PDA

View Full Version : [4e] So, what are it's flaws?



Cedrass
2010-12-27, 02:59 PM
This thread is really only for my personnal curiosity, since I never had the chance to try 4e because my gaming group is very, very against it. With valids reasons, being money investement mostly.

What I do wonder though, is how the system is viewed now that people had time to play around with it. Is it balanced? Is it fun? How's the learning curve? In short, what are your ups and downs with the system.

I ask, because I'm trying to work on a LARP system, and even though it is not the same at all, some concepts and design might work or help to achieve a better system in the end. I know what the flaws of the 3.0 and 3.5 system are and played around enough with AD&D to know what was nice or boring.

The way I see it now, the 4e is a very balanced system, even if every class is built on the same wireframe, with the powers having a different name (Spell, prayer, etc) depending on the class. It seems to be very combat oriented, with the social situations left to roleplay, but I might be wrong here and the gear seems to be a very big part of a character's power.

That is all the knowledge I have though, and I might be wrong on a lot, lacking the actual experience of the game. So I ask, what is your opinion after all that time?

Lateral
2010-12-27, 03:12 PM
It's... a very different game from 3.5. Let's start there. The classes are all similar in how they're built (aside from PHB 3 classes): at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers. No more wizards running out of spells, and no more fighter going 'I hit it' all day long. It's also more balanced than 3.5- in 3.5 terms, everything's tier 4, and they like it that way. There's still optimizing, but only low levels of practical optimization. Everyone stays pretty much single-classed, going into different paths within their own classes at 11th level. There are multiclass feats, but you'll never get anything similar at all to 3.5's multiclassing, where you could have, like, a Rogue 1/ Ranger 2/ Fighter 2/ Barbarian 5/ X prestige class 10. Also, they dropped much of the terminology that compares to real life- most notably, they changed distances to be measured in squares instead of 5-foot increments. Not really a 'change', but it changes the feel of the game a bit. It has a much easier learning curve than 3.5; once you get the hang of play, it only takes a bit of practice to be able to play pretty much any kind of character. Those are the big ones that I can think of.

{Scrubbed}

ninja_penguin
2010-12-27, 03:14 PM
Overall the characters are pretty gear dependent. However, everybody adds half levels to everything, so provided that you tweak the opposition accordingly, higher level characters can actually do impressive things wearing only a pair of shorts.

For balance I think that the classes are fairly well balanced, although I'm not a CharOp type so I'm unsure of that. I hear bad things about some of the PH3 classes, but I've never used them, so I don't know.

Fun is pretty objective. I know some people don't like that wizards and spellcasters can't go and do crazy things with utility spells anymore. I'm just happy as a DM that I no longer need to think 'anti magic field' for how I want this next dungeon to avoid being easily skipped.

I felt like the learning curve is pretty easy, but again, I'm not really in the nature of keeping track of that kind of thing.

Sir Swindle89
2010-12-27, 03:16 PM
you've pretty much got it. 4E's only real bonus is it's balance and even that gets brought into question some times. But even the most optimized builds are only slightly better then poorly optimized ones.

Wizards errata team is pretty dumb. Anything that is OP for a tiny wording loop hole they nerf into unplayability. Additionally new book most times function as eratta, releasing new power that are simply better than the weaker ones originally released.

Technically social situations are systematic in that wizards would have you run them useing their "Skill Challenge" system. (not too awful of a system i geuss for some people) They are however better left to roleplay.

I've been in a game thats been running since release. But the merits of the system have nothing to do with the lenght or enjoyability of the game. To be honest we hoserule the combat to make is less drawn out (no I cannot tell you how, our DM keeps it a secret so that we can't optimize around the house rules).

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 03:17 PM
#1: {Scrubbed}

#2: One man's bug is another man's feature, so there's a level of subjectivity in any response you'll get to this, though you might get some consensus on a few things.

#3: I'd say that the two things I view as flaws at present are the bewildering number of options (which is more an inconvenience than a flaw, since it's a necessary side effect of a number of good things) and the sheer amount of time it takes to run a combat (takes FOREVER, even at low levels, because of the number of powers everyone can pick from). Any other complaint I might have (like the lack of certain setting info and the fact that they haven't imported some of my favorite old setting stuff like Modrons) will almost certainly be solved as the game ages and gets more support.

As for the monetary investment issue, you should probably look into Essentials. It's cheap-ish and provides a great way to win converts; show up to your gaming group with the Red Box and whip it out when people want a change of pace. After that, you'll need one of the Heroes books, the DM's Kit, and the Monster Vault, but those can sort of wait for a while, and you can stagger your acquisitions if you use the adventures published in kits themselves. The Red Box provides enough for a little while, then just grab the DM's Kit and Heroes of the Fallen Lands and you can progress a bit further, then grab the Monster Vault and you're basically all set.

Might want to grab the Rules Compendium and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms later if you want to expand your options further, but Essentials is a hell of a good way to start in 4E. When you want to expand your horizons further, just start grabbing older 4E stuff like the PHBs and the Power books and Monster Manuals and whatever else. 4E isn't exactly the most wallet-friendly edition of D&D, but it's a pretty good one.

Cedrass
2010-12-27, 03:28 PM
#1:{Scrubbed}

I really hope it won't, the system can't be all bad, it's not made for everyone, but then, what is?

Also, thank you guys for the answers. I'm hoping to get more input, especially since, as GodotIsW8ing4U said, it's a matter of point of view. I'm glad to see I kind of understood the system.

tcrudisi
2010-12-27, 03:33 PM
#2: One man's bug is another man's feature, so there's a level of subjectivity in any response you'll get to this, though you might get some consensus on a few things.

Agreed. In fact, I think I'll have evidence for this.


#3: I'd say that the two things I view as flaws at present are the bewildering number of options (which is more an inconvenience than a flaw, since it's a necessary side effect of a number of good things) and the sheer amount of time it takes to run a combat (takes FOREVER, even at low levels, because of the number of powers everyone can pick from).

Oh yeah, here it is. See, in my home-game experience, the most difficult combats take 30 minutes. The average is closer to 10-15 minutes. When I'm teaching new players how to play, this can easily climb up to 2 hours. Why the massive swing? Well, it's all about how the DM and players manage their combat time. If your group doesn't pay attention and chit-chats when it's not their turn, combats will lag. If your group pays attention during combats and communicates quickly and effectively, combats fly.


When you want to expand your horizons further, just start grabbing older 4E stuff like the PHBs and the Power books and Monster Manuals and whatever else. 4E isn't exactly the most wallet-friendly edition of D&D, but it's a pretty good one.

Agreed. The main difference is, instead of giving part of your money to White Wolf for splat books, WotC is publishing everything so they get all your money. I find I've spent less money on 4e in the first 3 years than I did with 3.5. Quick guesstimate: by about half. Getting into it after 3 years though? That would be a sizable investment.

It is a pretty good version of D&D though. In my opinion it is the best tabletop rpg I've ever played (and I've played more than a few). The balance between characters, wonderful skill challenges, roleplaying opportunities, tactical combats, and teamwork between characters is just so much fun. In fact, I've only played one other game where teamwork was so ingrained into the system: Werewolf 2nd ed. revised.

As for the flaws, I would say the biggest one is that a small portion of every book has been errata'ed. You can play without the errata, sure, but the game is at it's best when implemented with the errata. That's a lot of printing to do.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 03:43 PM
Oh yeah, here it is. See, in my home-game experience, the most difficult combats take 30 minutes. The average is closer to 10-15 minutes. When I'm teaching new players how to play, this can easily climb up to 2 hours. Why the massive swing? Well, it's all about how the DM and players manage their combat time. If your group doesn't pay attention and chit-chats when it's not their turn, combats will lag. If your group pays attention during combats and communicates quickly and effectively, combats fly.

That's an issue in my game, not because the whole group has trouble, but because the Warpriest is definitely a Watcher (so he's paying attention but not really thinking about his upcoming turn) and is still learning the system, so he's almost always got a question about what he's about to do, and the Swordmage has ADD, mild autism, and a speech impediment (so his turns drag on forever). Everyone else is mostly on top of the game, though they're all new to the system, so it's still fairly time-consuming. I don't any combat has taken us longer than an hour and a quarter, though.


As for the flaws, I would say the biggest one is that a small portion of every book has been errata'ed. You can play without the errata, sure, but the game is at it's best when implemented with the errata. That's a lot of printing to do.

I just run my game with my laptop behind the screen and the Compendium open at all times. That tends to do the trick. We also use Character Builder-printed power cards, so our powers are covered.

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 03:47 PM
Flaws when we play:

1. Feels too much like a video game. We have to try extra hard to roleplay, even the ones of us that are really good RPers.

2. In a way, many classes have too similar a feel. They do get different powers and such, but your character sheets still look very similar. For instance, a leader and a controller. Almost identical powers except one gives allies +2 to hit and the other debuffs and gives a -2 to defenses. They just feel really similar.

3. It's somewhat dumbed down which is both good and bad. We are optimizers and veteran players, so bad for us. By dumbed down, I mean, its almost impossible to screw up a class and you don't get the energy you put into it if you're an optimizer.

4. Some stuff is just useless, like they didn't play test at all. i.e. many rituals

5. Positioning is much more important. It'd be really hard to play without a battle map.

6. This is more my opinion, but healers are still boring to play. If not more boring at high levels. At least at high levels you were a t1 [email protected] in 3.5 as a cleric. Which brings me to my next point, you have to heal mid-combat. I was hoping they'd get rid of that. Healing is boring to almost everyone I've ever met.

7. oh and skill challenges are a little wonky and boring

8. Youre not as custimizable in 4e. In 3.5e you can make almost any character.

Good things:

Magic is pretty balanced

Character generator is easy to use and you have all your powers right there

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 03:48 PM
In my view 4e's main flaw is that you can't play a sandwich, while in 3.5 you can. Yes, I'm serious about this. 4e is designed for plots: as a DM, you should know whether the players are supposed to be able to do something or not in terms of manipulating the setting. 3.5 works better for sandboxes: you can royally mess up the world and yourselves in ways that the DM doesn't have to sanction or plan for.

Gralamin
2010-12-27, 03:50 PM
Well, as an avid player / DM, I have a few key flaws I'd like to see rectified:

1) More out of battle powers / fixed rituals - Right now, by and large, almost every power is a combat power. Combine that with rituals needing serious work (Most of them are too weak, too expensive, and too slow), and you have very little base support for out of combat interactions. That said, 4e has excellent guidelines on things the rules don't cover, and they can help you get around this problem a lot.

2) More "Subsystem" Diversity - They started doing this in PHB3, and I would very much like to see it continued. Adapting the power system, or even showing how to take a new system and plug it into the power system is a worthy accomplishment.

3) Less Essentials stuff, more base 4e stuff - This is entirely 100% subjective, but I personally dislike most of the essentials content I've seen, and I would like to see them start to release more content that resembles base 4e then Essentials. That said, they should be starting to do this soon... though there is some weirdness with what is going on with next years products currently.

Vitruviansquid
2010-12-27, 03:52 PM
DnD 4e is my favorite RPG that I'm aware of, but you asked me for its flaws, not its virtues, so...

1. The powers system feels shoe-horned to feel like an action movie where characters never use same attack twice. However, in many tactical situations, it's incredibly appropriate (both in the roleplaying sense and the roll-playing sense) to use, say, a humble encounter power twice.

2. Niche protection can be a pain. I know a lot of people say one of 3.5's flaws is that a couple of its classes can be a party on their own, but it's a real pain sometimes to want to start a 4e campaign only to find out the role you want to play is already over-filled, and you have to roll a leader instead of a controller (for example) or the DM's going to have to ham-fistedly underpower encounters.

3. People can take REALLY REALLY needlessly long turns. I like that 4e is "gamey" and seeks to challenge me in encounters, but it's also a turn-based game and I've sat for long periods of time without getting my turn. :smallmad: Note of course, with the right players, this wouldn't be a problem, but it can be nightmarish with the wrong players.

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 03:55 PM
DnD 4e is my favorite RPG that I'm aware of, but you asked me for its flaws, not its virtues, so...

1. The powers system feels shoe-horned to feel like an action movie where characters never use same attack twice. However, in many tactical situations, it's incredibly appropriate (both in the roleplaying sense and the roll-playing sense) to use, say, a humble encounter power twice.
.

Play a psionic class then?

Vitruviansquid
2010-12-27, 03:59 PM
Play a psionic class then?

Just because I'm complaining that my chocolate ice cream is half melted, it doesn't mean I'd like a vanilla fresh out of the freezer. :smalltongue:

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:05 PM
2. Niche protection can be a pain. I know a lot of people say one of 3.5's flaws is that a couple of its classes can be a party on their own, but it's a real pain sometimes to want to start a 4e campaign only to find out the role you want to play is already over-filled, and you have to roll a leader instead of a controller (for example) or the DM's going to have to ham-fistedly underpower encounters.

Actually, I'll have to sort-of defend 4e here. The most successful parties in dungeon runs so far are composed of all strikers. Actually, all archer ranger strikers.
The best balanced D&D edition indeed. /sarcasm

Cedrass
2010-12-27, 04:09 PM
Play a psionic class then?

I am not aware of those, what would it change?

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 04:13 PM
I am not aware of those, what would it change?

The Psionic classes don't get encounter powers. Instead, they get a number of power points every encounter that can be spent to augment at-wills. Each at-will lists the augment options associated with it. They also get an extra at-will, and get new options for them as they level.

Vitruviansquid
2010-12-27, 04:14 PM
Psionic classes do not have encounter powers, but can augment their at-will powers (which they can switch out as they level up) to produce additional effects. In essence, they're exactly what I pined for, except limited to a couple of classes with their own flavor and roles.

Mordokai
2010-12-27, 04:17 PM
I'll just copy/paste what I found somewhere on the internet, couple of months back. Maybe it was 1d4chan, but I can't find it there atm.

Power-based combat is too similar to MMOGs, in particular World of Warcraft.
The powers themselves are very cookie-cutter in nature, as most rely on a number of stock effects (such as "Slide", "Slow", "Stun", "Spend a healing surge", etc.)
The fluff descriptions of the powers are incomprehensible. The world-fluff is also generally silly - even if some argue it is actually unnecessary to pay attention to the core fluff at all it still feels like a bad writer's fantasy heartbreaker. Examples also include the infamous Bear Lore check which requires an unusually high Nature Knowledge check to know that bears use their claws to attack. Give that one a second to settle before you continue reading.
Characters are too durable, reducing the fear of death and TPK. On the other hand, a series of playtest combats carried out by Touhoufags show that a party that knows what it's doing and uses group tactics well will cut through encounters several levels higher than themselves like a hot knife through butter.
Lack of content and rules to cover various situations are rationalized with "OH YOU JUST LET THE DM COME UP WITH AN AD-HOC SOLUTION AND WING IT." This wasn't any less viable in any other edition, but now this is somehow played off as a strength.
The skill challenge system, which was supposed to cover non-combat action sequences, was completely broken as-published, to the point that difficulties were inverted (in many cases it was impossible to accrue four successes before two failures on a complexity 1 skill challenge, while it was often nearly impossible to fail a high-complexity skill challenge), and the published examples of negotiation made Fighters completely useless in skill challenges because their lone class social skill, Intimidate, generated automatic failures (which was completely against the intention of the skill challenge rules). The mechanics have since been errataed into a more usable form.
Some feel that the decrease in rules, while welcomed, didn't go far enough. Some people wanted to open up the DMG and see "BULL**** IT." Many people want to pay hundreds of dollars for books with no content. Afterall, that's what "streamlined" is, right?
Overreliance on unimaginative 'adjectivenoun' naming conventions, for instance: Darkleaf Armor: Darkleaves from the gravetrees of the Shadowfell give this armor its protective properties..
Lack of non-combat content such as crafting. This criticism partially refers to the reduced skill list and partially to the fact that the greatest focus of the game are obviously the Powers which are largely combat-oriented. The "Adventurer's Vault" item supplement that came out adds to the strength of this argument; it reads like a WoW item encyclopedia.
Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
The Mongol dilemma--soldiers on horseback can defeat a number of the game's monsters by virtue of the monsters not having decent ranged attacks.
Giving a flying monster a bow breaks the game.
Blatantly obvious RNG-sodomizing powers that were somehow overlooked.
Various broken abilities that demonstrate a lack of playtesting and/or willful disregard for legitimate concerns (Orbizard, Demigod epic destiny, rangers soloing Orcus, and so on).
Complete lack of internal consistency: assuming a dynamic world in which NPCs are cognizant (and thus not static "mobiles" to kill for XP and loot) causes the game to break down.
The entire economic system is a cluster**** of not-sense-making.
Vastly dissociated mechanics: how do I describe what's going on in a way that makes sense? Too many powers cripple the ability to narrate a cohesive scene outside of a completely metagame interpretation.
Daily powers for non-casters. "I can only swing for 6[W] + Strength damage once per day!"
Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.
Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
A lack of diversity and interesting classes caused by the standardization of all powers and classes.
Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode.
Use of Dungeons and Dragons terms in 4e abilities that don't make any sense. Examples: The 'Sleep' spell doesn't put anything to sleep in 4e terms, 'Disintegrate' doesn't disintegrate, spells and rituals named after characters, even though there is no way to research spells and rituals, among others.
Elimination of iconic spells, class features, and whole classes in the name of balance--try playing an enchanter, summoner, or necromancer in Core 4e. Try playing a druid in Core 4e. Or a ranger with an animal companion. Or a witch with a familiar. Or a bard. Or a monk. (EDIT: Actually most of these classes have been deferred to other books [sold separately] rather than outright eliminated. Good news is they're all considered 'core,' as though the term still had meaning.)
Exception-based design wanking, plus **** like the four different "evil eye" variations. Includes ability interaction and "How the hell do I adjudicate this?"
Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.
HP bloat resulting in grinding and "padded sumo" at higher levels
Solo encounters suck--they're boring grindfests.
Ritual system is retarded.
Instead of eliminating the 15-minute workday, the devs put everyone on the 15-minute workday schedule.
Swathes of poorly-written and vaguely-worded mechanics.
Everyone playing the same class is generally superior to everyone playing a different class.

Disclaimer: I do not necessary agree with all of the above, though some of it are valid points. It has quite high amusement value however, at least when you assume this being conveyed by a raging fanboy of 3.5. Further disclaimer, I consider myself as fanboy of 3.5... just not raging anymore :smalltongue:

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 04:22 PM
The most successful parties in dungeon runs so far are composed of all strikers. Actually, all archer ranger strikers.

"Successful" is a vague term, and I suspect that you are counting on its vagueness when you say this. What do you mean by "most successful"? If you refer entirely to the speed with which the party slaughters enemies, then you have a point, because rangers are one of the most hilariously destructive classes in the game, but there's a reason why every published adventure has funky terrain and traps and hazards and isn't just a row of monsters to buzz through as fast as you can.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:52 PM
"Successful" is a vague term, and I suspect that you are counting on its vagueness when you say this. What do you mean by "most successful"? If you refer entirely to the speed with which the party slaughters enemies, then you have a point, because rangers are one of the most hilariously destructive classes in the game, but there's a reason why every published adventure has funky terrain and traps and hazards and isn't just a row of monsters to buzz through as fast as you can.
It's actually the 'speed in which they go through a module'. WotC holds competitions around this in conventions. The all-ranger party is famous for plowing through everything with no problems whatsoever, about 2x faster than anyone else.


Entire armies of high-level minions die in a sandstorm.
*rimshot*

Saph
2010-12-27, 05:12 PM
It's really hard to discuss this sort of thing without it getting into an edition war, but I'll give it a go.

4e was designed to be played in a very specific way. Each character plays a Hero (capitalisation intended) who joins up with a party that contains at least one each of the four roles. The party then travels around and kills monsters (assembled in level-appropriate groups). Combat is the main focus of the game, the way you fight combats is by reducing monster HP, and most of what PCs can do revolves around either taking off monster HP or helping to take off monster HP. In between fights you have occasional skill challenges, which are basically a way of organising every encounter that's not a combat so that it follows the same basic structure/XP format as a combat.

This is what 4e does, and it's good at it. If the above paragraph appeals to you, you'll like 4e: there's a lot of content, it's reasonably simple to learn, and it's fairly well balanced.

The drawbacks of 4e are all mirror-images of its good points. 4e works great as long as you play it the way the designers want, but it quickly starts running into problems when you try something different. If you decide you don't want to organise a party in terms of roles or don't want to play a character who does HP damage or don't want to play a game that revolves around killing small groups of monsters, 4e isn't going to work very well.

The main reasons our group ended up abandoning 4e (after playing it for a year or so) were:

Characters feel too similar. There hasn't been enough effort made to provide significant mechanical difference between classes.
Very little character versatility: the game shoehorns you into one role which can't be changed. Characters don't grow and change in the same way that 3.5 ones do: a level 5 4e character is pretty much identical to a level 10 one, the only difference is that the numbers are bigger.
Very limited mechanics for noncombat activities. (The 4e approach to things like crafts and trades basically comes down to "We don't have any rules for it, so make it all up, it doesn't matter anyway".)
Even if you are doing combat, 4e doesn't really work for doing any kind of combat which doesn't involve groups of 4 to 6 adventurers killing equivalent-level groups of monsters. In 4e, everything is defined relative to the adventurers - great as long as you follow the rails, falls apart as soon as you get off them.
Once you get to moderate levels of skill, 4e combat isn't really very tactical. There's a very basic level of tactics built into it (get combat advantage, focus fire, etc) but once you've learnt that, there isn't much else. In the end this was what really made me lose interest: I noticed that in the long run, whether we got lucky or unlucky on the rolls made far more difference than how smart we played.
That said, though, if you don't have any problems with this sort of thing, you're unlikely to notice. If you don't want to play something like an enchanter or a summoner, or don't really care about doing the same thing every combat, 4e works fine. Different systems suit different people.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 05:32 PM
Characters feel too similar. There hasn't been enough effort made to provide significant mechanical difference between classes.

You must have left before PHB3 and Essentials.


Very little character versatility: the game shoehorns you into one role which can't be changed. Characters don't grow and change in the same way that 3.5 ones do: a level 5 4e character is pretty much identical to a level 10 one, the only difference is that the numbers are bigger.

But when you hit level 11, Paragon Paths start to figure into it, and you start to get some pretty major divergence.


Very limited mechanics for noncombat activities. (The 4e approach to things like crafts and trades basically comes down to "We don't have any rules for it, so make it all up, it doesn't matter anyway".)

I can't really say this isn't true, but I CAN say that 1e and 2e did pretty much the same thing. Oh wait, 4E also has alchemy and Enchant/Disenchant Magic Item, so at least there's an established item-making system, even if there's isn't a "Profession(X), Craft (X)" deal.


Even if you are doing combat, 4e doesn't really work for doing any kind of combat which doesn't involve groups of 4 to 6 adventurers killing equivalent-level groups of monsters. In 4e, everything is defined relative to the adventurers - great as long as you follow the rails, falls apart as soon as you get off them.

Now this just reflects lack of imagination. The DMG itself suggests that an adventure consist of encounters of different levels, ranging from a level or two below the heroes to as much as four levels above them. My own play experience shows that a higher-level encounter can be quite difficult, but not impossible if the party knows what it's doing, and a low-level encounter can be useful to the plot of your adventure even if it isn't a genuine challenge to the party.


If you don't want to play something like an enchanter or a summoner, or don't really care about doing the same thing every combat, 4e works fine.

Essentials Mages have a school specialization mechanic. The school available so far: enchanting, illusion, evocation, pyromancy. 2010 in general was very kind to 4E, really.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-27, 05:34 PM
What's the difference between evocation and pyromancy?

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 05:43 PM
What's the difference between evocation and pyromancy?

They're both blasty schools, but Evocation boosts your damage output in a more general sense and has powers that are more controlled and focused, while Pyromancy provides simply ridiculous damage and zone effects at the price of you sucking with anything that isn't a fire attack. Neither one is controlly, but both are highly damaging builds, turning you into a pseudo-striker.

Pyromancy was added in Dragon 391, while the other three schools are in Heroes of the Fallen Lands.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:03 PM
You must have left before PHB3 and Essentials.
I disagree. PHB3 just adds a 'enhance your at-wills' feature; you are still locked to mostly standardized effects and what you achive with your enhanced at-wills you could achieve with other classes encounter powers.
I somewhat agree with Essentials, except they had to have like half the book performing in the same 'stance/basic attack' way which kind of defeats the purpose.


But when you hit level 11, Paragon Paths start to figure into it, and you start to get some pretty major divergence.
You misunderstood Saph. In 3.5, you can start as a skill-monkey in the low levels, be somewhat of an offensive gish during the mid-levels and a meatshield at higher levels (build in question -> Spellthief/Suel Arcanamach/Abjurant Champion). In 4e, you start as a controller, you will always be a controller, period. Heck, you can't even a Paladin with high Dex *mumblegrumble*




I can't really say this isn't true, but I CAN say that 1e and 2e did pretty much the same thing. Oh wait, 4E also has alchemy and Enchant/Disenchant Magic Item, so at least there's an established item-making system, even if there's isn't a "Profession(X), Craft (X)" deal.
You could say that, but you'd be completely incorrect aboud 2e. :smallamused:



Now this just reflects lack of imagination. The DMG itself suggests that an adventure consist of encounters of different levels, ranging from a level or two below the heroes to as much as four levels above them. My own play experience shows that a higher-level encounter can be quite difficult, but not impossible if the party knows what it's doing, and a low-level encounter can be useful to the plot of your adventure even if it isn't a genuine challenge to the party.
Again, you misunderstood Saph. It's not about the level of opponents, it's about the scope of the game.

Saph
2010-12-27, 06:06 PM
But when you hit level 11, Paragon Paths start to figure into it, and you start to get some pretty major divergence.

You're using a much more generous definition of 'major' than I am.


Now this just reflects lack of imagination.

Mostly yours, I think. :smallwink:

Our group's tried 4e and done so quite thoroughly. We didn't hate it on sight or anything. We just decided, after quite a lot of experience with it and other systems, that it wasn't as good for our purposes as other systems were. This doesn't mean 4e's a bad system, it just means it doesn't suit us. And if it doesn't suit us, there are reasons that it doesn't suit us. So trying to rebut the reasons as you're doing is a bit irritating, because it implies that you think our reasons are nonsensical/wrong. We did not pull this stuff out of our rear orifice. If we say that we find 4e characters less mechanically varied, it's because we DO find 4e characters less mechanically varied.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 06:16 PM
Heck, you can't even a Paladin with high Dex *mumblegrumble*

Why not?

So long as either STR or CHA is high, you can make a Pally who has a high DEX with no problem.

You can't dump both STR and CHA and be effective, true. Any more than you can dump DEX and be a decent Rogue/Assassin, or dump STR and be a decent Fighter/Barb/Warden/Runepriest/Warlord. (I feel like I'm missing a Dex primary class, aside from Archer Ranger).

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:19 PM
Why not?

Because I wanted to heal, that's why.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 06:25 PM
You could say that, but you'd be completely incorrect aboud 2e. :smallamused:

I suppose it depends on whether you throw the Player's Option books into the mix and how much benefit you really think you can milk from the non-weapon proficiencies, but for the most part I've yet to see major rules support in 2e for stuff that happens outside of combat. Pretty much everything is handled with ability checks, much like 4E handles non-combat with skills and/or skill challenges. You don't start to run into detailed mechanics for this sort of thing until you rush off into splatbook land, magic item creation notwithstanding.

Don't think I'm ragging on 2e; it's my favorite edition (I even like it more than 4E). I'm just apparently not seeing what you're seeing.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 06:28 PM
You can't dump both STR and CHA and be effective, true. Any more than you can dump DEX and be a decent Rogue/Assassin, or dump STR and be a decent Fighter/Barb/Warden/Runepriest/Warlord. (I feel like I'm missing a Dex primary class, aside from Archer Ranger).

Monks and Rangers have DEX as a primary stat, plus Rogues and Assassins like you mentioned, and...I think that might actually be it.

Mordokai
2010-12-27, 06:32 PM
*rimshot*

You want this. (http://instantrimshot.com/) :smallbiggrin:

Suedars
2010-12-27, 06:34 PM
You misunderstood Saph. In 3.5, you can start as a skill-monkey in the low levels, be somewhat of an offensive gish during the mid-levels and a meatshield at higher levels (build in question -> Spellthief/Suel Arcanamach/Abjurant Champion). In 4e, you start as a controller, you will always be a controller, period. Heck, you can't even a Paladin with high Dex *mumblegrumble*

There are Invoker and Wizard builds that start out as full controllers initially, then by mid-Paragon are basically strikers with a bit of control. Invokers can also transition into basically becoming leaders, and Clerics can become full Controllers by Epic. Similarly, Avengers can become passable Defenders as they level, and Warlocks can transition from Striker to Controller. And Paladins using 2-handed weapons are going to want a good dex (besides, what benefit did Paladins see from good Dex in 3.x?).

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 06:40 PM
Monks and Rangers have DEX as a primary stat, plus Rogues and Assassins like you mentioned, and...I think that might actually be it.

Rangers have both DEX and STR as primaries, which is why they were left off of the list. Monks was what I'm looking for *facepalm* Thanks. :smallamused:


Edit: avoid double post:

Because I wanted to heal, that's why.

Still doesn't answer my question. Why can't you?

invest in DEX/CHA, CHA-based attacks. There, a Paladin with a high Dex.

What keeps you from being an effective Paladin with this stat setup?

Also, I wasn't ware that high-Dex was useful to 3.5 Paladins, beyond just enough to top out their max-Dex AC bonus. Enlighten me, please? I'm curious.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:43 PM
There are Invoker and Wizard builds that start out as full controllers initially, then by mid-Paragon are basically strikers with a bit of control. Invokers can also transition into basically becoming leaders, and Clerics can become full Controllers by Epic.
Wow, that's new to me. Maybe things really got better after I quit 4e.


Similarly, Avengers can become passable Defenders as they level,
Good, now they just need to be good strikers. :smallamused: Also, what is an Avenger's sticker mechanic?
I actually enjoyed playing my 4e Avenger for a time, but then the DM started throwing monsters with more and more hp and combat would take forever. :smallsigh: Avengers are the best thing in 4e, period. \o/ Yay Avengers.


and Warlocks can transition from Striker to Controller.
I don't really think they were ever strikers, really, but agree to disagree.


And Paladins using 2-handed weapons are going to want a good dex (besides, what benefit did Paladins see from good Dex in 3.x?).
High initiative, better mobility, combat skills? A level 1 Paladin with Weapon Finesse, wearing light armor and trading Ride for Tumble was pretty much what I wanted. Enter Harmonious Knight to get Perform (dancing) and he could carry on, keep romancing, carry on, carry on dancing in the moonlight. :smallbiggrin:

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 06:49 PM
High initiative, better mobility, combat skills? A level 1 Paladin with Weapon Finesse, wearing light armor and trading Ride for Tumble was pretty much what I wanted. Enter Harmonious Knight to get Perform (dancing) and he could carry on, keep romancing, carry on, carry on dancing in the moonlight. :smallbiggrin:

OK. Paladin|Rogue, then. DEX/CHA (STR at least 10, post-racial), invest in Acrobatics, Athletics, add'l skills up to you.

Wear Light armor, and have attacks based off of Dex from Rogue, Cha from Paladin.

Use Acrobatics to dance (DEFINITELY a DEX based ability.)
Write your own Paragon Path called Harmonious Knight, or delve for one that has a similar flavor to what you want, and fiddle to suit.

Ta-Da!

Edit: I'll post a build here for you soon. Level 10 alright?

Edit2:

A Paladin|Rogue with high Dex

level 10
Halfling, Paladin|Rogue
Hybrid Paladin: Hybrid Paladin Fortitude
Hybrid Talent: Rogue Combat Talent
Rogue Combat Talent: Rogue Weapon Talent (Hybrid)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 10, Dex 20, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 20.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 16.


AC: 24 Fort: 18 Reflex: 23 Will: 22
HP: 68 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 17

TRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +22, Thievery +17, Stealth +15, Intimidate +15, Athletics +15

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +4, Bluff +10, Diplomacy +10, Dungeoneering +6, Endurance +5, Heal +6, History +4, Insight +6, Nature +6, Perception +6, Religion +4, Streetwise +10

FEATS
Level 1: Hybrid Talent
Level 2: Blessed Scoundrel
Level 4: Second Step
Level 6: Duelist's Panache
Level 8: Surprising Charge
Level 10: Light Blade Expertise

POWERS
Hybrid at-will 1: Sly Flourish
Hybrid at-will 1: Enfeebling Strike
Hybrid encounter 1: Valorous Smite
Hybrid daily 1: Blinding Barrage
Hybrid utility 2: Touch of Grace
Hybrid encounter 3: Nasty Backswing
Hybrid daily 5: Unyielding Faith
Hybrid utility 6: Nimble Climb
Hybrid encounter 7: Resurgent Smite
Hybrid daily 9: Shackles of Justice
Hybrid utility 10: Acrobat's Escape

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:52 PM
OK. Paladin|Rogue, then. DEX/CHA (STR at least 10, post-racial), invest in Acrobatics, Athletics, add'l skills up to you.
There were no hybrids around at the time (i.e., not actually published hybrids, coudl'nt use it). And people told me this combination would be pretty sucky, even as a hybrid, in the thread I linked here.



Edit: I'll post a build here for you soon. Level 10 alright?
Won't matter, the campaign ended a few months after I dropped out of the group anyway. But if you feel like it, don't let me stop you.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:05 PM
There were no hybrids around at the time (i.e., not actually published hybrids, coudl'nt use it). And people told me this combination would be pretty sucky, even as a hybrid, in the thread I linked here.


Won't matter, the campaign ended a few months after I dropped out of the group anyway. But if you feel like it, don't let me stop you.

It doesn't look terrible to me. There are better hybrids, I'll admit. There's still some Synergy, though.

So, let's assume pre PH3.

STR-DEX. Use the Feat that adds STR to your Divine Challenge, and call it a day.

I'm still not seeing why you can't have a Paladin with a high Dex.

you can't have one with DEX-PRIMARY, but that's something different. You can't have a rogue with STR as the primary, even though the strongman is a reasonably common thief stereotype. (Hitters/Muscle is the common term)

Edit: Still getting used to the new keyboard. Also, I can't spell.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 07:11 PM
Good, now they just need to be good strikers. :smallamused: Also, what is an Avenger's sticker mechanic?
I actually enjoyed playing my 4e Avenger for a time, but then the DM started throwing monsters with more and more hp and combat would take forever. :smallsigh: Avengers are the best thing in 4e, period. \o/ Yay Avengers.

Avengers are quite good as strikers and are usually considered to be just behind Rangers by CharOpers. The Pursuit Avenger's Bond of Censure gives you a nice chunk of +damage if your Oath flees from you, which when combined with their various "woodshed" powers and powers that stop enemies from running makes them quite effective at locking down single targets. They've got issues with holding multiple targets, but they're far more punishing than most defenders. They usually can't be a full defender for a party, but they make excellent off-defenders to chase down loose skirmishers while the Warden or Polearm Fighter holds the front line (they play a lot like Assault Swordmages that are actually effective).

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 07:13 PM
you can't have one with DEX-PRIMARY, but that's something different. You can't have a rogue with STR as the primary, even though the strongman is a reasonably common thief stereotype. (Hitters/Muscle is the common term)

You can't? I thought there was a Str-primary (at least, as primary as Dex) one in Martial Power or something.
But well, it's kind of a new game, isn't it? Maybe we'll get an agile paladin eventually.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:19 PM
You can't? I thought there was a Str-primary (at least, as primary as Dex) one in Martial Power or something.
But well, it's kind of a new game, isn't it? Maybe we'll get an agile paladin eventually.

Nope. it's a STR-secondary rogue build. (PHB 1, actually. Brutal Scoundrel, STR as bonus damage on SA.)

You may get a Dex secondary Paladin, but, as the only class (I think) that automatically wears Plate, I believe it to be unlikely. (It could happen. I've ben known to be wrong.)

After PHB 1, no classes were granted multiple possible Primary Stats, as it proved to be unpopular (especially in the case of the Paladin, which had no STR-based lvl9 daily, among other problems with the STR based build using only the PHB. These issues were fixed in DP.)

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 07:21 PM
After PHB 1, no classes were granted multiple possible Primary Stats, as it proved to be unpopular
Why would that be unpopular?!?! I really can't understand the 4e fanbase, period.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:35 PM
Why would that be unpopular?!?! I really can't understand the 4e fanbase, period.

They were unpopularfor 2 main reasons, IIRC (there might have been another, but these are the two I remember):
1.) because, invariably, the designers tended to favor one Primary stat over another. (PHB-only Paladin has no STR based level 9 daily powers.)

2.) Because spending all of those resources on 2 primary stats weakens your Tertiary-stat based Riders (Paladin: High STR-CHA leads to low WIS, and fewer uses for Lay on hands, for example)

For the Warlock, there was a Balanced-Primary build: the Starlock (you may have seen it in the PHB.)

throughout the First PHB, the (Star) powers had either CHA or CON as their primary. Little rhyme or reason as to why, and while some levels would have both a Con and a CHA (Star) power, some would only have one (Star) power.

So if you wanted to play with only (Star) flavored powers, you had to have both CON and CHA high. All of your Star Pact only riders were based on Int. If you bought 16s pre-racial, you likely had only a +1 to your rider, making it kinda meh.

Then came the Star Warlock Article in Dragon. 30+ powers, less than five of them were CON-Based. One of the rest was INT based (I still wtf? at that power). The paragon Path included was all CHA based.

So the Star Pact Warlock came to pass as the poaster boy for, not only why people tend to not really like the multi-Primary classes, but why they were a "bad idea" design-wise.

Edit:Personally, I think that if they hadn't botched that Starpact article up, and had made the riders less stat based, it might have worked better.
I still think the split primary is a stupid thing, because the primary stat tends to be the driving force for the Archetype the class is based off of.

(EX: the Rogue class is based on the archetype of the "sneaky, stab-you-in-the-back type of thief, and DEX is a more useful stat to someone who focuses on that style of fighting, as opposed to the Fighter, who focuses on being the most dangerous thing in the room.)

Telok
2010-12-27, 07:47 PM
Well, here's a breakdown of why my group gave up 4e after a bit more than a year.

1. By 30th level you have 2 or 3 at-will powers, depending on your race, class, and feats. You have 3 class encounter powers, 1 paragon path encounter power, and 1 epic destiny encounter power. You have 3 class daily powers, 1 paragon path daily power, and 1 epic destiny daily power. At 30th level you will have 12-13 combat powers. These powers are the basis of your character, they define what you do in combat.

2. Ritual magic: I think we used Animal Messenger, Comrade's Succour, Raise Dead, and Disenchant Magic Item. With over 100 heroic level rituals to chose from we only used 4. I tried to use more but the cost, time, and combat focus of the game were strong disincentives.

3. Magic items: We ended up referring to most magic items as 'disenchant trash'. With the focus of the game being on the powers inherent to the characters pretty much anything that isn't a straight +1 upgrade to your weapon or armor became either a minor bit of gold or ritual components.

4. Skills: The DM had problems with the skill spread of the group. At level 10 the rogue had a stealth score of +19 and the druid had a perception of +17. Nobody else had better than +8 in either of them and the DM couldn't field monsters that stood any real chance of beating those scores without screwing the other players. It was the same way with social encounters, a bard running around with 15 to 20 point bonuses while everyone else sat back and waited. There really isn't any difference from 3.5 here unless the DM wants to push a skill challenge tailored to the party, I've heard of DMs calling for Stealth rolls to spot rough water on the ocean and Bluff checks to get swarming piranha-eels to eat enemy sailors instead of allied ones.

5. AoE attacks: When everyone in the party uses an area effect power that targets 4 to 6 enemies and at least three of the attacks apply marks, saves ends, movement, or extra damage on some (not all) then a single round can take half an hour. Add in the fact that every counter/mini on the table has at least three different actions every round, combat can take a long long time.

6. Leveling: A standard adventuring day seems to try to run about 4 encounters long. With only 10 even-level encounters per level advancement this means that a party can level up about twice a week with some downtime for buying new equipment. So a hardcore group of adventurers can go from first level punks to achieving their 'epic destiny' at level 30 in about 15 weeks, not including travel time. This rocket leveling is a bit jarring for some groups who are used to games where the characters don't out-level their home territory every 5 weeks.

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 07:53 PM
6. Leveling: A standard adventuring day seems to try to run about 4 encounters long. With only 10 even-level encounters per level advancement this means that a party can level up about twice a week with some downtime for buying new equipment. So a hardcore group of adventurers can go from first level punks to achieving their 'epic destiny' at level 30 in about 15 weeks, not including travel time. This rocket leveling is a bit jarring for some groups who are used to games where the characters don't out-level their home territory every 5 weeks.

I've heard this last before, and it just confuses me. 3.5 has 4 encounters per day and 13 encounters per level as the standard promoted in the books. Leveling would happen at the same rate then. While not every DM did this, it must have been the most common structure.

Gralamin
2010-12-27, 07:56 PM
I've heard this last before, and it just confuses me. 3.5 has 4 encounters per day and 13 encounters per level as the standard promoted in the books. Leveling would happen at the same rate then. While not every DM did this, it must have been the most common structure.

It is a problem with both 4e and 3.5. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue with 3.5. However, if it's specifically a reason to use 3.5 over 4e, then it is valid to complain, otherwise it means another system is likely in order.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 07:57 PM
I've heard this last before, and it just confuses me. 3.5 has 4 encounters per day and 13 encounters per level as the standard promoted in the books. Leveling would happen at the same rate then. While not every DM did this, it must have been the most common structure.
My experience is that CR-apropriate encounters grow less and less common in 3.5 as you go up in levels, even in published modules.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 08:00 PM
In my opinion, the flaws are

(1) Rituals. Good idea, awful execution.
(2) Skill challenges. Awful execution, and I'm not convinced it was a good idea in the first place.
(3) The vast majority of items is lacklustre or pointless.
(4) "Grind" monsters with too many hit points (this got fixed in later MMs)
(5) Its ability to cause flame wars on message boards :smalltongue:

And mind you, I do like the game overall. I don't think a game has to be anywhere near perfect to be fun. I do feel that this particular game has clear and obvious problems, but a good DM goes a long way in compensating for that.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 08:01 PM
And mind you, I do like the game overall. I don't think a game has to be anywhere near perfect to be fun. I do feel that this particular game has clear and obvious problems, but a good DM goes a long way in compensating for that.
Just like every edition of D&D ever. Seems like you can't please everyone. Unless you're Green Ronin.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 08:04 PM
6. Leveling: A standard adventuring day seems to try to run about 4 encounters long. With only 10 even-level encounters per level advancement this means that a party can level up about twice a week with some downtime for buying new equipment. So a hardcore group of adventurers can go from first level punks to achieving their 'epic destiny' at level 30 in about 15 weeks, not including travel time. This rocket leveling is a bit jarring for some groups who are used to games where the characters don't out-level their home territory every 5 weeks.

Originally instead of tying things to an adventuring day, things were tied to story arcs of about 4 more encounters which would have solved both this problem and the problem that the system has issues when you only want to run 1 or 2 encounters in a day (since your players will be free to unload their dailies and trivialize those fights, requiring you to up their lethality). Unfortunately this was changed in the late stages of development since the "plot arc" system didn't support crawling through a dungeon that well.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 08:05 PM
Just like every edition of D&D ever. Seems like you can't please everyone.
I'm not sure about that. I started at 2E and played it for years, and I don't have a clear picture of it having consistent flaws and problems.

Mind you, we never played at the very high levels where casters would allegedly dominate. Sure, the five different saving throws made no sense, but that never bothered us: you just roll what the DM asks you. It's not any different than the power Blinding Barrage making no sense, you just use it. Likewise, subtracting Thac0 never struck me as a problem. Sure, it could have been more elegant with addition, but in actual gameplay that never bothered us.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure about that. I started at 2E and played it for years, and I don't have a clear picture of it having consistent flaws and problems.

Mind you, we never played at the very high levels where casters would allegedly dominate. Sure, the five different saving throws made no sense, but that never bothered us: you just roll what the DM asks you. It's not any different than the power Blinding Barrage making no sense, you just use it. Likewise, subtracting Thac0 never struck me as a problem. Sure, it could have been more elegant with addition, but in actual gameplay that never bothered us.

Dart Fighters immediately come to mind. Fighters could abuse their high static modifiers and the fast attack speed of darts to do ridiculous amounts of damage.

There were also various issues stemming from the ridiculous amount of splatbook bloat that got tacked on to the system in the mid-late 90s.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 08:17 PM
Dart Fighters immediately come to mind.

Yes, but that's theoretical optimization. That's something either nobody notices, or a trick that a player tries once and is henceforth vetoed by the DM.

The flaws in e.g. skill challenges become apparent (to me) almost every time any DM runs one. That's a practical matter.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 08:19 PM
I'm not sure about that. I started at 2E and played it for years, and I don't have a clear picture of it having consistent flaws and problems.

Mind you, we never played at the very high levels where casters would allegedly dominate. Sure, the five different saving throws made no sense, but that never bothered us: you just roll what the DM asks you. It's not any different than the power Blinding Barrage making no sense, you just use it. Likewise, subtracting Thac0 never struck me as a problem. Sure, it could have been more elegant with addition, but in actual gameplay that never bothered us.

I started with AD&D and it had a few issues. Elves were incredibly overpowered, xp tables were weird enough (I had a bard that eventually was better at spellcasting than a wizard, for example), initiative confused me (so did weapon speed) and a few combinations were really borked (I remember the most damaging character I ever saw was a dart thrower).
It was a lot more balanced due to magic being such a bitch, though. :smallbiggrin: I think priests were pretty boring as well, basically because no one ever wanted to play one.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 08:19 PM
Unless you're Green Ronin.

I hope you are not talking about the Dragon Age tabletop RPG.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 08:21 PM
I hope you are not talking about the Dragon Age tabletop RPG.
Of course not, that thing doesn't exist. :smallamused:
I'm talking about Mutants & Masterminds.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 08:25 PM
I hope you are not talking about the Dragon Age tabletop RPG.

What's wrong with it? I haven't played it, but I've generally heard good things.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 08:31 PM
What's wrong with it? I haven't played it, but I've generally heard good things.
My friend bought it and I think it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Gralamin
2010-12-27, 08:33 PM
The Dragon Age RPG is very playable, but it lacks a certain amount of options that many gamers here enjoy. So, don't take too much stock in some people's opinions :smalltongue:

Cerlis
2010-12-27, 08:48 PM
Actually, i was fairly enjoying it reading the books. Up till i got to bard, one of my favorite classes with skills, abilities and spells basically useless unless the power of creativity unlocked the oh so much fun that is bard....got turned into a cleric whos Spells are "Song of X" instead of "prayer of X"

Maybe i'm wrong, cus when i got through 1st lvl powers i skimmed 2nd and 3rd and then i slamed the book shut and cried and never looked back.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 08:53 PM
Maybe i'm wrong, cus when i got through 1st lvl powers i skimmed 2nd and 3rd and then i slamed the book shut and cried and never looked back.
You are a bit wrong. Bard's shtick (at least, the build of bard I played) is not so much 'healing+buffing' but 'healing, buffing, debuffing and playing minis around like chess pieces'

Gavinfoxx
2010-12-27, 08:58 PM
It's an extremely balanced gaming system that describes how very competent, professional five person teams of superhuman adventurers engage in small unit tactics to overcome violent opposition, using a grid and movement and placement based system to do so.

In other words, it's a GAME, not really an attempt at simulation like 3.xe.

Orzel
2010-12-27, 09:40 PM
The only real flaw I can say is the combat length. All correctly made fights take many rounds unless it's a minion fight. Therefore you MUST play sessions alll at one them, play by post doesn't work without schedules or proxies and interruptions must be kept to few.

Because the game is set up for long battles via balanced classes, there are few quick battle enders. All quick battle enders tend to come through the DM's approval. Fights are long unless you nova at level 1.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 09:50 PM
The only real flaw I can say is the combat length. All correctly made fights take many rounds unless it's a minion fight. Therefore you MUST play sessions alll at one them, play by post doesn't work without schedules or proxies and interruptions must be kept to few.

Because the game is set up for long battles via balanced classes, there are few quick battle enders. All quick battle enders tend to come through the DM's approval. Fights are long unless you nova at level 1.

You do have virtual battle enders, though (stunlock springs to mind; though I think it was errata'd. Feycharger definitely qualified before it was nerfed). Monsters just have too much hp - at a certain point of a battle, you simply know you already won, but you have to keep attacking anyway.

Kaun
2010-12-27, 10:17 PM
The only real flaw i have found with the game is combat is to slow.

I tend not to run random encounters because it can waste upwards of an hour and a half of session time.

Other then that it comes down to diffrent points of view.

The game is well balanced and there is much less grey area (in combat). Rather then try to go mechanic heavy on non combat elements of the roleplay they have given some basic outlines and then left it up to the DM, which is good in a way because it has left les loopholes to exploit in the RaW.

I do find tho that 4e puts players into a less creative mentality.

0Megabyte
2010-12-27, 10:33 PM
Haven't they been doing stuff to fix the battles, though, what with the newer design philosophy shown in the MM3, Monster Vault and Dark Sun Creature Catalog?

In the bits of 4E I played before buying it myself, I found the battles to drag too. The solo we fought in one session in particular. Heck, speaking of solos, the young white dragon in the MM1 had, like, 200-something hit points!

Do you guys think the changes have sped things up at all?

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 10:37 PM
All of the classes are the same. MECHANICALLY. All Powers are the same. A wizard doe the same thing as a fighter, who does the same thing as a psion. Sure, the flavor is different, and one might get some more range, but really, 4E (FOR ME) sucks the fun out of a Campaign FOR PLAYERS. It's still just as fun to be the DM for.

(All of this is just opinion.)

The Glyphstone
2010-12-27, 10:43 PM
All of the classes are the same. MECHANICALLY. All Powers are the same. A wizard doe the same thing as a fighter, who does the same thing as a psion. Sure, the flavor is different, and one might get some more range, but really, 4E (FOR ME) sucks the fun out of a Campaign FOR PLAYERS. It's still just as fun to be the DM for.

(All of this is just opinion.)

Frankly, that's entirely wrong, and this is coming from someone who very much dislikes 4E. All the powers look the same, being '[Dice]+Stat+rider effect based on Other Stat', or some combination of such, but said riders do vary widely based on class and role. Wizards, being pure controllers, have almost all of their powers revolving around manipulating enemies and debuffing or immobilizing them. Fighters can do similar things, but only to enemies right next to them, and have more ways to soak or redirect damage. Fighter powers that do AoE damage outside of melee-range Whirlwind-style abilities are nonexistent, where Wizards are dripping in blasts and bursts and zones.

Orzel
2010-12-27, 10:59 PM
You do have virtual battle enders, though (stunlock springs to mind; though I think it was errata'd. Feycharger definitely qualified before it was nerfed). Monsters just have too much hp - at a certain point of a battle, you simply know you already won, but you have to keep attacking anyway.

That's the point. The game is designed to have 4+ hits to kill a standard monster with a 50-80% hite rate. It takes six plus attacks to kill if you use all your renewable resources on one target if lucky.

It was designed so both sides can react to momentum shifts. Therefore no one is allowed to shift momentum quickly without novaing and lots of luck.


AKA you can't change the quarter length in this sports game.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-27, 11:11 PM
Frankly, that's entirely wrong, and this is coming from someone who very much dislikes 4E. All the powers look the same, being '[Dice]+Stat+rider effect based on Other Stat', or some combination of such, but said riders do vary widely based on class and role. Wizards, being pure controllers, have almost all of their powers revolving around manipulating enemies and debuffing or immobilizing them. Fighters can do similar things, but only to enemies right next to them, and have more ways to soak or redirect damage. Fighter powers that do AoE damage outside of melee-range Whirlwind-style abilities are nonexistent, where Wizards are dripping in blasts and bursts and zones.

As I said, it's all an opinion. Maybe I shoud go back and check my books again, but being a player in 4E bores the crap out of me.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-27, 11:17 PM
As I said, it's all an opinion. Maybe I shoud go back and check my books again, but being a player in 4E bores the crap out of me.

Being bored is fine, but giving uninformed opinions of such...stringency...will only end up leading to trouble. I don't play it either, or even own the books, but I've seen enough to know that while classes within the roles can be rather same-y, the various roles are very distinct and seldom overlap.

Kaun
2010-12-27, 11:18 PM
All of the classes are the same. MECHANICALLY. All Powers are the same. A wizard doe the same thing as a fighter, who does the same thing as a psion. Sure, the flavor is different, and one might get some more range, but really, 4E (FOR ME) sucks the fun out of a Campaign FOR PLAYERS. It's still just as fun to be the DM for.

(All of this is just opinion.)

My current group has two defender classes in it (fighter and a Warden) and all though we have the same role we couldn't be more difftent. Tacticly we are polar oposits in how we go about acheiving the same goal.

I mean if you want to work of such a broad statment as "all classes are the same" then its just as true as if is say all chracters in all games are the same, dice are rolled things happen.

(except in dicless systems :smallwink:)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-27, 11:49 PM
I ask, because I'm trying to work on a LARP system, and even though it is not the same at all, some concepts and design might work or help to achieve a better system in the end. I know what the flaws of the 3.0 and 3.5 system are and played around enough with AD&D to know what was nice or boring.
4E won't give you a lot to work with in regards to LARPing.

I'll admit I don't know much about LARPing, but IIRC, LARPing doesn't involve a lot of mechanical nuance. The classic LARP system is Vampire and even there it seems like there are a variety of simple mini-games that are used in lieu of complicated dice rolls within play.

The meat of 4E comes in the form of a tactical combat system. It seems to me that LARPs do not function well as "combat simulators" - unless your LARP is also a game of paintball.

EDIT: And a useful phrase for any Edition War thread


De Gustibus non est Disputandum

Callista
2010-12-27, 11:58 PM
It looks like a glorified board game... the world doesn't seem real at all; it's more like some kind of D&D-ized version of Risk or checkers or something. I mean, probably fun for its own sake, but... it's just not D&D.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 12:11 AM
It looks like a glorified board game... the world doesn't seem real at all; it's more like some kind of D&D-ized version of Risk or checkers or something. I mean, probably fun for its own sake, but... it's just not D&D.

I hardly play 4E but -without any intention to offend or being rude- I always ticked off by this kind of statement. What give you people right to determine what D&D is? (if you said 'it doesn't feel D&D to me' I can take it better)

4E is far different game than its predecessor. Doesn't mean it is not D&D. Wasn't every other edition is also very different than its predecssor? (Never play previous edition so I don't really know)

It's D&D since Wotc said it is so and they have right to define what that term means.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-28, 12:17 AM
D&D is whatever edition you learned on. I got into the franchise through Baldur's Gate - therefore, any game I play where scene changes are not prefaced with the deep-voiced instance that "You Must Gather Your Party Before Venturing Forth" isn't D&D.':smallcool:

Although, please do keep inflammatory statements like 'It's not D&D' to a minimum. It'll help keep the thread going longer.

Draz74
2010-12-28, 12:18 AM
Just because I'm complaining that my chocolate ice cream is half melted, it doesn't mean I'd like a vanilla fresh out of the freezer. :smalltongue:

:annoyed: Dangit, I knew this thread was going to degrade into an ice cream flavors war ...

:smallwink:

Kaun
2010-12-28, 12:18 AM
yeah +1 to above. I was thinking about the "not Dnd" statment a few days ago an i honestly think 4e has more similarities with orriginal DnD credo then 3x.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-28, 12:19 AM
:annoyed: Dangit, I knew this thread was going to degrade into an ice cream flavors war ...

:smallwink:

Strawberry!

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-28, 12:20 AM
D&D is whatever edition you learned on. I got into the franchise through Baldur's Gate - therefore, any game I play where scene changes are not prefaced with the deep-voiced instance that "You Must Gather Your Party Before Venturing Forth" isn't D&D.':smallcool:

I just want to say that at this point? I don't need to hear that soundclip again anytime soon. :smallannoyed:
And no, I will not produce more vespene gas.

Sarakos
2010-12-28, 12:24 AM
I only played 4e shortly after it came out, and then only at low levels. My main grip with it (If this problem still exists, dunno since I haven't played in a couple years) is that i found it very hard to build characters I wanted to build. I didn't enjoy the feeling of being railroaded to play my class a certain way.

After accpeting that its impossible (or at least going to be a MAJOR pain in the arse) to build my characters outside of a certain theme some of the stuff did look interesting. Particularly I liked the look of the Hospitaler Paragon path for Paladins. I only regret never getting to try it

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 12:27 AM
:annoyed: Dangit, I knew this thread was going to degrade into an ice cream flavors war ...

:smallwink:

Say no to vanilla! +1 to strawberry I would say orange but I hardly ever find that taste

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-28, 12:35 AM
I quite like Rose flavoured ice-cream sometimes, when you can even find it. Not exactly common, though.

Also, class vs theme? It can be an issue if you approach it the wrong way. There is only so much conceptual wiggle-room within a class, the trick is to decide the concept first and then figure out what class does it best, rather than vica versa (which is a trap I've seen a few people fall into).

For example, if you wanted to play a holy warrior of your god, but didn't want to use heavy armour, you might be better starting with an Avenger than a Paladin, reguardless of whether you intend to describe yourself in-game as a paladin, priest or etc.

I'd say the biggest flaw I find with 4e at the moment is the Wizards of the Coast IT department / Insider guys. They aren't really inspiring confidence lately. It wouldn't have been such a problem if they hadn't started so promisingly with the old style character builder et-cetera.

Sarakos
2010-12-28, 12:46 AM
I quite like Rose flavoured ice-cream sometimes, when you can even find it. Not exactly common, though.

Also, class vs theme? It can be an issue if you approach it the wrong way. There is only so much conceptual wiggle-room within a class, the trick is to decide the concept first and then figure out what class does it best, rather than vica versa (which is a trap I've seen a few people fall into).

For example, if you wanted to play a holy warrior of your god, but didn't want to use heavy armour, you might be better starting with an Avenger than a Paladin, reguardless of whether you intend to describe yourself in-game as a paladin, priest or etc.

I'd say the biggest flaw I find with 4e at the moment is the Wizards of the Coast IT department / Insider guys. They aren't really inspiring confidence lately. It wouldn't have been such a problem if they hadn't started so promisingly with the old style character builder et-cetera.

If this was referring to my post, the problem wasn't with the Paladin build i went with later. It was my attempts at making a character modeled after the Roman Gladiators I decided fighter would be best suited for this but i couldnt make it work the way i wanted to. My second attempt was at a Druid alchemist sort, i also ran into many problems with this before I saw the Paladin paragon path and decided Hospitaler captured my interest.

One thing to note is that i may have had problems because i was confused by the feat system (was using the free character generator at the time because I didnt really understand the rules well enough to make it on my own). I would see feats pop up when i did one thing with my build, then if i go back and tweak it, that feat would disappear.

The confusion probably had something to do with me coming to 4e from 3.5 with certain assumptions of how D&D works whereas 4e is (so i hear) aimed at drawing people new to D&D. Harder to learn a new system when you have to unlearn what you thought you knew.

Shatteredtower
2010-12-28, 01:24 AM
There are several odd flaws that spring to mind. First come rules for starvation, thirst, and suffocation, where negative effects manage to take so long to occur, only to be mildly inconvenient in most cases. When it takes at least 11 minutes for a 1st level wizard with 10 Constitution to drown, it's an indication you were never intended to feature such risks in the game.

Passive Perception and Insight rules are far too generous, and knowledge skills get crippled when the entire table opts to roll when the "expert" blows a check. Intimidate, meanwhile, is so worthless in combat that published adventures tend to override the rules for it.

I'm in the minority here, but I find the game puts too much emphasis on quick combat. An occasional long fight encourages players to ask if there might be a better option, without forcing them to take one. This can be addressed without the need to change rules, thankfully.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-28, 01:33 AM
There are several odd flaws that spring to mind. First come rules for starvation, thirst, and suffocation, where negative effects manage to take so long to occur, only to be mildly inconvenient in most cases. When it takes at least 11 minutes for a 1st level wizard with 10 Constitution to drown, it's an indication you were never intended to feature such risks in the game.
The drowning rules are wonky for LV 1 characters, but redo the math for LV 2 and above - it gets brutal.

The points regarding Skills remain well taken, but those have always been issues in D&D. Sensible tables can work them out - such as by making some Knowledge Checks "make or break" rather than allowing a chance for rerolls - such as "is that Magic Grenade at my feet legit?" :smalltongue:

Theodoriph
2010-12-28, 01:43 AM
I agree with the posters who have stated that the classes feel much alike. Granted, I only attempted to play 4e when it first came out. Since the class similarities made it exceedingly boring for me, I haven't played since. The combat system was flawed when we played it to. Everyone essentially did the same thing, combat took forever and fighting Irontooth took forevermore. =P


Also, this has probably been grammar nazi'd already, but confusing it's and its is one of the most irritating mistakes in the English language. :smallsmile:

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 02:16 AM
I agree with the posters who have stated that the classes feel much alike. Granted, I only attempted to play 4e when it first came out. Since the class similarities made it exceedingly boring for me, I haven't played since. The combat system was flawed when we played it to. Everyone essentially did the same thing, combat took forever and fighting Irontooth took forevermore. =P


Also, this has probably been grammar nazi'd already, but confusing it's and its is one of the most irritating mistakes in the English language. :smallsmile:

Well, what exactly you and your friends played and did? Other 4e experts can give better comment, but since you only tried once I'm curious if your impression came from the party class/powers selection and/or playing with different expectation in mind.

Like I said, I hardly plays 4E but and it's been a while since I read he books closely but AFAIK there is quite difference between, say, the way a wizard and fighter plays.

Shatteredtower
2010-12-28, 02:19 AM
How does drowning get brutal? It's always three minutes until you have to make an Endurance check to avoid losing a healing surge, or 10 hp if you're out of healing surges, with a new check each minute. Even with the DCs outstripping skill progression as you advance, minimum survival time still increases by at least one minute every two levels. This hurts if you must follow the misadventure with melee, but how often are characters going to be stuck underwater for more than three minutes? Underwater combat is brutally less forgiving, but the general rule is a bit much. Finding circumstances in which starvation might be a factor is even worse.

As for skills, yeah, a little tweaking and personal management tend to sort those out. I've started treating each failed knowledge check as a failed attempt to aid another, for example. Success is still possible, but players aren't quite so eager to decide that more rolls are better. As for other skills, a -5 penalty for a smaller action works in some cases.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-28, 02:19 AM
Mint chocolate chip!

Suedars
2010-12-28, 02:24 AM
yeah +1 to above. I was thinking about the "not Dnd" statment a few days ago an i honestly think 4e has more similarities with orriginal DnD credo then 3x.

In some ways it's closer, in a few it's a bit farther apart, but for the most part both 3.x and 4e are miles away from OD&D. Not that that inherently makes either system better or worse.

Illithid Savant
2010-12-28, 02:34 AM
All of the classes are the same. MECHANICALLY. All Powers are the same. A wizard doe the same thing as a fighter, who does the same thing as a psion. Sure, the flavor is different, and one might get some more range, but really, 4E (FOR ME) sucks the fun out of a Campaign FOR PLAYERS. It's still just as fun to be the DM for.

(All of this is just opinion.)

It's a wrong opinion, though. Wizards and Fighters fit into different Roles, and each Role is mechanically different by definition and in practical use.{Scrubbed}

Edit: I mean, I can understand if your complaint was that classes with the same Role play the same, I disagree, but I can still see how you can come to that conclusion. But to say a Wizard and a Fighter play the same mechanically and have the same powers...

Tvtyrant
2010-12-28, 02:43 AM
I like french vanilla!

Anyway, I think 4E's biggest flaw is that it gives everyone to much HP. If you reduced everythings HP by about half you would have a very dangerous but fast paced game. And since it takes only a few minutes to make a new character you can simply roll with the character loss. If you cut HP down to 1/4 you can even make it a war type game with big battles and lots of interacting PCs and monsters.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-28, 03:29 AM
All of the classes are the same. MECHANICALLY. All Powers are the same. A wizard doe the same thing as a fighter, who does the same thing as a psion. Sure, the flavor is different, and one might get some more range, but really, 4E (FOR ME) sucks the fun out of a Campaign FOR PLAYERS. It's still just as fun to be the DM for.

(All of this is just opinion.)

Ummm. How? I'm trying to see where you're coming from but saying "All powers are the same" is like saying "Everything everybody can do in 3.5 is the same"


I like french vanilla!

Anyway, I think 4E's biggest flaw is that it gives everyone to much HP. If you reduced everythings HP by about half you would have a very dangerous but fast paced game. And since it takes only a few minutes to make a new character you can simply roll with the character loss. If you cut HP down to 1/4 you can even make it a war type game with big battles and lots of interacting PCs and monsters.

In my experience, it takes far more than "A few minutes" to make a new character and none of my characters have enough hp. I've already died 7 times in my current campaign, and I think I'm fairly close to dying again.

Suedars
2010-12-28, 03:32 AM
I like french vanilla!

Anyway, I think 4E's biggest flaw is that it gives everyone to much HP. If you reduced everythings HP by about half you would have a very dangerous but fast paced game. And since it takes only a few minutes to make a new character you can simply roll with the character loss. If you cut HP down to 1/4 you can even make it a war type game with big battles and lots of interacting PCs and monsters.

Both the hp thing and the character creation time have become less true with additional books. With the MM3 and monster damage erratas, monsters do significantly more damage than they used to. Brutes also got a boost to hit, making them quite dangerous now, as opposed to the walking sacks of hp that they used to be.

Character creation has slowed down considerably with all the new books and feats and powers that come with them. Making a character is still faster than in 3.x, but 4e doesn't really have fast chargen anymore.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-28, 03:33 AM
In my experience, it takes far more than "A few minutes" to make a new character and none of my characters have enough hp. I've already died 7 times in my current campaign, and I think I'm fairly close to dying again.

Sure. My comment was mostly about the length of combat; lowered health all around makes combat quicker and dirtier.


Both the hp thing and the character creation time have become less true with additional books. With the MM3 and monster damage erratas, monsters do significantly more damage than they used to. Brutes also got a boost to hit, making them quite dangerous now, as opposed to the walking sacks of hp that they used to be.

Character creation has slowed down considerably with all the new books and feats and powers that come with them. Making a character is still faster than in 3.x, but 4e doesn't really have fast chargen anymore.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense as a design decision to boost enemy damage and reduce their HP. I apologize for my earlier comments then.

Dimers
2010-12-28, 04:01 AM
Chocolate, with caramel sauce.

Regarding the powers being too similar: even if two different classes have precisely the same power in terms of Range, Target, Hit and Effect, they're often quite different. Class-based feats, paragon path modifications, class abilities and so forth modify every power. E.g. a bard's melee debuff differs from a battlemind's melee debuff because the bard can apply arcane-only feats and the battlemind gets a special augmentation ability from using a daily earlier in the combat.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 04:03 AM
Strawberry!

Oh, absolutely not. Chocolate. That's not even an opinion, that's clearly choctual factual.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 04:13 AM
How does drowning get brutal? It's always three minutes until you have to make an Endurance check

Now that you mention it, this is definitely a flaw in my opinion: too many conditions are simply irrelevant. You can have infinite food by level four, infinite carrying capacity by level one, you can fight underwater without noticing a difference, I've never seen a curse or disease that was not immediately removed with half a dozen heal checks and/or the Remove Condition ritual, and you can't even begin to describe a scene in darkness without somebody yelling "Sunrod!"

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 04:56 AM
I like french vanilla!


Is french vanilla has anything different from just 'vanilla'?

Excession
2010-12-28, 05:00 AM
Now that you mention it, this is definitely a flaw in my opinion: too many conditions are simply irrelevant. You can have infinite food by level four, infinite carrying capacity by level one, you can fight underwater without noticing a difference, I've never seen a curse or disease that was not immediately removed with half a dozen heal checks and/or the Remove Condition ritual, and you can't even begin to describe a scene in darkness without somebody yelling "Sunrod!"

Half a dozen heal checks? Your party is prepared to wait for days just because someone is sick? You only get one per extended rest, and if you reach final state on the disease heal checks don't help any more.

The Warden in the party I'm currently DMing for is two poor rolls away from being crippled at the hands of filth fever of all things. And they're stuck in a dream of the abyss one level and a ritual shop (fat chance) short of being able to cast Cure Disease. They did at least remember the Gravespawn Elixir for the next extended rest, and hopefully the cleric won't fall asleep this time. At low levels at least, diseases seems nasty enough to me.

Also, my players seem to be allergic to sunrods. They seem to think that torches are more atmospheric or something. I guess everything is group dependent.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-28, 05:14 AM
Is french vanilla has anything different from just 'vanilla'?

It has parts of the bean in it. Makes it taste a little stronger but it is mostly visual appeal.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 05:19 AM
Half a dozen heal checks? Your party is prepared to wait for days just because someone is sick?
No, just once. The rest of the checks are e.g. assists, or that ranger "reroll a skill check" power. It's not like those checks are hard or anything.


At low levels at least, diseases seems nasty enough to me.
At low levels, the effects of most diseases are pretty minor.



Also, my players seem to be allergic to sunrods.
Well, just because your group doesn't use them doesn't change the fact that they exist, and are cheaply available to everyone at level one. Just because some group might like being infected with lycanthropy doesn't mean it isn't easy to cure.

Mystic Muse
2010-12-28, 05:26 AM
Question real quick. Can you take 10 on a heal check to help with a disease?

felinoel
2010-12-28, 06:28 AM
It appears to be designed for a younger market in my opinion, I tried it a bit and it was way too simple to understand for my tastes, lacks personalization for favor of ease. All the customizable things you could do in 3.5 were removed and now you have maybe two or three different ways you can play each class, and those two or three ways are set in stone. Someone gave me a 4.0 DnD Starter Kit for Christmas and the instructions appear to be written for a twelve year old, I do not recommend purchasing the starter set if you have ever played any game like DnD before. I did get some figures, dice, and grids from the starter set though so the gift wasn't a total waste?

EDIT:
I feel the need to add a 'no offense intended' tag here to anyone who might take offense...

Excession
2010-12-28, 07:23 AM
No, just once. The rest of the checks are e.g. assists, or that ranger "reroll a skill check" power. It's not like those checks are hard or anything.

I would only allow, at most, one trained and maybe one untrained person to assist. There's only so much that a gaggle of half-trained doctors can do for someone.

Also, it seems I was still using the pre-errata disease DCs. Oops. I guess if you want diseases to be harder, use the old numbers. Or deny the healer their own extended rest, that ought to make them a little more hesitant.

Shatteredtower
2010-12-28, 08:06 AM
Wording was greatly simplified, and I wish the editor had stepped in to put an end to all the times "...against a target creature you have combat advantage against," appears, but I can forgive most of this for what it does to eliminate ambiguity. I'm less forgiving of those times it does not.

As for things like sunrods, yeah, anything that brightly lights a 20 square burst is far too generous, even in all the circumstances it could work against a party, if "play balance" doesn't force you to moderate the negative effects of announcing your position to anyone within miles. That still doesn't help too much underground at times, but it can be a factor. Parties also need to account for how a light source is carried, and how easily it can be taken away if it isn't held by hand. Even a sunrod dangling from a rope tied around a character is an invitation to trouble.

Vitruviansquid
2010-12-28, 08:16 AM
Well, as to the complaint that it's harder to make the character you specifically want in 4e, that's true. 4e hasn't been around for as long as 3.5 has, and I think we can all agree that's something 3.5 has over 4e.

Also, where the devil are you people finding orange and rose flavored ice cream?! I want in. :\

2xMachina
2010-12-28, 08:56 AM
I hardly play 4E but -without any intention to offend or being rude- I always ticked off by this kind of statement. What give you people right to determine what D&D is? (if you said 'it doesn't feel D&D to me' I can take it better)

4E is far different game than its predecessor. Doesn't mean it is not D&D. Wasn't every other edition is also very different than its predecssor? (Never play previous edition so I don't really know)

It's D&D since Wotc said it is so and they have right to define what that term means.

You know... I kinda feel C&C4: Tiberium Twilight isn't C&C anymore. The thing is a RTT, rather than a RTS, like the REST of the Tiberium series (played a bit of them all). (Not that RTT isn't fun to play. It is just not what C&C EVER was.)

Not sure how similiar D&D 1 and 2 with 3.5 is, so 4 might or might not stick out like a sore thumb.

EDIT: I suppose D&D doesn't have a trend like C&C does, so maybe it fluctuates all over the editions.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-28, 10:34 AM
Well, as to the complaint that it's harder to make the character you specifically want in 4e, that's true. 4e hasn't been around for as long as 3.5 has, and I think we can all agree that's something 3.5 has over 4e.

Also, where the devil are you people finding orange and rose flavored ice cream?! I want in. :\

On to the important questions...
Rose flavour Kulfi ice-cream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulfi), in my case. Problem is, you usually only find it at small, Indian owned community shops, rather than in supermarkets. You can often find the other Kulfi flavours in better supermarkets like mango, pistachio and saffron though.

hamishspence
2010-12-28, 10:41 AM
Might be interesting to look at all the editions of D&D- see what they could and couldn't do- what was present and what wasn't- and then compare to 4E.

Skills- Rules Cyclopedia (0th ed) had skills as an option- which worked a bit like 4E. You were either trained, or you weren't- and skill checks were based on abilities. So there were Wis skills, Dex skills, etc.

4E allows you to use skills untrained as well as trained- but, there's much less in the way of noncombat skills.

Class variation.
0th ed had the paladin and avenger as variants of the "travelling fighter"- which you could enter at 9th level. A bit like class variants in 4E.

Druid, was something clerics could enter at 9th level- a bit like a "prestige class" or "paragon path" for clerics.

And so on.

Callista
2010-12-28, 10:55 AM
I didn't realize people were going to find it offensive... I suppose when I say "not like D&D", I mean that it doesn't really feel like a role-playing game; it feels like a strategy/tactics battlefield type of game, with much more "How do I win this fight?" than "How do I tell this story?" With battles taking a long time and not too much support for world-building and non-turn-based, sandbox-type interaction with the world, it seems like they've gone back to wargaming rather than staying with the tabletop role-playing game D&D has become.

The Big Dice
2010-12-28, 11:01 AM
Might be interesting to look at all the editions of D&D- see what they could and couldn't do- what was present and what wasn't- and then compare to 4E.

Skills- Rules Cyclopedia (0th ed) had skills as an option- which worked a bit like 4E. You were either trained, or you weren't- and skill checks were based on abilities. So there were Wis skills, Dex skills, etc.
The Rules Cyclopedia is far from a 0 edition. Technically, it's the fifth edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) of Dungeons and Dragons, while 3.x and 4th edition are editions of AD&D.

/pedanticmode

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 11:08 AM
You know... I kinda feel C&C4: Tiberium Twilight isn't C&C anymore. The thing is a RTT, rather than a RTS, like the REST of the Tiberium series (played a bit of them all). (Not that RTT isn't fun to play. It is just not what C&C EVER was.)

Not sure how similiar D&D 1 and 2 with 3.5 is, so 4 might or might not stick out like a sore thumb.

EDIT: I suppose D&D doesn't have a trend like C&C does, so maybe it fluctuates all over the editions.

What is an RTT? :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2010-12-28, 11:09 AM
True- but it's still non-Advanced D&D- just the most detailed and complete version of it.

When people talk about "0th ed" they don't just refer to the White Box- they may be referring to anything that isn't AD&D- from the White Box to the Rules Cyclopedia.

If all non-advanced TSR D&D versions are 0th ed,

then TSR AD&D is 1st ed and 2nd ed,

and WOTC D&D is 3rd ed and 3.5 ed.

(And Hasbro D&D, is 4th ed).

The Big Dice
2010-12-28, 11:22 AM
True- but it's still non-Advanced D&D- just the most detailed and complete version of it.

If all non-advanced TSR D&D versions are 0th ed,
Problem is, D&D and AD&D were parallel but separate product lines. They were both in print and on shelves next to each other at the same time.


then TSR AD&D is 1st ed and 2nd ed,

and WOTC D&D is 3rd ed and 3.5 ed.

(And Hasbro D&D, is 4th ed).
That's the line that WotC followed. But 3.0 could have been 6th edition if they'd gone by the product that was called D&D,rather than shortening the name AD&D.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 11:24 AM
I suppose when I say "not like D&D", I mean that it doesn't really feel like a role-playing game; it feels like a strategy/tactics battlefield type of game, with much more "How do I win this fight?" than "How do I tell this story?" With battles taking a long time and not too much support for world-building and non-turn-based, sandbox-type interaction with the world, it seems like they've gone back to wargaming rather than staying with the tabletop role-playing game D&D has become.

What do you mean by there is no support for 'non-turn-based, sandbox type interaction'? :smallconfused:

I don't think that's true. It can be treated as wargame and the stress on gird-based tactic and such has increased true, but - minimal exposure aside- i still approach 4e with 'telling a story'/'roleplaying a character' mentality and AFAIK so is everybody else, seeing from the forums.

2xMachina
2010-12-28, 11:24 AM
What is an RTT? :smallconfused:

Real Time Tactics.

Mainly gives you a limited squad, and you work with that.

hamishspence
2010-12-28, 11:25 AM
Problem is, D&D and AD&D were parallel but separate product lines. They were both in print and on shelves next to each other at the same time.

true- but if someone talks about "OD&D" or "0th ed" they will usually be referring to D&D that isn't the Advanced D&D system. Possibly defining it as having "evolved" from the original 1974 White Box-

with AD&D being a new system that came out after the White Box, and D&D being "updated" and extended versions of the 1974 White Box mechanics.

Maybe it's fan convention.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 11:28 AM
It's a wrong opinion
Ah, fallacy.


Wizards and Fighters fit into different Roles, and each Role is mechanically different by definition and in practical use.
Tell that to my players.

{Scrubbed}


I mean, I can understand if your complaint was that classes with the same Role play the same, I disagree, but I can still see how you can come to that conclusion.
As I said, "Tell that to my players."


But to say a Wizard and a Fighter play the same mechanically and have the same powers...
X is as X does.

The Big Dice
2010-12-28, 11:32 AM
true- but if someone talks about "OD&D" or "0th ed" they will usually be referring to D&D that isn't the Advanced D&D system. Possibly defining it as having "evolved" from the original 1974 White Box-

with AD&D being a new system that came out after the White Box, and D&D being "updated" and extended versions of the 1974 White Box mechanics.

Maybe it's fan convention.

It's not even fan convention, there are people who draw a distiction between the Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer and Aaron Allston editions. B/X, BECMI and RC are all slightly different versions of the game.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 11:37 AM
Ah, fallacy.


Tell that to my players.


Ooooh. Personal attacks, fun, fun, fun. Keep the rhetoric alive my good chap.


As I said, "Tell that to my players."


X is as X does.

You know, you are calling personal attacks and fallacy and rhetorics but you don't offer any further explanation for your statement? :smallconfused: Feel to me like you are countering rhetorics with rhetorics (and ignoring the implied question: how did you arrive to that conclusion?)

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 11:45 AM
You know, you are calling personal attacks and fallacy and rhetorics but you don't offer any further explanation for your statement? :smallconfused: Feel to me like you are countering rhetorics with rhetorics (and ignoring the implied question: how did you arrive to that conclusion?)
My players. The way they played. That's what "tell that to my players" was about.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 11:51 AM
My players. The way they played. That's what "tell that to my players" was about.

Then perhaps the problem was the way your players play rather than with the system itself?

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 11:54 AM
Then perhaps the problem was the way your players play rather than with the system itself?

Probably, but it bores me when I play, so maybe not. As I said, it's all just an opinion.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 12:04 PM
Probably, but it bores me when I play, so maybe not. As I said, it's all just an opinion.

Probably. I still see such blanket statement as too strong tough. Simply because I can't see how a wizard and a fighter can be played in the same way.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 12:04 PM
Ummm. How? I'm trying to see where you're coming from but saying "All powers are the same" is like saying "Everything everybody can do in 3.5 is the same"


Not the same thing at all.

Where in 4e can you get the power to fly all day. To buff other characters outside of combat. To raise a dragon from the dead to be your zombie slave. To command a monster to do your bidding for days.

You can't?

That is because ALL POWERS ARE THE SAME! Minor tactical variations on a theme, closely focused on combat. Saying "my powers are different from his because my attack heals + damage, his attack debuffs + damage, and his attack does damage + slide" is not remotely comparable to 3.5.

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 12:13 PM
Not the same thing at all.

Where in 4e can you get the power to fly all day. To buff other characters outside of combat. To raise a dragon from the dead to be your zombie slave. To command a monster to do your bidding for days.

You can't?

That is because ALL POWERS ARE THE SAME! Minor tactical variations on a theme, closely focused on combat. Saying "my powers are different from his because my attack heals + damage, his attack debuffs + damage, and his attack does damage + slide" is not remotely comparable to 3.5.

ah, I can understand this better.

First, that is still not soemthing you called 'same'. Similiar maybe, but that's still different.

Second, you forgot Utility powers and rituals do you?

Third, actually I can sympathize with that. Losing some spells to often too long and expensive rituals, well, does reduce something from the game I guess. But that doesn't make everyone a copycat of the others. Be fair.

Vitruviansquid
2010-12-28, 12:19 PM
Are classes in 4e all the same? Depends largely on your standards for "same," which as you've seen varies greatly between different people.

Are classes in 4e more homogeneous than those in 3.5? Yeah, I'd agree to that. But as someone else said earlier, one man's bug is another man's feature.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 12:33 PM
Not the same thing at all.

Where in 4e can you get the power to fly all day. To buff other characters outside of combat. To raise a dragon from the dead to be your zombie slave. To command a monster to do your bidding for days.

You can't?

That is because ALL POWERS ARE THE SAME!

No, becuase things like those abilities make spellcasters overpowered, and that's something 4e was built to avoid.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 12:38 PM
Not the same thing at all.

Where in 4e can you get the power to fly all day. To buff other characters outside of combat. To raise a dragon from the dead to be your zombie slave. To command a monster to do your bidding for days.

You can't?

That is because ALL POWERS ARE THE SAME! Minor tactical variations on a theme, closely focused on combat. Saying "my powers are different from his because my attack heals + damage, his attack debuffs + damage, and his attack does damage + slide" is not remotely comparable to 3.5.

Bold: Favored Soul Paragon Path. Level 16 Feature.

Italics: Pop off a few Utility Powers Prior. Just remember that the buffs don't last all day.

Underline: when your statement has already been proven false, repeating it again WITH CAPS! doesn't make you right all of a sudden.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 12:59 PM
Well, in 3E (or Vampire, Exalted, Paranoia, and various other RPGs I can think of) you can easily have flight available to a starting character. So it can easily be seen as a flaw that in 4E this requires level sixteen, a highly specific build, and two splatbooks to pull off.

The same applies to invisibility (lasting longer than six seconds), long-range attacks (300 feet is not long range), being large or tiny, and several other effects that are common in both fantasy books and other RPGs. I'm far from convinced that such abilities automatically wreck game balance.


Pop off a few Utility Powers Prior. Just remember that the buffs don't last all day.
The rules aren't particularly clear on whether you can do that, and I know several DMs that wouldn't let you. For example, if "sneaking through the castle" is one encounter and "fighting the guards" is a second, then any buffs cast during the sneaking would automatically end as soon as you start the fight. Yes, I realize that is unrealistic. However, some (not me) would claim that it's unbalanced and breaks the Action Economy to start an encounter with precast buffs.

wayfare
2010-12-28, 01:09 PM
I've only played 4th edition a few times, and I'm really divided on it. I love rituals, and feel that they were a much needed part of the game -- having a mage who can summon fiends at will doesn't really mesh with fantasy fiction where that sort of stuff takes time.

I wish there were more utility powers. I wish they did more stuff than heal/buff/move characters. I really, really wish there were more powers that focused on social interactions (then again, I've only used core...)

Kansaschaser
2010-12-28, 01:10 PM
I still think the major flaw is the lack of versatility. I've always liked playing a Transmuter Specialist in 3.5, but now most of the powers are about blasting. I've never liked being a blasting character in D&D.

And I also agree that most of the "roles" feel pretty much the same.

I ran a 4th edition game and I had 7 players. All the "defenders" pretty much did the same thing. All the "strikers" pretty much did the same thing. And even though we only had one "healer", I'm pretty sure they were played the same as every other healer.

And by "did the same thing", I mean they all did about the same damage. They were all equally effective. After 10 fights or so, it seemed very monotanous. Once they had expended their Daily Power and their Encounter Powers, most of the players were limited to doing one or two things a round. "Well, I guess I use XXXX power... again. *Sigh*"

One more thing: If someone runs out of healing surges for the day and they drink a potion of healing, how come they don't get any benefit?

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 01:22 PM
The rules aren't particularly clear on whether you can do that, and I know several DMs that wouldn't let you. For example, if "sneaking through the castle" is one encounter and "fighting the guards" is a second, then any buffs cast during the sneaking would automatically end as soon as you start the fight. Yes, I realize that is unrealistic. However, some (not me) would claim that it's unbalanced and breaks the Action Economy to start an encounter with precast buffs.

It's also not how the rules do things. An effect that lasts "until the end of the encounter" ends when you take a short or extended rest or after 5 minutes. How your DM counts encounters doesn't matter as much how much time goes by.


One more thing: If someone runs out of healing surges for the day and they drink a potion of healing, how come they don't get any benefit?

Because your body can only recover so much in a short period of time.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 01:25 PM
Well, in 3E (or Vampire, Exalted, Paranoia, and various other RPGs I can think of) you can easily have flight available to a starting character. So it can easily be seen as a flaw that in 4E this requires level sixteen, a highly specific build, and two splatbooks to pull off.


Any Avenger can take it. Even multiclassed ones. you only need to have the Avenger Class.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 01:32 PM
Any Avenger can take it. Even multiclassed ones. you only need to have the Avenger Class.
Sure. But since doing so bars you from any other paragon path (as well as other multiclassing), it's still a highly specific build by my book.

And, it still requires level 16, while most campaigns play below that; and many DMs impose limits on splatbook usage. Heck, judged by the WOTC forum, many new campaigns are 4.4-only, which means there are no avengers in the first place.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 01:33 PM
No, becuase things like those abilities make spellcasters overpowered, and that's something 4e was built to avoid.

I didn't say it wasn't balanced, only that it is monotonous. 3.5 isn't well balanced, because characters do things that are fundamentally different. 4.0 is much better balanced, because characters can't do things that are fundamentally different. If you think balance is the highest objective in an RPG, 4.0 works fine. If for you balance is less important than being able to simulate a wide range of character concepts with different abilities (by which I do not mean variations on combat powers) 4.0 is miles behind 3.5 and probably always will be.

@ blackfang That statement hasn't been proven false because it is in fact true. And I didn't repeat anything, that was the first time I posted in this thread. The caps were for emphasis, because you seem to fail to get the point.

And Kurald proves the point. Your level 16 build with 2 splatbooks to duplicate something I can do in 3.5 core by level 5 isn't impressive. Neither is the fact that the other things I listed you don't seem to be able to do at all.

Kesnit
2010-12-28, 01:36 PM
I ran a 4th edition game and I had 7 players. All the "defenders" pretty much did the same thing. All the "strikers" pretty much did the same thing. And even though we only had one "healer", I'm pretty sure they were played the same as every other healer.

A lack of creativity on the players is not a fault of the system.

Fighters built to stand in place and draw enemies play very differently than Assault Swordsages, which are intended to move around the field. Rangers (high damage Strikers) use different tactics than Warlocks (who double as Controllers). Clerics heal by doing attacks. Artificers heal by using minor actions to throw "healing infusions" around the field.


And by "did the same thing", I mean they all did about the same damage.

This sounds, again, like the fault of the players rather than the system. Defenders and Strikers should do a lot more damage than Controllers and Leaders, because Controllers and Leaders are designed for battlefield control more than doing HP damage.


Once they had expended their Daily Power and their Encounter Powers, most of the players were limited to doing one or two things a round. "Well, I guess I use XXXX power... again. *Sigh*"

This IS the fault of the players. Going nova with all your dailies and encounters in the first rounds, knowing the combat will take time, is a waste of powers. Single-use powers should be held until they can serve the best purpose.

For example, if a WIZ has an AoE spell, should they use it in the first round when enemies are still scattered, or hold it until the Defenders have drawn enemies to themselves, allowing more to be hit?


One more thing: If someone runs out of healing surges for the day and they drink a potion of healing, how come they don't get any benefit?

Because they used all their adrenaline, which is what healing surges represent. Leaders have powers that grant healing without needing to burn surges. If your players were running out of surges, look at the Leader and ask WHY the others had to burn so many.

thorgrim29
2010-12-28, 01:36 PM
I'd say 4e would be terrible for a LARP. Let me explain, I played the game when it came out, and I realize it may have changed since, but I couldn't imagine a world running on those rules, unlike 3.5 (Eberron). It just didn't make sense to me. I also didn't like it mechanically, but that's mostly because I like playing in a world simulator rather then a combat simulator (I know 3.5 isn't perfect for that, but it's better then 4e, we'll be trying Fate RPG, Dresden Files edition next, maybe that'll be better).

Actually, Fate would make a better basis for a LARP then 4e, plus it's open source.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 01:39 PM
I didn't say it wasn't balanced, only that it is monotonous. 3.5 isn't well balanced, because characters do things that are fundamentally different. 4.0 is much better balanced, because characters can't do things that are fundamentally different. If you think balance is the highest objective in an RPG, 4.0 works fine. If for you balance is less important than being able to simulate a wide range of character concepts with different abilities (by which I do not mean variations on combat powers) 4.0 is miles behind 3.5 and probably always will be.

Except not being able to do those specific things doesn't mean everything is the same. How powerful magic can be in-game is not directly related to how varied powers are. I'll just let The Glyphstone explain further,


Frankly, that's entirely wrong, and this is coming from someone who very much dislikes 4E. All the powers look the same, being '[Dice]+Stat+rider effect based on Other Stat', or some combination of such, but said riders do vary widely based on class and role. Wizards, being pure controllers, have almost all of their powers revolving around manipulating enemies and debuffing or immobilizing them. Fighters can do similar things, but only to enemies right next to them, and have more ways to soak or redirect damage. Fighter powers that do AoE damage outside of melee-range Whirlwind-style abilities are nonexistent, where Wizards are dripping in blasts and bursts and zones.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 01:44 PM
A lack of creativity on the players is not a fault of the system.
And a lack of creativity in the system is not a fault of the players. So your point is? :smalltongue:


Going nova with all your dailies and encounters in the first rounds, knowing the combat will take time, is a waste of powers.
On the contrary: going nova in the first round is a highly effective strategy. It's easy to see why: something like a Flaming Sphere will do damage every round, and thus will do more if you cast it on round one, than if you cast it on round four. The same applies to any daily with encounter-long effects (and frankly, the best dailies tend to fall in that category).

Likewise, any immobilizing or slowing power is best used before enemies close to melee range, i.e. in the first rounds.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 01:46 PM
I'd say 4e would be terrible for a LARP. Let me explain, I played the game when it came out, and I realize it may have changed since, but I couldn't imagine a world running on those rules, unlike 3.5 (Eberron). It just didn't make sense to me. I also didn't like it mechanically, but that's mostly because I like playing in a world simulator rather then a combat simulator (I know 3.5 isn't perfect for that, but it's better then 4e, we'll be trying Fate RPG, Dresden Files edition next, maybe that'll be better).

Actually, Fate would make a better basis for a LARP then 4e, plus it's open source.

Being a huge 4e fan, IU have to agree with you. I don't see 4e as being a good LARP model. At all.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 01:47 PM
A lack of creativity on the players is not a fault of the system.

{Scrubbed}



This IS the fault of the players. Going nova with all your dailies and encounters in the first rounds, knowing the combat will take time, is a waste of powers. Single-use powers should be held until they can serve the best purpose.
System, 3.5 and belpw, you couldn't have this happen.


Because they used all their adrenaline, which is what healing surges represent. Leaders have powers that grant healing without needing to burn surges. If your players were running out of surges, look at the Leader and ask WHY the others had to burn so many.
Potions are MAGIC. It shouldn't mean anything that players are out of adrenaline.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 01:47 PM
Except not being able to do those specific things doesn't mean everything is the same. How powerful magic can be in-game is not directly related to how varied powers are. I'll just let The Glyphstone explain further,

Which quote does not address my point, in any way, at all. They have different variations on COMBAT effects. I couldn't care less about variations in how they work tactically on a grid map. If you want characters who are diverse in what they are or what they can do when you aren't in rounds, 4.0 is far less robust than 3.5, GURPS, White Wolf, Rolemaster, TORG etc. etc. etc.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 01:51 PM
{Scrubbed}

Except he just gave examples of classes within those groups that are are different.


System, 3.5 and belpw, you couldn't have this happen.

Sure it would happen, you can spellcasters blow their spells and be left shooting crossbow bolts and swinging morning stars in 3.5.


Potions are MAGIC. It shouldn't mean anything that players are out of adrenaline.

Magic can only do so much though. It doesn't have to be all-powerful.


Which quote does not address my point, in any way, at all. They have different variations on COMBAT effects. I couldn't care less about variations in how they work tactically on a grid map. If you want characters who are diverse in what they are or what they can do when you aren't in rounds, 4.0 is far less robust than 3.5, GURPS, White Wolf, Rolemaster, TORG etc. etc. etc.

Which is why there's skills, rituals, martial practices, and the like.

Jarawara
2010-12-28, 02:07 PM
Driven by an insatiable, almost feral need to go off-topic...


true- but if someone talks about "OD&D" or "0th ed" they will usually be referring to D&D that isn't the Advanced D&D system. Possibly defining it as having "evolved" from the original 1974 White Box-

with AD&D being a new system that came out after the White Box, and D&D being "updated" and extended versions of the 1974 White Box mechanics.

Maybe it's fan convention.

Actually, hamishspence, you're the only one I've ever seen refer to 'all non-AD&D' as OD&D. In the good old days, there was Advanced and there was Basic, and Basic was more directly 'evolved' from OD&D while Advanced had been rebuilt from the ground up.

People referred to the two branches of D&D as either Basic or Advanced, and the Rules Cyclopedia was one of the most 'evolved' forms of Basic. I don't know how many 'editions' there were of Basic. Four?

OD&D was... well... OD&D. And nothing else. The 1974 white box, the first few suppliments, and maybe there was a blueish box of OD&D but that's getting into the whole Moldvay/Mentzer debate, and I'm a little hazy on where those actually stand.

So what you're saying is, is that 4th Edition AD&D feels more like... 4th edition Basic D&D, yes?
(Pun coincidental, but amusing. :smallwink:)

Timeras
2010-12-28, 02:08 PM
Being a huge 4e fan, IU have to agree with you. I don't see 4e as being a good LARP model. At all.

Tabletop RPG Rules are generally not suited for LARP. A good LARP has rules only for things you can (or should) not really do, like magic, poison, traps or lockpicking. If you want to sneak up to someone, just try it. If you notice someone hiding or sneaking, you know he's there. If you don't parry an attack, you get hit, the rules only tell you what effect this hit has.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 02:08 PM
Which is why there's skills, rituals, martial practices, and the like.

There is a rudimentary skill system which doesn't even model social interactions well, and is widely regarded as being only semi functional for its ridiculous extended challenges. There is a highly limited set of rituals that don't duplicate a wide range of powers common in the genre and in other games in the genre. By comparison with virtually any other game system in the genre, or most outside the genre, those just don't cut it.

I haven't read martial practices, I wasted enough time on core. If they can do all the things that I listed above, like buff out of combat, raise an army of the dead, etc, then maybe 4.0 is improving.

The only thing 4.0 seems to do even passably is tactical combat. Frankly, I think it is one of the worst game systems to have come out in the last decade. I would really much rather play Fatal. Fatal at least gives real options in character creation, even if many of them are disturbing or non-functional.

Kesnit
2010-12-28, 02:14 PM
And a lack of creativity in the system is not a fault of the players. So your point is? :smalltongue:

I was addressing the comment that all classes play exactly the same. :smalltongue:



On the contrary: going nova in the first round is a highly effective strategy. It's easy to see why: something like a Flaming Sphere will do damage every round, and thus will do more if you cast it on round one, than if you cast it on round four. The same applies to any daily with encounter-long effects (and frankly, the best dailies tend to fall in that category).

In the situation of dailies that work like that, you are correct. However, the decision to be made with those (or actually, any daily) is "is this encounter worth burning a daily?"

Encounters are a different story. If you only have 1, maybe two, rounds of effect, they need to count. So save them until you can get the best "bang for your buck."

Example: Artificers have an encounter that allows them, as an immediate interrupt, to grant an ally DR to an attack that just hit, as well as grant temporary hit points to that ally. Is it better to use that ability early, when you don't know how the battle will play out, or later to keep an ally on their feet (or at least keep them from getting so banged up) when you know they need it?


Likewise, any immobilizing or slowing power is best used before enemies close to melee range, i.e. in the first rounds.

Not necessarily. If you have a AoE power that will slow, do you want to only hit 1 enemy, or multiples? Using the power in the first round means you are much more likely to only hit one, rather than several if you held off.

Status effects also work well in combination. Put a slow on a group of enemies and then have your Defender(s) knock them down. Next round, all those enemies have to spend their one action standing back up. If all you did was slow them, they can spend that round moving or attacking.

Also, waiting a round or two allows you to work out the relative abilities of enemies, meaning you are less likely to burn a power on a weak enemy that would have been better spent on a stronger one.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 02:16 PM
Except he just gave examples of classes within those groups that are are different.
Not different enough.


Sure it would happen, you can spellcasters blow their spells and be left shooting crossbow bolts and swinging morning stars in 3.5.

OK, so I exxagerated a bit, but it was a lot harder to do.




Magic can only do so much though. It doesn't have to be all-powerful.
Familicide.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 02:17 PM
Tabletop RPG Rules are generally not suited for LARP. A good LARP has rules only for things you can (or should) not really do, like magic, poison, traps or lockpicking. If you want to sneak up to someone, just try it. If you notice someone hiding or sneaking, you know he's there. If you don't parry an attack, you get hit, the rules only tell you what effect this hit has.

There are a lot of different interpretations of LARPs. Many of them do not use actual physical combat, etc. Many allow rules for sneaking, etc. Apparently, you consider the only "good" larps to be the more physical ones. After several injuries, most of my friends have returned to ones that use rock-paper-scissors, cards, dice, or DM narration to decide things like sneaking or who-hits who. Some tabletop rules can be adapted quite well.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 02:19 PM
There is a rudimentary skill system which doesn't even model social interactions well,

Sure it does.


and is widely regarded as being only semi functional for its ridiculous extended challenges.

Skill challenges may have issues, but basic skill usage is an improved version of 3.5's and 3.5 doesn't even have any seperate way of handling extended challenges, so a "semi functional" system is still better then none at all.


There is a highly limited set of rituals that don't duplicate a wide range of powers common in the genre and in other games in the genre. By comparison with virtually any other game system in the genre, or most outside the genre, those just don't cut it.

Which has nothing to do with everything in 4e being the same. Different systems are capable of different things.


I haven't read martial practices, I wasted enough time on core. If they can do all the things that I listed above, like buff out of combat, raise an army of the dead, etc, then maybe 4.0 is improving.

Again, these specific issues nothing to do with everything in 4e being the same. 3.5 classes like the fighter, monk, rogue, or ranger can't do any of those things either. Are you saying all non-full-spellcaster classes in 3.5 are the same too?

EDIT:

Not different enough.

*Shrugs* Matter of opinion. They're at least as different as non-casters and possibly partial-casters in 3.5.


OK, so I exxagerated a bit, but it was a lot harder to do.

That depends on what class you are. If you were a non-spellcaster, your options were always like that by default.


Familicide.

So?

Orzel
2010-12-28, 02:24 PM
As for RPG flaws, the only thing I could call a flaw is something that a player would have trouble with and have none of their personal likes and preferences interfering with this trouble.

The only one of those I see is combat length. There;s no what is adjust combat length on either side without dramatically altering difficulty. The designers did this on purpose but this does effect how many ways the game can be played. You can't jump from a ledge and assassinate a guard without making the guard so weak, the character's skills don't matter.

Things like "all classes use the same system so they seem too similar" or "the skill system is too soft" are not a true flaws. They are features that people can like or not like.

Timeras
2010-12-28, 02:25 PM
I haven't read martial practices, I wasted enough time on core. If they can do all the things that I listed above, like buff out of combat, raise an army of the dead, etc, then maybe 4.0 is improving.


There are Fantasy RPGs that don't have buffs the way DnD 3 or 4 do. And raising an army of undead is not common either. The quality of an RPG is not measured by the availability of certain arbitrarily chosen abilities.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 02:27 PM
*Shrugs* Matter of opinion. They're at least as different as non-casters and possibly partial-casters in 3.5.

*Shrugs* Matter of opinion.

...


That depends on what class you are. If you were a non-spellcaster, your options were always like that by default.
No. If you're a non-spellcaster, you're never like that.



So?
Magic should be is extravagant.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 02:31 PM
...

I thought I needed to put a little more meat on that point. So?


No. If you're a non-spellcaster, you're never like that.

No, you're always like that if you're a non-caster, in which case you stab people, again and again. Maybe you trip or grapple them if you've taken several feats. Eventually you get to stab people more than once in a single turn. EDIT: Though you can also substitute "stab" with "shoot", if you wish.



Magic should be is extravagant.

Not everyone agrees with that statement.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 02:34 PM
I thought I needed to put a little more meat on that point. So?



No, you're always like that if you're a non-caster, in which case you stab people, again and again. Maybe you trip or grapple them if you've taken several feats. Eventually you get to stab people more than once in a single turn. EDIT: Though you can also substitute "stab" with "shoot", if you wish.




Not everyone agrees with that statement.

Yay personal opinions.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 02:35 PM
Yay personal opinions.

{Scrubbed}

Timeras
2010-12-28, 02:39 PM
Apparently, you consider the only "good" larps to be the more physical ones.
You are right, my wording was not apropriate. I just don't see why I should leave the gaming table and go out if the game is resolved in the same way. To me the appeal of LARPing is that I'm actually "there" and have to do things like hiding or sneaking myself (and I write this as someone who is not good at these things)
And to me it would feel awkward to walk to someone and tell him (or have a DM tell him) that I'm so good at stealth that he doesn't see or hear me and that I just picked his pocket so he should geve me whatever is in it.

But that's personal taste.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 02:45 PM
Which has nothing to do with everything in 4e being the same. Different systems are capable of different things.

Indeed. 4.0 is capable of making cookie cutter characters from a small selection of overly similar races and classes that perform differently in tactical combat. Other systems are capable of doing much more.



Again, these specific issues nothing to do with everything in 4e being the same. 3.5 classes like the fighter, monk, rogue, or ranger can't do any of those things either. Are you saying all non-full-spellcaster classes in 3.5 are the same too?


Actually, the rogue can do all of those things. UMD is an amazing thing, and 3.5 actually has interesting and powerful items available at moderate-low levels, unlike 4.0. Rangers are quite unique, splat access to interesting and powerful abilities like wildshape or wizard spells, not to mention that even in core rangers can manage all-day flight by level 8 via their pet.

Monk and fighters are dogs with fleas, and they aren't very different from each other. Of course, 3.5 can add variety to the bottom of the tier list. I had a half-dragon half-ogre fighter (not very optimized, but fun to play) that had a lot of fun and powerful abilities (flight, breath weapon, energy immunity). Oops, can't make that in 4.0. Monks and fighters also benefit a lot from multiclassing, which 4.0 doesn't really do. So yes, while all core, base 20, humanoid, fighters and monks are kind of similar, they have several thousand options by which they can leave their boring muggleness behind.

And for that matter, where is nothing WRONG with making a class that has all of its useful abilities focused on the tactical map. But I want a game system that lets me make the choice of being good in combat, or diplomacy, out of combat utility or some other thing entirely.

true_shinken
2010-12-28, 02:46 PM
No, you're always like that if you're a non-caster, in which case you stab people, again and again. Maybe you trip or grapple them if you've taken several feats. Eventually you get to stab people more than once in a single turn. EDIT: Though you can also substitute "stab" with "shoot", if you wish.

Swordsages, Binders, Glaivelocks, Ninjas, Crusaders, Truenamers and Warblades would like to have a word with you. :smallbiggrin:

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 02:47 PM
Yay for ignoring other people's points? :smallconfused:

Im not ignoring them, I just don't see them.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 02:48 PM
Swordsages, Binders, Glaivelocks, Ninjas, Crusaders, Truenamers and Warblades would like to have a word with you. :smallbiggrin:

I'll give you the others, but these three don't count as non-casters.

Cirrhosis
2010-12-28, 02:48 PM
The tl/dr version: 4e isn't as bad as people who refuse to play it after reading through the PHB1 when the game first came out say it is because, and this is a shocker here, it got better.


And now, the long version:

I feel like the idea that all the classes are the same is really just a relic of people who played with only the PHB1, which was all that was available when the edition launched. I can't really fault people for thinking that all that much, honestly, as several of the classes were very similar.

A large part of the reason for this is that they only really presented a few power sources in that first book, and the power sources tended to cluster in certain roles, so they were using similar thematic considerations to achieve similar effects. As the edition has had more releases, more power sources have been released, and the existing power sources have expanded their scopes into other roles. For that matter, even the themes of some of the power sources were broadened to allow more mechanical flexibility.

Really what i'm getting at here is that the common perception that 4e doesn't allow for flexibility is less true than it used to be. Granted, it's still not going to be as flexible as 3.5 ever was, but that's because the designers didn't want one party member playing god, and the other playing patsy, the first party member's sneaky man servant.

4e is much better than it used to be. Unfortunately, this also requires having access to as many of the books as you can get your hands on. In addition, the rules are designed to provide interesting tactical battles without getting in the way of social interactions where possible, provided people can get around the idea that their character's personality has to be reflected in skill points. I know someone will mention social skill challenges here, but those fit the game best when the players don't actually know how to procede, and honestly they are one of the larger flaws of that aspect of the game and are usually fairly safely thrown out the window.

true_shinken
2010-12-28, 02:51 PM
I'll give you the others, but these three don't count as non-casters.
Define casters, then. Because not one of those classes cast spells.

Also, casters are not all the same 'I rule the world with my power!' types.
Spellthieves, Paladins, Rangers, Shadowcasters, Divine Mind... I could go on and on.

Urpriest
2010-12-28, 02:51 PM
Im not ignoring them, I just don't see them.

Then you have a refutation to them which you haven't stated. Opinions aren't arbitrary choices, they're the consequences of chains of logical thought. Stating an opinion obligates one to at least analyze the psychological reasons for holding that opinion, if not to defend its logic. This is one of the preconditions of membership in an intellectual community.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 02:53 PM
Indeed. 4.0 is capable of making cookie cutter characters from a small selection of overly similar races and classes that perform differently in tactical combat. Other systems are capable of doing much more.

{Scrubbed}


Actually, the rogue can do all of those things. UMD is an amazing thing, and 3.5 actually has interesting and powerful items available at moderate-low levels, unlike 4.0.

So a rogue can be unique by copying another class.


Rangers are quite unique, splat access to interesting and powerful abilities like wildshape or wizard spells,

Again, a ranger can be different by copying other classes.


not to mention that even in core rangers can manage all-day flight by level 8 via their pet.

And in 4e, a ranger can get at-will teleportation or the abilty to climb on walls via their pet.


Monk and fighters are dogs with fleas, and they aren't very different from each other. Of course, 3.5 can add variety to the bottom of the tier list. I had a half-dragon half-ogre fighter (not very optimized, but fun to play) that had a lot of fun and powerful abilities (flight, breath weapon, energy immunity).

Wait, wait, wait. You said you only cared about what they can do out of combat, so why does a breath weapon or energy immunity count? And since it seems everyone in 3.5 can get flight somehow, how is that a unique attribute?

true_shinken
2010-12-28, 02:57 PM
Again, a ranger can be different by copying other classes.
This is so wrong I can't even begin to describe it. Rangers have their strenghts - excellent spell list with splats (because of their exclusive spells), varied skill list, good bab, bonus feats, lots of alternate class features and on and on.
Rangers are not copying anyone (that's their shtick in AD&D, though). They are being Rangers and loving it.

Urpriest
2010-12-28, 02:59 PM
This is so wrong I can't even begin to describe it. Rangers have their strenghts - excellent spell list with splats (because of their exclusive spells), varied skill list, good bab, bonus feats, lots of alternate class features and on and on.
Rangers are not copying anyone (that's their shtick in AD&D, though). They are being Rangers and loving it.

You'd have to admit Sword of the Arcane Order is all about copying, though. And Wildshape Ranger. And those were the things being argued about there.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 03:00 PM
Define casters, then. Because not one of those classes cast spells.

Also, casters are not all the same 'I rule the world with my power!' types.
Spellthieves, Paladins, Rangers, Shadowcasters, Divine Mind... I could go on and on.

Warlock doesn't cast spells? Since When?

Truenamer doesn't cast spells? The utterances are certainly spell-like.

Binder is still a Magic-using class. The casting mechanism is different, but it still counts.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 03:04 PM
Swordsages, Binders, Glaivelocks, Ninjas, Crusaders, Truenamers and Warblades would like to have a word with you. :smallbiggrin:

Fair enough, I was thinking more of the core non-casters in that statement and I didn't specify that. Most of those classes do a larger variety of actions available to them than the core non-casters (though a ninja is just a knock-off rogue), generally about as much as a 4e character from what I've seen.


This is so wrong I can't even begin to describe it. Rangers have their strenghts - excellent spell list with splats (because of their exclusive spells), varied skill list, good bab, bonus feats, lots of alternate class features and on and on.
Rangers are not copying anyone (that's their shtick in AD&D, though). They are being Rangers and loving it.

I was going by what Gnaeus said made them different to him.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 03:05 PM
{scrubbed}



So a rogue can be unique by copying another class.

No, a rogue has a skill that lets them use the variety of options which 3.5 has, and 4.0 lacks. {Scrubbed}



Again, a ranger can be different by copying other classes.

Just because an ability (like WS) is shared between 2 classes doesn't make it the same as all the other 50 classes that DON't get it.



Wait, wait, wait. You said you only cared about what they can do out of combat, so why does a breath weapon or energy immunity count? And since it seems everyone in 3.5 can get flight somehow, how is that a unique attribute?

No. I said that having different 50 classes with different combat abilities doesn't make them different. Having class A which does this interesting thing thing in combat and class B which does less combat, more out of combat stuff is actually different. Having the ability to make characters from a wider variety of races allows for more difference. Having the ability to make characters pulling from a variety of different classes allows for more difference.

4.0 doesn't care about different. The goal of 4.0 is balanced. The more options you give, the less balanced your system will be.

Energy immunity does have non-combat uses.

true_shinken
2010-12-28, 03:10 PM
Warlock doesn't cast spells? Since When?
Since Complete Arcane came out. Spell-like abilities are not spells. They work under different rules and some spell-like abilities don't even have an equivalent spell (eldritch blast springs to mind.
I could agree with you here since some in-game resources call Warlocks casters, but this is my point of expertise I'm talking about - melee warlocks (notice I said Glaivelocks, not just Warlocks). They are melee specialists who have some utility (mostly outside of combat :smallwink:). Playing a Glaivelock is nothing like playing any other caster, really.


Truenamer doesn't cast spells? The utterances are certainly spell-like.
Utterances, like some invocations, are spell-like abilities that don't have an equivalent spell. They work very differently (in fact, the truenamers even borrows some of the feel of AD&D's divine casters and their 'reversed spells').


Binder is still a Magic-using class. The casting mechanism is different, but it still counts.
Using magic doesn't make you a caster. All 3.5 characters will use magic during their careers, even if it's only through a +1sword. That doesn't make them casters.
You can find more similarities to vancian casting within ToB than you can with a Binder. His powers are very distinct and very unique. No class in the game plays like a Binder.
More importantly - a Binder doesn't cast. So calling him a Binder is simply wrong.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 03:10 PM
I feel like the idea that all the classes are the same is really just a relic of people who played with only the PHB1, which was all that was available when the edition launched. I can't really fault people for thinking that all that much, honestly, as several of the classes were very similar.
Given how many games on the market require only one book to play to their full effect, I think that requiring multiple books is indeed a flaw in the game.

This may not be a flaw that everyone cares about, but if a game is only available to a subset of gamers (because it requires several books which are expensive, and not all gamers have a lot of money), then that's clearly a flaw.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 03:14 PM
It wasn't hard, you made it easy.

You ignoring me is something you choose to do, has nothing to do with me.


No, a rogue has a skill that lets them use the variety of options which 3.5 has, and 4.0 lacks. See the difference?

Just because an ability (like WS) is shared between 2 classes doesn't make it the same as all the other 50 classes that DON't get it.

When these options are ones you can easily get another way, that doesn't make a good argument for the rogue/ranger/whatever being different.


No. I said that having different 50 classes with different combat abilities doesn't make them different. Having class A which does this interesting thing thing in combat and class B which does less combat, more out of combat stuff is actually different.

And you can still focus on out of combat stuff in 4e if you so choose, it's just that every class does have some baseline combat abilties.


Having the ability to make characters from a wider variety of races allows for more difference. Having the ability to make characters pulling from a variety of different classes allows for more difference.

And these are related to how many books are out for a given system. Obviously the one with more books can have more classes and races.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 03:16 PM
The tl/dr version: 4e isn't as bad as people who refuse to play it after reading through the PHB1 when the game first came out say it is because, and this is a shocker here, it got better.

It would almost have to. Sitting on the bottom, there's nowhere to go but up.

When it reaches the point that its in game options are => those of 3.5 or any other comparable game on the market, then I will be interested in finding out how much the playable game costs. Maybe its still in beta testing.

Blackfang108
2010-12-28, 03:17 PM
Since Complete Arcane came out. Spell-like abilities are not spells. They work under different rules and some spell-like abilities don't even have an equivalent spell (eldritch blast springs to mind.
I could agree with you here since some in-game resources call Warlocks casters, but this is my point of expertise I'm talking about - melee warlocks (notice I said Glaivelocks, not just Warlocks). They are melee specialists who have some utility (mostly outside of combat :smallwink:). Playing a Glaivelock is nothing like playing any other caster, really.


Utterances, like some invocations, are spell-like abilities that don't have an equivalent spell. They work very differently (in fact, the truenamers even borrows some of the feel of AD&D's divine casters and their 'reversed spells').


Using magic doesn't make you a caster. All 3.5 characters will use magic during their careers, even if it's only through a +1sword. That doesn't make them casters.
You can find more similarities to vancian casting within ToB than you can with a Binder. His powers are very distinct and very unique. No class in the game plays like a Binder.

1st paragraph: but they still count as caster levels for the purposes of qualifying for PrCs, even as a Glaivelock.

Bold: yeah. I love it. it's too bad the class is nearly unplayable if your DM doesn't let you optimize you skill checks.

Underlined: True, but CAUSING the magic does. And without the Binder, the Vestiges can't do diddily. (Incidently, if you run across a copy of Arcane Power, take a look at the Vestige Warlock: very different form the other Warlocks, and much more modular than the other 4e classes. It feels like a solid update of the Binder class. Now if only they could update Incarnum.)

RE: not having a spell analogue meaning not really a spell: Psionics can do things that Arcane spells can't do. Does this mean that Psions aren't casters?

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 03:18 PM
And these are related to how many books are out for a given system. Obviously the one with more books can have more classes and races.

3.5 had more playable races in core than 4.0 has altogether. Look at the monster manual. You see the LA entry?

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 03:21 PM
When it reaches the point that its in game options are => those of 3.5 or any other comparable game on the market, then I will be interested in finding out how much the playable game costs. Maybe its still in beta testing.

How much does it cost to get all the options available in 3.5? And what options are we counting? Should we include utterly broken options (whether overpowered or underpowered), or just ones that players will actually be able to make use of?


3.5 had more playable races in core than 4.0 has altogether. Look at the monster manual. You see the LA entry?

And how many of those are actually usable in a normal game?

Orzel
2010-12-28, 03:21 PM
These are not flaws, these are features.

3.5 has many systems to create similar effects (BAB, skills, spell slot magic, psionics, binding, truenaming, etc)

4th has very few systems and their effects rarely intersect (powers, skills...errr).

These are not flaws.

The flaws are
3.5th systems were not balanced to each other in usefulness and access to many systems were not given to most classes.

4th systems had little wiggle room within them to truly change gameplay and there were few ways out of this due to the focus on balance. This rigidity was fixed a little with more books but... thats more books.

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 03:41 PM
How much does it cost to get all the options available in 3.5? And what options are we counting? Should we include utterly broken options (whether overpowered or underpowered), or just ones that players will actually be able to make use of?

And how many of those are actually usable in a normal game?

WTF is a normal game? In 3.5 the DM/players choose what is usable. 4.0, WOTC chooses. I've been in games where every PC had high LA. I have been in 3.5 campaigns that could be redone in 4.0, but I have certainly been in ones that couldn't.

There are actually very, very few truly broken things in 3.5. There are very very many things in 3.5 that are unbalanced compared with certain other options. You can play a functional, balanced tier 5 game, a functional, balanced tier 3 game, or a functional, balanced tier 1 game. Or you can mix them, depending on how your group feels about balance. I want the choice of what is balanced or usable in my group. WOTC doesn't like that, so now my money goes to Paizo.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 03:55 PM
WTF is a normal game? In 3.5 the DM/players choose what is usable. 4.0, WOTC chooses. I've been in games where every PC had high LA. I have been in 3.5 campaigns that could be redone in 4.0, but I have certainly been in ones that couldn't.

There are actually very, very few truly broken things in 3.5. There are very very many things in 3.5 that are unbalanced compared with certain other options. You can play a functional, balanced tier 5 game, a functional, balanced tier 3 game, or a functional, balanced tier 1 game. Or you can mix them, depending on how your group feels about balance. I want the choice of what is balanced or usable in my group. WOTC doesn't like that, so now my money goes to Paizo.

Hmm, we have moved somewhat off the points we were discussing previously. I will certainly admit 3.5 has more total options than 4e, that's the main strength of the system to me. However, you are unlikely to be able to all those options in any given game. You're not likely to play a planar shepard (or any sort of high-op spellcaster) in a party with a low-op fighter, rogue, and monk for example. However, this has little to do with whether or not 4e classes are "the same" or not. There's still plenty of options avaiable when creating a character in 4e, so I still oppose your idea that they're all the same, with plenty of race/class combos to try out, along with multi-classing and hybird-izing.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-12-28, 04:26 PM
Then you have a refutation to them which you haven't stated.
Go back a few pages.


Opinions aren't arbitrary choices, they're the consequences of chains of logical thought.
Well, they shouldn't be. It happens though.


Stating an opinion obligates one to at least analyze the psychological reasons for holding that opinion, if not to defend its logic.
I explained myself pages ago. People didn't LIKE my explenation, but it stands, and I'm not changing it./stubborn


This is one of the preconditions of membership in an intellectual community.
I thought this was a Roleplaying Community. :smalltongue:

Salbazier
2010-12-28, 04:43 PM
Then you have a refutation to them which you haven't stated. Opinions aren't arbitrary choices, they're the consequences of chains of logical thought. Stating an opinion obligates one to at least analyze the psychological reasons for holding that opinion, if not to defend its logic. This is one of the preconditions of membership in an intellectual community.

I like this :smallbiggrin: Not exactly sig material but I'll save them anyway

Bang!
2010-12-28, 04:45 PM
Go back a few pages.
"Ask my players" is no more of a refutation than the ever-popular "because I said so" or "Nuh-uh."

Gnaeus
2010-12-28, 04:50 PM
Hmm, we have moved somewhat off the points we were discussing previously. I will certainly admit 3.5 has more total options than 4e, that's the main strength of the system to me. However, you are unlikely to be able to all those options in any given game. You're not likely to play a planar shepard (or any sort of high-op spellcaster) in a party with a low-op fighter, rogue, and monk for example. However, this has little to do with whether or not 4e classes are "the same" or not. There's still plenty of options avaiable when creating a character in 4e, so I still oppose your idea that they're all the same, with plenty of race/class combos to try out, along with multi-classing and hybird-izing.

Well, you started the discussion on about post 153, trying to point out how 3.5 muggles are locked into the same cookie cutter molds as 4.0 ones. Since we have now established that that is not true, we are back to your original assertion, that combinations of different sets of combat powers is actually meaningful character choice. Since none of the 4.0 classes are as different as the 3.5 classes except for how they play on the tactical map, It really doesn't make much sense to argue that they gain a lot from their combos. I mean, it doesn't matter if you get a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B if what is actually IN A or B is all the same. The races, likewise, have less versatility.

If you don't like the 3.5 comparisons, would you like to try comparing with a different system? How about GURPS or White Wolf, those are pretty big competitors. Ooh, or the new Shadowrun. None of those games are balanced in the way 4.0 is, but they all give meaningful choices in character building.

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 04:55 PM
Well, you started the discussion on about post 153, trying to point out how 3.5 muggles are locked into the same cookie cutter molds as 4.0 ones. Since we have now established that that is not true, we are back to your original assertion, that combinations of different sets of combat powers is actually meaningful character choice. Since none of the 4.0 classes are as different as the 3.5 classes except for how they play on the tactical map, It really doesn't make much sense to argue that they gain a lot from their combos. I mean, it doesn't matter if you get a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B if what is actually IN A or B is all the same. The races, likewise, have less versatility.

You still haven't made clear how the more mundane 3.5 classes are more different outside of the tactical map than the 4e "cookie cutter" molds.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-28, 04:57 PM
Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.