3.5-4e: Assumptions to Watch For

[Zaq]

So, for all its flaws, I love 3.5 D&D. It defines my expectations and my assumptions about what an RPG should and should not do. (This isn't to say that I want everything to be like 3.5, since it's a heavily flawed system, but I tend to think of things in 3.5 terms just out of habit.)

That said, I'm considering trying to join a 4e game soon. I haven't started reading the books yet since I'm waiting for my friend to lend them to me, so I don't know any specifics of the rules yet, but I'd like to know what kind of assumptions I can and cannot make. I know that the systems have a lot in common, but they have even more that is, if not totally different, different enough that I'm going to have to make an effort to be aware of the changes.

Basically, what facets of 3.5 stick around in 4e, and what facets of 3.5 will screw me over if I assume that they still apply? Basic mechanics, gameplay assumptions, what a level means, anything like that. What basic knowledge can I rely on, and what will turn into a pitfall if I don't watch out for it?

[oxybe]

best thing to do is forget your 3.5 assumptions and jump into 4th ed with none.

in 4th ed:
a saving throw is a duration mechanic
a class is an archetype, not a nebulous cherry pick
enemies roll against your fort/ref/will
casters aren't gods anymore and martials aren't made of fail
a cleric can heal AND fight. at the same time. in the same turn
level 1 is not a swingy game of chance
etc...

really, other then "d20+mod VS target number" and the standard archetypes of Fighters hit things, rogues stab things, clerics rain divine hell and wizards make things go boom, it's a whole new ball game.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Similarities:
-d20 resolution mechanic
-Class-based system with scaling health and abilities
-Classic blaster wizard, healbot cleric, sneaky rogue, tank fighter
-Optimized builds contain a large amount of splatbook material, though core has its fair share of OP parts
-A lot of situational modifiers you have to keep track of
-More general stuff I can't think of at the moment

Differences
-Almost everything else. I'll go over some of the major stuff.
-Generally everyone uses same streamlined at-will/encounter/daily power mechanics
-(Truer in core) most attacks do damage, incl. spells that didn't before
-Quicker but less robust combat resolution
-3.5 saves = defenses, where the attacker has to roll to defeat your reflex defense instead of you rolling a reflex save against their DC.
-You instead have one generic saving throw mechanic in 4e. "Save ends" effects in 4e generally let you save to end it every round, making most status effects last ~2 rounds (with some exceptions), as opposed to most 3.5 effects lasting caster level rounds or minutes or hours or days, etc. A joke at my table is that we'll encounter some effect that will kill you (save ends).
-Multiclassing is just taking feats that give you some minor abilities of the class and access to feats that swap your power with another class's power. Other than hybrids you remain as your base class.
-Rituals... will make you sad.

[Swordgleam]

Characters in 4e are a lot more durable, since death happens at either negative your bloodied value (bloodied = half your HP) or after three failed death saves. Plus, every character of every class can heal themself once per battle using their "second wind."

4e is all about making balance easy. Each class is more or less as good as any other, and you have to actively try to end up with an unplayable character. Classes now have "roles" so making a balanced party is as easy as picking a Leader (cleric, etc), Controller (wizard, etc), Striker (ranger, rogue, etc) and Defender (fighter, etc).

[Night Monkey]

Key truths I learnt about 4E:

There is no longer a distinction, in principle, between spells and other class' attack abilities. Wizards, for example, can use a 'Arcane Attack Power' called 'Magic Missile'. Fighters can use a 'Martial Attack Power' called 'Cleave'. Most of the time, you will use powers instead of just basic attacks. And yes, a character never runs out of power uses. The system now runs like a strange cross between ToB and the Warlock from 3.5, only better than that makes it sound.

Classes are built to rely on ability scores relevant to them. No longer do a Wizard's ray spells attack from Dexterity; it's all Intelligence. No longer does a Rogue need (as much) to take a feat in order to attack in melee with Dexterity (if they are using their special attack powers, rather than just 'I hit the dude').

Healing potions are different, and less useful.

Yes, the Fighter is now worth playing. I think it's a great class. It is also no longer the simplest to play.

The PHB2 isn't a slightly pointless splatbook, it's one of the best supplements in the game.

There aren't enough magic items available in core. Adventurer's Vault is a good investment.

Yes, that is what Teiflings are like now. Don't worry, you get used to it.

One of the most vital words in any class description follows the word "Role:". Defenders stop the nasties from getting the squishies. Leader heal and buff. Strikers do large damage to single targets. Controllers mop up crowds, or knock them out with status effects.

[DragoonWraith]

This:
-Multiclassing is just taking feats that give you some minor abilities of the class and access to feats that swap your power with another class's power. Other than hybrids you remain as your base class.And this:

One of the most vital words in any class description follows the word "Role:". Defenders stop the nasties from getting the squishies. Leader heal and buff. Strikers do large damage to single targets. Controllers mop up crowds, or knock them out with status effects.
Are the main things that I hear about 4e that really kill my interest. It seems like 4e really requires that you play classes as WotC envisioned them, without any real ability to do weird or bizarre things that take classes in entirely new and creative directions. That just bores me. I rarely play a class straight, as I would much rather create a unique character, fluff and crunch, than play a pre-defined "role".

Are these concerns valid? A friend of mine has 4e D&D, and though we have yet to get together to play, he's the only guy I know in real life who has any interest in it whatsoever, and I don't think he's likely to go to 3.5. But the descriptions above lead me to believe that I'd have more fun doing our usual stuff when we hang out, rather than try to get into a game of D&D.

[Sinfire Titan]

This:And this:

Are the main things that I hear about 4e that really kill my interest. It seems like 4e really requires that you play classes as WotC envisioned them, without any real ability to do weird or bizarre things that take classes in entirely new and creative directions. That just bores me. I rarely play a class straight, as I would much rather create a unique character, fluff and crunch, than play a pre-defined "role".

Are these concerns valid? A friend of mine has 4e D&D, and though we have yet to get together to play, he's the only guy I know in real life who has any interest in it whatsoever, and I don't think he's likely to go to 3.5. But the descriptions above lead me to believe that I'd have more fun doing our usual stuff when we hang out, rather than try to get into a game of D&D.

I share the same concerns. You can't be a Pally/Warlord/Warlock in 4E the way you could in 3.5. The 4E multiclass mechanic is a buzz-kill for anyone who actually enjoyed the 3.5 version, as you literally can't go all over the map (even the Bard, the only class in the game allowed to take more than one Multiclass, can't do everything you want it to do).

The main thing 4E killed was customization. It's now impossible to make a character who changes their abilities every 24 hours (Binders, Meldshapers), or even every hour (Martial Adepts). Once you make a choice, you're stuck with it until set points during level up, and even then you don't get to change all that much.

[Tavar]

From what I've played of 4th (which ammounts to one PBP, and to Real Life sessions), yes and no. Yeah, you could possibly play one class like another, but that's largely because I haven't found many major differences between classes. Combat pretty much turns into "I use attack x, and deal some damage, and possibly a minor effect as well".

Remember how Swift Hunter Scouts/Rangers get really boring because they only do one thing in combat? It's like that, except you aren't a skill monkey as well, so you can do less out side of combat.

[Kurald Galain]

Assumptions to watch out for,

(1) just because a character archetype maps to e.g. the Rogue class in 3E, doesn't mean it best fits the Rogue class in 4E.
(2) no, your group doesn't need one each of "striker, defender, controller, leader" to work well; in fact it doesn't matter much what combination of roles your party has.
(3) 4E is not a tactical miniatures game; it is a game involving miniatures that has some tactics. This means that you shouldn't overthink combat: spending twice as much time pondering your next combat move doesn't nearly make you twice as effective, and the other players will have more fun if you play faster.
(4) if your party is level 5, then a group of level-5 monsters is supposed to be an easy encounter. If your DM throws level-8 monsters against you, don't worry, you can take it.
(5) while bonuses to your attack rolls are good in general, conditional or one-turn-only bonuses are only rarely worth it.
(6) it's okay if not all your defenses are high; in fact for most characters it isn't feasible to invest in all of them.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I don't play 4e, but I'm just going to scan the Combat section and see if there are any minor rules there to trip you up. I hear charging is one of them.

1) You can "trade down" any action. Standard can become move, like 3.5; but move can become minor, or standard can become minor.
2) Close attacks don't provoke Opportunity Attacks. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I wanted to state it.
3) Status conditions are different. Daze gives a standard action, for example. Just read page 277.
...

Yeah, just read all the rules. That seems like a better idea.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The PHB2 isn't a slightly pointless splatbook, it's one of the best supplements in the game.PHB2 is one of my favorite 3e splatbooks. All the base classes included are, as presented, better constructed than the core base classes.

Kurald: From firsthand experience, it hurts when you don't have a leader. I agree other types are interchangeable, and the effectiveness of a controller mostly depends on the GM's playstyle, but it's always good to have healing and buffing.

[Sinfire Titan]

PHB2 is one of my favorite 3e splatbooks. All the base classes included are, as presented, better constructed than the core base classes.

Kurald: From firsthand experience, it hurts when you don't have a leader. I agree other types are interchangeable, and the effectiveness of a controller mostly depends on the GM's playstyle, but it's always good to have healing and buffing.

He meant the 4E PH2. The 3.5 PH2 is indeed regarded as a good splat to purchase.

[Kurald Galain]

Kurald: From firsthand experience, it hurts when you don't have a leader.
...yes, on second thought, it does. Let me amend my earlier note to "it doesn't matter much what combination of roles your party has as long as it has a leader".


2) Close attacks don't provoke Opportunity Attacks. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I wanted to state it.
It is pretty relevant, and easy to overlook. Note the difference between an attack that has "one target within range 5", and one that has "target one creature within close burst 5".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

He meant the 4E PH2. The 3.5 PH2 is indeed regarded as a good splat to purchase.Well then, so's the 4e PHB2.

[Fiery Diamond]

From what I've played of 4th (which ammounts to one PBP, and to Real Life sessions), yes and no. Yeah, you could possibly play one class like another, but that's largely because I haven't found many major differences between classes. Combat pretty much turns into "I use attack x, and deal some damage, and possibly a minor effect as well".

Remember how Swift Hunter Scouts/Rangers get really boring because they only do one thing in combat? It's like that, except you aren't a skill monkey as well, so you can do less out side of combat.

I've played a total of 1 4e session, and this is basically what I found. It is extremely boring to me.

[kieza]

I've played a total of 1 4e session, and this is basically what I found. It is extremely boring to me.

I'll chime in on the other side: 3.5, which I played for two years, was boring. Outside of a certain level range (around 3-7), combat came down to two to three general moves: Casters screwed over the enemy. Anyone who wasn't a caster hit things that were so screwed over that it was a foregone conclusion. And the monk (yes, someone played one, yes, it sucked) was ineffective. The outcomes weren't much better: Either you won easily, or you lost pathetically because the rogue couldn't sneak-attack constructs, the golem had damage resistance, and the wizard couldn't get around spell resistance. The system was literally built around characters that were utterly useless against a certain subset of monsters.

In 4e, everyone contributes to combat every round; casters don't dominate to the point that everyone else just becomes the cleanup crew. Warriors have options besides charge or full-attack and are actually useful when they use them. Nobody's useless, unless they intentionally overspecialize and come up against the wrong enemy. (The one time I saw this, it was a ranger that had focused on putting out lots and lots of arrows for low-to-moderate damage, who was trying to fight things with enough damage resistance that he did maybe 3-5 damage a round. And it happened once.)

[Foryn Gilnith]

I was going to chime in about how that single session was probably an inaccurate basis for overall judgment, but IMO fighting bias with bias works in this case. Observers can view both sides and think for their own.

[Altima]

Almost nothing remains the same.

Each class is divided into four roles: Controller, Leader, Striker, and Defender. Wizards are controllers, clerics are leaders, rangers are strikers, and fighters are defenders, for example.

No race has a statistical penalty--only bonuses. A tiefling has a bonus to intelligence and charisma, for example. There is no LA, either. Each race has a special ability, as well, such as the aforementioned tiefling who gains a bonus to attack and damage against bloodied foe.

For classes, each class has three sets of powers--at-will powers, which you can use infinitely in an encounter, encounter powers which are (usually) once or twice per encounter, and daily which can be used daily. Encounter powers are recharged after a rest and daily powers after, basically, sleep equivalent (at least six hours, if I recall). These powers are then further divided into attack powers and utility powers. For example, Magic Missile is an attack power. A Swordmage's ability to switch positions with a party member in range is a utlity power.

The combat system has been revamped significantly. AC remains the same, and added to its mechanics are the 3.5 saves, fortitude, reflex, and will. Many abilities will target these instead of AC. Most save ends spells will always have an effect (since many are encounter or daily powers) and will last at least one round, since you normally save at the end of a round.

Also, no matter what class you are, you generally attack once per round, no matter high level nor multiple weapons. Some powers offer multiple attacks, others--especially the warlord--allow others to attack again, and you can spend a new Action Point to allow yourself another action. Typically, action points are saved until you meat a boss, at which point a character chooses to 'go nova' which allows you to put out an enormous amount of hurt in a short amount of time (generally burning through multiple dailies as well).

Monsters are also divided into new sections as well. Minions are designed to go down in one hit (literally, they have no HP--a successful hit means they're dead), though you do have to actually hit them and auto-damaging attacks do not work. There are also Brutes which are your typical HP tank, elites, and so on.

HP is also quite sparce in 4e--somewhat cross between 2e and 3.xe. Your largest HP surge will be at first level. After that, levels give you a few HP, depending on class (though defenders, in general, have the largest). In essence, this means that even minor damage can add up over time and be quite dangerous, especially when you may have 20 hp at level 1 and crossbows do 1d8 damage.

Also, now every class has an ability to heal itself with the HP Surge system. Spending an HP surge, which you only have a finite number per day, restores a quarter of your maximum hit points. However, many potions now key off these surges, forcing you to expend one for bonus healing. Also, using a surge is a standard action (except for dwarves).

Levels also add quite a bit to your character, even moreso than in 3.5. Feats are every three levels instead of every four (though no class gets bonus feats). Also, each even numbered level adds a bonus to your AC, skill checks, and so on.

A character's level progression has been altered as well. Levels 1-10 are the 'heroic' tier, which is your standard class. Once you hit level 11, however, you enter your paragon tier, where you choose a Paragon Path dependant on either your class (and multiclass, if you so choose) or your race. At level 21, you reach the epic tier, whose classes usually aren't limited by race or class, though some are. To give you an idea, Demigod and Prince of Hell are epic paths (and all epic paths grant immortality, I believe).

Each level also allows you to retrain either a feat or skill into something else (though feat requirements must still be met--in 3.5 terminology, you couldn't train out power attack for improved power attack). So at second level, a rogue could switch from trained in bluff to perception, for example, granting a sizeable bonus to the skill.

You may wish to listen to a few podcasts to understand the differences. Personally, I recommend the Penny Arcade podcasts, as it features a player new to 4e and a player new to D&D altogether.

[Sinon]

This:And this:

Are the main things that I hear about 4e that really kill my interest. It seems like 4e really requires that you play classes as WotC envisioned them, without any real ability to do weird or bizarre things that take classes in entirely new and creative directions. On the other hand, some of those new and creative directions lead to obnoxious, game-wrecking b.s.

The fact is, while classes are designed around roles, you still have a great deal of flexibility.
1) Every role has multiple options/every power source has multiple options. You can play an arcane striker, defender, leader, or controller. Or a divine striker, defender, leader, or controller.
2) Most classes are built to a specific role, but can do well at another as well. If two players want to do the same role, or play the same class, it isn’t hard to make it work.
3) Hybrid classes are a response (debatable in their effectiveness) to the concerns about multiclassing.


I will say for 4e, every class and role is playable at all the levels I’ve played (mostly heroic and lower paragon.) For people who were tired of playing second fiddle to casters, it is nice.

As far as rules, if you know 3.5, 90% of the new rules can be grasped in an hour or so of reading. You’ll notice changes but the new mechanics will be self-evident most of the time. Occasionally you’ll be confused and consult the table of contents and skip to the later chapters for clarification. By the time you get to the adventuring/movement/combat chapters of the PHB, you’ll have it down and actually reading them will just make it certain.

[DragoonWraith]

Levels also add quite a bit to your character, even moreso than in 3.5. Feats are every three levels instead of every four (though no class gets bonus feats). Also, each even numbered level adds a bonus to your AC, skill checks, and so on.
It does not, from your description, sound to me like this is "even more so than 3.5" - 3.5 also had feats every 3 levels (not four, that was ability score boosts), and every level added bonuses to skill checks and other things. Moreover, it sounds very much like you choose a class, and then various numbers increase over time (every other level, sounds like) at rates dependent on the chosen class. To someone who adores 3.5's customizability, that sounds incredibly boring. "Oh, I leveled up, OK, +1 to Stealth and Perception, +1 to attack, +1 to AC, yay. In a couple of levels I'll get to pick a feat!", as opposed to D&D where (it sounds like) you get a lot more choices - "OK, this level I'm going to take a level of Warblade because I want some martial ability, and I'm going to put some points in Profession (Soldier) because I'd like to be looking at this Prestige Class next level", et cetera.

I can understand how some people don't like to have to worry about that (especially with 3.5's omnipresent balance issues), but personally, that would bore me incredibly.

RP might be just as good, but then RP can be good in any system. So long as we're using rules, the rules should also be interesting, and it really sounds to me like 4e is trying too hard to make people not think about the rules. I can see the appeal, but it's not for me.

Again, though, I say all of this because this is my perception based on how people describe 4e. So really, what I'm asking is, is this accurate?

[Kylarra]

It's still more customization than everybody who wasn't a caster got in 2e. :smallwink: Frankly, I think 3.x spoiled some people in regards to what they expect to be able to customize.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Frankly, I think 3.x spoiled some people in regards to what they expect to be able to customize.

Get out of the D&D ghetto and play some GURPS, people. Maybe M&M if you're overfond of d20.

[Kylarra]

Get out of the D&D ghetto and play some GURPS, people. Maybe M&M if you're overfond of d20.I wasn't going to reference point-buy systems, but yes, that is generally my next step when people complain about customization options. :smalltongue:

[Excession]

Again, though, I say all of this because this is my perception based on how people describe 4e. So really, what I'm asking is, is this accurate?

Not in my experience in play. I haven't played 3.5, but in no way did 4e feel "rules light" or anything.

The levelling process may be simpler, but at almost every level you're choosing either a feat (those are every 2 btw) or a new power of some sort. There are a lot of options for these now, especially for classes with multiple splatbooks and dungeon articles available.

At early levels play can feel like "I use my at-will again", but this can be partly due to uninteresting environments, poorly played enemies, too-easy combats, or playing an archer ranger. Some of it is also on purpose so new players can begin at 1 and not get overwhelmed as they learn. At higher levels, especially once you hit 11 and everyone gets their paragon path, you get a lot more options. Even at lower levels, try a leader or defender if you want to be worrying about more than just doing damage.

[Altima]

Again, though, I say all of this because this is my perception based on how people describe 4e. So really, what I'm asking is, is this accurate?

M'kay, you want an accurate description? Very well.

Remember AD&D? Well, it's like when that changed to Third Edition. Except there's slightly less changes.

It's really a completely different system, and you can nitpick and ask for all the changes you want all day, but until you play the game, or watch it be played, you're really not going to have an accurate view of the system. You will simply keep comparing it to 3.5 piecemeal instead of with the larger picture and context of 4e.

[Hal]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but one of the assumptions I had to break when switching to 4e was that higher damage attacks are always the best option. This might be true if you play a Striker (might be), but other characters often need to choose the non-damaging effects of their attacks carefully.

[nightwyrm]

Again, though, I say all of this because this is my perception based on how people describe 4e. So really, what I'm asking is, is this accurate?

In 4e, you get a feat every 2 levels, two stat pt increases every level which ends in 4 or 8, and also gain or replace new powers every so often. At level 11 and 21, you get to pick paragon paths and epic destinies (essentially PrCs analogs). There are no dead levels in 4e. Also, one thing I've found that adds a lot of customization is the ability to retrain every level. If you want to try an option out, take it for a level and if it doesn't work just swap it out later. Your power or feat not working out for you, see if there's something else you want to have.

As for 3.5, I find that a lot of the vaunted customization option are illusions. If you're a wiz4, taking anything other than another level of wiz is a poor choice. If you're a bard3/sorc2/ftr2, you're a crappy lv 7 character. If you haven't planned out your feats and skill pts a few levels beforehand, you may have difficulty entering a PrC.

[Tiki Snakes]

This:And this:

Are the main things that I hear about 4e that really kill my interest. It seems like 4e really requires that you play classes as WotC envisioned them, without any real ability to do weird or bizarre things that take classes in entirely new and creative directions. That just bores me. I rarely play a class straight, as I would much rather create a unique character, fluff and crunch, than play a pre-defined "role".

Are these concerns valid? A friend of mine has 4e D&D, and though we have yet to get together to play, he's the only guy I know in real life who has any interest in it whatsoever, and I don't think he's likely to go to 3.5. But the descriptions above lead me to believe that I'd have more fun doing our usual stuff when we hang out, rather than try to get into a game of D&D.

Increasingly there are tools to build some pretty out-there characters. For example, I have a character build tucked away somewhere that would allow a PC to play as two wolves. (Hybrid Druid / Ranger, with beasty hybrid talent.)
As well as a Dual-Rapier weilding Kobold Gladiator (Barbarian / Rogue hybrid) though he'd also make a pretty nifty Kobold Pirate, now I think on it.

If you really want to bolt together a frankenstein and go to town, Hybrid (from DDI or eventually PHB3) is the way to go. There's a good amount of flexibility otherwise, too, between judicious refluffing and choice of feats, powers, and multiclassing.

[DragoonWraith]

M'kay, you want an accurate description? Very well.

Remember AD&D? Well, it's like when that changed to Third Edition. Except there's slightly less changes.

It's really a completely different system, and you can nitpick and ask for all the changes you want all day, but until you play the game, or watch it be played, you're really not going to have an accurate view of the system. You will simply keep comparing it to 3.5 piecemeal instead of with the larger picture and context of 4e.
My short answer to this is:
Remember AD&D?No.

I have never played any RPG system other than D&D 3.5. So, yes, I am comparing it to 3.5, because that is all I've ever known.


Not in my experience in play. I haven't played 3.5, but in no way did 4e feel "rules light" or anything.
"Rules light" does not mean "does not allow customization" or vice versa. Just saying.


The levelling process may be simpler, but at almost every level you're choosing either a feat (those are every 2 btw) or a new power of some sort. There are a lot of options for these now, especially for classes with multiple splatbooks and dungeon articles available.
Well, that sounds promising.


At early levels play can feel like "I use my at-will again", but this can be partly due to uninteresting environments, poorly played enemies, too-easy combats, or playing an archer ranger. Some of it is also on purpose so new players can begin at 1 and not get overwhelmed as they learn. At higher levels, especially once you hit 11 and everyone gets their paragon path, you get a lot more options. Even at lower levels, try a leader or defender if you want to be worrying about more than just doing damage.
Still don't like this whole "role" thing, honestly. It still seems too much like WotC telling me that "this" is how the class is played, which leads me into thinking that's the only way to play the class because they have not built enough flexibility into the system.


In 4e, you get a feat every 2 levels, two stat pt increases every level which ends in 4 or 8, and also gain or replace new powers every so often. At level 11 and 21, you get to pick paragon paths and epic destinies (essentially PrCs analogs). There are no dead levels in 4e. Also, one thing I've found that adds a lot of customization is the ability to retrain every level. If you want to try an option out, take it for a level and if it doesn't work just swap it out later. Your power or feat not working out for you, see if there's something else you want to have.
Eh, retraining I'm not much of a fan of; I'm sort of a traditionalist in that regard. Though I agree it does make for a simpler and easier to learn system, and so that's good. I just actually like planning out a character's build.

Anyway, lack of dead levels is excellent, more feats is a good change, etc. Sounds decent. The fact that everyone PrCs at the same level is kind of weird, though.


As for 3.5, I find that a lot of the vaunted customization option are illusions. If you're a wiz4, taking anything other than another level of wiz is a poor choice. If you're a bard3/sorc2/ftr2, you're a crappy lv 7 character. If you haven't planned out your feats and skill pts a few levels beforehand, you may have difficulty entering a PrC.
This is very true in Core, especially, and certainly at lower levels you often have very few options, but especially with some of the better designed classes (casters, albeit broken, offer tons of customizability; Psionics, Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Binders, etc, all offer a lot of choice), you really do have a ton of choices.

[Tavar]

Increasingly there are tools to build some pretty out-there characters. For example, I have a character build tucked away somewhere that would allow a PC to play as two wolves. (Hybrid Druid / Ranger, with beasty hybrid talent.)
As well as a Dual-Rapier weilding Kobold Gladiator (Barbarian / Rogue hybrid) though he'd also make a pretty nifty Kobold Pirate, now I think on it.
.

So, in 3.5 terms, straight Druid or Ranger for the first one, and pretty much any class that wants to be in melee as the second.

Not seeing how those are in any way, shape, or form 'out there'.

Edit;
On the issue of feats, I find most of them slightly more interesting than weapon focus, so it's not that great that you get one every two levels.

[Kylarra]

I have never played any RPG system other than D&D 3.5. So, yes, I am comparing it to 3.5, because that is all I've ever known.Then you may have issues with any other class-based system that doesn't involve a pointbuy system.

It's really that simple. If you're dead-set against feeling constrained, then perhaps 4e isn't the game for you and no one in the world will be able to convince you to try it out.

My personal feelings are that there are less options than 3.X in terms of the customizability that you speak of, but that this is not inherently a bad thing. I don't go into Bunnies & Burrows and complain about not being able to be a Mineral-warrior Dragonborn of Bahamut Mongrelfolk.

If you go into a game of 4e expecting to be able to do all the tricks of 3.X, you will be sadly disappointed. If you go into 4e wanting to try a new game, then maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but please don't go in with false expectations.

I personally find enough variation in the classes to be able to have fun playing 4e. Other people don't, which is fine.

[Guy]

Still don't like this whole "role" thing, honestly. It still seems too much like WotC telling me that "this" is how the class is played, which leads me into thinking that's the only way to play the class because they have not built enough flexibility into the system.

Seems like you're thinking yourself far away from the point, then. Roles are not set in stone, they simply label the primary focus of the characters. Most also mention, aside the primary role, what 'secondary' role they may play. And even then, certain builds can change it. A fighter is a Defender because he has a mark that penalizes enemies for not attacking him, but they can still do massive damage, and with a polearm and certain feats, offer incredible battlefield control.



Eh, retraining I'm not much of a fan of; I'm sort of a traditionalist in that regard. Though I agree it does make for a simpler and easier to learn system, and so that's good. I just actually like planning out a character's build.

So you don't have to retrain. Retraining just offers another buffer against a character becoming ineffective in its intention, and can be utilized in fully planning out a character by taking a feat early on that is later rendered obsolete, but can be changed out for something you'd prefer.



This is very true in Core, especially, and certainly at lower levels you often have very few options, but especially with some of the better designed classes (casters, albeit broken, offer tons of customizability; Psionics, Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Binders, etc, all offer a lot of choice), you really do have a ton of choices.

The deal with all that customizability is the sheer volume of things that just don't work. With 3.5's ton of choices, most (like the mentioned "bard3/sorc2/ftr2") would be barely more effective than any one of its components alone.

What I find untrue about many of the complaints about 4e's percieved lack of customization is, simply, the percieved lack of customization. It not working in the exact manner it used to doesn't mean you "can't do it." When people say they want to play a Pally/Warlord/Warlock, it doesn't really add up to me. They don't want the flavor or powers of parts of those classes, they want to be called PALADIN 5/WARLORD 2/WARLOCK 4 and have the exact powers of the three classes at those levels.

You can still be a divine warrior who inspires his allies, while harnessing dark supernatural powers. I don't want to bore everyone with a writeup, but I'll go on if you'd demand it.

[Artanis]

Still don't like this whole "role" thing, honestly. It still seems too much like WotC telling me that "this" is how the class is played, which leads me into thinking that's the only way to play the class because they have not built enough flexibility into the system.

You vastly underestimate the amount of flexibility they've put in the system. "Role" is merely what they're primarily designed for, not what they have to do, and not how they do it. Two characters of a given class can look very, VERY different.

[AgentPaper]

For the whole "Role" issue, one thing you have to understand about 4E is that you don't play a rogue, or a wizard, or a fighter. You play your character, and then you choose a class to represent that character. Yes, each class is restrictive in what it can do, but this isn't a bad thing.

Say you want to play a wizard that fights with a big sword and uses his magic to protect his allies. This doesn't mean you start with wizard and spend half your feats on armor and weapon proficiencies, and then complain that you're stuck with melee basic attacks suck. It means you play a swordsage. It's like the whole thing with the Sapphire Guard in OotS: Just because you don't have a class that says "Samurai" on it, doesn't mean you can't be a Samurai. The same way, just because you can't be a Fighter4/Paladin3/Cleric7 doesn't mean you can't be a devout follower of Bahamut that uses his divine powers to hunt down and destroy all evil dragons.

Another thing I like about 4E, is that the character-building process is something you decide in an ongoing process, as opposed to 3.5, where you make a couple decisions when you start out, and then you're set in stone exactly what feats you take, what you spend your skill points on, and what class you take at each level. Whereas with 4E, the fact that feats aren't character-defining and that you don't have to worry about meeting the pre-requisites for a paragon path or epic destiny (what PrCs became) means that you're not forced to make all the design decisions for your character at level 1, and can instead choose based on your experiences so far and let your character evolve into something naturally.

[Kesnit]

On the issue of feats, I find most of them slightly more interesting than weapon focus, so it's not that great that you get one every two levels.

There's a lot more out there. From a quick flip through the PHB and PHB2...

A feat that ups a Rogues SA from d6 to d8.
A feat that allows gives a SORC +1 to an attack in the round after they hit with a SORC attack power.
A feat that allows divine worshiper of Bahamut to reduce a critical hit to a regular hit.
A feat that increases the size of a Dragonborn's breath.
A feat that increases the number of dailies a WIZ knows.
Feats that allow additional healing when a healing surge is used.
A feat that allows divine worshipers of Melora to grant regeneration to allies.
A feat that allows divine worshipers of Sehanine to force a status effect on an enemy.
A feat that allows Rogues to knock down enemies when they get a SA.

[AgentPaper]

There's a lot more out there. From a quick flip through the PHB and PHB2...

A feat that ups a Rogues SA from d6 to d8.
A feat that allows gives a SORC +1 to an attack in the round after they hit with a SORC attack power.
A feat that allows divine worshiper of Bahamut to reduce a critical hit to a regular hit.
A feat that increases the size of a Dragonborn's breath.
A feat that increases the number of dailies a WIZ knows.
Feats that allow additional healing when a healing surge is used.
A feat that allows divine worshipers of Melora to grant regeneration to allies.
A feat that allows divine worshipers of Sehanine to force a status effect on an enemy.
A feat that allows Rogues to knock down enemies when they get a SA.

He meant that they weren't much more interesting, not that they all just added +X damage to attacks. Which is somewhat true if you stick to just the PHB1.

[RebelRogue]

He meant that they weren't much more interesting, not that they all just added +X damage to attacks. Which is somewhat true if you stick to just the PHB1.
That is true. Feats rarely gives a character new options in 4e but rather static/situational modifiers or benefits. Options comes through powers in 4e. If you're used to 3.5 that is something to be aware of.

[Kylarra]

That is true. Feats rarely gives a character new options in 4e but rather static/situational modifiers or benefits. Options comes through powers in 4e. If you're used to 3.5 that is something to be aware of.Yeah, this is definitely a significant change.

[DragoonWraith]

Then you may have issues with any other class-based system that doesn't involve a pointbuy system.

It's really that simple. If you're dead-set against feeling constrained, then perhaps 4e isn't the game for you and no one in the world will be able to convince you to try it out.
Fair enough, though don't go thinking I wouldn't try it - I do not currently have that option, I'm merely trying to gauge how much I should attempt to get that opportunity. It seems to have some interesting points, and probably would be much better for getting a group of people who aren't so sure about the whole pen'n'paper gaming thing to play. Even though it sounds likely that I'll always prefer 3.5, does not mean I'd hate 4.


My personal feelings are that there are less options than 3.X in terms of the customizability that you speak of, but that this is not inherently a bad thing. I don't go into Bunnies & Burrows and complain about not being able to be a Mineral-warrior Dragonborn of Bahamut Mongrelfolk.
See, for me, I think it is inherently a bad thing. It's a negative aspect of the system as compared to 3.5, in my opinion. That does not mean the system as a whole is automatically bad, but that particular fact is something that I'd rather be the other way around.


If you go into a game of 4e expecting to be able to do all the tricks of 3.X, you will be sadly disappointed. If you go into 4e wanting to try a new game, then maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but please don't go in with false expectations.

I personally find enough variation in the classes to be able to have fun playing 4e. Other people don't, which is fine.
See, I find this kind of comment a little unnecessarily hostile. You seem to assume that I'm interested in 'tricks' or exploits, which is not the case. Yes, 3.5 is imbalanced - horrifically so, in fact. I do not consider that a good thing. However, I do not value balance nearly enough to justify the loss of customizability, at least in terms of what would make my personal 'ideal' system.


Seems like you're thinking yourself far away from the point, then. Roles are not set in stone, they simply label the primary focus of the characters. Most also mention, aside the primary role, what 'secondary' role they may play. And even then, certain builds can change it. A fighter is a Defender because he has a mark that penalizes enemies for not attacking him, but they can still do massive damage, and with a polearm and certain feats, offer incredible battlefield control.
See, that's good, but when you specifically delineate a class's role, it says to me that "yeah, you can do something else, but it's not going to be pretty and we're going to penalize you for doing it", which doesn't sound so good. Of course, that doesn't have to be the case, but it seems to me that it often is. Someone even said as much earlier. When you say you could do something other than being a Defender, do you mean you really, honestly can, as well as any other Controller or Striker or whatever, and as well as you might have done Defending, or are you saying "if you really wanted, you could try to force it to do something it's not meant to do"?

NOTE: This is also my response to others who commented on Role.


So you don't have to retrain. Retraining just offers another buffer against a character becoming ineffective in its intention, and can be utilized in fully planning out a character by taking a feat early on that is later rendered obsolete, but can be changed out for something you'd prefer.
I'm not going to have this argument; my feelings on this subject are not actually based primarily in D&D at all but in Diablo, where I've had this argument with others on Blizzard's forums several times. I'm not going to get into it, because it's really not pertinent at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it to begin with.


The deal with all that customizability is the sheer volume of things that just don't work. With 3.5's ton of choices, most (like the mentioned "bard3/sorc2/ftr2") would be barely more effective than any one of its components alone.
This is true, but there are still massive numbers of very effective combinations.


What I find untrue about many of the complaints about 4e's percieved lack of customization is, simply, the percieved lack of customization. It not working in the exact manner it used to doesn't mean you "can't do it." When people say they want to play a Pally/Warlord/Warlock, it doesn't really add up to me. They don't want the flavor or powers of parts of those classes, they want to be called PALADIN 5/WARLORD 2/WARLOCK 4 and have the exact powers of the three classes at those levels.

You can still be a divine warrior who inspires his allies, while harnessing dark supernatural powers. I don't want to bore everyone with a writeup, but I'll go on if you'd demand it.
Well... I like the level of customizability to say, yes, I want 5 levels of this and 2 levels of this and 3 levels of that because I want my character to have abilities X, Y, and Z.

Although at some point I guess I could ignore the entire issue just by homebrewing myself whatever I wanted; I rather like doing that, in any case.


Another thing I like about 4E, is that the character-building process is something you decide in an ongoing process, as opposed to 3.5, where you make a couple decisions when you start out, and then you're set in stone exactly what feats you take, what you spend your skill points on, and what class you take at each level. Whereas with 4E, the fact that feats aren't character-defining and that you don't have to worry about meeting the pre-requisites for a paragon path or epic destiny (what PrCs became) means that you're not forced to make all the design decisions for your character at level 1, and can instead choose based on your experiences so far and let your character evolve into something naturally.
That I can definitely appreciate. That's definitely a very significant improvement on 3.5. I do consider that to be one of 3.5's most important and meaningful flaws, despite the fact that I rather enjoy planning out a character, there is something to be said for the way it does encourage some artificial decisions.


That is true. Feats rarely gives a character new options in 4e but rather static/situational modifiers or benefits. Options comes through powers in 4e. If you're used to 3.5 that is something to be aware of.
OK, then a major question is, how much choice do you have on powers?

I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?

[Excession]

That is true. Feats rarely gives a character new options in 4e but rather static/situational modifiers or benefits. Options comes through powers in 4e. If you're used to 3.5 that is something to be aware of.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. The static bonuses are often very good feats, for sure, but there are also a few feats that can change how a character plays. Class feats in particular, such as this one for sorcerers:


Sorcerous Blade Channeling

When you use any ranged attack power through a dagger, you can use the power as a melee attack. If you do so, the power's range equals your melee reach.

Now your ranged blaster class can get up close and friendly with enemies, get easy CA via flanking, or continue fighting when cornered.

That reminds me of an assumption to watch out for. Opportunity Attacks now only trigger when you leave a square adjacent to an enemy or using ranged attacks while adjacent to an enemy. Walking up to something won't get your head bashed in, and having reach doesn't let you threaten more squares. Monsters sometimes get "Threatening Reach" which lets them threaten further, but players can only get it via a Polearm feat in paragon tier, and that has a downside to balance it.

[Kylarra]

See, I find this kind of comment a little unnecessarily hostile. You seem to assume that I'm interested in 'tricks' or exploits, which is not the case. Yes, 3.5 is imbalanced - horrifically so, in fact. I do not consider that a good thing. However, I do not value balance nearly enough to justify the loss of customizability, at least in terms of what would make my personal 'ideal' system.You're reading too much into it, the statement can be rephrased to be: "If you're coming into 4e expecting to be able to do everything you could do in 3.X or something incredibly similar with a slightly different wrapper, you'll be sadly disappointed."


OK, then a major question is, how much choice do you have on powers?

I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?Each class gets a pool of powers to choose from at a given level that they "learn" from.

I'm not going to pull up a comprehensive list, but a quick look into the builder tells me fighters have a pool of 10 At-wills to pick from, 11 encounter powers (10 if you don't count dragon), and 10 (8) dailies, at level one. Level 2 gets us a utility power out of a pool of 11 (9) + 3 skill utilities for a total pool of 14 (potentially more if you have a race that grants skill training or take a feat that also grants skill training).

[elonin]

I really dislike the way skills are done in 4e. I tend to play skill monkeys in 3.5 and there would be 4-5 skills that I keep maxed out but then spend into all sorts of other skills. That is impossible in 4e and I'm thus unlikely to play that system. Also the lack of prc's and dip into classes doesn't bode well.

[Kylarra]

I really dislike the way skills are done in 4e. I tend to play skill monkeys in 3.5 and there would be 4-5 skills that I keep maxed out but then spend into all sorts of other skills. That is impossible in 4e and I'm thus unlikely to play that system. Also the lack of prc's and dip into classes doesn't bode well.Bard and/or jack of all trades feat. Done.

Bard nets you +1 to all untrained skill checks and the aforementioned feat nets you another +2, that gives you a +3 to all untrained skills, which is only +2 behind having it actually trained, virtually equivalent to "spreading points into random skills" in 3.X.

[Excession]

OK, then a major question is, how much choice do you have on powers?

I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?

There's a lot of choices, and they're constantly increasing as splatbooks and the occasional dungeon magazine add new ones. Right now, a Sorcerer for example could choose one of 11 level one encounter powers. Some particular builds have a smaller pool to choose from, for example dual-wielding "Tempest" Fighters may wish to choose the Fighter powers designed for dual-wielding.

One thing they're adding in PHB3, and which is already out in the char builder, is "Skill Powers". These are utility powers that, rather than requiring you be a Fighter, require training in a skill and are available to any class. Some of these are particularly good, perhaps to make up for otherwise poor skills. This from Endurance for example:


Inspiring Fortitude, Endurance Utility 2

Daily, Standard action, Close burst 5
Target: Each ally in burst
Requirement: Your second wind must be available for you to use
Effect: You use your second wind, and each target gains temporary hit points equal to 10 + your Con modifier.


The cost is reasonably high perhaps, but 10 + Con is a lot of HP at level 2.

[Excession]

I really dislike the way skills are done in 4e. I tend to play skill monkeys in 3.5 and there would be 4-5 skills that I keep maxed out but then spend into all sorts of other skills. That is impossible in 4e and I'm thus unlikely to play that system. Also the lack of prc's and dip into classes doesn't bode well.

You can still be a skill-monkey imo. A Hybrid Bard|Rogue gets to train six skills at level 1, and with Cha and Dex as high stats has the ability scores to back up a lot of the good ones. Human or Eladrin race could add a seventh. The Bardic Knowledge feat can give you another +2 to a bunch of useful skills as well. Most multiclass feats, which might feel a bit like a one level dip, also come with skill training and are often very good feats.

I would also mention that 4e is designed so every character has at least something to contribute in the way skills. Even Barbarians can train three skills. When I've played we've always tried to give each member of the party one skill that is "theirs" so everyone gets to roll dice.

[Artanis]

I really dislike the way skills are done in 4e. I tend to play skill monkeys in 3.5 and there would be 4-5 skills that I keep maxed out but then spend into all sorts of other skills. That is impossible in 4e and I'm thus unlikely to play that system. Also the lack of prc's and dip into classes doesn't bode well.

And how much good do the points in the "all sorts of other skills" do you? Because you get the same effect in 4e with its 1/2 level to checks.

[nepphi]

You really, really, really need to let go of the fixation that 'role' equates to 'play this way or you're not effective.'

All role states is the general skillset that the class was designed to work with. There is no, no, repeat no difference between saying

'A wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons'

and

'A defender works best screening enemies, a controller works best throwing them around'

It is not a set in stone 'play this way or suffer' montage, it's a general guideline to let you know the basic way the class powers for that choice will work. Defenders' powers will punish enemies for trying to get by, Strikers' powers will deal blasphemous levels of damage, etc.

Stop thinking of it as a constraint, it is not.

[Tavar]

I've only really looked through the Players handbook through 4th edition, so all of my observations are based on what I saw there.

Powers are character defining in a way that feats aren't, yes. On the other hand, at least in the PHB, you really only have 2 or 3 different 'builds' that you can use in terms of powers, depending on what stats the powers are based off of. Yeah, you can mix them, but it's suboptimal, just like poor multiclassing in 3.5.

When I first saw this, I didn't think that much of it, as I'm used to 3.5, where there's feats that can help with this. But, in 4th, you don't really have interesting feats that often, in this case Interesting meaning changing how you play. It's been quite a while since I cracked the book, but I honestly can't remember any feats that did that. Plus, there just don't seem to be that many feats to take. Yeah, you have a feat every 2 levels or something, but in the end it really seemed to come down to choosing one skill focus or another.

[DragoonWraith]

You really, really, really need to let go of the fixation that 'role' equates to 'play this way or you're not effective.'

All role states is the general skillset that the class was designed to work with. There is no, no, repeat no difference between saying

'A wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons'

and

'A defender works best screening enemies, a controller works best throwing them around'

It is not a set in stone 'play this way or suffer' montage, it's a general guideline to let you know the basic way the class powers for that choice will work. Defenders' powers will punish enemies for trying to get by, Strikers' powers will deal blasphemous levels of damage, etc.

Stop thinking of it as a constraint, it is not.
Assertion that it is not doesn't really show me very much, really. You can say that, but it still does not seem that way to me based on what others have said.

More importantly, "a wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons" is very different from "a wizard is a controller, and throws enemies around; a fighter is a defender, and tanks enemies". A wizard in 3.5 could be a "striker" (blaster), a "controller" (battlefield control), a "leader" (buffs), or a "defender" (gish, or polymorph, or summoner for meat shields, or just plain defensive spells), while a fighter could be a "striker" (ubercharger), a "controller" (trip/lockdown builds), or a defender (actually arguably what they're worst at since 3.5 gave little ability to force people to attack you) (and they couldn't do leader very well because they didn't have buffs).

Now, the balance with which 3.5 did this is terrible (because a wizard could be a striker/controller/leader/defender better than a fighter could do any one of those things), but the fact that each of them could fulfill any role you wanted, I think, is important. And the fact that one did it with spells, and another did it with weapons, I think is also important.

So then my question is: when it says a fighter is a defender, and you say this is no different from saying a fighter uses weapons, and it is not a "play this way or suffer" deal. But then it is "just how the powers work" - well then it would seem that that is the way they work and that's what you'll be doing if you're a fighter. That's less than good. Yes, you can be something else (I don't know the classes) to take the role you want and still use weapons (presumably), but 3.5 really allows you to not be a role, but to be a character. It sounds very much like one striker is pretty much replaceable with another, where in 3.5 you could have very different characters even if they might fall into similar roles, and more importantly most characters didn't fall into any particular role so much as just be themselves, mechanically. At least, such was true at the best of times; obviously 3.5's balance issues make it difficult to separate things.


EDIT: I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unpleasable and out to gut the edition or something like that; I'm just honestly curious, but honestly less than interested in what I am perceiving to be 4e based on these descriptions. At the same time, I really want to figure out if my perceptions are accurate, and it's just not for me (seeming likely), or if I'm not quite getting something.

Of course, playing it would be the best answer, but as I said, I do not have any options to do so in the immediate future.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Monsters are also divided into new sections as well. Minions are designed to go down in one hit (literally, they have no HP--a successful hit means they're dead), though you do have to actually hit them and auto-damaging attacks do not work.Are you sure? I'm AFB right now but I thought minions were only immune to damage on a miss, not auto-damage from stuff like Stinking Cloud.

[Artanis]

Assertion that it is not doesn't really show me very much, really. You can say that, but it still does not seem that way to me based on what others have said.

More importantly, "a wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons" is very different from "a wizard is a controller, and throws enemies around; a fighter is a defender, and tanks enemies". A wizard in 3.5 could be a "striker" (blaster), a "controller" (battlefield control), a "leader" (buffs), or a "defender" (gish, or polymorph, or summoner for meat shields, or just plain defensive spells), while a fighter could be a "striker" (ubercharger), a "controller" (trip/lockdown builds), or a defender (actually arguably what they're worst at since 3.5 gave little ability to force people to attack you) (and they couldn't do leader very well because they didn't have buffs).

Now, the balance with which 3.5 did this is terrible (because a wizard could be a striker/controller/leader/defender better than a fighter could do any one of those things), but the fact that each of them could fulfill any role you wanted, I think, is important. And the fact that one did it with spells, and another did it with weapons, I think is also important.

So then my question is: when it says a fighter is a defender, and you say this is no different from saying a fighter uses weapons, and it is not a "play this way or suffer" deal. But then it is "just how the powers work" - well then it would seem that that is the way they work and that's what you'll be doing if you're a fighter. That's less than good. Yes, you can be something else (I don't know the classes) to take the role you want and still use weapons (presumably), but 3.5 really allows you to not be a role, but to be a character. It sounds very much like one striker is pretty much replaceable with another, where in 3.5 you could have very different characters even if they might fall into similar roles, and more importantly most characters didn't fall into any particular role so much as just be themselves, mechanically. At least, such was true at the best of times; obviously 3.5's balance issues make it difficult to separate things.

You're looking at it the opposite from how it is.

You're looking at it and saying, "I want to play a Fighter...well, I guess that means I'm a defender". The way it actually is is, "y'know, if I want to protect the party and whack things with a sword, it would be a good idea to choose Fighter, and go with another class if that's not what I want to do."

You're looking at it and saying, "I want to play a Wizard...well, I guess that means I'm a controller".The way it actually is is, "y'know, if I want to screw over the enemy with status effects, it would be a good idea to choose Wizard, and go with another class if that's not what I want to do."

In 4e, the class does not define your character the way it does in 3e. You make your concept, then choose the set of powers that best fits your concept. The name on that set of powers doesn't mean anything unless you're bound and determined to make it mean something.

[Guy]

See, that's good, but when you specifically delineate a class's role, it says to me that "yeah, you can do something else, but it's not going to be pretty and we're going to penalize you for doing it", which doesn't sound so good. Of course, that doesn't have to be the case, but it seems to me that it often is. Someone even said as much earlier. When you say you could do something other than being a Defender, do you mean you really, honestly can, as well as any other Controller or Striker or whatever, and as well as you might have done Defending, or are you saying "if you really wanted, you could try to force it to do something it's not meant to do"?


Roles are not so binary as that. Your apprehension of not being able to fufill a different role stems from a game setting where Fighters simply cannot do what Rogues do, who themselves simply cannot do what a Cleric does.
Roles generalize the features of a class. Defenders all have something that discourages enemies from attacking their allies - Leaders have a nigh-standardized heal with unique riders. Strikers have something that boosts their damage, either passively or under conditions (such as Sneak Attack or Quarry) and Controllers... well, they're a bit vaguely defined.

If you wish your Swordmage (defender) to do lots of damage, you can take the powers that have higher damage instead of the ones that slow, immobilize, or sometimes mark multiple opponents at once. Swordmages also cross over into area blasts, too, being Arcane and having plenty of excuse to shoot fireballsradical flaming cyclones out of their swords



This is true, but there are still massive numbers of very effective combinations.

Thus, the idea is that in 4e, the meta-game of selecting the right options out of a veritable minefield of feats, classes and skills is converted to one where you are not punished for doing something strange.



Well... I like the level of customizability to say, yes, I want 5 levels of this and 2 levels of this and 3 levels of that because I want my character to have abilities X, Y, and Z.

This is another thing 4e sought to fix. It is an entirely mechanic, non-character concept that you have to take N levels of certain classes in order to build a character who fits your idea. The process has been flipped: Envision a character concept, and select a class based on it. Vast power selection lets you have the ability to do lots of things, and the skill mechanics won't leave you high and dry because you picked a class without, oh, Use Rope as a class skill.



Although at some point I guess I could ignore the entire issue just by homebrewing myself whatever I wanted; I rather like doing that, in any case.


Highly encouraged by 4e, in fact! As classes are sets of powers with specific trainable skills and features, instead of fluff set in stone, you can say your Paladin is actually a battle-hypnotist who lays crushing phobias upon his opponent. The default lore should literally never come between a player and his character.



I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?

Most classes have a good 6-10 choices for each power selection, older ones obviously leaning to the higher simply due to the fact that they've been out longer. But the Martial, Divine, Primal and Arcane Power books have supplied each class with plenty, and you can get access to all of them through the Compendium / Char Builder if you don't want to buy each book seperately (a potentially wise decision).




Powers are character defining in a way that feats aren't, yes. On the other hand, at least in the PHB, you really only have 2 or 3 different 'builds' that you can use in terms of powers, depending on what stats the powers are based off of. Yeah, you can mix them, but it's suboptimal, just like poor multiclassing in 3.5.

That's a bit disingenuous. In general, a class has one primary stat that is applied to its attack and damage rolls, and two secondary stats that modify riders on powers. Selecting a power that runs off Strength for a secondary effect instead of Charisma (In the hypothetical case of a Rogue who normally uses dexterity and charisma, but selects a more ruffian-style power) you're talking about applying a -1 penalty to attack rolls instead of -3. Poor multiclassing in 3.5 is orders of magnitude more damaging to a character than selecting a power that isn't 100% optimal. You still deal damage, you still get a secondary effect - it just might be -2 instead of -4

*e*


More importantly, "a wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons" is very different from "a wizard is a controller, and throws enemies around; a fighter is a defender, and tanks enemies". A wizard in 3.5 could be a "striker" (blaster), a "controller" (battlefield control), a "leader" (buffs), or a "defender" (gish, or polymorph, or summoner for meat shields, or just plain defensive spells), while a fighter could be a "striker" (ubercharger), a "controller" (trip/lockdown builds), or a defender (actually arguably what they're worst at since 3.5 gave little ability to force people to attack you) (and they couldn't do leader very well because they didn't have buffs).


I think this really only applies to casters. Can you describe how the other classes can be any role you want? You already note fighters can't be leaders, and that they really can't 'defend' others beyond being literally in-between enemies and allies.



EDIT: I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unpleasable and out to gut the edition or something like that; I'm just honestly curious, but honestly less than interested in what I am perceiving to be 4e based on these descriptions. At the same time, I really want to figure out if my perceptions are accurate, and it's just not for me (seeming likely), or if I'm not quite getting something.

Of course, playing it would be the best answer, but as I said, I do not have any options to do so in the immediate future.

It's cool, sure I seem worse

[nightwyrm]

You're looking at it the opposite from how it is.

You're looking at it and saying, "I want to play a Fighter...well, I guess that means I'm a defender". The way it actually is is, "y'know, if I want to protect the party and whack things with a sword, it would be a good idea to choose Fighter, and go with another class if that's not what I want to do."

You're looking at it and saying, "I want to play a Wizard...well, I guess that means I'm a controller".The way it actually is is, "y'know, if I want to screw over the enemy with status effects, it would be a good idea to choose Wizard, and go with another class if that's not what I want to do."

In 4e, the class does not define your character the way it does in 3e. You make your concept, then choose the set of powers that best fits your concept. The name on that set of powers doesn't mean anything unless you're bound and determined to make it mean something.

I think this is a very good point. Unlike previous editions where you pick your class first and then work that class to fit your concept, in 4e it is better to come up with a concept and then pick a class that fits that concept best. What the class is named in the book is irrelevant. If you want to make a twf thief, take ranger and pick up the thievery skill and call yourself a rogue.

[Reluctance]

I've only really looked through the Players handbook through 4th edition, so all of my observations are based on what I saw there.

Powers are character defining in a way that feats aren't, yes. On the other hand, at least in the PHB, you really only have 2 or 3 different 'builds' that you can use in terms of powers, depending on what stats the powers are based off of. Yeah, you can mix them, but it's suboptimal, just like poor multiclassing in 3.5.

And how many interesting build options did nocasters have in just the 3.5 PHB? 4e PHB1 alone is fairly limited, and new classes do tend to be built on a "get it out there first, add more options later", but once a class gets a little support there's usually a good bit of variety to it.



...It sounds very much like one striker is pretty much replaceable with another, where in 3.5 you could have very different characters even if they might fall into similar roles, and more importantly most characters didn't fall into any particular role so much as just be themselves, mechanically. At least, such was true at the best of times; obviously 3.5's balance issues make it difficult to separate things.

Let's step back to class again. For the most part, classes come pre-loaded with certain abilities that make them effective in their role; fighters have an ability that lets them punish an enemy who attacks somebody other than them, Clerics have an ability that lets them heal their allies, Rogues have an ability that lets them do more damage if they flank an enemy, etc. Different classes that have the same role will achieve similar results with different means. (E.G: The Fighter just gets a free swing at whoever tries to ignore him, while the Swordmage gets to teleport the target to wherever he is. The Rogue gets bonus damage when he hits in certain circumstances, while the Avenger gets to roll twice for each hit, therefore doing less damage per swing but hitting more often.)

It's less an issue of all the powers being tightly focused around one theme, and more that powers are loosely themed while your class features are more prominent. I wouldn't suggest it if you're that tied to 3.X's mashup of level-based point buy, but it's a very good implementation of a class system that's honestly a class system.

[Kylarra]

So then my question is: when it says a fighter is a defender, and you say this is no different from saying a fighter uses weapons, and it is not a "play this way or suffer" deal. But then it is "just how the powers work" - well then it would seem that that is the way they work and that's what you'll be doing if you're a fighter. That's less than good. Yes, you can be something else (I don't know the classes) to take the role you want and still use weapons (presumably), but 3.5 really allows you to not be a role, but to be a character. It sounds very much like one striker is pretty much replaceable with another, where in 3.5 you could have very different characters even if they might fall into similar roles, and more importantly most characters didn't fall into any particular role so much as just be themselves, mechanically. At least, such was true at the best of times; obviously 3.5's balance issues make it difficult to separate things.I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, but I'll try to explain things as best I can, and I apologize if I'm misconstruing what you're trying to say.

Most classes have a primary role and a secondary role, so they are really good at one thing on general principle by choosing that class, and have a tendency to do the second, based on power selection.

A big thing for 4e is mutable fluff. It might help to think of classes, not as classes, but as parcels of abilities powered by a certain power source, although even that is technically mutable, but we'll start there I guess. So you can take your iconics Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter and simply associate them with the relevant power sources, Arcane, Divine, Primal, Martial. For the sake of argument, I'm leaving off the rogue because it's also a martial class.

So you start with the fluff of what sort of power you want your character to be drawing from, and then decide what sort of things you'd like him to be doing. Try really hard not to get caught up in the labels of the classes. With the exception of Martial, every power source has at least one class in every given "role", and each power source brings its own flavor to its given role.

So we go back to your Wizard who can do whatever he wants.

He wants to be a striker, play it straight as a wizard or go with a renamed sorcerer.

He wants to be a controller, well that's what the iconic named class does.

He wants to be a defender, you've got your swordmage.

He wants to be a leader, refluff your bard or your artificer.

I can see the ninja in my preview button, but I'm posting anyway since I took the time to write it already. :smallsigh:

[Dimers]

@ OP:

Team play is more important. Your party will do a lot better if everyone's aware of what everyone else is doing and is capable of doing. If you don't tackle problems as a group, you can get in trouble fast.

Everything is closer to average. Nobody has 0 ranks in any skill; nobody falls too far behind in damage output; nobody has to sit out while a specialist or caster deals with a situation only they can touch. On the other hand, nobody gets ridiculously far ahead, either. You won't see uberchargers, batmen, diplomancers, warriors who can hit AC 90 ...

There's not much of a role for utility in the rules. Most of the game mechanics are focused on combat adjudication, and even most of the so-called utility powers are utile only in combat settings.

Critical hits seem a bit more significant, and spells have the same chance to crit that weapons do.

Every class works with certain tools for their combat abilities, and the range of special powers available per type of tool effectively gives the class more definition in its role(s). Weapons are the tools of warriors; the special abilities they hold let you do better damage or pierce defenses. Wands are tools used by some arcanists; they broaden your spellcasting repetoire a bit. Holy symbols are tools for most divine classes; they tend to have buffing or healing abilities. Other than that, implements and weapons work in much the same way as each other. A priest needs a magic holy symbol as much as a fighter needs a magic sword, and for the same reason (hitting more often and doing more damage).

There are quite a few feats and powers that scale throughout the game. Some improve at 11th and/or 21st level, while others have very important non-damage effects. The sleep spell is one example; it's a reasonable choice from 1st level to 30th. There are few feats or powers which are simply better versions of an earlier one.

Your selection of attack powers levels off after a certain point, after which you get rid of an older power to learn a new one. Utility powers, however, just keep adding up and don't have to be traded away.


OK, then a major question is, how much choice do you have on powers? I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?

Powers and role go together somewhat. A class that is typically used as a defender mostly has power options that protect allies or hinder enemies, along with the typical bit-o-damage. A class specced as a striker mostly has powers that move them around the battlefield and deal plentiful damage. And so on. There are often other choices available -- perhaps not sort of choice you want in order to fulfill your preferred combat role, but wait a couple levels and that choice will be available. Considering that you only hold three class-based encounter powers and three class-based daily powers at a time, many classes offer enough choice in powers to let you play the way you want. Or you can hang on to older powers rather than replacing them.

I think you'd be disappointed much more by the inflexibility of the base classes' granted abilities. Fighters and wardens can 'mark' lots of creatures to help protect allies, and they have the hit point progression to deal with the consequences of doing so (namely, the enemies whaling on them instead). A wizard has neither the ability to mark nor the hit points to fulfill that role, even if she picks powers that would work well for it. Some multiclass combinations and hybrids are good in terms of what base abilities take effect, but a lot aren't, and there are very few options you can take along the way to make up for lacking certain class abilities.

[LurkerInPlayground]

That is true. Feats rarely gives a character new options in 4e but rather static/situational modifiers or benefits. Options comes through powers in 4e. If you're used to 3.5 that is something to be aware of.
Frankly, it was weird when feats in 3.5 had both active abilities and passive bonuses. So you'll have a feat like "Power Attack" that you had to declare that you were using while other feats just quietly added a bonus.

Why these things weren't simply defined as "powers" or as class features, I have no idea.

4e mostly sticks to the passive bonus idea.

[Pramxnim]

Just popping in to say that a Bard with the feat Bard of All Trades (from Dragon 383) might as well be trained in every skill, since he gets a total of +4 bonus (3 of which is feat bonus) to untrained skills. Then you're a skillmonkey through and through! Even non-bards can multiclass Bard and poach Bard of All Trades to get +3 bonus to all untrained skills, which is still quite hefty.

Ok, back to lurking I go...

[CockroachTeaParty]

Here's an interesting difference between the two editions.

In 3rd edition, combats will rarely last longer than a few rounds. Many will only last between 1-3. However, the number of options available makes those individual rounds last longer in real-time. Also, people have a tendency to look up specific spells and items during combat, which slows things down a bit. That said, fights will usually end quickly, due to lower HP, save-or-die, save-or-lose, and certain lock-down techniques.

Also, an experienced group of 3.5 players will have a number of strategies and combos up their sleeves that will destroy standard encounters. A quality game of 3.5 often becomes a sort of arms race between DM and players, with fights getting more lethal, intricate, over-the-top, and epic.

In 4th edition, combats will go through many rounds. It's not uncommon for a 4th edition battle to last between 5-12 rounds or more. This is due to larger HP values, lower damage attacks, an abundance of easy in-combat healing, and an absence of decisive instant death attacks. However, a round of combat can only go so quickly, making battles in 4th edition last as long, if not longer, than fights in 3rd edition.
This takes some getting used to, especially at the beginning. It's not uncommon in certain groups for players to zone out when it's not their turn. In 3rd edition, it was perfectly fine to go get a snack or use the bathroom while the wizard was figuring out what exactly his Freezing Fog spell did, but in 4th edition your turn comes up more often. If people zone out in 4th edition, things grind to an agonizing crawl.
In my personal experience, this is a major problem, as once Encounter and Daily powers are used up, fights can become a tedious procession of At-Will grinding. Bored, zoned-out players only make things more ponderous, and combats can become quite a chore. That's not to say that I haven't had some fun, exciting, suspenseful fights in 4th edition, but often times I'd find myself wishing for a boss fight, rather than slogging through another room full of orcs.

Another important alteration in expectations, at least that I've discovered, is as follows:
In 3rd edition, you're often playing rocket tag. You either Win Big, or Fail Hard. That said, when things start to hit the fan, it's often pretty easy for some of the party to escape, thanks to spells and items, etc. Information gathering, buffing, reconnaissance, and guesswork become the tools of victory; often the dice have less to do with winning a fight, especially at higher levels. In 3rd edition, it's easy to tell when you're outmatched, but escape is usually never impossible.
In 4th edition, there is much less buffing, and information gathering is all but impossible. Each fight is sort of a stand alone thing, and if the DM is doing their job right, each fight is roughly balanced against the party. This generates an odd sense of safety and complacency, especially with newer players. For some, the reduced sense of risk will create boredom. However, I've had three awful TPK's or nigh-TPK's playing 4th edition, and the warning signs are different. One round, everyone's got plenty of healing surges and health, but then one or two rounds later, suddenly everybody's bloodied or dying, a series of poor moves has left the party split up across the map, and one realizes a TPK is imminent. A player's innate unwillingness to flee becomes their own worst enemy, and then people start to die. Winning fights in 4th edition usually involves sticking together, focusing fire on the biggest threat on the map, and using classes in their intended role. The game is surprisingly merciless to groups who fail to use good tactics.

I'll shut up now. 3rd edition is more simulationist/strategic, and 4th edition is more cinematic/tactical.

[Colmarr]

Going back to the OP:

What assumptions to look out for?

The first one that springs to mind is that "No matter how good your PC is, it will never be enough".

4e is very good at rewarding co-operation. When monsters do it effectively to PCs, bad things happen. When PCs do it to monsters, you will see some amazing stuff.

[Guy]

I really dislike the way skills are done in 4e. I tend to play skill monkeys in 3.5 and there would be 4-5 skills that I keep maxed out but then spend into all sorts of other skills. That is impossible in 4e and I'm thus unlikely to play that system. Also the lack of prc's and dip into classes doesn't bode well.

I think my fellow posters advising you about how a Bard with proper feats can do just what you want are missing the point, somewhat!

An assumption to watch for when trying 4e: "Skill Monkeys" don't exist. They are an unnatural entity that rose out of the 3.5 mechanics. Each class gets X amount of skills trained, chosen from a list that varies by class, which applies +5 to their rolls with it, and races have +2 to two skills. You can take feats to train skills or gain a bonus in them, and the Multiclass feats very commonly include "You gain training in a skill from the <class>'s skill list".

Since the skill list has been shortened as well, you will typically have someone with a good score in just about every skill, either by training or attribute bonus.

[Kylarra]

I think my fellow posters advising you about how a Bard with proper feats can do just what you want are missing the point, somewhat!

An assumption to watch for when trying 4e: "Skill Monkeys" don't exist. They are an unnatural entity that rose out of the 3.5 mechanics. Each class gets X amount of skills trained, chosen from a list that varies by class, which applies +5 to their rolls with it, and races have +2 to two skills. You can take feats to train skills or gain a bonus in them, and the Multiclass feats very commonly include "You gain training in a skill from the <class>'s skill list".

Since the skill list has been shortened as well, you will typically have someone with a good score in just about every skill, either by training or attribute bonus.... well yes, there is that point. I confess, that I have a tendency to tunnel vision at times. :smallsigh:

[nightwyrm]

An assumption to watch for when trying 4e: "Skill Monkeys" don't exist. They are an unnatural entity that rose out of the 3.5 mechanics.

Well....that's not quite true. Before 3e, it was just the thief who had climb walls, open locks, hide in shadows etc. mechanically represented as abilities. If you played some other class, you try to convince the DM that what you're doing is reasonable and hope he asks for some sort of check that's not impossible. So you do have a "skill monkey" in previous editions in that it's the only class with abilities codified by the rules.

[Kurald Galain]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but one of the assumptions I had to break when switching to 4e was that higher damage attacks are always the best option.
I concur. For instance, I find that as a rule of thumb for controllers, the least damaging attacks tend to be the best option.


Not in my experience in play. I haven't played 3.5, but in no way did 4e feel "rules light" or anything.
I concur with this as well. D&D has always been pretty rules-heavy, and it still is.


At early levels play can feel like "I use my at-will again",
I find this funny. A (usually exaggerated) issue with 3E is that after a few rounds, casters run out of cool spells and have to resort to a boring crossbow. So now in 4E, some people complain that after a few rounds, everyone runs out of cool powers and has to resort to a boring at-will.
Of course, this complaint is also exaggerated, and if combat is boring in both editions it's pretty much the fault of the DM. But WOTC put a lot of marketing hype into saying how they resolved the "crossbow issue", but they really didn't.


As for 3.5, I find that a lot of the vaunted customization option are illusions.
While this is certainly true for 3E, it also remains true for 4E. Frequently, there is an obvious best pick for your power for a certain level; ability boosts are very straightforward for pretty much everyone; and feats tend to be either rather low-powered or obvious must-haves. Once you've picked your class and sub-class, the next non-trivial build choice is pretty much when you pick your paragon path.



Still don't like this whole "role" thing, honestly. It still seems too much like WotC telling me that "this" is how the class is played,
Well, yeah, but they also did that a lot in earlier editions. For instance, if you take a 3E barbarian, you are pretty much expected to play it as a heavy-hitting frontliner.


On the issue of feats, I find most of them slightly more interesting than weapon focus, so it's not that great that you get one every two levels.
I find that there are two kinds of feats: flashy feats (that give you an extra option) and math feats (that give you a +X bonus to stat Y). I also find that many people tend to overrate the latter: yes, Weapon Expertise is good, bgut no, Elven Precision is not.

[Goonthegoof]

I find this funny. A (usually exaggerated) issue with 3E is that after a few rounds, casters run out of cool spells and have to resort to a boring crossbow. So now in 4E, some people complain that after a few rounds, everyone runs out of cool powers and has to resort to a boring at-will.
Of course, this complaint is also exaggerated, and if combat is boring in both editions it's pretty much the fault of the DM. But WOTC put a lot of marketing hype into saying how they resolved the "crossbow issue", but they really didn't.

They really did though. At least in this edition the wizard has 3 different spells to fall back on rather than attacking with a crossbow with a stat they didn't use. Plus the higher you get the more abilities you have to burn per encounter, and as you get more options many of those options can be spent towards reusing said powers.

Towards the end you have items you can activate to regain powers, feats that let you regain them on a critical, other players gain abilities to let you regain yours and there are heaps of paragon paths and epic destinies that let you regain encounter or daily powers.

[Kurald Galain]

They really did though. At least in this edition the wizard has 3 different spells to fall back on rather than attacking with a crossbow with a stat they didn't use.
That's why I said that the complaint is exaggerated.

Of course, the complaint was also exaggerated in the previous edition; so my point is that WOTC didn't fix this problem because the problem was never there in the first place.

[Saph]

I'll shut up now. 3rd edition is more simulationist/strategic, and 4th edition is more cinematic/tactical.

I'm not actually sure that it is. The marketing for 4e kept repeating how tactical it was, but the more I play it, the more I realise that the 'tactics' really don't amount to much. I've been playing my 4e wizard in Reverent's game for a while, and it's got to the point where I could write an AI script for how to play her each battle and I don't think the other players would notice.

[Kesnit]

I'm not actually sure that it is. The marketing for 4e kept repeating how tactical it was, but the more I play it, the more I realise that the 'tactics' really don't amount to much. I've been playing my 4e wizard in Reverent's game for a while, and it's got to the point where I could write an AI script for how to play her each battle and I don't think the other players would notice.

I think it depends on the game and all the players involved. (I have no idea how the game you mentioned is played, so I am not attacking anyone. Just making a comment.) This is definitely a situation where what is put in is what is taken out, and it requires both the controller to know what the other players can do (always a tough thing) and the other players to take advantage of the situation the controller gives them. Positioning so the Defender can pull off their attack that hits every enemy in melee range. Getting the Defenders and Strikers to position themselves so you can hit enemies with a debuff without hitting allies. (Yup, I almost walked into that one last night. Oops.)

[Saph]

I think it depends on the game and all the players involved. (I have no idea how the game you mentioned is played, so I am not attacking anyone. Just making a comment.) This is definitely a situation where what is put in is what is taken out, and it requires both the controller to know what the other players can do (always a tough thing) and the other players to take advantage of the situation the controller gives them. Positioning so the Defender can pull off their attack that hits every enemy in melee range. Getting the Defenders and Strikers to position themselves so you can hit enemies with a debuff without hitting allies. (Yup, I almost walked into that one last night. Oops.)

But this is all pretty trivial stuff, isn't it? Given how static 4e characters are, knowing what the other PCs can do is not difficult - they do almost exactly the same moves every combat. And positioning is just a matter of when and how you take your shift move. Usually you ready an action or ask the other PCs to move in a particular way. Finally, whether you roll high or low on the dice is vastly more significant than your tactics anyway.

I suppose it breaks down into two points: a) tactics don't actually make all that much difference to a battle's outcome and b) the tactics are very simple anyway.

[Oslecamo]

I'm not actually sure that it is. The marketing for 4e kept repeating how tactical it was, but the more I play it, the more I realise that the 'tactics' really don't amount to much. I've been playing my 4e wizard in Reverent's game for a while, and it's got to the point where I could write an AI script for how to play her each battle and I don't think the other players would notice.

+1 for this. From my experience with 4e, you really don't care you can move and attack at the same turn, because there's no reason you want to move once you're in the ideal position! When the fighter closes in with the melee monster, neither of them have any reason to get away from each other. If the ranged dude isn't directly threatened in melee, he can stand still and fire whitout worries. At best, players move in the first 1-2 turns, then is unleashing powers untill the monsters are dead.

Sure, you can compensate this with shifting battlefields, but you'll have to homebrew them, and you could do the same in 3e, except in 3e you have more varied and cool effects to reward the players for moving.

[Kurald Galain]

Finally, whether you roll high or low on the dice is vastly more significant than your tactics anyway.

I suppose it breaks down into two points: a) tactics don't actually make all that much difference to a battle's outcome and b) the tactics are very simple anyway.
This does match my experience.

A simple example is flanking. Flanking contributes +2 to your attack roll, whereas the die you roll contributes an average of +10.5 to your attack roll. It is obvious that the roll of the die is far more important then whether you flank or not. So a player that has learned the tactical lesson of "flanking is good" (which, frankly, isn't all that hard a lesson) is not markedly more effective than a player that hasn't yet learned this.

(exception 1: rogues, who explicitly do a lot more damage with CA; exception 2: flanking is irrelevant against a foe who is e.g. dazed, prone, or blind).

[DragoonWraith]

I think that sounds like a lot of the problems with the weak early feats in 3.5 (Weapon Focus, etc) - these things just aren't worth it. I know WotC has to protect the RNG, but yeah, +2 is just not that significant.

[nightwyrm]

I think that sounds like a lot of the problems with the weak early feats in 3.5 (Weapon Focus, etc) - these things just aren't worth it. I know WotC has to protect the RNG, but yeah, +2 is just not that significant.

On the other hand, the weapon focus analog in 4e, weapon/implement expertise - which gives +1/2/3 to hit at various tiers, is one of the best feats in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

On the other hand, the weapon focus analog in 4e, weapon/implement expertise - which gives +1/2/3 to hit at various tiers, is one of the best feats in the game.
Yes, but many people seem to make the mistake that just because a +2 bonus that is continuous and costs a feat is good, that doesn't imply that a +2 bonus that is situational and costs an action is good.

Feats on average aren't very strong, so +2 for a feat is good. People still vastly overstate how much Expertise makes a difference in practice.

[Kylarra]

On the other hand, the weapon focus analog in 4e, weapon/implement expertise - which gives +1/2/3 to hit at various tiers, is one of the best feats in the game.So good that everyone has to take it. :smalltongue:

[AgentPaper]

Assertion that it is not doesn't really show me very much, really. You can say that, but it still does not seem that way to me based on what others have said.

More importantly, "a wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons" is very different from "a wizard is a controller, and throws enemies around; a fighter is a defender, and tanks enemies". A wizard in 3.5 could be a "striker" (blaster), a "controller" (battlefield control), a "leader" (buffs), or a "defender" (gish, or polymorph, or summoner for meat shields, or just plain defensive spells), while a fighter could be a "striker" (ubercharger), a "controller" (trip/lockdown builds), or a defender (actually arguably what they're worst at since 3.5 gave little ability to force people to attack you) (and they couldn't do leader very well because they didn't have buffs).

Now, the balance with which 3.5 did this is terrible (because a wizard could be a striker/controller/leader/defender better than a fighter could do any one of those things), but the fact that each of them could fulfill any role you wanted, I think, is important. And the fact that one did it with spells, and another did it with weapons, I think is also important.

So then my question is: when it says a fighter is a defender, and you say this is no different from saying a fighter uses weapons, and it is not a "play this way or suffer" deal. But then it is "just how the powers work" - well then it would seem that that is the way they work and that's what you'll be doing if you're a fighter. That's less than good. Yes, you can be something else (I don't know the classes) to take the role you want and still use weapons (presumably), but 3.5 really allows you to not be a role, but to be a character. It sounds very much like one striker is pretty much replaceable with another, where in 3.5 you could have very different characters even if they might fall into similar roles, and more importantly most characters didn't fall into any particular role so much as just be themselves, mechanically. At least, such was true at the best of times; obviously 3.5's balance issues make it difficult to separate things.


The roles don't mean so much "you should do this or you'll suck", but instead "even if you try to focus on other stuff, you'll still be at least OK at this." If you're a fighter focused on damage, or control, you might not be as good at those as a more focused striker or controller, but you'll still be a decent defender, so you're still contributing just as much.

However, I think the main problem you're having here is that, you're going into this saying "I want to be a wizard that fights on the front lines", and thinking that you need to be able to do that with the wizard class, instead of using the swordmage. A wizard isn't an "arcane caster", he's an "arcane controller", while a sorcerer is an "arcane striker" and a swordmage is a "arcane defender", and a bard is a "arcane leader".


Yes, but many people seem to make the mistake that just because a +2 bonus that is continuous and costs a feat is good, that doesn't imply that a +2 bonus that is situational and costs an action is good.

Feats on average aren't very strong, so +2 for a feat is good. People still vastly overstate how much Expertise makes a difference in practice.

+2 to hit is very, very good, even if it only lasts one turn. The reason for this is because it protects your action economy. If you miss with an attack, you've wasted an action and have lost out on the action economy. Similarly, giving your opponent a penalty also helps you win in the action economy by making them more likely to waste an action.

You're right, though, that gaining a bonus to attack at the cost of an action isn't generally worth using an action, because if you have to spend an action to be 10% more likely to not waste your next action, that's generally much less useful than using that action for something else.

[Eorran]

Another big difference between 4e and any other edition is the change in "utility" magic and skills. One of the things that took me some time to get used to is how skills, rituals, and utility powers interact.

Classic spells like fly, spider climb, invisibility, charm person, alter self, etc. are essentially gone. You really have to use skills and skill challenges to accomplish much of the things that could be done with simple, low-level spells before. Rituals help, but the 4e designers seem to have gone a long way to keep spells from replacing skills.

This is a bigger change for the DM than the players, since he really has to structure adventrues differently.

[Saph]

+2 to hit is very, very good, even if it only lasts one turn. The reason for this is because it protects your action economy. If you miss with an attack, you've wasted an action and have lost out on the action economy.

Uh, no. You're right that hitting with your attacks is important. You're wrong that a +2 bonus will make all that much difference. A +2 bonus on a to-hit roll is, by definition, relevant 10% of the time and irrelevant 90% of the time. So out of 10 attacks, it'll make a difference on 1 of them. That's not "very, very good" unless you're using extremely low standards.

This is why getting combat advantage isn't generally all that important in 4e. If you can get it for free, sure. But it's not worth spending any resources on it. Furthermore, since combat advantage doesn't stack, there's no benefit to getting it more than once, so if the target's already dazed, you gain no further bonus to hit by going out of your way to make it flanked/prone/whatever as well.

[Kurald Galain]

T
+2 to hit is very, very good, even if it only lasts one turn. The reason for this is because it protects your action economy.
The problem is that usually, giving an ally +2 in combat (or an enemy -2) will cost you an action. And as you already pointed out, that's not a good trade. This is e.g. why using the Aid Another action in combat usually falls under It's A Trap.

Even if you take an attack that has the +2 or -2 as a side effect, then almost without exception you could have chosen an equal-level attack that has a better side effect, or simply a lot more damage. Even charop points out that almost all rattling powers are lacklustre.

[AgentPaper]

Saying that a +2 bonus won't matter 90% of the time is like saying that putting another bullet in a revolver before using it for Russian Roulette won't matter 83% of the time. Yes, that's technically true, but how much money would you spend to get that bullet out of that revolver?

Similarly, missing with a daily attack can very easily kill your character, because you have then wasted both an action and the daily power itself, which means you're stuck trying to kill your enemy with encounter and at-will powers, or have to use another daily power, which means you can't use it later on. Which gives your opponents more time to try and bash your head in.

But yes, Aid Another, and similar powers that deal little or no damage to give a small bonus, is generally not worthwhile, because you'd get more damage from using your action to use a more damaging attack, than you will on average by making another power more likely to hit.

[tbarrie]

I rarely play a class straight, as I would much rather create a unique character, fluff and crunch, than play a pre-defined "role".

In that case, no, Dungeons & Dragons is probably not the ideal RPG for you. (Any edition; they're all class-based systems.) Have you tried looking at, say, Fantasy Hero, Ars Magica, or Gurps Fantasy?

[qcontinuum]

(IMHO) The biggest assumption you need to watch out for is assuming that PHB1, DMG1, and MM1 constitute the complete core system. The quasi-familiar parts of the system are sufficiently different enough that they don't really get confusing (I tend to have more trouble switching between Star Wars SAGA and D&D4e than between 3.X and 4e), but the assumptions made about what books a group should buy are very different.

With 3.X, you could pretty much make just about any character concept with just the core rulebooks. Splatbooks made it easier to throw together particular concepts without that much work, but they weren't necessary.

I've played two 4e campaigns: one two summers ago and one last summer. The difference between the two was drastic with regards to character creation options. In the first it felt like my 1st-level choices (Dwarven Two-Weapon Ranger) pigeonholed me for the rest of the campaign. It was particularly bad for Ranges and Warlocks, but all of the classes were limited to only a few powers per level to choose from, and the feats provided had a very "look at all the potential for later books" feel rather than actually providing characters options.
In the campaign last summer, though, it was actually interesting to build my character. The extra options provided by the splat books and the Core-2 books had enough variety and utility that I didn't feel like I was building a cookie-cutter character.

That said, even with the extra options available 4e is not my first choice for a campaign. I find its pretty good for one-shot adventure nights, generic dungeon-crawls, and introducing new folks to D&D and PnP RPGs in general, but I prefer 3.X for long-running stories.

[Sipex]

Some assumptions to watch for:

- Opportunity Attacks only trigger when you leave a threatened square or use a ranged power/attack within a threatened square. Nothing else. Standing from prone, picking your nose, using anything with CLOSE in the power name, attacking another target...all of this is OK now.

- Dual wielding works in, you have two weapons out but unless you have a power which specifies that it uses both weapons (some ranger and fighter powers) you only use one per turn.

- Unless your DM makes it so, the game isn't all about combat. It just happens to have really detailed combat rules.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I'm not actually sure that it is. The marketing for 4e kept repeating how tactical it was, but the more I play it, the more I realise that the 'tactics' really don't amount to much. I've been playing my 4e wizard in Reverent's game for a while, and it's got to the point where I could write an AI script for how to play her each battle and I don't think the other players would notice.

Shh! I was just trying to be nice to 4th edition! (I used to play it quite often for a while, but returned to 3rd and haven't been back since. :smallwink: )

[Yakk]

Things to watch for:

There are 2 things that provoke OAs: Leaving a threatened square without shifting or teleporting, and making a ranged attack (or ranged area attack) from a square that is threatened.

Nothing else does, in general (this includes standing up).

...

No actions require more than 1 action. There are no full-round actions. You get a standard, a move and a minor action per round. Charging, for example, is a standard action in which you move your speed.

...

Role matters. A Defender has 'for free' a lot of features and powers that make defending other players natural. Leaders get lots of free 'buff other players'. Strikers get lots of free 'kill target dead'. Controllers get lots of 'change the face of the battlefield'.

Note that I'm playing a hybrid Warlock|Swordmage that plays more like a controller than a striker or a defender, because both halves of the hybrid lean controller as a secondary role, and I chose mostly powers that where controller-esque.

It just isn't natural.

...

Multiclassing is getting a splash of another class. The main advantage you get is access to that classes class-specific feats, plus an initial feat that is above the standard power-budget for a feat.

Power-swap feats are only great if you can find some good synergy with them.

Traditional (1e) multiclassing comes with the PHB3 rules for Hybrid characters.

...

Your non-ac defences look like 3e saves (Fort, Reflex, Will) -- but they are defences. To "roll a save" means roll a 10+ on a d20, and it is used for effects that can last more than 1 round.

...

You generally pick a new power, a new feat, or some stats to increase every level in 4e. The least exciting levels are level 4, 8, 14, 18, 24 and 28, where you get to pick 2 stats to increase by +1, one feat, and get a +1 to your AC, attacks and all defences.

At level 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 22, 26 and 28 you get a new power (usually a utility power) and a feat choice.

At level 1, 3, 7, 13, 17, 23, 27 you get a new encounter power. At level 13+, you replace a low-level one you already know instead of just getting a new one.

At level 1, 5, 9, 15, 19, 25, 29 you get a new daily power. At level 15+, you replace a low-level one you already know instead of just getting a new one.

At level 11 and 21, you pick a paragon and epic destiny. These give you new features that are about half as impactful as your original character class features, spread out over the next 10 levels, and also pick out some powers for your character.

In short, there are no dead levels in 4e.


1: choose 4 powers, 1 feat, 1 class, attributes, race
2: choose 1 power, 1 feat
3: choose 1 power
4: choose 1 feat, 2 stats to increase
5: choose 1 power
6: choose 1 feat, 1 power
7: choose 1 power
8: choose 1 feat, 2 stats to increase
9: choose 1 power
10: choose 1 power, 1 feat
11: choose 1 paragon path, get paragon path power and features
12: 1 feat, get paragon path power
13: choose 1 power
14: 1 feat, 2 stats to increase
15: choose 1 power, get paragon path feature
16: 1 feat, 1 power
17: 1 power
18: 1 feat, 2 stats to increase
19: 1 power
20: 1 feat, 1 paragon path power
21: 1 epic destiny, epic destiny features
22: 1 feat, 1 power
23: 1 power
24: 1 feat, 1 epic feature, two stats to increase
25: 1 power
26: 1 feat, 1 epic power
27: 1 power
28: 1 feat, two stats to increase
29: 1 power
30: 1 epic feature

The Paragon and Epic features/powers are actually chosen at (nominally) 11 and 21, and follow from there.

The least exciting levels are, as noted, the 4s and 8s, because what stats to increase are usually no-brainers.

For example, I have a character build tucked away somewhere that would allow a PC to play as two wolves. (Hybrid Druid / Ranger, with beasty hybrid talent.)
2 wolves? Shaman/Druid/Ranger/Wizard (using windrise ports background and hybrid-action) for a character that has, by default, 4 beings on the table (he's a beast, his animal companion, his familiar, and his spirit companion) with summoning powers out the wazoo.


Still don't like this whole "role" thing, honestly. It still seems too much like WotC telling me that "this" is how the class is played, which leads me into thinking that's the only way to play the class because they have not built enough flexibility into the system.
No, it says "this class will by default be good at this".

You can build striker-esque Fighters or controller-esque Warlocks. Heck, I've heard of defender-esque Avengers.


Eh, retraining I'm not much of a fan of; I'm sort of a traditionalist in that regard. Though I agree it does make for a simpler and easier to learn system, and so that's good. I just actually like planning out a character's build.

Anyway, lack of dead levels is excellent, more feats is a good change, etc. Sounds decent. The fact that everyone PrCs at the same level is kind of weird, though.
Retraining of heroic tier feats to paragon tier (and later epic) is quite common.

Paragon tier feats are balanced higher than heroic, and same for Epic.

An example of an epic tier feat is "quickend spellcasting", which lets you use one at-will arcane attack spell as a minor action once per encounter. Or the one that lets you refresh an encounter spell the first time you get a critical hit in a fight.

This replaces the 'feat chain' tendency of 4e.


See, that's good, but when you specifically delineate a class's role, it says to me that "yeah, you can do something else, but it's not going to be pretty and we're going to penalize you for doing it", which doesn't sound so good. Of course, that doesn't have to be the case, but it seems to me that it often is. Someone even said as much earlier. When you say you could do something other than being a Defender, do you mean you really, honestly can, as well as any other Controller or Striker or whatever, and as well as you might have done Defending, or are you saying "if you really wanted, you could try to force it to do something it's not meant to do"?
What do you mean by penalize?

The fighter has two striker-esque features: they are proficient with all martial weapons, and they get a +1 to hit with their category of choice of weapons to start with. Their powers tend towards higher damage than the typical run of the mill.

The fighter who tries to be a lightly armored archer will run into trouble, because the fighter class in 4e isn't a lightly armored archer.

The character who is a lightly armored archer is the ranger. The fighter class lacks archery exploits.

OK, then a major question is, how much choice do you have on powers?

I mean, OK, you choose a class. Is it that that class gets a given power each level? Or do they choose from a pool of powers on each level? How large a pool of powers do they have to choose from?
4-5 from the first book, up to ~7-10 if you have the "Marital Power" (or whatever power source) book for your class.

A hybrid character is picking between powers of two classes each level.

More importantly, "a wizard uses magic, a fighter uses weapons" is very different from "a wizard is a controller, and throws enemies around; a fighter is a defender, and tanks enemies". A wizard in 3.5 could be a "striker" (blaster), a "controller" (battlefield control), a "leader" (buffs), or a "defender" (gish, or polymorph, or summoner for meat shields, or just plain defensive spells), while a fighter could be a "striker" (ubercharger), a "controller" (trip/lockdown builds), or a defender (actually arguably what they're worst at since 3.5 gave little ability to force people to attack you) (and they couldn't do leader very well because they didn't have buffs).
Arcane classes use magic.

There are Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Swordmages and Bards. They all use magic differently.

Martial classes are good at swinging weapons. There are Fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Warlords.

Divine classes have the blessing of a diety. There are Avengers, Clerics, Paladins, Invokers, and Rune-priests.

Primal classes channel primal spirits. There are Barbarians, Druids, Shamans, Seekers, and Wardens.

Psi classes use mind-mojo. There are Psions, Battleminds, Monks and Ardents.

Shadow classes get power from the shadowfel. There are as yet just Assassins.

So.. what kind of magic slinger do you want to be? There are 6 kinds out there, and they have different default strengths and weaknesses.

While this is certainly true for 3E, it also remains true for 4E. Frequently, there is an obvious best pick for your power for a certain level; ability boosts are very straightforward for pretty much everyone; and feats tend to be either rather low-powered or obvious must-haves. Once you've picked your class and sub-class, the next non-trivial build choice is pretty much when you pick your paragon path.
This actually gets less true as you start playing with the system.

My Swordmage|Warlock is seriously feat-starved. Every level I am conflicted between multiple must-have feats. And when I hit paragon, I'm agonising over having to replace heroic tier feats with paragon tier feats...

A simple example is flanking. Flanking contributes +2 to your attack roll, whereas the die you roll contributes an average of +10.5 to your attack roll. It is obvious that the roll of the die is far more important then whether you flank or not. So a player that has learned the tactical lesson of "flanking is good" (which, frankly, isn't all that hard a lesson) is not markedly more effective than a player that hasn't yet learned this.
In a given fight, the character who knows how to flank will get about 1 more hit in than the character who doesn't, on average.

One hit is about half the difference between an at-will and a daily. So the player who knows how to flank saves half-a-daily per enounter worth of resources, on average.

Throwing a character up against hard content, this means that the character might run out of oomph 2 to 6 encounters later in the day.

The problem is that usually, giving an ally +2 in combat (or an enemy -2) will cost you an action. And as you already pointed out, that's not a good trade. This is e.g. why using the Aid Another action in combat usually falls under It's A Trap.
Aid Another is mostly a trap, unless you are up against the immovable rock.

The +2 gain from flanking usually costs a move action, and pays out on a standard action. Giving up a standard action to get flanking is a poor choice.

Even if you take an attack that has the +2 or -2 as a side effect, then almost without exception you could have chosen an equal-level attack that has a better side effect, or simply a lot more damage. Even charop points out that almost all rattling powers are lacklustre.
Penalties work best when stacked. A -2 to hit might reduce a 50% chance to hit to a 40% chance to hit -- reducing it by another -4 drops it to 20%. The -2 'contributed' a 1/3 reduction in the damage per round of the target.

Yes, that -2 will only matter in 10% of rounds. But if your fights have ramped up to the point of difficulty where your opponents are presumed to be hitting only 30% of the time, that -2 will have a relatively huge impact on the number of fights you can do per day without falling over.

[Sipex]

Yeah, I've found 4e focuses more on 'stacking the odds' instead of 'well, this one thing is awesome so I'll just stick to it'. You get CA which gives +2 but then you add in a few more things. Knock the enemy prone gives +2 to melee attacks vs said enemy, now the total bonus is +4 for melee when you have Combat Advantage.

Nothing in it says "THIS IS AWESOME, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE IT." well...some stuff does, but most of it is "This helps, use it with your other stuff to be awesome overall."

[AtwasAwamps]

Regarding Roles:

Yes, every class has a role defined by WOTC that they are intended to fill. What you may have missed is that each class also has ways to shift that role around and has a high amount of customizability regarding how to fill that role…or perhaps how to utilize that role in an entirely different manner.

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that you listen to the Penny Arcade D&D Podcasts. I suggest you do that and pay attention to Scott Kurtz and Wil Wheaton. Scott Kurtz is playing a Fighter (Role: Defender) and Wil Wheaton is playing an Avenger (Role: Striker). Kurtz’ fighter, Binwin Bronzebottom, RARELY acts as a pure defender, often not utilizing his defensive powers at all, and instead lays out his opponents with heavy hits, fulfilling the striker role…which fighters do VERY well, when built in that way. In the meantime, Wheaton’s Avenger, Aeofel, takes advantage of abilities like Overwhelming Strike, which moves characters around on the field, and his powerful Eladrin movement abilities, to strike targets that need to be hit and shove enemies around, doing less damage as a striker but fulfilling the roles of a buffing leader (with tricks like Divine Guidance and some of the riders on his attacks) and a controller (shifting and moving characters around, as well as controlling their movement with zone powers and similar techniques).

Granted, the above two examples are not necessarily intentional, but both players are playing their characters in the way THEY want to, which isn’t necessarily the role laid out by WOTC. This is possible with almost every character class. Granted, some just don’t work out…Warlocks and Wizards aren’t going to be buffers or healers, but I’ve seen warlock melee builds floating around, too. Yes, many of the crazier options have been taken away, but I still feel I can create an interesting, textured character, both in combat options and in role-playing opportunities.

Regarding Feats:

The change to feats is something I understand very well. In 4e, because of the way stats and defenses advance both on PCs and NPCs, an extra +1 or +2 to attack is actually very important. There are a number of interesting feats that have been left out here…rangers get a neat ability to take opportunity attacks on opponents that attack their animal companion. Halflings get one that transforms a shortbow from the only ranged option to a very, very strong ranged option for their size. Yes, a number of feats boil down to numeric boosts, but there are more than enough interesting shifts in this to allow for quite a strong degree of customization.

[Kurald Galain]

In 4e, because of the way stats and defenses advance both on PCs and NPCs, an extra +1 or +2 to attack is actually very important.
That doesn't follow. Neither the rarity of bonuses, nor the way how defenses advance, in any way change the fact that a +1 bonus on 1d20 is irrelevant exactly 95% of the time. Just because something is uncommon doesn't mean it's valuable.

[AtwasAwamps]

That doesn't follow. Neither the rarity of bonuses, nor the way how defenses advance, in any way change the fact that a +1 bonus on 1d20 is irrelevant exactly 95% of the time. Just because something is uncommon doesn't mean it's valuable.

I will try and put this in a clearer way:

Increasing your chances of success on an attack, even minutely, is more important in 4.0 than 3.5 because defense advances faster than offense in 4.0. Thus, a +1 bonus is comparatively more important in 4.0 than it was in 3.5. Mathematically, you are correct. I may in fact be incorrect about this conclusion, but it was what I was given to understand while reading 4.0 optimization information. I may be incorrect and if so, you have my apologies and may disregard that particular part of my post. However, considering the ranting I have seen about how the feats that add +1 to attack in 4.0 are often considered a "feat tax" in having an effective character, this was the conclusion I was led to.

[Kurald Galain]

However, considering the ranting I have seen about how the feats that add +1 to attack in 4.0 are often considered a "feat tax" in having an effective character, this was the conclusion I was led to.
Oh, I'm not disputing that the Expertise feats (those +1-to-attack ones you mention) are good feats and/or a feat tax. However, just because those feats are good to have, doesn't mean that every other +1 bonus is good; for instance, the cleric ability Divine Favor also gives a +1 bonus, and is utter rubbish.

How can one +1 bonus be good and the other be bad? The difference lies in the price you pay for it, and its duration.

[AgentPaper]

Oh, I'm not disputing that the Expertise feats (those +1-to-attack ones you mention) are good feats and/or a feat tax. However, just because those feats are good to have, doesn't mean that every other +1 bonus is good; for instance, the cleric ability Divine Favor also gives a +1 bonus, and is utter rubbish.

How can one +1 bonus be good and the other be bad? The difference lies in the price you pay for it, and its duration.

Are you kidding? Divine favor is great for a level 6 utility power. +2 to hit on your prime striker, or a fighter, and preemptive healing? Yes please. Sure, it takes a standard action, but you'll be using this at the start of the encounter, when there's not much else for the cleric to do but buff people up anyways. Hell, you might even be able to do it before you would even be able to attack the enemy at all.

And again, you're really under-estimating how useful it is to have your attacks hit more often.

[Kurald Galain]

Are you kidding? Divine favor is great for a level 6 utility power.
(/checks books) ah, I meant Divine Fortune. Darn thesaurus.


And again, you're really under-estimating how useful it is to have your attacks hit more often.
No, I'm saying that this highly depends on (1) how more often, (2) for how long, and (3) at what cost. "Bonuses are good" is just an empty statement.

[Kynoceros]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 4 pages without mentioning this: In previous editions, one of your friends was the DM and everyone else was a player. 4e has made it way, way easier to DM. XP math has been simplified, magic items have levels so it's obvious what treasure is appropriate, and codified rules for skill challenges make interesting non-combat encounters easy.

Almost every 4e player I know has DMed for a few sessions.

[AgentPaper]

(/checks books) ah, I meant Divine Fortune. Darn thesaurus.

:smallconfused: Not the most powerful ability out there, but it's anything but rubbish, seeing as how it's a free action.


No, I'm saying that this highly depends on (1) how more often, (2) for how long, and (3) at what cost. "Bonuses are good" is just an empty statement.

Yes, trading a standard action for a +2 to hit with a single attack generally isn't worthwhile. (unless you're just trying to bash down a door or some other situation where you don't need to worry about the action economy) I actually said that I agreed with you that it wasn't. However, getting it as a rider effect on an otherwise good power makes that power even better, and trading out gold or lesser actions (move, minor, immediate) to make your important attacks hit more often is also often a very good idea.

[Yakk]

Oh, I'm not disputing that the Expertise feats (those +1-to-attack ones you mention) are good feats and/or a feat tax. However, just because those feats are good to have, doesn't mean that every other +1 bonus is good; for instance, the cleric ability Divine Favor also gives a +1 bonus, and is utter rubbish.

How can one +1 bonus be good and the other be bad? The difference lies in the price you pay for it, and its duration.
Yes, +1 to hit for a single round isn't very good.

You could imagine this in terms of round-pips. Expertise (at level 1 to 15) over a 6 round combat is a 6 pips/combat ability. Divine favour is a 1 pip/combat ability.

By level 30, Expertise is a 18 pip/combat ability, while Divine favour remains a 1 pip/combat ability.

Not surprisingly, something 6 to 18 times better is a far better ability.

The cost of getting combat advantage is usually using a single move action slightly differently. This does not reduce your offensive ability that much. Someone who constantly gets combat advantage is generating 12 to-hit pips per combat compared to someone who never gets it.

That is about 0.6 hits per combat.

Now, the average number of hits in a 6 round combat is about 3, so this is a 20% boost in the effectiveness of the character over the first 6 rounds of a combat, roughly.

And yes, luck can dominate over this. Over the same period, you have generated anywhere between 6 and 120 pips from your die rolls.

The average number of pips you will have generated is 63. The variance of 6 d20 rolls comes to 199.5, for a SD of ~14, and a 95% confidence interval of about 28.

So in 95% of combats, you'll have generated between 35 and 91 pips with your d20 rolls in the first 6 rounds of a fight. In short, the RNG contributes 0 to 56 PIPS in most fights -- combat advantage is about 21% of this, expertise is 10% to 3296% of this, exploiting leadership tricks for +4 to hit on attacks is another 43% of this... stack leadership tricks/debuffing, combat advantage, and expertise, and you are talking 74% to 96% as much impact as "good vs bad luck" rolling on dice.

...

Which means you can beat or match the impact the RNG in 95% of games through intelligent play by intelligent and tactical play and builds in paragon tier (by which leadership bonuses tend to break +4, and can be relatively constantly applied).

Heck, just going from 16 to 18 to 20 throws 6 to 12 pips at your character.

...

And yes, Divine Favour is rubbish. If it read "against this target until the end of the encounter", it would be better. As it stands, it isn't worth the brain-space of considering the use of the power.

[Saph]

So in 95% of combats, you'll have generated between 35 and 91 pips with your d20 rolls in the first 6 rounds of a fight. In short, the RNG contributes 0 to 56 PIPS in most fights -- combat advantage is about 21% of this, expertise is 10% to 3296% of this, exploiting leadership tricks for +4 to hit on attacks is another 43% of this... stack leadership tricks/debuffing, combat advantage, and expertise, and you are talking 74% to 96% as much impact as "good vs bad luck" rolling on dice.

Your assumptions are . . . dubious. First, everyone has to take Expertise - it's a "feat tax", it's nothing to do with tactics. Second, it's actually impossible to always have combat advantage when an ally doesn't; e.g. if the enemy's Dazed. If you're assuming that you're always going to have CA, you're going to be paying a much steeper price than "using your move action slightly differently". That subtracts from your overall effectiveness. Finally, your leadership figures sound pretty optimistic to me. Leadership powers such as Lance of Faith generally require a hit to work and aren't necessarily going to be used on you, even assuming that the guy playing the Leader happens to be around at that particular moment doing exactly what you want him to do.

Subtract all of those, and I think you'll find that the RNG is considerably more dominant than you'd like to think.

[Colmarr]

And yes, Divine Favour is rubbish. If it read "against this target until the end of the encounter", it would be better. As it stands, it isn't worth the brain-space of considering the use of the power.

I assume you mean divine fortune. If so, I still don't see the reason for all the hate. It's a free action power included to give clerics something else to do with their turn undead when they're not facing undead. There is generally no opportunity cost to using it.

So far, my cleric has faced undead 4 times between level 1 and level 9. I'm pretty happy with divine fortune, to be honest.

Has it ever made a difference to an attack roll? I honestly don't remember, but I'm certainly looking forward to combining divine fortune with Action Surge in the near future.

And let's not forget that divine fortune can be applied to saving throws.

[AtwasAwamps]

Oh, I'm not disputing that the Expertise feats (those +1-to-attack ones you mention) are good feats and/or a feat tax. However, just because those feats are good to have, doesn't mean that every other +1 bonus is good; for instance, the cleric ability Divine Favor also gives a +1 bonus, and is utter rubbish.

How can one +1 bonus be good and the other be bad? The difference lies in the price you pay for it, and its duration.


Believe it or not, I completely agree with you. My comment was meant to be applied directly to things such as feats and other permanent abilities, to point out that what seem like extremely minor bonuses as far as feats are concerned (and would be, in 3.5) are actually significant IN THE CASE OF FEATS.

Hopefully, that clears it up.

[Kurald Galain]

I assume you mean divine fortune. If so, I still don't see the reason for all the hate. It's a free action power included to give clerics something else to do with their turn undead when they're not facing undead. There is generally no opportunity cost to using it.
Well, I've never met a cleric that did not take one of those feats that give you an extra Channel Divinity power.


Hopefully, that clears it up.
Yep, I agree with that :smallsmile:

[tbarrie]

Yeah, I've found 4e focuses more on 'stacking the odds' instead of 'well, this one thing is awesome so I'll just stick to it'. You get CA which gives +2 but then you add in a few more things. Knock the enemy prone gives +2 to melee attacks vs said enemy, now the total bonus is +4 for melee when you have Combat Advantage.


That's not true in the standard rules, actually. Being prone just means that you grant combat advantage to melee attackers; it isn't a separate bonus that stacks with CA.

[Sipex]

Wait, seriously? I thought it was an undefined +2 bonus.

Damnit.

Well, still, if you compare two characters, vs the same monster, one with several very possible bonuses and one with none (because hey, that +1 makes no difference) I'll bet you'll see how big of a difference it actually does make.

At 1st level the difference will be arbitrary, +2 or +3 at most.

Although...hm, it depends on how the 'use of actions' could've gone over.

This could get complicated.

[Yakk]

Your assumptions are . . . dubious. First, everyone has to take Expertise - it's a "feat tax", it's nothing to do with tactics.
It is smart play. Not everyone views expertise as a "must have".

Second, it's actually impossible to always have combat advantage when an ally doesn't; e.g. if the enemy's Dazed. If you're assuming that you're always going to have CA, you're going to be paying a much steeper price than "using your move action slightly differently".
Actually it is quite easy for one player to have CA when they attack, while another does not. Players go on different initiative counts.

Second, it does usually take two players using their move action slightly differently to generate relatively reliable CA for at least one of the two characters, in my experience. Any game you play with a rogue who doesn't have "I get CA for free" powers is such an example -- it isn't hard as a party defender to nearly guarantee CA to that rogue. Due to initiative differences, usually you cannot guarantee CA yourself as well (as you want to change position to allow the rogue to change position to flank).

Now, both of the players having CA isn't that rare -- with 3 in a tight melee, it isn't unusual that 2/3 of them have CA on a given round.

That subtracts from your overall effectiveness. Finally, your leadership figures sound pretty optimistic to me. Leadership powers such as Lance of Faith generally require a hit to work and aren't necessarily going to be used on you, even assuming that the guy playing the Leader happens to be around at that particular moment doing exactly what you want him to do.
There are non-leader based leadership powers, such as "debuff AC by STAT until the end of your next turn" powers. These powers usually cost a [W] die, and are well worth the price.

By mid-paragon, having one of those up quite often is not that rare.

I assume you mean divine fortune. If so, I still don't see the reason for all the hate. It's a free action power included to give clerics something else to do with their turn undead when they're not facing undead. There is generally no opportunity cost to using it.
Sorry, yes, divine fortune. It isn't worth the brain time to consider it.

You have to decide "will any undead show up later in this fight? Am I certain? Should I use it now?"

If you simply strike it from your character sheet, you'll be indistinguishably as good at doing your cleric stuff, and your turns will play faster. Which will make the game flow quicker, which is a benefit.

A decition point before the roll for a +1 to the roll is a decision point that shouldn't exist in the game.

Note that this is similarly true about some of the white lotus riposte feats: 4e D&D isn't paying enough attention to the 'cost of state' and 'cost of decision points'.

Placing a decision point somewhere has a cost, because it can slow down the game. So the impact of that decision should be significant.

Adding state to the game has a cost. So if you add state (ie, keeping track of who you hit with a power), it should have a significant impact.

The white lotus enervation feat is an example of 'bad state'. Divine fortune is an example of a 'bad decision point'. Another example of a bad decision point is the swordmage level 1 spell that, in a burst 2, on a hit, prevents the target from taking OAs (save ends). It should have read "effect: all enemies in burst are prevented from taking OAs until the end of the swordmage's next turn" -- because as written, it adds state to a nearly random subset of a set of creatures for a random number of turns, which slows down combat more than it adds to the tactics of the combat.

[Optimystik]

The PHB2 isn't a slightly pointless splatbook, it's one of the best supplements in the game.

This is true in both 4e and 3.5e.

(Carry on)

[FoE]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 4 pages without mentioning this: In previous editions, one of your friends was the DM and everyone else was a player. 4e has made it way, way easier to DM. XP math has been simplified, magic items have levels so it's obvious what treasure is appropriate, and codified rules for skill challenges make interesting non-combat encounters easy.

That for me is probably the biggest selling point. I don't get to play D&D often and I can't spend more than a couple hours drafting adventures. So far, the only limits I find in my ability to DM 4E games is the limits of my creativity.