm other living creatures, and the sickly rogue who relies solely on subterfuge to solve problems (because his weak body can't handle fighting).

Like any other game, these characters won't be viable in 4E if you don't have a DM who plans around it...

#1: Doppelganger Rogue with low Dex but high Cha, and training in Diplomacy and Bluff. Gets your changeling bit, and your social savvy, with the side-effect of being pretty bad at being the analogue of a OD&D Thief. Write off training in Stealth and Thievery as a "few tricks you picked up along the way." With low DEX, you're not going to be that good at them anyway...

#2: LAZOR Cleric who refuses to use attack powers against anything but Undead, or whatever he determines is Not Alive enough for him to attack. You're really asking for Eigen Plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EigenPlot) on this one, though, and you'll just have to hold steadfast to your personal no-hurting rule. The other players may hate you for it. If it becomes bothersome, turn into a Technical Pacifist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicalPacifist) with a Thou Shalt Not Kill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThouShaltNotKill) clause (when you reduce a foe to 0 HP in 4E, you can choose to make the attack nonlethal).

#3: Rogue, high Cha, low (8 if using Point-Buy) Con. Decently high Dex if he likes to sneak, low if not. Possibly make him a sniper if the DM decides he needs to participate in combat.

Oslecamo
2009-02-12, 08:39 PM
The game is awesome though, for a sense of gritty desperation that is brought to every battle. Hit points drop like they got sucked out of a depressurizing airplane, and you've got some easy healing available... but once that's gone you start sweating bullets, because the battle's probably not yet half over. Also: Where in 3.5 eldrich monsters like Beholders were one cavalry charge away from deadsville, in 4e they're untouchable until high level, and even one would pretty much lay waste to a kingdom.

Hmm? I really don't get this one. In 3.5 a beholder isn't one cavarly charge away from being taken down. They can fly, wich make a charge of any kind quite hard on the first place, and then they can drill tunnels under earth, and finally get control of the nobles with his eldritch powers.

Whereas in 4e, the beholder can't even instant petrify the lowest kobold in the realm.

And if said beholder tried to lay waste to a realm, he would soon realize he doesn't have DR anymore, meaning the king's army takes him down by a flurry of critical hits. If anyone should be desesperate, it's the monsters, honestly. He was born as an engine of pure destruction, unable to ever create anything or build his own private realm, praying that a group of adventurers appears and ends his misery.

Just like a bunch of goblins with pointy wooden sticks can take down the strongest airship in the realm in a couple of minutes.

KKL
2009-02-12, 08:51 PM
Whereas in 4e, the beholder can't even instant petrify the lowest kobold in the realm.
The lowest Beholder can make the lowest Kobold literally burst into flames instantly unless he rolls a 1 on his attack roll.


And if said beholder tried to lay waste to a realm, he would soon realize he doesn't have DR anymore, meaning the king's army takes him down by a flurry of critical hits.
If the natural 20 doens't bypass the defense of the target, it's only a normal attack. Also, any poor sap that's within 25 feet of the beholder is subject to an attack.
{Scrubbed}

TheEmerged
2009-02-12, 08:57 PM
Well, we've been enjoying it. Of course I'm from the school of thought that I don't need anybody's permission to run my game, so I actually *like* the removal of almost all non-encounter utility from the character creation system. It means I'm free to give characters advantages & disadvantages based on their background without having to worry about the points.

Case in point, the laser cleric in our party -- Drunk, the dwarven paladin. He's an *expert* in beers, taverns, that sort of thing. Under 3.x, he had to pay points to gain an advantage in what is usually a flavor moment. Now I can simply say he's considered 'trained' for actions involving knowledge of beers, taverns, and so forth.

Your character is a farmboy? He no longer needs to put points into Profession: Farmboy to prove it (or benefit from it). This works well for me, although I can see where it might be more work for some DM's. For me though, it's like they learned the right lesson from the 'looseness' of systems like Paranoia.

RE: Sameness of Encounters argument. There's a degree of validity to this. We've toyed with some house rules (like allowing all characters to 'swap' an encounter power once per day) but so far nothing comes up quite right. In an upcoming encounter I'm going to test out the mechanic of running a fight as a skill challenge to see what happens :)

RE: Beholder vs Kobolds. I think you missed the Eyes of the Beholder power in the Beholder listing (MM pg 32). Yes, everyone has more HP now and insta-gibs are rarer -- I happen to like it that way.

Mando Knight
2009-02-12, 09:03 PM
And if said beholder tried to lay waste to a realm, he would soon realize he doesn't have DR anymore, meaning the king's army takes him down by a flurry of critical hits. If anyone should be desesperate, it's the monsters, honestly. He was born as an engine of pure destruction, unable to ever create anything or build his own private realm, praying that a group of adventurers appears and ends his misery.

Beholder Eyes of Flame are scary. At-will minor action to cause Vulnerable 10 Fire without an attack roll, then follow up with a Standard Action to unleash a fire ray on the same target to incinerate him?

Eye Tyrants are worse, capable of disabling half a party in one turn before beginning to wipe them out systematically. If it doesn't decide to just Disintegrate and Death Rays them instead. And it can Eye Ray Frenzy about every six rounds when knocked down to half health...

KKL
2009-02-12, 09:11 PM
And it can Eye Ray Frenzy about every six rounds when knocked down to half health...

Six rounds is an awful long time.

Mando Knight
2009-02-12, 09:22 PM
Six rounds is an awful long time.

Yeah... but when careful selection of the beams renders the enemy incapable of fighting, you've got nothing but time on your hands...

Lappy9000
2009-02-12, 09:28 PM
Then... why don't you just call yourself a "fighter" when in fact your class is Ranger or Rogue? Or just ignore the "class" name and think of it as a skill tree or something? Already said I don't wanna ignore the distinct class features that make the pre-existing classes wholly unique. Otherwise I'd be using the below (or some 4e version, I suppose, which I could prolly do if they had a dang SRD):


And what is a "generic class?"It's basically a variant rule where the class lines are made even more vague. You pick expert, spellcaster, or warrior and essentially build your own class by picking a variety of class features as bonus feats (or just take them as feats for that matter). [link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm)]

Kaihaku
2009-02-12, 09:32 PM
Like any other game, these characters won't be viable in 4E if you don't have a DM who plans around it...

Not quite, mechanically 3.5 supports those roles unless a DM specifically takes efforts to railroad them away. Granted, 3.5 does a poor job of supporting them mechanically but, again, instead of fixing it WotC axed it.


#1: Doppelganger Rogue with low Dex but high Cha, and training in Diplomacy and Bluff. Gets your changeling bit, and your social savvy, with the side-effect of being pretty bad at being the analogue of a OD&D Thief. Write off training in Stealth and Thievery as a "few tricks you picked up along the way." With low DEX, you're not going to be that good at them anyway...

That's wonderful if you limit social savvy to negotiations and lying. In 3.5, I could make use of mechanics like Perform(Oration), Perform(Comedy), and Craft(Wordsmith) to influence mass groups of people. I could use Leadership to have my own group of followers running errands for me, orchestrating my larger political schemes.

Diplomacy was certainly flawed in 3.5, but 4e fixes that by limiting it. On the surface Diplomacy seems to have gotten more attention but now it's a step on a path towards the ultimate goal instead of something open-ended.


#2: LAZOR Cleric who refuses to use attack powers against anything but Undead, or whatever he determines is Not Alive enough for him to attack. You're really asking for Eigen Plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EigenPlot) on this one, though, and you'll just have to hold steadfast to your personal no-hurting rule. The other players may hate you for it. If it becomes bothersome, turn into a Technical Pacifist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicalPacifist) with a Thou Shalt Not Kill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThouShaltNotKill) clause (when you reduce a foe to 0 HP in 4E, you can choose to make the attack nonlethal).

I'm not, actually, asking for an "Eigen Plot", or links to TVTropes for that matter. Healing is a universal need. In fact, it is such a universal need that in Dungeons and Dragons it has long been the only role that a Wizard couldn't usurp via magic. The Doctor who follows the Hippocratic Oath is not a radial niche character who needs catered to, his internal conflict with violence and the wounds of world adds depth to a campaign. In fantasy, the Healer who does no harm is a common archetype. Compromising that character design to facilitate system mechanics was not necessary in 3.5. In 4e, as you point out, it is necessary not to suck because combat is more central and healing is now a universal ability.

Thanks for the warning but, actually, I've played this sort of character a few times already and generally players loved having a healer who focused on healing rather than trying to smite things. Support characters generally are popular among the people they support, especially when played well.


#3: Rogue, high Cha, low (8 if using Point-Buy) Con. Decently high Dex if he likes to sneak, low if not. Possibly make him a sniper if the DM decides he needs to participate in combat.

And at each level he gains more and more Combat Powers that are, basically, useless to him. Sure, the Dungeon Master might give him some Sniping Powers or something along those lines, which destroys the archetype. Another thing I discovered is that many players who play melee characters appreciate having diverse roles, it's nice to shine in battle when compared to the guy who poisons people at their dinner table, starts fights by whispering rumors, and forges royal seals but can barely lift a sword. It encourages teamwork in the broader sense, not just in combat. Basically, sometimes I want to be able to play a character who sucks at killing things and in 3.5 when I have played such a character in the past my teammates were not up in arms about it. Yes, I could make a Rogue with a glass body in 4e but he wouldn't have the same range of options that he had in 3.5.

Wizards were a problem in 3.5 because they had access to everything that any other character could do save for healing (if you ignore Wish and similar). A Wizard could bolster skill checks and polymorph into what not. That was a problem, 4e fixes that by making everyone a Sorcerer with a specific selection of spells.

KKL
2009-02-12, 09:32 PM
Already said I don't wanna ignore classes. Otherwise I'd be using the below (or some 4e version, I suppose, which I could prolly do if they had a dang SRD)

This isn't ignoring classes though.


4e fixes that by making everyone a Sorcerer with a specific selection of spells.

adskhbdlsgisbgnjhtoinmh

Explain why you have this obsession with calling everyone a sorceror in 4e when this is not the case.

Roland St. Jude
2009-02-12, 09:54 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Calling others "troll" or "fanboys" or any other name is not permitted. Using people's medical problems (or race, gender, or sexual orientation) as pejorative term is hate speech. We do not need to have another flame-charred thread on this topic so this is going to remain locked.