4e; good and bad

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Here follows an accumulation of my ideas and opinions of the new edition, comparing good and bad.

Disclaimer:
The advantages and disadvantages I point out here are my opinions. Other people may not agree with them-or the reasons I label some features good or bad on.


Good points:

Generally speaking, 4E is streamlined, balanced, with simple rules that function well and fast together. It also has much better support for both players and DMs and gives a great deal more insight into how the rules are supposed to work. Rules as Written are clearer and much easier to understand and are backed up by sections of the books writing down how rules are intended to work so the greatly sought phantom of Rules as Intended which players and DMs alike always desired in 3rd edition is now a reality-and it is core. Now, let's take a look at how some of the better ideas of the new edition function and why they are good things;

Many options, few combos;
4E is full of different options in classes, powers, feats, magic items, and racial/paragon/epic abilities. All in all, the new core has slightly more options than the old core if you look at just the number of things. Unlike 3E, in the new rules most things are stand-alone. Boosters to one ability are possible-but the designers have taken their time to look into the available combinations and make sure only the boosts intended are actually available. So, feats are stand-alone instead of in chains, most powers cannot boost one another, magic item and special ability bonuses cannot stack to unintended levels. Instead of the old types of bonuses based on the way something was given (e.g. insight bonus for divinations, morale bonus for enchantments and profane bonus for vile magic) we now have power bonus for powers, feat bonus for feats, item bonus for items and some unnamed bonuses. Why this is a good thing is threeofold;
1) As things do not form combos-at least not complex or hidden ones-it is equally easy for a novice player and a master to get what and how things work-it is also faster. So the new edition is easier to learn. In fact, it is possible to play without learning it at all by just reading the descriptions because the difference between good options and bad options wether in character building, loot or tactics is much smaller.
2) In the end, almost half the time needed in 3E to decide tactics, find the best combos and add up bonuses-or resolve arguments on how bonuses function-is gone. This accounts for much of the increased pace in 4E.
3) Because combos have severely been limited, it is not possible to powergame or munchkinise-at least not to the point of breaking things. Yes, some options are still better than others but the difference in effectiveness is around 50% not the difference between casting a timestop combo with five spells and casting a single meteor swarm.

All in balance.
Every combat option in 4E is roughly equally effective among powers of the same level and equally optimised and equipped characters. It doesn't matter if you're a wizard or a ranger or a cleric-a single target ranged power of the same level deals roughly the same damage if all buffs, abilities and items are equal. Some classes deal more damage to single targets because they have more powers for single targets-or perhaps slightly stronger single-target powers-not because there are great differences between the total damage output. The classes who deal less damage in a single enemy deal it on more than one target or at a range instead and the classes that deal less damage in general have better defences. In the end everything evens out. That is a good thing because:
1) Now fighters can be just as effective as wizards in combat-the same applies to all classes regarding combat effectiveness.
2) Class choices do not change group dynamics overall-now there are no more weak parties of meelers vs strong parties of casters.
3) It is much easier for the DM to find appropriate challenges and judge rewards because he knows the exact group strength.


Different classes of powers
We now have at will, per encounter, per day and ritual powers. This makes it much easier to have both relatively weak effects along with extremely strong ones and combat effects along with utility ones without making a very powerful power better to have than a relatively weak power of the same level-the relatively weak power you can use many times while the very strong one only once. This is good because;
1) It is easier for designers to balance the various powers.
2) It is easier for players to know how and when to use every power.
3) The system is able to support very powerful effects without breaking combat by moving them on to rituals.
4) It is cooler than having only one type of powers per class like only at will attacks for fighters while only per day powers for casters.

Here there be monsters
Monsters-with the help of monster tiers-are easier to handle, faster to work in combat and easier to match against PC capabilities. The monsters are separated in tiers-as we already know-and this works in the DMs favor because;
1) Combat is faster because the monsters are easier to handle.
2) Combat planning is easier and faster because tiers and monster levels are both more accurate and more helpful than the old CR-especially in the loots and rewards department.
3) The system is better able to accomodate powerful monsters and weak monsters at the same levels without problem. In fact, it is made for it.

DM support/Rules as Intended
Perhaps the biggest plus of 4E, even bigger than balance. There are now explanations of how stuff are supposed to function in core-including detailed tables for average monster stats, XP rewards, treasure allotment, encounter creation, monster allotment by tier, customisation, monster advancement, traps and obstacles, noncombat encounters, NPC guidelines and other stuff. Sure, 3E had some of those things but not nearly so detailed and not nearly so extensive-or accurate. Some may accuse the designers of treating DMs as if they lack intelligence but in reality, the charts and guidelines help immensely in homebrewing of any sort (yes there are guidelines for homebrewing rules too) and they contain the mechanics of the game and expected numerical values for all kinds of stuff rather than just advice. That's good;
1) A DM automatically knows when something is overpowering, broken or not supposed to work that way by comparing it with the expected values tables for stats, treasure, monsters and the like.
2) A DM better understands how and why the rules work due to some background info.
3) There are rules for customising and homebrewing that are actually core. You don't have to follow them but as long as you do, anything you make should be playable by anyone with no worries of getting the numbers or the power level wrong.



Bad points:

Generally speaking, 4E core is simplistic, lacks variety, flavor has been downgraded, the mechanics have been downgraded, there's more focus in the mechanics themselves than the flavor, there is no real variety in powers or items, alot of mechanics are not adequately used and all in all the entire edition feels kind of... empty. As if the designers spent so much time making the new mechanics and coming up with cool rules ideas that there was little time left to fill up the edition with more stuff.


All the same
Almost all powers rely on damage. With damage as the only way to actually kill stuff (pc-wise), all the PCs do is whack things to death or defend themselves from attack. There is no real variety in attacks because in the end there are 5 different things powers do in combat; damage, reduce damage/hit chance of enemies, increase hit chance/damage of allies, healing, disabling. In the end, the new edition has lost a very great part of variety in killing stuff (ability damage/drain, death effects, energy drain), defeating stuff without killing them in any way that lasts more than a round or two (polymorph, mind control, imprisoning) and some of the cooler in-combat effects (polymorphing, summoning, conjurations) that last for more than a round or two.

Items
What was said of powers applies in items too. It is not just that items have been made weaker and less numerous. They have also been seriously lacking in variety-and they are considerably fewer.

Feats
Well now characters can gain as many as 18 feats. That's good, right? Nope. Why? Because all the feats, even the most powerful, are just very weak compared to powers and items-and they don't stack. Sure, you can get +3 damage to fire powers with the epic version of a feat that increases damage. But when a power does 50-70 points of damage, 3 points are insignificant.

Downgraded/unused mechanics
The rules themselves-which are pretty good-allow for a plethora of mechanics other than dealing damage to defeat stuff or regain HP to protect/heal yourself. But the majority of mechanics are not used to their full extent for three reasons;
1) Effect duration (other than damage) ends in a round or two. That means that even epic characters cannot mind-control/curse/poison/paralyse a 1st level monster or NPC for more than 12 seconds.
2) HP and the 4 defences are the only thing that really matters in combat. For example, the game mechanics have all these resistances. By the time the monsters have resistance 10 to a damage type, the PCs do 40 points of damage or more so the resistance amounts to only a single negated attack over the entire combat. Elite and Solo monsters just have doubled or quardoubled HP and increased defences instead of actually using the resistance mechanics, regeneration, immunities and buff powers they could have used instead of just an increased number or two.



The ugly

Here are a couple of points that are very serious deterrents against buying 4E. They seriously damage the quality of play, DMing and homebrewing.


PC incompetence
Ever played the 5th level wizard that had a few magic missiles and burning hands memorised at 1st level, 2-3 stronger 2nd level spells like scorching rays, a couple utilities and 2 fireballs for the big hitters? Then, 3 or 4 rounds into a long encounter, you were reduced to casting magic missile and polar ray because you had nothing else? Well, that's EXACTLY how 4E characters play. ALL 4E characters. Of ALL levels. Why? Because at 10th level you know 2 at will, 3 encounter and 3 daily powers. That means you know a grand total of 8 different powers, barring utilities. And guess what? After 10th level you no longer gain new combat powers. You only exchange the old ones for new. So a 30th level character would have, from his class, 2 utility, 3 encounter and 3 daily powers. A grand total of 8 class powers is the maximum you can know at any level.
Do you know why this is bad? Let's see;
1) It's ridiculous. The grand hierophant that is well on his way of becoming a demigod and is the greatest servant of his deity on the world knows only 8 different prayers.
2) Barring at will powers, you can only use a power ONCE. You do not even have the option to memorise it twice. So the most powerful archmage in the world can only cast a single fireball before having to catch his breath for it to recharge even though he can cast other powers.
3) It kills the cool. Yeah, you have access to cool powers. But you can only learn 8 spells despite being the grand pooh-bah of the Warlock Consortium even if you are 30th level.
4) It is boring. Due to the change of rules and the pace of combat, encounters can last 10 rounds or more. So, after the 3 initial rounds where you'll have spent your encounter powers you'll have to either spend your daily powers or just cast magic missile over and over again. Bad.


Mechanics over realism.
Yeah, that. Suspension of disbelief makes DnD better than WOW. Now, DnD has a few good realism-killing qualities and the only reason for them is that the rules have moved from describing a fantasy setting and helping with the story into a calculator that enables players to kill stuff easily.
1) Ranges are irrealistic. No-one can shoot anything further than 20 squares. That's roughly 30 meters-closer than the average human could run in a 6 second DnD round.
2) Death and damage are irrealistic. The PCs are too tough to kill and too easy to heal. A fighter could be beaten to within 1 HP of unconsciousness and with a standard action go to 50 HP. Most PCs could heal twice their normal HP without extended rest-go from beaten to negatives to fully healed in 5 minutes without magical intervention twice a day.
3) PCs are tough, monsters are fodder. Just look at the damages-especially at high levels. Even high-level monsters cannot do more than 40 damage in a critical hit. A high-level fighter can do more than 70 points of damage with a daily in a normal hit. PCs heal and are tough to kill. Monsters never, ever get unconcious-they go from bloodied to dead.


Unsupported flavor
No monster has a single non-combat ability. Not even one in 500 monsters. The NPC-building guidelines also don't give non-combat abilities to NPCs. Monster flavor is not supported by the combat stats either. Monsters that are supposed to be infiltrators and assasins or abominations that kill anyone but themselves (that is, flavor-wise you'd encounter them solo) are elite monsters or even standards meaning that encounters have them pair with half a dozen other friends to be challenging.
In addition, there are very few powers that allow a monster to accomplish its flavor role as opposed to its mechanics role. Said infiltrators/assasins? No sneaking powers. Dominators? No power to make thralls. Liches? No power to make or control undead.




Verdict:
All in all, a much better ruleset, better support, solid guidelines for everything that might need them, balance and ease of play. Yet, despite the very well-made base rules, 4e is largely empty of content and flavor both in PCs and monsters and what content there is it is rendered unusable by quite a few bad calls in class, power and monster content.

I feel that by changing to 4e one simply exchanges one serious problem with another. You no longer get the imbalances and broken stuff-which 3.5 has more than any other edition-but in 4e you don't get the content even 3.5 core has.

[SamTheCleric]

After 10th level you no longer gain new combat powers.

This is incorrect. You continue to advance on the leveling path set out by the table, as well as getting powers from your Paragon Path (Encounter, Daily and Utility)

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Correct. But the leveling path does not give any new combat powers-you just exchange the old ones for new. Pretty ridiculous that you will have to forget the fireball power in order to learn Astral Storm.

The total number of powers at 30th level, including those from your paragon path that aren't class powers, are 2 at will, 4 encounter, 4 daily and 7 utility, only 10 of which are going to be combat powers. So, after 10th level, you stop gaining new combat powers.

[SamTheCleric]

I respect your review and just have to say that its not your playstyle. A lot of people won't like it and a lot of people will.

For me, its nearly perfect.

[Emperor Tippy]

I respect your review and just have to say that its not your playstyle. A lot of people won't like it and a lot of people will.

For me, its nearly perfect.

So long as I can abuse LSC I could have fun in 4e, at least for a while. I will have a better opinion when I finish the book.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

It is not the mechanics in general that I don't agree with-those are a vast improvement over the old edition. What I don't like is that most classes (everyone except rogue and fighter) have had their options reduced to 8 regardless of level, flavor takes a backseat-even though it could be supported easily-and mechanics not being used to their full extent.

So, it is not the rules but the content of the edition that suffers.

[SamTheCleric]

There is very little content beyond the rules in any of the books. I haven't made it to the DMG yet... but I think the "content" you're seeking... is up to the DM and the Players to create.

I think half of all 4e viewpoints are going to be skewed by people looking at it as a comparison of 3e. That will cause a lot of downfall... you must look at it as its own entity, completely separate from any previous edition...

[Indon]

I think half of all 4e viewpoints are going to be skewed by people looking at it as a comparison of 3e. That will cause a lot of downfall... you must look at it as its own entity, completely separate from any previous edition...

If the prospect is converting to 4'th edition from another game, then I should think it should be compared to that other game.

For most of us, that other game is D&D 3.5 (For me, it's kinda that and kinda Exalted, and Exalted's pretty much superior in every way over 4.x as far as I've seen).

[SamTheCleric]

Yes, much like everything in life, we as humans like to categorize and organize, and we are going to compare it to other editions that we've played... which is where a lot of confusion is going to come in. I'm trying to read it as though its a brand new system, new rules.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Belial - I agree totally.

4e is a fairly good miniatures wargame with warbands, but it's lacking the RPG elements to be a full RPG - like, for example, immersion). There are also problems with the mechanics - I too was horrified that you can't prepare spells more than once.

I mean, Avernum's got a better immersion/system balance, and it's shareware. That has, however, given me a very good idea.

It wouldn't be too hard, with these streamlined rules, to code a proper game version of 4e, would it?

[Project_Mayhem]

Frankly, from what I've seen it looks very good, for reasons stated heatedly be a large amount of the playground community elsewhere. I like the look of it.

However, I doubt I'll play it. Too much effort re-teaching my group, and too many wasted quids on splat-books.

I'm still buying the new books though ...

[Jorkens]

Belial - I agree totally.

4e is a fairly good miniatures wargame with warbands, but it's lacking the RPG elements to be a full RPG - like, for example, immersion).
This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?

[TempusCCK]

This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.

Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?

Also, I'm kind of glad 4e is finally shipping, because dang was I tired of all the "let's speculate about the good things in 4e, but when people speculate about the bad let's just fall back on 'IT'S NOT OUT YET SO YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING BAD!!!!11!' defense"

[valadil]

I like the powers as they pertain to fighter types, but they gimp wizards just a little too much for my liking. I've always felt that melee characters needed more things to do and 4e happily provides them. I even like the shift to daily/encounter/round based abilities. But casters have way too few powers and what they do have doesn't interest me at all. All their abilities are like the orb spells - some damage and a minor effect. Great spells, but rarely do you take more than one on a single character.

Long story short, I won't be pushing my groups to switch to 4e any time soon. If they decide to switch on their own I'll still play, but I'll have to stop being the group's resident caster.

[Illiterate Scribe]

This seems like a rather stronger statement than the OP's "a few good realism killing qualities." Do you want to provide some more examples and explanation to back it up?


lacks all but a few noncombat solutions to problems
combat systems are now almost entirely damage based
too fixed to a grid system


Are a few.

[Starsinger]

No monster has a single non-combat ability. Not even one in 500 monsters. The NPC-building guidelines also don't give non-combat abilities to NPCs. Monster flavor is not supported by the combat stats either. Monsters that are supposed to be infiltrators and assasins or abominations that kill anyone but themselves (that is, flavor-wise you'd encounter them solo) are elite monsters or even standards meaning that encounters have them pair with half a dozen other friends to be challenging.
In addition, there are very few powers that allow a monster to accomplish its flavor role as opposed to its mechanics role. Said infiltrators/assasins? No sneaking powers. Dominators? No power to make thralls. Liches? No power to make or control undead.

Can't the succubus extend her charm indefinately by kissing the be-charmed once per day?

[Rutee]

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.
You need a solid hit to kill them, and that's immersion breaking?


Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?
That would be a realism killing quality, certainly. It hardly turns the game into a miniatures based wargame. The concept of the dramatic scene as a unit of measure (which is effectively what an 'encounter') is hardly turns other games into miniature based wargames.

[Jorkens]

Even with my lack of knowledge of 4e I can give you two out of the box examples of immersion breaking mechanics.

Fighter Powers not working on minions merely because it would be too easy to kill them.
Yeah, that seems a bit unneccessary, particularly given that 'easy to kill' is practically a defining feature of minions...


Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?
Yeah, that's the bit that I find most jarring. I like the idea of cool things that you can only do once in a while, but defining them as 'per encounter' seems very kludgey and inelegant. It is possible to rationalize around to some extent, though (like people have said, maybe it's something that the same enemies won't fall for twice, or something that you only get the opportunity to do once per encounter on average) and if you're willing to view it as a bit of an abstraction and not think about it too hard, I'm not sure it justifies calling the whole game into "a minatures combat system that's no use as an RPG." More "an RPG with a couple of combat mechanics that aren't ideal for keeping the players in character." People have had good roleplaying experiences around nastier rules sets, I'm sure...

[Rutee]

Fighter powers work on minions. Tempus is referring to On Miss: Damage not killing minions.

He has to be. There's no other reason a Fighter couldn't kill a minion with his powers. Cleave pretty explicitly allows a Fighter to kill 2 with one action.

[Starsinger]

Yeah, that's the bit that I find most jarring. I like the idea of cool things that you can only do once in a while, but defining them as 'per encounter' seems very kludgey and inelegant.

I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.

[ghost_warlock]

In the end, the new edition has lost a very great part of variety in killing stuff (ability damage/drain, death effects, energy drain), defeating stuff without killing them in any way that lasts more than a round or two (polymorph, mind control, imprisoning) and some of the cooler in-combat effects (polymorphing, summoning, conjurations) that last for more than a round or two.

This makes me a very sad necromancer.

[AKA_Bait]

You need a solid hit to kill them, and that's immersion breaking?

By itself, no. But when you can hit their friend and deal the same amount of damage to them without a roll... yes. If didn't need to roll = not a solid hit, then cleave ought not work either.


I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.

I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?

[Rutee]

This makes me a very sad necromancer.

Yeah, the part of me that loves pet classes is exceedingly disappointed that some way to balance summons of any sort was not found.


By itself, no. But when you can hit their friend and deal the same amount of damage to them without a roll... yes. If didn't need to roll = not a solid hit, then cleave ought not work either.
Rules, damage, etc, are all abstractions. The stats do not describe the world, or how it works. (See: Drowning healing you) The stats are there to provide us a basis of interaction, upon which we layer the world. Nothing more, nothing less. AT least, with DnD. The stats sure as hell do describe the world in games like GURPS or if I recall, HERO.


I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?
You're missing the post right there. Using the scene as the unit of measure can hurt realism, but hardly 'needs' to. It most certainly does not turn games into wargames. See: Every game that has used them before DnD.

[Scintillatus]

It's possible we might see better summoner mechanics when the Druid and such come out. I imagine there'll be a "Necromancer" of some sort too, really.

[Farmer42]

Personally, I'd like to see some better support for gishes. The multiclassing rules are nice, but they don't really do it for me. I love the system to death, but right now, short of homebrewing, we don't have anything on par with the duskblade.

[Jorkens]

I have to agree with Rutee, most of the jarring effect comes from the fact that people who play D&D tend to be used to a certain amount of "realism" in how things work, whereas 4e is taking a page from some other systems and going towards the dramatic and story telling aspects of an RPG.
I don't know - to some extent it seems to require more metagaming than it really should. The character has to think 'hey, if I do my awesomest move on this bad guy, I won't be able to do it on any other bad guys until we're finished fighting this particular group.'

I think the difference is that it makes sense from an external narrative point of view - it's natural for the heroes to only break out their really super move about once per fight, at a key dramatic moment - but it doesn't make so much sense from an in-character point of view.

[Kurald Galain]

I agree with most of what the OP is saying. Surprisingly, I also find myself agreeing with the Alexandrian's (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080515) review.

See, here's the thing: after all the talk of how versatile and multi-powered 4E characters would become, they end up with ten (10) combat powers, a limit which is reached at level 20, and four of which are once-per-day only.

That means they have less invocations than a 3E Warlock, less maneuvers or stances than a Warblade, and less spells known than a Duskblade - none of which restrict any of their powers to one per day. Comparing them to actual 3.5E casters is so skewed it's not even funny - a Sorcerer gets 10 powers as early as sixth level, or second level if you count cantrips. And don't forget that many of the better feats in 3.5E are the equivalent of 4E powers.

Yes, it's more versatile than a 3E fighter - but guess what? That's why many people didn't like playing 3E fighters.

So I stand by my earlier assessment that 4E is a quite good tactical boardgame. It seems a lot like Descent on steroids. And before people start flaming, let me point out that yes, I have the books, and yes, I will be DM'ing this on a release day event.

[Starsinger]

I'm confused. Rutee, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it doesn't damage 'realism' (versimilitude) anymore than 3.x did. You seem to be saying that it does, but that's ok. Am I missing something here?

I said realism in quotes because I couldn't think of a better term. What I mean by that is people who play D&D tend to be used to something taking the same time, and being available at any time unless they've used it, in which case it's either gone for good or at will. The, frankly, unrealistic but not necessarily immersion damaging, concept of /encounter hurts this somewhat. A scene as a unit of time, to borrow vernacular from Rutee, is not something most D&D players are accustomed to, and it's a bit of a jarring experience for them.

[Scintillatus]

We're getting an entire Gish class with FRCS. For now you'll just have to suffer and play the Wizard of the Spiral Tower Path, who has the totally uncool power of being able to whirlwind attack with a sword and teleport all his enemies into the Feywild.

Or you could bear the horrible pain of the Battle Mage, who can insult people until they go prone from bed-wetting ego-destruction. :smallbiggrin:

[TempusCCK]

"One solid hit kills them" is fine, but when a not solid hit is hurting enemy X, but no enemy Y, there's no in game explanation for that, except for "HP as an abstract in willingness to fight" to which I say "HP damage with Intimidate checks?" No? Internally inconsistant.

[Jorkens]

By itself, no. But when you can hit their friend and deal the same amount of damage to them without a roll... yes. If didn't need to roll = not a solid hit, then cleave ought not work either.
I'm guessing the point is that the minion's 1HP means that they should be taken down with one solid blow, and it'd take three glancing blows (or something) to kill them. But if they're outclassed enough to be a minion, the vast majority of times they're probably going to take a solid blow before they've taken three glancing blows, so there's not much point keeping track of them just in case.

[Rutee]

"One solid hit kills them" is fine, but when a not solid hit is hurting enemy X, but no enemy Y, there's no in game explanation for that
It is hurting Enemy Y, it just isn't dropping him.

[Azerian Kelimon]

"One solid hit kills them" is fine, but when a not solid hit is hurting enemy X, but no enemy Y, there's no in game explanation for that, except for "HP as an abstract in willingness to fight" to which I say "HP damage with Intimidate checks?" No? Internally inconsistant.

You can consider it a graze or a missed blow that doesn't damage, but erodes morale (Which is stated to be a PART of the HP system. I can dig up the true explanation for HP if you want). The guy is now soiling his pants, because that blow didn't off him, but a future one will.

[Bleen]

I concur with much of this review.

Overall, I see 4e as a wholly-"different" system. To me, the whole notion of "Converting" to 4e is silly, because which edition I'll be playing depends on what kind of game I want. Unlike what is typically expected of a new "edition" of an already-existing product, rather than try to improve what already exists, they're completely overhauling much of everything.

Effectively, to me, 4e isn't "Better" or "Worse"; simply "Different". I will probably use it to supplement 3.5e in my RPG collection rather than entirely replace. It's sort of like, "Hey guys, which DnD do we feel like playing this time around?" rather than "Hey guys, new edition is out, time to replace our old books".

To people who have actually bothered looking at the books: Is there now an even-stronger reliance on grid maps than there was previously? I kind of gathered that notion, but I haven't confirmed it.

[Kurald Galain]

It is hurting Enemy Y, it just isn't dropping him.

Except that it's not hurting him either. In fact, you can keep missing the enemy with a damage-on-a-miss power all day, and it won't hurt him one bit.



Overall, I see 4e as a wholly-"different" system. To me, the whole notion of "Converting" to 4e is silly, because which edition I'll be playing depends on what kind of game I want.
That is wise.


To people who have actually bothered looking at the books: Is there now an even-stronger reliance on grid maps than there was previously? I kind of gathered that notion, but I haven't confirmed it.
Yes. It would seem that the game is intended to be unplayable without either miniatures, or a subscription to the computer version. Players can still go against this intent, but it is a lot stronger than in 3.5.

[Rutee]

To people who have actually bothered looking at the books: Is there now an even-stronger reliance on grid maps than there was previously? I kind of gathered that notion, but I haven't confirmed it.

Then 3rd ed, or then most games? No to the former, yes to the latter. Large sections of the Combat section in 4e feel identical to the one in the 3.5 PHB.


Except that it's not hurting him either. In fact, you can keep missing the enemy with a damage-on-a-miss power all day, and it won't hurt him one bit.
You won't miss him all day, so it's a moot point, isn't it? And who says it's not hurting him? The fact that he didn't take HP damage, or the fact that he was described as taking light cuts?

[TempusCCK]

Except that it's not hurting him either. In fact, you can keep missing the enemy with a damage-on-a-miss power all day, and it won't hurt him one bit.


Precisely, from a game standpoint, he's going to be standing all day long as long as I keep missing him. It's just not consistent with itself in that sense.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm guessing the point is that the minion's 1HP means that they should be taken down with one solid blow, and it'd take three glancing blows (or something) to kill them. But if they're outclassed enough to be a minion, the vast majority of times, they're probably going to take a solid blow before they've taken three glancing blows, so there's not much point keeping track of them.

See, here's the problem though. I can smack that very same minion upside the head, have a low Str, cruddy weapon, and roll low dealing 2 damage, and drop him. 2 damage.

I can use the fighter power which should do 3 damage on a miss (explained as a 'glancing blow'). The minion is immune to my 'glancing blow' , so he doesn't take the 3 damage. Any other character would have.

Ergo, we now have the mechanical possibility of a 2 damage blow being more 'solid' than a 3 damage blow. You don't see where the feeling of inconsistancy with that mechanic comes in?


You can consider it a graze or a missed blow that doesn't damage, but erodes morale (Which is stated to be a PART of the HP system. I can dig up the true explanation for HP if you want). The guy is now soiling his pants, because that blow didn't off him, but a future one will.

Except, a future one won't... if the fighter uses the same power again, and misses again, the Minion is still up.

[Kurald Galain]

You won't miss him all day, so it's a moot point, isn't it?
It isn't moot. You'll hurt him as soon as you stop missing him.


And who says it's not hurting him?
The fact that he hasn't taken damage, obviously. Go on, tell any of your players that they took zero damage from any attack; wanna bet that they'll assume they haven't been hurt?

You can't have it both ways. You can say that "HP is morale" and thus claim that you can lose HP without being physically hurt. But that doesn't mean you can become physically hurt without losing HP.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Except, a future one won't... if the fighter uses the same power again, and misses again, the Minion is still up.


Thenm houserule that powers that do damage on a miss kill minions. It's gonna shoot their usefulness to hell and make them worse than 3e mooks, but hey, if realism matters so much, minions should not be a sacred cow.

[AKA_Bait]

Thenm houserule that powers that do damage on a miss kill minions. It's gonna shoot their usefulness to hell and make them worse than 3e mooks, but hey, if realism matters so much, minions should not be a sacred cow.

Thank you for conceding the point that the minion mechanic as it stands can damage realism (versimilitude).

Whether the loss of realisim (versimilitude) is a worthwhile tradeoff for the benifits of the minion mechanic (I'll admit it's easier on the Dm for example), is a separate question.

[Matthew]

Ergo, we now have the mechanical possibility of a 2 damage blow being more 'solid' than a 3 damage blow. You don't see where the feeling of inconsistancy with that mechanic comes in?

I dunno, that actually doesn't bother me. I think WotC made a mistake describing Minions as having 1 Hit Point. Really, they just die if they get hit for a 'solid' blow. A glancing blow won't kill them, but a solid blow will. The whole Hit Point thing is misleading. For all intents and purposes, they don't really have Hit Points in the conventional sense.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Thank you for conceding the point that the minion mechanic as it stands can damage realism (versimilitude).

Whether the loss of realisim (versimilitude) is a worthwhile tradeoff for the benifits of the minion mechanic (I'll admit it's easier on the Dm for example), is a separate question.

Indeed, minions are unrealistic.

What everyone who is in favor of them says:

Who gives a rats ass? We want to be Cuchulainn, Gilgamesh, Ffafrhd, or Elric. Realism can go to hell, because D&D never cared about it, and that is the province of GURPS (Incidentally, I regard GURPS as the best designed game system out there). If it has to be unrealistic to be epic, then so be it.

[AKA_Bait]

I dunno, that actually doesn't bother me. I think WotC made a mistake describing Minions as having 1 Hit Point. Really, they just die if they get hit for a 'solid' blow. A glancing blow won't kill them, but a solid blow will. The whole Hit Point thing is misleading. For all intents and purposes, they don't really have Hit Points in the conventional sense.

Oh I agree with you there. If they had defined them as not having HP at all and dying from 'a sucessful attack against one of the minions defenses' many of the problems with the minion mechanic would cease to be problems.


Indeed, minions are unrealistic.

What everyone who is in favor of them says:

Who gives a rats ass? [empasis mine]

In fact, not everyone does. Some folks are claiming that it doesn't damage versimilitude (yes, I plan to keep on using that word) and it's a big deal.

Others are taking your position of not caring.

Still others, like me, hold the third position, that we just want to talk about the effects of the mechanic on the system as it exists. Whether we will houserule to fix it or not is beside the point.

[SpikeFightwicky]

All the same
Almost all powers rely on damage. With damage as the only way to actually kill stuff (pc-wise), all the PCs do is whack things to death or defend themselves from attack. There is no real variety in attacks because in the end there are 5 different things powers do in combat; damage, reduce damage/hit chance of enemies, increase hit chance/damage of allies, healing, disabling. In the end, the new edition has lost a very great part of variety in killing stuff (ability damage/drain, death effects, energy drain), defeating stuff without killing them in any way that lasts more than a round or two (polymorph, mind control, imprisoning) and some of the cooler in-combat effects (polymorphing, summoning, conjurations) that last for more than a round or two.

Sounds to me like this isn't a systemwide general nitpick, as it is a complaint that 'Spellcasting' isn't as versatile as before. Melee classes already had next to 0 functional ways of ending combat without hitting the enemy with a weapon (in general... apparently the 'controller fighter' wins combat by making the enemy/DM commit suicide in frustration).

[Kurald Galain]

Who gives a rats ass? We want to be Cuchulainn, Gilgamesh, Ffafrhd, or Elric. Realism can go to hell, because D&D never cared about it, and that is the province of GURPS (Incidentally, I regard GURPS as the best designed game system out there). If it has to be unrealistic to be epic, then so be it.

If it has to be epic, D&D fails whenever it's compared to Exalted. Ironically, Exalted is also the most realistic (well, verisimilitudinous) of the two.

[Reel On, Love]

Yeah. Spells don't do everything anymore. Yeah, I know, "waaah, my powers!", but if somebody's going to bypass the HP system, that's in a whole new league from everyone else. Orcus gets to do it, but you don't. Oh noes.

[Duke of URL]

Yeah. Spells don't do everything anymore.

The counter-argument is that spells don't do anything anymore that can't simply be duplicated by, for example, a martial "exploit".

I think this type of issue will become more obvious as additional materials are released that fill in the current gaps in the power source/role matrix (such as a martial controller). The powers may be described differently, but they're essentially doing the same things, regardless of power source.

[Edea]

Most of those effects IMO are likely to become dischargable rituals. They take forever to cast and, much more importantly, cost money (the ritual part), and you can only have one dischargable ritual on at a time, but then if combat is suddenly enjoined, you can discharge the ritual's effect as a free action, releasing either an interrupt, standard, or encounter-long effect.

Example: Finger of Death as an encounter or even a daily power? Not going to happen. However, as a Ritual with an Arcana requirement (and, very importantly, a fairly hefty price tag), you can load it on as a discharge ritual effect. If you run into an extremely dangerous monster that won't leave you alone while trying to escape from it, you can unload the ritual's effect as an Intelligence attack versus the target's Fort defense. It immediately becomes weakened (or dazed on a miss), becomes immobilized on the first failed save, and then dies on the second failed save.

Example: Animate Dead is also definitely going to be a ritual (read: long casting time and, again, costs money) with the Religion requirement, but what if you don't have the ideal corpse handy? Kinda inconvenient. Well, you can load the ritual on your character as a discharge ritual effect. Then, when you find a good corpse outside of combat, discharge the ritual, and it will animate as an ally under your control for a certain amount of time. (No more permanent undead, 4E will explicitly erase the **** out of that notion. It is one of many antitheses to the streamlining efforts of the new edition).

But yeah, 'spellcaster versatility' (i.e. necros, polymorph, summons) was specifically targetted with the nerf hammer. That was 100% intentional. If you want to keep that, best to houserule it in :/. There's already a fairly significant bias towards Clerics and Wizards using the Rituals, maybe there needs to be a bit more?

[Reel On, Love]

The counter-argument is that spells don't do anything anymore that can't simply be duplicated by, for example, a martial "exploit".

I think this type of issue will become more obvious as additional materials are released that fill in the current gaps in the power source/role matrix (such as a martial controller). The powers may be described differently, but they're essentially doing the same things, regardless of power source.

They sure do. Fly, Displacement, Mordenkainen's Sword, Magnificent Mansion, Web, etc etc etc.

And that's not even mentioning Rituals.

[Helgraf]

See, here's the problem though. I can smack that very same minion upside the head, have a low Str, cruddy weapon, and roll low dealing 2 damage, and drop him. 2 damage.

I can use the fighter power which should do 3 damage on a miss (explained as a 'glancing blow'). The minion is immune to my 'glancing blow' , so he doesn't take the 3 damage. Any other character would have.

Ergo, we now have the mechanical possibility of a 2 damage blow being more 'solid' than a 3 damage blow. You don't see where the feeling of inconsistancy with that mechanic comes in?

Yep. That's exactly what you have. The mechanical certainty that a minion can be dropped by a deliberate, pathetic blow, but cannot be dropped by an incidental glancing blow. Oh my, that so crashes my party. I'd better stop playing now.

Sarcasm aside, can you tell the difference between the 2 hp and 3 hp blow if they were both regular attacks? I'd wager the answer is no. Because damage and hp are both abstractions made to simplify the combat system that have been that way since, y'know, basic Dungeons & Dragons, way back in 1974. There's nothing that gives you a little status meter above your enemies' heads that says 'this enemy has 172 out of 256 hit points remaining.' The closest thing you get to that is the bloodied condition, and even that is open to interpretation to what it means. Given that _deliberate vagueness_ which hasn't changed in _any_ edition of the game, no matter what you as the player know about the dice and their results, I'd have to argue you have no way _in character_ of knowing whether you did 2 or 3 damage to your enemy, so the character has no reason to question the versimilitude or reality of his fantasy world.

Now, if only the players could make it that easy on themselves, instead of insisting on allowing these things to so disrupt their ability to enjoy the game they don't even have yet (by and large)...

[Matthew]

Yep. That's exactly what you have. The mechanical certainty that a minion can be dropped by a deliberate, pathetic blow, but cannot be dropped by an incidental glancing blow. Oh my, that so crashes my party. I'd better stop playing now.
*other stuff*

No need to be rude (or, rather, sarcastic). There is an obvious break with the past in making a 2 HP blow more significant than a 3 HP blow. Hit Points were an abstraction, but now they are more abstract than ever before. Previously they could be rationalised as a measure of 'life energy', but 4e has certainly undermined that idea.

Is this gonna crash your party? Course not. Is it a noticable disconnect with the past and potentially a new hurdle for the imagination to jump over? Sure. Either way it's no big deal, but it is a reasonable complaint.

[AKA_Bait]

Sarcasm aside, can you tell the difference between the 2 hp and 3 hp blow if they were both regular attacks? I'd wager the answer is no.

And you would lose the wager. The player is aware of the difference. They know what they rolled. Hence the strain on versimilitude.


Because damage and hp are both abstractions made to simplify the combat system that have been that way since, y'know, basic Dungeons & Dragons, way back in 1974.

Sure. But they are abstract systems. Within the system, the dealing and recieving of damage are set numbers, not abstractions. What they do the character in character (whether 2hp of damage demoralizes a guy or slits his throat) is where the absraction comes in.

However, even an abstract system can be internally consistant. If, say, no matter what the in game description taking 2 damage is, it is always not quite as bad as taking 3 damage (be the damage to morale or physical) then you have a consistant abstract system. On the other hand, if larger and smaller numbers of damage don't correlate with the severety of the description in game, they remain abstract but are no longer part of a system, just a random jumble.

[Duke of URL]

Sarcasm aside, can you tell the difference between the 2 hp and 3 hp blow if they were both regular attacks?

See, but you have to qualify it with the "regular attacks" line. Instead, we have a system which says in both mechanic and flavor that an attack that "missed" still managed to harm the enemy to a lesser amount but has no apparent effect on the "minion", and yet someone else's attack that "hits" for an even lesser effect is enough to send the guy to the minion afterlife.

The problem is that the mechanical simplification for minions to match the flavor they decided on simply contradicts the other mechanics and the flavor of the rest of the system. All in the name of simplicity and balance, of course, but some level of internal consistency in the rules, let alone the setting, would be appreciated.

[Helgraf]

See, but you have to qualify it with the "regular attacks" line. Instead, we have a system which says in both mechanic and flavor that an attack that "missed" still managed to harm the enemy to a lesser amount, and yet someone else's attack, which "hits" for a lesser effect is enough to send the guy to the minion afterlife.

The problem is that the mechanical simplification for minions to match the flavor they decided on simply contradicts the other mechanics and the flavor of the rest of the system. All in the name of simplicity and balance, of course, but some level of internal consistency in the rules, let alone the setting, would be appreciated.

Yeah, it would have been smarter to word the minion rule like this:

Minions are removed from combat by any attack which gets past the target's defenses. If an attack does not get past the minion's defenses, it does not remove the mook from the combat, though any other status effects it might normally create still occur.

That way, people aren't getting all hung up and hitting imagination hurdles over the 2 damage hitting attack vs the 3 damage missing attack special effect.

But frankly, whether you word it like that or use the system as written the effect is _identical_.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Yeah. Spells don't do everything anymore. Yeah, I know, "waaah, my powers!", but if somebody's going to bypass the HP system, that's in a whole new league from everyone else. Orcus gets to do it, but you don't. Oh noes.

Nice straw man you've got there. Obviously, you have a masterwork item for your 'craft:weaving' skill.

No, sorry.

The issue is that, for many abilities, noone gets them any more. As I mentioned earlier - move earth? Basically the whole illusion school? Most enchantments? Stone shape?

Why is it that they were cut from 4e? Would you say that their removal was a good thing?

[Helgraf]

Since the designers of 4th ed said, way back, that enchantments weren't going to be a wizard's bag anymore, this doesn't surprise me at all. I figure a lot of the 'missing' elements are going to turn up in the PHB II when they release the first full batch of new classes with their new powers, new paragon paths, et al.

So, yeah, we're stuck without them in the meantime, but I seriously doubt they've actually been removed from the game forever.

[SamTheCleric]

On the hit point thing... pg 293 of the Player's Handbook


Over the course of a battle, you take damage from
attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand
up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing
blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit
points represent more than physical endurance. They
represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all
the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.

[Scintillatus]

Bards are getting Illusions, Psions are getting the mind-control. Everyone now has their own flavour.

[Helgraf]

On the hit point thing... pg 293 of the Player's Handbook

Over the course of a battle, you take damage from
attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand
up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing
blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit
points represent more than physical endurance. They
represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all
the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.

And let's face it, minions have no luck against heroes... ;)

[AKA_Bait]

But frankly, whether you word it like that or use the system as written the effect is _identical_.

But grasshopper, we are talking about the system as written, and how well the mechanics function as written. We all agree it could have been better the other way. The alternate wording would also solve other problems, like the autominionkilling spells and effects mentioned on the other thread.


[I] And let's face it, minions have no luck against heroes... ;)

Except the fighter, when using that power of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

And let's face it, minions have no luck against heroes... ;)

Indeed. I think the point is that Minions don't actually have Hit Points, as we have all more or less agreed; they just go down after a solid blow. The complaint is only that WotC should have just said exactly that.

[Helgraf]

But grasshopper, we are talking about the system as written, and how well the mechanics function as written. We all agree it could have been better the other way. The alternate wording would also solve other problems, like the autominionkilling spells and effects mentioned earlier in the thread.

Except that no. My wording does _exactly_ the same thing as the current rule. The few 'autokill' spells that exist would still deal their damage in the normal fashion. All my wording does is take the 1 hp grain of sand that's apparently formed this giant pearl of complaint mucus around it and replace it with another phrase with identical impact.


Except the fighter, when using that power of course. :smallbiggrin:

Excepting of course, given how the minion rule works, that's not a matter of luck but of definition.

[Matthew]

Except that no. My wording does _exactly_ the same thing as the current rule. The few 'autokill' spells that exist would still deal their damage in the normal fashion. All my wording does is take the 1 hp grain of sand that's apparently formed this giant pearl of complaint mucus around it and replace it with another phrase with identical impact.

I don't think so. there is a difference between saying "Minions have 1 Hit Point, but are only damaged by direct attacks" and "Minions die when they take 1+ Hit Points damage from a direct attack." The former creates a different impression than the latter, and impressions do matter.

That is to say, the former says "Minions have 1 HP", whilst the latter says "It doesn't matter how many Hit Points they have."

[AKA_Bait]

Except that no. My wording does _exactly_ the same thing as the current rule. The few 'autokill' spells that exist would still deal their damage in the normal fashion. All my wording does is take the 1 hp grain of sand that's apparently formed this giant pearl of complaint mucus around it and replace it with another phrase with identical impact.

Actually, no. What you wrote was (emphasis mine):


Minions are removed from combat by any attack which gets past the target's defenses. If an attack does not get past the minion's defenses, it does not remove the mook from the combat, though any other status effects it might normally create still occur.

The autominionkilling spells and effects I'm referring to are the ones that automatically deal damage without needing to get past any of the minions 4 defense scores.


Excepting of course, given how the minion rule works, that's not a matter of luck but of definition.

Which is exactly why it would be much better to remove them from the HP system entirely, as you did above, rather than giving them 1hp and creating artifical feeling exceptions about specific effects.

[Justin_Bacon]

Encounter abilities, I mean, come on, how do you define an "encounter" without metagaming!?

Encounter abilities are more precisely defined as "abilities which require you to rest for 5 minutes before you can use them again".

Now that I'm disagreeing with you about 4th Edition's horrendously dissociated mechanics (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080514b), but encounter powers aren't an example of them.


Precisely, from a game standpoint, he's going to be standing all day long as long as I keep missing him. It's just not consistent with itself in that sense.

In fact, you can potentially do that often enough that -- if he wasn't a minion (i.e. had normal hit points instead of just 1 hp) -- you would have killed him. It's not likely, but it demonstrates the dissociation of the mechanic.

[Lord Tataraus]

Since the designers of 4th ed said, way back, that enchantments weren't going to be a wizard's bag anymore, this doesn't surprise me at all. I figure a lot of the 'missing' elements are going to turn up in the PHB II when they release the first full batch of new classes with their new powers, new paragon paths, et al.

So, yeah, we're stuck without them in the meantime, but I seriously doubt they've actually been removed from the game forever.

But then don't call them wizards. Like it or not, 4e is extended from 3.5 no matter how much is changed, basic assumptions will still hold with the players and that should be reflected in the edition. A wizard is assumed to be learned in many different arcane arts even if he chooses one to focus on. This includes enchantment, illusions, necromancy, etc. Thus whenever I see "wizard" as an option for a class, I assume all of those schools are allowed. If you want to remove some, you might as well change the name to Evoker, Conjurer, whatever since the wizard is not a wizard in the assumed sense.

[Swordguy]

But then don't call them wizards. Like it or not, 4e is extended from 3.5 no matter how much is changed, basic assumptions will still hold with the players and that should be reflected in the edition. A wizard is assumed to be learned in many different arcane arts even if he chooses one to focus on. This includes enchantment, illusions, necromancy, etc. Thus whenever I see "wizard" as an option for a class, I assume all of those schools are allowed. If you want to remove some, you might as well change the name to Evoker, Conjurer, whatever since the wizard is not a wizard in the assumed sense.

Your failure to overcome your assumptions is not a failing on the part of the game designers. They have many other ones, but that ain't one of them.

[Skyserpent]

Which is exactly why it would be much better to remove them from the HP system entirely, as you did above, rather than giving them 1hp and creating artifical feeling exceptions about specific effects.

I'm watching the emphasis go back and forth like it's Wimbledon

At any rate: I agree with you on this point entirely. It's confusing from a metagame standpoint, but considering that the designers probably felt weird giving monsters Schrödinger's hit points.

Ah well... I still think it works fine, I'm not expecting the Fighter to miss a minion 8 times in a row... and if he does... I think it's HILARIOUS.

[Farmer42]

. . . considering that the designers probably felt weird giving monsters Schrödinger's hit points.

Do..do you mind if I sig that?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

They sure do. Fly, Displacement, Mordenkainen's Sword, Magnificent Mansion, Web, etc etc etc.

And that's not even mentioning Rituals.

And at what level of the 30 playable ones do they get the first of those effects?

[Bleen]

Bards are getting Illusions, Psions are getting the mind-control. Everyone now has their own flavour.
Bards're still in/going to be in a future book? I always could've sworn the Warlord was their stand-in of sorts, since he was doing the whole "Morale" thing that most people associate with Bards.

RE: Hitpoints and damage

I couldn't care twice about how realistic a revamp of a system that basically took versilimitude and did explicit things to it was.

RE: 4e and vast changes

I think one of the big undoings of 4e is the mentality behind it. A new edition is more likely to be seen as a large patch-up job of sorts to improve the game than it is a complete overhaul. Wizards sees the opposite: They want to keep most of the terminology and keep things "familiar" while completely rehauling the system. This, paired with the company's insistence that 4e will be a "better" or "improved" system creates a false expectation in the consumer. Thus, if the consumer has an established expectation - say, the kinds of spells a "Wizard" is about to cast - that was created by both the brand name being used by Wizards largely for the sake of marketing, and the actual advertising done by Wizards - then that consumer has every right for the resulting product to meet their expectations. After all, the consumer is the one paying for the product, not Wizards.

I, personally, consider it a business failure on Wizards' part to defy a number of preconceptions created in a certain fraction of their user-base by their marketing tactics, though this has no real effect on me. I doubt that it is a massive enough failure to cause their company to collapse or lose money from 4E in the long term, nor will this cause me to think any less of 4e by my personal opinion, but I feel that it is that fraction of the consumer base's right to hold the company accountable for their conceptions of what, say, a character class called "Wizard" can do being defied in the final product is, given that it was Wizards' choice to market the game in such a way. If money is lost, too bad for them.

In short, "I don't really care about the matter, but everyone else can if they want to, and I personally encourage them to express which of their their expectations have been met and which haven't and base their final judgement upon that."

(Enough of mine have, though I'm waiting until I have a group with easy access to a grid before I spend my money. I need the authentic experience. :smallamused: )

[SamTheCleric]

First two wizard "out of combat" non blasty powers can be found at level 2.

Jump: +10 to an athletics check relating to a jump, and the target doesnt have to make a running start.
Feather Fall: Yeah. THAT feather fall.

So there are plenty of things wizards can do out of combat.

[Bleen]

You forgot "THAT" Jump, too. I have a 3.5 Sorcerer carrying scrolls of it in a campaign right now.

[Kurald Galain]

So there are plenty of things wizards can do out of combat.

If by "plenty" you mean "two", then yes :smalltongue: Note also how both of these are highly circumstantial.

[SamTheCleric]

2 out of your 4 choices for utility powers at level 2... that's "plenty" to me :)

I mean, I could go through and pick out all the "non boomy" powers... but im busy making my own cleric at the moment :smallbiggrin:

[Bleen]

If by "plenty" you mean "two", then yes :smalltongue: Note also how both of these are highly circumstantial.
So you mean like they're highly circumstantial in 3.5e too

[Scintillatus]

Wizards also get three rituals at level one, and the aforementioned cantrips... I dunno why people skip over the three rituals and the ritual progression by level, that's kind of the non-combat wizardly stuff covered.

[Dark Tira]

... Note also how both of these are highly circumstantial.
Indeed, I expect higher level wizards to have wands of these and the quickdraw feat.

[SamTheCleric]

*Gasp*

Clerics are not proficient with shields. :smalleek:

[Scintillatus]

Indeed, I expect higher level wizards to have wands of these and the quickdraw feat.

Uhm. Wands don't store spells any more...

[Lord Tataraus]

I think one of the big undoings of 4e is the mentality behind it. A new edition is more likely to be seen as a large patch-up job of sorts to improve the game than it is a complete overhaul. Wizards sees the opposite: They want to keep most of the terminology and keep things "familiar" while completely rehauling the system. This, paired with the company's insistence that 4e will be a "better" or "improved" system creates a false expectation in the consumer. Thus, if the consumer has an established expectation - say, the kinds of spells a "Wizard" is about to cast - that was created by both the brand name being used by Wizards largely for the sake of marketing, and the actual advertising done by Wizards - then that consumer has every right for the resulting product to meet their expectations. After all, the consumer is the one paying for the product, not Wizards.

I, personally, consider it a business failure on Wizards' part to defy a number of preconceptions created in a certain fraction of their user-base by their marketing tactics, though this has no real effect on me. I doubt that it is a massive enough failure to cause their company to collapse or lose money from 4E in the long term, nor will this cause me to think any less of 4e by my personal opinion, but I feel that it is that fraction of the consumer base's right to hold the company accountable for their conceptions of what, say, a character class called "Wizard" can do being defied in the final product is, given that it was Wizards' choice to market the game in such a way. If money is lost, too bad for them.

This is basically what I meant with my "Then don't call them wizards" argument. I was talking about how it is a general assumption that is not lived up to in 4e and thus causes some to become upset. So in that sense, it is the marketers'/designers'/whoevers' fault for trying to use an established term to denote a different entity (a wizard with access to all schools as opposed to the wizard that has a pruned school list).

[Kurald Galain]

So you mean like they're highly circumstantial in 3.5e too

Yes. Unlike, say, Minor Image, a spell which flat out doesn't exist in 4E. Or, let's see, Grease. Or, ooh, pretty much any buff with a duration longer than twelve seconds.

[Pelfaid]

I am aware that I am about to cause trouble but so be it.
The DMG has actual guidelines for homebrewing, Yes?
If so then is it that much of a problem to come up with a fix to any problems that stand out, say the lack of Grease or Minor Image?

[Swordguy]

So...what I'm getting from this thread is that people are upset because wizards lack the flexibility they had in 3.x. The same flexibility, mind you, that gave them the ability to become Batman (and thus break the game) in the first place. Which people were also upset about.

So which is it? Either wizards have the flexibility to be Batmans and we bitch, or they don't have enough flexibility to be Batmans and we bitch. It seems a bit unreasonable...

[Bleen]

The only thing I'm complaining about is the inability to play a conjurer-style character, personally. I mean, it isn't THAT hard to fix things like the infamous Gate loop, right?

[Dark Tira]

Uhm. Wands don't store spells any more...

According to page 242 of the player's handbook they do. Though apparently they can only hold encounter powers so featherfall doesn't work.

[tyckspoon]

I am aware that I am about to cause trouble but so be it.
The DMG has actual guidelines for homebrewing, Yes?
If so then is it that much of a problem to come up with a fix to any problems that stand out, say the lack of Grease or Minor Image?

You could do so trivially (Grease: Ranged burst Int attack vs. Reflex defense. On hit, target is prone. Effect: Greased area is considered difficult terrain until end of encounter/end of turn/whatever.) but that doesn't actually resolve the complaint, because you then have to figure out what kind of slot you're going to put that new power in. Make it a Ritual? Now you can grease things, but it'll take ten minutes and a handful of cash; not very useful. Make it an at-will power? Ok, that's not bad, it's very Controller-y, but what did you not take instead? Say you homebrew some of the old versatility powers, and you end up with a Wizard whose power set looks like: At will- Grease, Minor Image, Encounter: Web Daily: Sleep. Cool, he can do some of that neat non-damage stuff.. but he can no longer throw blasts of raw elemental damage, which is *also* part of the Wizardly archetype that is being trimmed back.

Or, you know, see Swordguy's post.

[inthesto]

Here's my off-the-cuff assesment:

Better game, worse role-playing system.

Better balance, less variety.

Luckily, I'm generally looking for the former rather than the latter.

[Kurald Galain]

So...what I'm getting from this thread is that people are upset because wizards lack the flexibility they had in 3.x. The same flexibility, mind you, that gave them the ability to become Batman (and thus break the game) in the first place. Which people were also upset about.

The answer to that is (1) that WOTC overreacted in reducing this versatility, and (2) that the gamebreakingness of 3.5 wizards lies not in their versatility, but in their efficacy (among others, the ability to raise saving throw DCs through the roof, and make extremely easy touch attacks).

[Scintillatus]

According to page 242 of the player's handbook they do. Though apparently they can only hold encounter powers so featherfall doesn't work.

Hell, I didn't catch that! Very cool.

[Jorkens]

Indeed. I think the point is that Minions don't actually have Hit Points, as we have all more or less agreed; they just go down after a solid blow. The complaint is only that WotC should have just said exactly that.
Ideally it isn't something the players should be worrying about - the nice thing about the minion idea is that for a lot of players it actually makes a battle against a horde of mooks more realistic because
a) the combat plays out more like you'd expect it to from an in character perspective - they can't metagame with the fact that it's not worth attacking the mooks and go straight for the commander and
b) there's less dice rolling and bookkeeping so the whole thing has more in common with epic fantasy and less in common with chartered accountancy.

Only the GM needs to know that a mook is a minion until someone hits it, at which point it dies anyway.

If your players are in the habit of poking kobolds with biros (hitting for 2 damage) and deliberately swinging to miss with greatswords (missing for 3 damage) as part of an experiment to determine how they respond to injuries either in large groups or independently then you'd probably be better off not using the minion mechanic.

[Swordguy]

(1) that WOTC overreacted in reducing this versatility, and...

I'd rather wait to see the entire system and play through it to see if they're really gimped before making a judgement. Wizards, after all, needed to be nerfed back farther than anybody else.




(2) that the gamebreakingness of 3.5 wizards lies not in their versatility, but in their efficacy (among others, the ability to raise saving throw DCs through the roof, and make extremely easy touch attacks).

I would argue that, having played a rogue (specialized explicitly to pick locks and disarm traps) that was literally asked to leave the group because the wizard reduced my entire character class to ineffectiveness. The wizard in 3.5 can stand in for any two or three classes at a time. Don't get me wrong, the plethora of save-or-die/suck spells with no defense was bad too. But it's the versatility that makes the wizard win. It's the issue of, "What's the problem? OK, I've got a spell for that."

____________________________________

I also have to wonder if people are upset with the wizard's power loss because they don't know what to play to break the system. Not that they'll admit it on a public forum, granted, but that has to rankle people. "I liked playing a Wizard and winning D&D!" has to be the core reason from a lot of people in the face of the classes being theoretically rebalanced. Or, "I like playing wizards, and I don't want to give up any of my power because I want to keep playing them."

[Matthew]

Ideally it isn't something the players should be worrying about - the nice thing about the minion idea is that for a lot of players it actually makes a battle against a horde of mooks more realistic because
a) the combat plays out more like you'd expect it to from an in character perspective - they can't metagame with the fact that it's not worth attacking the mooks and go straight for the commander and
b) there's less dice rolling and bookkeeping so the whole thing has more in common with epic fantasy and less in common with chartered accountancy.

Only the GM needs to know that a mook is a minion until someone hits it, at which point it dies anyway.

If your players are in the habit of poking kobolds with biros (hitting for 2 damage) and deliberately swinging to miss with greatswords (missing for 3 damage) as part of an experiment to determine how they respond to injuries either in large groups or independently then you'd probably be better off not using the minion mechanic.

I understand that perfectly well. The problem isn't one of interaction with the players, but of poor communication of ideas to individual DMs.

As far as the arguments above go, I have never had any of the problems that this rule seeks to address. I prefer my Gnolls to stand up to multiple hits from PCs. Hell, my players prefer it. Here's a paraphrased exchange from actual play.

Player 1: "That's a hit for *roll* 7 damage!"
Me: "Okay, that Gnoll is still up and fighting."
Player 1: "Say what?"
Player 2: "These aren't Orcs, mate."
Me: *Smiles*.

That's not a problem for me, that's fun.

[Emperor Tippy]

I also have to wonder if people are upset with the wizard's power loss because they don't know what to play to break the system. Not that they'll admit it on a public forum, granted, but that has to rankle people. "I liked playing a Wizard and winning D&D!" has to be the core reason from a lot of people in the face of the classes being theoretically rebalanced. Or, "I like playing wizards, and I don't want to give up any of my power because I want to keep playing them."

All you need to break the system is Leomund’s Secret Chest.

As for the rest, I may comment later.

[Swordguy]

All you need to break the system is Leomund’s Secret Chest.

As for the rest, I may comment later.

All I ask is you comment on ALL the points I'm making, not just the one that obliquely accuses some people of not wanting a nerf to their favorite class.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd rather wait to see the entire system
I reiterate, I'm not conjecturing here. By this point, the entire system is freely available to people with connections to, say, the 4E Release Convention organisation crowd.


The wizard in 3.5 can stand in for any two or three classes at a time.
Yes, that is a known problem for 3.5. I believe it would be a better solution for the wizard to pick one of those things to do (i.e. focus on one line of spells rather than cherrypicking all the best ones from eight-plus schools), than to allow the wizard none of those (other than blaster).


I also have to wonder if people are upset with the wizard's power loss because they don't know what to play to break the system.
Yeah, I also have to wonder why people must always assume dark ulterior motives of anyone who makes any statement of 4E that might be construed as criticism. Of course, it is easier for most people to start a flame war than to acknowledge that others might legitimately hold a different opinion.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I also have to wonder if people are upset with the wizard's power loss because they don't know what to play to break the system. Not that they'll admit it on a public forum, granted, but that has to rankle people. "I liked playing a Wizard and winning D&D!" has to be the core reason from a lot of people in the face of the classes being theoretically rebalanced. Or, "I like playing wizards, and I don't want to give up any of my power because I want to keep playing them."

Oh! Oh! Let's ascribe people with motives that they don't have! Let's do it in such a way that we can blame them of it no matter what they say against it! Let's do it in a condescending manner, too!

In after Kurald Galain.

No, seriously, what if I do want to play a master of illusion, who makes those around him begin to question everything about reality; what if I do want to play a mastery of divination, who plans his actions out well in advance, and can give his best shot at 'just as planned'ing his way out of any situation?

Oh no, it's not that, it's because I want to play a cheesy shadowcraft mage and batman. Right.

[Rutee]

Kurald, Wizards are not overnerfed just because they suck compared to 3rd ed Wizards. Though to be fair, I don't think we can really make any truly accurate statements on brokenness. Yes, we have the PHB, but I'm sure it took a while for most people to recognize the brokenness of classes in 3rd ed. I'm not entirely comfortable saying a class is or isn't X until we've had, oh I don't know, a few hundred thousand eyes look over the classes in multiple games and circumstances.

As to Tippy's statements on Secret Chest breaking the game:

Only if you have a GM who has no common sense.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I'm not sure we're complaining about wizards being good or bad relative to 3e ones, just that the way that they've been written precludes great swathes of archetypes. Like the illusion mage that I keep bringing up.

[Rutee]

Question: What are your feelings on splatbook spam? This is directly relevant to the rest.

[FoE]

All you need to break the system is Leomund’s Secret Chest.

Nope. :smallsmile:


Sticking to RAW here, the description of the LSC ritual says you can place objects in it, not creatures. Now I haven't read the entire PHB yet or anything, but I'm going to assume that Object and Creature are still game-defined terms. That being the case, LSC cannot be used to teleport people.

[Rutee]

....
Alright, since Object isn't a defined Game Term, that means you can't put /anything/ in it..

[Illiterate Scribe]

Eh, if they do introduce say, the Illusionists'/Diviners' Handbook, my NERD RAAGE will be somewhat quelled, but it still will object to some of the ways in which the game works, re, encounter/daily spells, and suchlike.

If 4e as it stands is WoW (like it or not, there are a few points of confluence - they're overstated, but aggro etc is there), then I'd rather have 3.5, which is Garry's Mod - the ability to use one's abilities, and the world around you, in imaginative ways.

[Rutee]

Eh, if they do introduce say, the Illusionists'/Diviners' Handbook, my NERD RAAGE will be somewhat quelled, but it still will object to some of the ways in which the game works, re, encounter/daily spells, and suchlike.
Diviner is in, to an extent. Divine Oracle, particular rituals. It's not a /wizard/, but most fictional soothsayers are divine in nature. Well, til recently anyway.
I ask because it's an unsolved issue to me. I'm legitimately unsure how I feel about 'needing' particular splats.


If 4e as it stands is WoW (like it or not, there are a few points of confluence - they're overstated, but aggro etc is there), then I'd rather have 3.5, which is Garry's Mod - the ability to use one's abilities, and the world around you, in imaginative ways.

Aggro isn't in 4e. Seriously. There's "Hit me or face penalties", but not "Hit me even if it's tactically stupid to". Aggro was in 3rd ed, with abilities like Knight's Challenge. There are points of confluence, but that one isn't one of them.

[Emperor Tippy]

All I ask is you comment on ALL the points I'm making, not just the one that obliquely accuses some people of not wanting a nerf to their favorite class.

Why? While I may not agree with your other points (I might even agree with you for all you know) I can comment on a specific point of your post that I take issue with on its own.

As for your other points, I have the books. I can state unequivocally that the wizard (and everyone else) is far too rigid. That versatility has been mostly chucked out the window.

As for your second point, sure the wizard can stand in for a rogue when he has too. And do the job well. But it eats into his spell per day something fierce. I would have done things in 4e differently, wizards would have a massive spell list and 2 floating spell slots per day which can be used to cast any of those spells. Then I would have put most of the more powerful abilities in that category. Do you really need to convince that guard to go wander away, or get through the lock, or need backup? I would have also included a summons power as a daily power and said that the form the summon takes is irrelevant. It has X stats and you get to choose certain other abilities from a list based on level/skill check/ etc. So all you have to do is balance 1 monster, not a MM's worth. The player wants to summon a bear? Great, but when they summon a dear it has the exact same stats.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Diviner is in, to an extent. Divine Oracle, particular rituals. It's not a /wizard/, but most fictional soothsayers are divine in nature. Well, til recently anyway.

Yeah, but the Divine Oracle abilities are all 'get some bonus during combat'. I'd like stuff like 'stone tell', 'arcane sight' (which is, incidentally, completely different from wizard's sight'), or 'prying eyes'.

Eyes of the warlock, et al., are nice and all, but a little hollow.


Aggro isn't in 4e. Seriously. There's "Hit me or face penalties", but not "Hit me even if it's tactically stupid to". Aggro was in 3rd ed, with abilities like Knight's Challenge. There are points of confluence, but that one isn't one of them.

Well, aggro's the only thing I know personally about WoW, so I used that as an example. Still, the GMod point still stands, IMO. A lot of the fun in DND is, for me, coming up with wacky ways to get round problems; I feel that's lacking in 4e.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

The problem here is neither the wizard nor minions. The problems are serious lack of versatility and serious lack of realism-or, at least, those are the greatest problems of all. Here are some examples:

Versatility:

Take a 20th level 3.5 fighter. Yes, the good, old fighter. The fighter has 18 feats and no powers save for the standard combat maneuers. Compare with the 30th level 4E fighter-which has 18 feats and 8 combat powers. We want a pretty versatile and also effective fighter so we have the following:

Power Attack line-including shocktrooper. (4 feats)
Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes. (4 feats)
Manyshot line (3 feats)
Attack of Opportunity line (3 feats)
2 tactical feats of your choice plus perequisites.

Our trusty old 3.5 fighter can do the following stuff;
Power attack for any number up to his BAB tailoring his attack to the enemy in question.
Cleave.
Tailor his defence to the enemy in question.
Charge while reducing his AC instead of BAB to kill big enemies.
Attack 4 different targets with a bow normally or a single enemy with multiple arrows.
Get attacks of opportunity for movement, spellcasting, supernaturals and enemies standing still.
Get attacks of opportunity several times a round.
Get 6 additional combat options from the 2 tactical feats.

The 4E fighter gets his 8 attacks other than the basic ones-because 4E feats do not really help with anything other than static bonuses.

So, the 3.5 edition fighter gets 14 different combat options plus the basic combat maneuers-almost TWICE as many combat options as the 4E fighter.

That is BAD. Remember how boring was to play a fighter in 3.5? Now increase the boring factor by about 50%-and add it to every single class multiplied by the number of times said other classes were cooler than the fighter.

3.5 Warlock had 12 powers all in all and could get as many as 20 powers if he spent feats in Extra Power-but those powers could combine in ten times as many ways. The 4E warlock powers are fewer-and are fully stand-alone so no combos.

3.5 cleric and druid were casters just like wizards-in fact, they were more versatile than wizards. Their options got gimped.

Wizards and Sorcerors got gimped in their options.

Paladins and Bards had way more options than the new Paladin and the Warlord. They got gimped option-wise.

Monks do not exist.

The Rogue is pretty much the ONLY class that got an upgrade in versatility.




The problem of Minions:

People keep arguing about that for no reason. Normal monsters get dropped in 4-5 hits of their level, right? So make minions have 1/6 of the normal monster HP-say, 3 HP+3 HP per 2 levels. This means that a minion of the PCs level is still dropped on a single hit even with slightly lower than average damage. However, said minion will not be dropped by half damage (as in a miss) and neither will it be dropped in one hit by somebody scoring a lucky hit from a singnificantly lower level.

Easy. Clean. Realistic. All in the 30 seconds it takes to type this sentence.

[Little_Rudo]

Scribe, if I remember correctly, a lot of the enchantment/illusion sort of spells are being saved for the Psionic power set. You can like it or hate it, but I personally like that Psionics will really have their own niche.

[AKA_Bait]

Only the GM needs to know that a mook is a minion until someone hits it, at which point it dies anyway.


This is true only insofar as the first battle with those mooks. By the second combat with Kobolds I could tell from the in character descriptions of the minions vs. the tough guys which was which.


As to Tippy's statements on Secret Chest breaking the game:

Only if you have a GM who has no common sense.

True also of Pun-Pun and the 1d2 Crusader. Doesn't speak to the mechanics themselves.

[Rutee]

Yeah, but the Divine Oracle abilities are all 'get some bonus during combat'. I'd like stuff like 'stone tell', 'arcane sight' (which is, incidentally, completely different from wizard's sight'), or 'prying eyes'.

Eyes of the warlock, et al., are nice and all, but a little hollow.
Ah, you're looking more for clairvoyance then prescience. Yeah, they don't have that very well. Why not add some of them as Rituals?


Well, aggro's the only thing I know personally about WoW, so I used that as an example. Still, the GMod point still stands, IMO. A lot of the fun in DND is, for me, coming up with wacky ways to get round problems; I feel that's lacking in 4e.

I dunno, honestly. It feels like the only people who had the capacity for wackiness before were casters. With the SWSE skill system and several various utilities, it seems like everyone /else/ has an easier time with being off the wall.


True also of Pun-Pun and the 1d2 Crusader. Doesn't speak to the mechanics themselves.
3.5 isn't broken because of Pun-Pun or the 1d2 crusader for this very reason.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Yes, but their handling of other stuff so far is not promising.

[SamTheCleric]

Comparing a 4e fighter to a 3e fighter is a poor comparison. They are more like Warblades now... and everyone likes Warblades.

[Swordguy]

Why? While I may not agree with your other points (I might even agree with you for all you know) I can comment on a specific point of your post that I take issue with on its own.


To present a fair and balanced argument, perhaps? Yeah, I know it's the internet, but that shouldn't stop you from trying.



Yeah, I also have to wonder why people must always assume dark ulterior motives of anyone who makes any statement of 4E that might be construed as criticism. Of course, it is easier for most people to start a flame war than to acknowledge that others might legitimately hold a different opinion.

Seriously, now, I'm not accusing anybody here of being a powergamer. I'd have to actually watch you play for that. But for ANY of you to simply dismiss that as a reason for some complaints is simply ignorance. It is a statistical certainty that somebody out there is looking at the 4e wizard and making exactly the same point I was - that they can't rule the game by playing one. It's just as valid an argument as anything else said here. Or are you seriously implying that not a single gamer out there is thinking that?

Now, on the topic, I'd argue that the limit in versatility is in keeping with WotC's stated goal of making sure people stick to their class roles. If you don't have the versatility to take over another class's role, then the problem becomes moot. Whether you agree with it or not is a matter of opinion - but you can't deny it does conclusively solve the issue of wizards being able to substitute for other classes.


No, seriously, what if I do want to play a master of illusion, who makes those around him begin to question everything about reality; what if I do want to play a mastery of divination, who plans his actions out well in advance, and can give his best shot at 'just as planned'ing his way out of any situation?

For the illusionist, according to WotC, you should play a bard. Not a wizard. For the diviner - you don't get that power anymore (as best as I can tell - my books haven't shown up yet from Amazon and I refuse to pirate them). It's a flat nerf. People, this is a new game. Your old assumptions about what classes should be doing what DO NOT APPLY.

/realizes I'm just spitting into the wind here. Why listen to a rational argument when there's "NEEERD RAAAGE" to be applied?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Versatility:

Take a 20th level 3.5 fighter. Yes, the good, old fighter. The fighter has 18 feats and no powers save for the standard combat maneuers. Compare with the 30th level 4E fighter-which has 18 feats and 8 combat powers. We want a pretty versatile and also effective fighter so we have the following:

Power Attack line-including shocktrooper. (4 feats)
Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes. (4 feats)
Manyshot line (3 feats)
Attack of Opportunity line (3 feats)
2 tactical feats of your choice plus perequisites.

Our trusty old 3.5 fighter can do the following stuff;
Power attack for any number up to his BAB tailoring his attack to the enemy in question.
Cleave.
Tailor his defence to the enemy in question.
Charge while reducing his AC instead of BAB to kill big enemies.
Attack 4 different targets with a bow normally or a single enemy with multiple arrows.
Get attacks of opportunity for movement, spellcasting, supernaturals and enemies standing still.
Get attacks of opportunity several times a round.
Get 6 additional combat options from the 2 tactical feats.

The 4E fighter gets his 8 attacks other than the basic ones-because 4E feats do not really help with anything other than static bonuses.

So, the 3.5 edition fighter gets 14 different combat options plus the basic combat maneuers-almost TWICE as many combat options as the 4E fighter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Did you even think up that sentence? PA is not a new attack, and neither is cleave. You can still charge in 4th. And you can also use bows. You also get AoO's from enemies.

That's five options out, putting the 3.5 fighter's 9 variations of "I hit it with my pointy stick for the same damage every time" against the SEVENTEEN powers a level 30 fighter gets, because you didn't factor utilities or at wills into the equation.

Really, refrain from commenting on things you don't know about. At the very least, refrain if you can't lie well enough to sound convincing.

[Reel On, Love]

The 4E fighter gets his 8 attacks other than the basic ones-because 4E feats do not really help with anything other than static bonuses.

So, the 3.5 edition fighter gets 14 different combat options plus the basic combat maneuers-almost TWICE as many combat options as the 4E fighter.

That is BAD. Remember how boring was to play a fighter in 3.5? Now increase the boring factor by about 50%-and add it to every single class multiplied by the number of times said other classes were cooler than the fighter.

Speaking as someone who's PLAYED a 4E fighter, this is seriously misleading. "How much to Power Attack for" and "whether to Shock Troop" don't qualify as options. "Cleave" isn't even an option, it's just making an extra attack sometimes. AoOs are just making extra attacks sometimes. The fighter attacks, trips, and attacks some more. Shock Trooper lets him trip in cool new ways, in addition to the PA-for-AC; that'd be kind of nice if it was more *useful*

Meanwhile, each of the 4E Fighter's powers actually do various cool things (like let him surge up to half health from 0, give enemies defense penalties, follow escaping enemies or knock closing ones down, tactically reposition, etc) and play a lot more tactically.

"Well, gosh, I can cleave sometimes" isn't fun and it's not an option. What the 4E Fighter gets is.

You might as well suggest that a level 20 fighter with 13 INT has 60 skill points, and therefore 60 "options" (assigning them).


Az, you really need to watch your tone. The more often you post arrogantly, the more often you'll need to slink away to save face.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Speaking as someone who's PLAYED a 4E fighter, this is seriously misleading. "How much to Power Attack for" and "whether to Shock Troop" don't really qualify as options. "Cleave" isn't even an option, it's just making an extra attack sometimes. AoOs are just making extra attacks sometimes.

Meanwhile, each of the 4E Fighter's powers actually do various cool things (like let him surge up to half health from 0, give enemies defense penalties, follow escaping enemies or knock closing ones down, tactically reposition, etc) and play a lot more tactically.

"Well, gosh, I can cleave sometimes" isn't a fun option. What the 4E Fighter gets is.

Ninja'd, Reel! Glad to see we're on the same side now. :smalltongue:

Edit: And THIS time, that certainly wasn't arrogance. Belial didn't even take HALF of the powers a fighter has into account, so it called for that to be explained, in a really blunt fashion to get the point across. Don't worry, when I have to defend my points, there'll be no arrogance, just cold, hard truths.

[Reel On, Love]

Ninja'd, Reel! Glad to see we're on the same side now. :smalltongue:

It makes me want to reconsider my opinion. You really need to work on your presentation.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Comparing a 4e fighter to a 3e fighter is a poor comparison. They are more like Warblades now... and everyone likes Warblades.

That's because a 20th level warblade gets as many as 20 combat options if you count the 7 basic feats that give you combat options as well (which you should) and their feat-given options can modify every one of their 12 maneuers. Their options are 12 normal maneuers plus 12 power-attacked maneuers plus 12 expertised maneuers plus 12 maneuers modified by various tactical feats-such as cleave, whirlwind attack, spring attack and others. In addition, warblade maneuers can recharge in-combat so you CAN use each maneuer more than once.

So, compare a grand total of 100+ combos that recharge with a grand total of 8 powers that do NOT recharge.

You liked the Warblade? Then divide your old liking by 12 and you get how much you'll like the new fighter on average.

[Azerian Kelimon]

That's because a 20th level warblade gets as many as 20 combat options if you count the 7 basic feats that give you combat options as well (which you should) and their feat-given options can modify every one of their 12 maneuers. Their options are 12 normal maneuers plus 12 power-attacked maneuers plus 12 expertised maneuers plus 12 maneuers modified by various tactical feats-such as cleave, whirlwind attack, spring attack and others. In addition, warblade maneuers can recharge in-combat so you CAN use each maneuer more than once.

So, compare a grand total of 100+ combos that recharge with a grand total of 8 powers that do NOT recharge.

You liked the Warblade? Then divide your old liking by 12 and you get how much you'll like the new fighter on average.

...And...you think all of the 100 options are viable?

Math is one thing, but you have to apply common sense to it. After a certain point, you do NOT use Sapphire nightmare blade, and switch it for Diamond Nightmare blade. That's probably going to apply to 1/5 of the maneuvers, so you have to cut down combos appropriately.

Also, waiting for your rebuttal to our points in regards to the 3.5 fighters.

[Rutee]

To be fair, downgrading Fighter from Warblade is a fair comparison.

[SamTheCleric]

And the 3 daily powers from magic items you can use per day...

So that's 2 (basic attacks) + 2 (at will powers) + 4 (encounter) + 4 (daily) + 3 (daily magic item) + 7 (utility) + 1 (Power Attack, since you included it) = 23 options.

And that's not including some of the feat options or anything... (like polearm gamble, which does add more options)

Most of the fighter utilities are combat related, so you have to include them... unless you're just trying to skew the numbers.

[Emperor Tippy]

To present a fair and balanced argument, perhaps? Yeah, I know it's the internet, but that shouldn't stop you from trying.
You separated the point I commented on from the rest of the post with a line. To me that signifies a different point.


For the illusionist, according to WotC, you should play a bard. Not a wizard. For the diviner - you don't get that power anymore (as best as I can tell - my books haven't shown up yet from Amazon and I refuse to pirate them). It's a flat nerf. People, this is a new game. Your old assumptions about what classes should be doing what DO NOT APPLY.

/realizes I'm just spitting into the wind here. Why listen to a rational argument when there's "NEEERD RAAAGE" to be applied?

So you, who doesn't have the books, are arguing with people who have the books in front of them about what those books say?


Scribe, if I remember correctly, a lot of the enchantment/illusion sort of spells are being saved for the Psionic power set. You can like it or hate it, but I personally like that Psionics will really have their own niche.

Then odds are I will much prefer Psionics to wizards.

[Reel On, Love]

That's because a 20th level warblade gets as many as 20 combat options if you count the 7 basic feats that give you combat options as well (which you should) and their feat-given options can modify every one of their 12 maneuers. Their options are 12 normal maneuers plus 12 power-attacked maneuers plus 12 expertised maneuers plus 12 maneuers modified by various tactical feats-such as cleave, whirlwind attack, spring attack and others. In addition, warblade maneuers can recharge in-combat so you CAN use each maneuer more than once.

So, compare a grand total of 100+ combos that recharge with a grand total of 8 powers that do NOT recharge.

You liked the Warblade? Then divide your old liking by 12 and you get how much you'll like the new fighter on average.


"Power Attack" is *not* an interesting option. "Expertise" is NOT an interesting option.
Spring Attack? You HAVE to be freaking kidding me. Whirlwind Attack? Same. (Oh, and these feats aren't maneuver-modified; or rather, only by boosts.) "I Power Attack for X" (BTW, Power Attack is around in 4E--wanna count each of the 4E Fighter's 17 powers twice thanks to Power Attack?) isn't interesting. Spring Attack isn't interesting in 3E (I hit once, I get charged, OOOOOH), and it's CERTAINLY not effective.

You are counting "options" in a completely irrelevant way. You might as well suggest that Power Attack is 20 options (PAing from 1 to 20). No, wait--it's 40 options (PAing one-handed or two-handed doubles the "options")!

Take it from someone who's *played* the 4E Fighter, at low and high levels. It's not "1/12th as fun as a Warblade". It's as much fun--or more, thanks to shorter, more tactical combat rounds and the lack of @#$! like White Raven Hammer you felt bad taking but pretty much had to to keep up.


Look, 4E has its issues. Scribe hit on some of them. You don't need to try and justify not liking 4E by pretending that Power Attack and Expertise make Fighters interesting.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I had a reply to Rutee, but I lost it while copy and pasting. :smallfrown: It waxed lyrical about the hardness of adamantine.


For the illusionist, according to WotC, you should play a bard. Not a wizard. For the diviner - you don't get that power anymore (as best as I can tell - my books haven't shown up yet from Amazon and I refuse to pirate them). It's a flat nerf. People, this is a new game. Your old assumptions about what classes should be doing what DO NOT APPLY.


Again, they may introduce illusionists. With the way they've treated everything else, then I'm almost sure that they'll end up as some combination of sliding Cha mod squares, and doing 2d10 + Cha psychic damage.

And yes, it is a new game - a miniatures wargaming one, with role-playing interludes. Not the RPG, flawed as it is, that 3e is.


/realizes I'm just spitting into the wind here. Why listen to a rational argument when there's "NEEERD RAAAGE" to be applied?

How kind of you. Yes, why listen to disagreeing people; they're just haters!

[LotharBot]

Their options are 12 normal maneuers plus 12 power-attacked maneuers plus 12 expertised maneuers plus 12 maneuers modified by various tactical feats-such as cleave, whirlwind attack, spring attack and others.

You're ending up with a count of 100+ options, but only 12 of them are unique; the remnant are simply duplicates with the same repeated variations. This is a bizarre counting method, and it really doesn't help your case.

[tyckspoon]

You're ending up with a count of 100+ options, but only 12 of them are unique; the remnant are simply duplicates with the same repeated variations. This is a bizarre counting method, and it really doesn't help your case.

It works for Boggle. Which is obviously a relevant analogy, and yet another way 4E is becoming a vidjya gaem! If you play a computerized version of Boggle. Otherwise 4E is becoming a bunch of cubes inside another cube.


/I'm sorry.

[Cainen]

I would argue that, having played a rogue (specialized explicitly to pick locks and disarm traps) that was literally asked to leave the group because the wizard reduced my entire character class to ineffectiveness.

That has almost nothing to do with "I can prepare for any encounter!" You know what it does have to do with, though? The unbelievable efficiency of 3.X Wizards, which was what he said. There's nothing wrong with a Wizard being able to aid the rogue in picking locks by, say, lowering the DC required or adding a modifier to the rogue's lockpicking skill.

It's never been about their ability to stand in for other classes - this gave the Wizard the fun part of playing it, as far as I'm concerned. The ability to prepare for anything was neat. The problem was that they were too powerful when they did, and that casting itself was very overpowered.

Wizards wouldn't be overpowered if they merely hindered the enemies moderately with their save or sucks, as it wouldn't render the rest of the party useless. In fact, they'd be right where they are now, if not a little better - they'd be more powerful of a controller, as they couldn't get rendered useless by any encounter they're able to prepare for.

[Farmer42]

tyck...Maybe Boggle is a metaphor for life, and 4E is simply aping it? You, sir, are deep.

[Starbuck_II]

If 4e as it stands is WoW (like it or not, there are a few points of confluence - they're overstated, but aggro etc is there), then I'd rather have 3.5, which is Garry's Mod - the ability to use one's abilities, and the world around you, in imaginative ways.

What? There are no aggro abilities in 4th.

There are Aggro mechanics in 3rd edition. Mindless Rage, Knight's Challenge, Goad, etc. One is a class ability, one is a spell, and one is a feat. Trust me. 3rd was way more Morepig than 4th.

Emperor Tippy:


As for your second point, sure the wizard can stand in for a rogue when he has too. And do the job well. But it eats into his spell per day something fierce. I would have done things in 4e differently, wizards would have a massive spell list and 2 floating spell slots per day which can be used to cast any of those spells. Then I would have put most of the more powerful abilities in that category. Do you really need to convince that guard to go wander away, or get through the lock, or need backup? I would have also included a summons power as a daily power and said that the form the summon takes is irrelevant. It has X stats and you get to choose certain other abilities from a list based on level/skill check/ etc. So all you have to do is balance 1 monster, not a MM's worth. The player wants to summon a bear? Great, but when they summon a dear it has the exact same stats.

You can still make that Summon Spell power.
In fact, please do. I woulds love to see how you try to make it. I like the fact that the monsters is X mechanics. The player only makes the Y description of how it looks. Reminds me of Astral Constructs in 3rd from XPH (really, it states if you have ranks in craft you can determine what you want it to look like so anything really).

In 4th, you are expected to invent new things and try to say yes to players.

I wish everything took a note from XPH. It was such a well made system.


Illiterate Scribe:


Again, they may introduce illusionists. With the way they've treated everything else, then I'm almost sure that they'll end up as some combination of sliding Cha mod squares, and doing 2d10 + Cha psychic damage.

And yes, it is a new game - a miniatures wargaming one, with role-playing interludes. Not the RPG, flawed as it is, that 3e is.

Pfft, 3rd was way more minatures war game. Did you forget 3rd brought us:
1) miniatures handbook and the Heroes of Battle book about mass combat

2) Or illsionists illusions are based on something like Ghost sound. It has a clear desciption and works well.

Silent Image could be done like Ghost sound except makes an image not a sound. They would have to determine how much dimensions it had like 3rd though. Also when target wiould get a save or whatever to figure out it is real. Maybe make it a Perception check: DC 10+ Arcana modifier. That scales well with level.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Did you even think up that sentence? PA is not a new attack, and neither is cleave. You can still charge in 4th. And you can also use bows. You also get AoO's from enemies.
Cleave is a specific power in 4E you have to select. Great Cleave-which is a second attack option-doesn't exist. Power attack exists-but it is fixed in an unhelpfully small number. The old variable power attack has so many uses as an attack that it is scary. Turn everything to PA with a two-handed weapon to immediately 'unlock' a door, chest or wall (if you're high level). Kill a minion in one blow without having to rely on abstracts like 1 HP minions. Compensate for DR (or in 4e, resistances), quickly beat down a low AC target (such as an artillery monster).
Using bows in 4e as a standard attack is just that-an attack that does Weapon+strength modifier damage. The fighter has NO other combat options such as to shoot 3-4 different enemies, shoot a single enemy many times, ranged pin, ranged disarm ranged sunder (to name a few).
The standard attack of opportunity is normal for everyone, yes. But getting a second attack of opportunity isn't. Getting an attack of opportunity that immobilises targets isn't the same. Getting an attack of opprtunity that is three blows instead of one also isn't the same.


That's five options out, putting the 3.5 fighter's 9 variations of "I hit it with my pointy stick for the same damage every time" against the SEVENTEEN powers a level 30 fighter gets, because you didn't factor utilities or at wills into the equation.
As pointed above, not 5 options out. As for at wills, you get 2. One is your standard attack that anyone gets anyway. The other is cleave or something similar. :smallconfused: As for getting 17, I am counting 3 encounter, 3 daily. 1 standard at will, 1 additional at will. That's 8. I am not counting the 7 utilities because they aren't attack powers and they are mainly healing, defence and assigning penalties to enemies-that in 3.5 fighters is replicated by a good weapon and a couple tactical feats. So, get a tactical feat that stuns or nauseates enemies on hits (such as three mountains style), an opportunity feat that immobilises enemies, a defence feat like expertise to mimick the AC bonuses of some utilities, a vampiric weapon for your 3.5 edition fighter to gain back HP when you deal damage to cover the healing and an additional enchantment that deals ability damage to get penalties on enemies in addition with the tactical feats and TADA-you've covered the utility powers with 3 feats out of 18 and 1 good weapon.
For path and destiny additional abilities I am not counting because Paths and Destinies replace PrCs-they are not classes. Do you want to compare the lousy 3 powers a path gives with the powers of a 10-level PrC, especially some of the ToB ones?


...And...you think all of the 100 options are viable?

Math is one thing, but you have to apply common sense to it. After a certain point, you do NOT use Sapphire nightmare blade, and switch it for Diamond Nightmare blade. That's probably going to apply to 1/5 of the maneuvers, so you have to cut down combos appropriately.
No, not all of those 100 options are viable-but every single maneuer of roughly comparable level is better than any power of the 4E fighter in both damage-dealing and additional effects especially if you factor in that you can both benefit from the maneuer and the additional effect of tactical feats. You keep the lower maneuers for defence-which they're good at-and the higher ones for attack.


"Power Attack" is *not* an interesting option. "Expertise" is NOT an interesting option.
Spring Attack? You HAVE to be freaking kidding me. Whirlwind Attack? Same. (Oh, and these feats aren't maneuver-modified; or rather, only by boosts.) "I Power Attack for X" (BTW, Power Attack is around in 4E--wanna count each of the 4E Fighter's 17 powers twice thanks to Power Attack?) isn't interesting. Spring Attack isn't interesting in 3E (I hit once, I get charged, OOOOOH), and it's CERTAINLY not effective.

Why do I have to use the Tide of Iron power if I could just use Bull Rush which is a basic maneuer available to all in 4E and can slide my enemy more squares? Or if I could use the shield smite feat to stun him too? Why do I have to use Dizzying Blow Power if I could use 3 Mountains tactical feat or one of the opportunity feats to immobilise an enemy without spending an action? Why do I have to use Vorpal Tornado-a 17th level power-if I could use Whirlwind attack that does the exact same thing? Why use Adamantine Strike-which is a 27th level attack-when I can Sundering Cleave on my enemy to smash his weapon then do damage to him as well and have them be without a weapon and thus suffer a -4 penalty to AC for my next 3 attacks of the full attack I am performing? Why use Storm Of Destruction (29th level daily) when I can make a full attack with two weapon fighting (3 feats invested) ad do 4 attacks against 1 enemy and 3 attacks against another, half of which will probably hit (this half damage is covered) ?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Cleave is a specific power in 4E you have to select. Great Cleave-which is a second attack option-doesn't exist. Power attack exists-but it is fixed in an unhelpfully small number. The old variable power attack has so many uses as an attack that it is scary. Turn everything to PA with a two-handed weapon to immediately 'unlock' a door, chest or wall (if you're high level). Kill a minion in one blow without having to rely on abstracts like 1 HP minions. Compensate for DR (or in 4e, resistances), quickly beat down a low AC target (such as an artillery monster).
Using bows in 4e as a standard attack is just that-an attack that does Weapon+strength modifier damage. The fighter has NO other combat options such as to shoot 3-4 different enemies, shoot a single enemy many times, ranged pin, ranged disarm ranged sunder (to name a few).
The standard attack of opportunity is normal for everyone, yes. But getting a second attack of opportunity isn't. Getting an attack of opportunity that immobilises targets isn't the same. Getting an attack of opprtunity that is three blows instead of one also isn't the same.


As pointed above, not 5 options out. As for at wills, you get 2. One is your standard attack that anyone gets anyway. The other is cleave or something similar. :smallconfused: As for getting 17, I am counting 3 encounter, 3 daily. 1 standard at will, 1 additional at will. That's 8. I am not counting the 7 utilities because they aren't attack powers and they are mainly healing, defence and assigning penalties to enemies-that in 3.5 fighters is replicated by a good weapon and a couple tactical feats. So, get a tactical feat that stuns or nauseates enemies on hits (such as three mountains style), an opportunity feat that immobilises enemies, a defence feat like expertise to mimick the AC bonuses of some utilities, a vampiric weapon for your 3.5 edition fighter to gain back HP when you deal damage to cover the healing and an additional enchantment that deals ability damage to get penalties on enemies in addition with the tactical feats and TADA-you've covered the utility powers with 3 feats out of 18 and 1 good weapon.
For path and destiny additional abilities I am not counting because Paths and Destinies replace PrCs-they are not classes. Do you want to compare the lousy 3 powers a path gives with the powers of a 10-level PrC, especially some of the ToB ones?


No, not all of those 100 options are viable-but every single maneuer of roughly comparable level is better than any power of the 4E fighter in both damage-dealing and additional effects especially if you factor in that you can both benefit from the maneuer and the additional effect of tactical feats. You keep the lower maneuers for defence-which they're good at-and the higher ones for attack.


Why do I have to use the Tide of Iron power if I could just use Bull Rush which is a basic maneuer available to all in 4E and can slide my enemy more squares? Or if I could use the shield smite feat to stun him too? Why do I have to use Dizzying Blow Power if I could use 3 Mountains tactical feat or one of the opportunity feats to immobilise an enemy without spending an action? Why do I have to use Vorpal Tornado-a 17th level power-if I could use Whirlwind attack that does the exact same thing? Why use Adamantine Strike-which is a 27th level attack-when I can Sundering Cleave on my enemy to smash his weapon then do damage to him as well and have them be without a weapon and thus suffer a -4 penalty to AC for my next 3 attacks of the full attack I am performing? Why use Storm Of Destruction (29th level daily) when I can make a full attack with two weapon fighting (3 feats invested) ad do 4 attacks against 1 enemy and 3 attacks against another, half of which will probably hit (this half damage is covered) ?

...Be honest now. D'you have the PHB?

[Friv]

And yes, it is a new game - a miniatures wargaming one, with role-playing interludes. Not the RPG, flawed as it is, that 3e is.

Having skimmed over the book, this was my impression as well.

4e appears to be elegant, streamlined, and generally versatile; however, it does so in a wargaming or video-RPG sense, rather than the broader sense that I've become used to.

Possibly, it's just that playing Adventure! and Exalted has ruined me for other games.

[Reel On, Love]

Belial, you're missing the point.

I've played 3.5 Fighters. With tactical feats, and Power Attack, and so on.
I've played a couple of 4E fighters, although the higher-level one was more briefly, during a playtest.

It's not the same. 4E Fighters are a lot more fun. They're even more fun because they're not dripping with magic items that are necessary for them to survive, they don't have to take Steadfast Determination to get even *mediocre* Will saves.

3E fighters are dull. Sure, I can Shock Troop. Oh, gosh, that's exciting. Now I do tons of damage but I die in return. I guess I'll pick up Robilar's Gambit and Combat Reflexes... in a couple of levels. And Elusive Target, so I can't be power attacked. Oh, look at that, I'm splattering everything in melee and mobile or spellcasting enemies still take care of me with ease. I'm overpowered *and* I suck at the same time, worst of both worlds. I charge and hit for a lot of damage. I full attack. I full attack. I don't whirlwind attack, because it sucks. I don't use Expertise, because it sucks. I trip... over and over again.

Playing a 4E Fighter, as you'd probably know if you'd done it, is a lot better than playing his 3E counterpart. In part it's because of the powers and the things the Fighter can do, in part it's because of the more tactical nature of combat, in part it's because of how you synergize with your party.


You can talk all you like about how being able to use Power Attack is tons of options, and how Power Attack Combined With Whirlwind Attack is somehow a great option or makes the Fighter fun to play. It doesn't. There are things 3.5 is better at. Fun Fighters isn't one of them.


ETA: D&D has never *been* like Adventure! or Exalted. 3.5 is not a narrativist wet dream.

[Skyserpent]

Do..do you mind if I sig that?

I would be honored.

[JaxGaret]

Bards're still in/going to be in a future book? I always could've sworn the Warlord was their stand-in of sorts, since he was doing the whole "Morale" thing that most people associate with Bards.

Warlords are the 4e update to 3e Marshals, not Bards.

I'm guessing that Bards are going to be Arcane Leaders. It fits them perfectly.


Also, on the issue of 4e Wizards not being "Wizards". It's possible that 4e PHB Wizards are really the blaster mages of 4e, and that subsequent caster classes will be more "Wizard-y". Or, at least, will have a segment of the "Wizard"'s shtick that makes them less reliant on damage-dealing, like the Psions having mind-control.

Batman Wizards are dead, people. They don't exist in 4e.

[JaxGaret]

I would have done things in 4e differently, wizards would have a massive spell list and 2 floating spell slots per day which can be used to cast any of those spells. Then I would have put most of the more powerful abilities in that category. Do you really need to convince that guard to go wander away, or get through the lock, or need backup? I would have also included a summons power as a daily power and said that the form the summon takes is irrelevant. It has X stats and you get to choose certain other abilities from a list based on level/skill check/ etc. So all you have to do is balance 1 monster, not a MM's worth. The player wants to summon a bear? Great, but when they summon a dear it has the exact same stats.

You know, there is a Homebrew Forum right here on gitp.com. It's not like what you're suggesting is an impossibility. It seems simple enough to me.

For the "massive spell list" feel, you could simply give your Wizard variant access to every Power in the game. But then, we're really talking about a new class, a very versatile class... let's call it the Versamancer.

Feel free to come up with other ideas for what you want the Versamancer to look like.

[Aquillion]

For the illusionist, according to WotC, you should play a bard. Not a wizard. For the diviner - you don't get that power anymore (as best as I can tell - my books haven't shown up yet from Amazon and I refuse to pirate them). It's a flat nerf. People, this is a new game. Your old assumptions about what classes should be doing what DO NOT APPLY.You mean in 4rd edition? No bards yet. Illusions (beyond very basic and specific combat things, like invisibility and mirror images of yourself) requires a ritual that takes at least 10 minutes and costs you gold. It is simply not possible to be a 'greater image' type illusionist in 4th edition using what's been published so far. (In WotC's defense, it's a hard thing to balance. I don't like that particular change, though, and hope that more versitile illusion powers are added later.)

Divination is all rituals now. You can do some powerful things with divination still, but it will cost you a great deal of gold each casting.

Still, fundimentially I agree. This is a new game. Heck, it even looks like it'll be a fun game, and I'm sure I'll have fun playing it.

I just really, really wish they hadn't called this new game "Dungeons and Dragons", and gone out of their way to kill 3th edition when they released it. I wish this had been a game made by some other company, who didn't have the rights needed to kill off other, different games that they were concerned might compete with it.

The changes here go way beyond anything we've seen in prior editions. This isn't just a new leveling system or a new way of handling monsters and challenges; this is a totally seperate game that happened to be made by someone who has the D&D license and, therefore, was able to slap D&D logos and terms over their basically unrelated system.

I think that that's the issue here. 4th edition looks like a real fun game, one I'm going to enjoy, but I can't see anyone seriously believing that it's just an iterational 'improvement' on 3rd edition.

Sure, 2nd and 3rd were very different, but I could, if I wanted, take most single-class characters I had in 2nd and remake them mechanically in 3rd with only a few differences -- maybe not the characters that depended heavily on a removed or drastically altered mechanic, but there's a definite underlying similarity there -- they'll play essentially the same way, do essentially the same things, possess variations on the same core abilities, and so on.

That really isn't the case in 4th edition.

I repeat, judged on its own merits, I like what I've seen of 4th edition, I've said it several times... I don't have any real objection to any of its mechanics. And sure, I'll still be able to play 3rd. But there isn't going to be much printed for it anymore, and WotC is making a very definite and outright effort to kill it off.

You have to feel at least a little nostalgic about that. And you have to realize that -- 4th edition being, yes, a very different type of game -- there are going to be some people out there who legitimately prefer to play the sort of game 3rd edition was (warts and all; nobody can deny that 4th is more smooth-playing, balanced, and fun for many roles) over the game we've gotten as 4th. Those people have a perfectly legitimate reason to be annoyed that their favorite game is going out of print forever.

[JaxGaret]

+1 on what Aquillon just said.

Though there actually is quite a bit of continuity from D&D 3e to 4e - in the form of flavor. The flavor of 4e, while somewhat different, is very much derived from 3e.

[Skyserpent]

I think that that's the issue here. 4th edition looks like a real fun game, one I'm going to enjoy, but I can't see anyone seriously believing that it's just an iterational 'improvement' on 3rd edition.

Sure, 2nd and 3rd were very different, but I could, if I wanted, take most single-class characters I had in 2nd and remake them mechanically in 3rd with only a few differences -- maybe not the characters that depended heavily on a removed or drastically altered mechanic, but there's a definite underlying similarity there -- they'll play essentially the same way, do essentially the same things, possess variations on the same core abilities, and so on.

That really isn't the case in 4th edition.

Those people have a perfectly legitimate reason to be annoyed that their favorite game is going out of print forever.

I like this a lot, it's well worded and makes a good point. To be honest I can agree with the spirit that 4e has made some drastic changes.

But I can still recognize it as D&D. I mean, sure It's not 3.5, with all the splatbooks and supplemental material out the wazoo, but if we were to say, compare 3.0 on it's FIRST release, with 4e now. I think we can find a LOT of similarities. The biggest difference would be an overhaul of a system that was a little klunky to smoothen it out, the issue here is that some people LIKED how unorthodox the system was, the 9 level spellcasting, the really powerful and crazy spells. Those were all very cool. But the problem is the game has a new set of priorities. Balance over realism, Fantasy over reality.

I, DO think that 4e is an evolution of 3.5. Not in that everything is improved for the better. Evolution doesn't HAVE to improve EVERYTHING, it just makes sure what sticks around is suited for how we're going to work. The issue here is that we don't all work the same, so they have to do their best to cover all their bases. In this way, they make it a point to cut anything that could not play well with their other design goals. This dissapointed some people. This is unfortunate, but I think they make a good point and I'm not going to call them stupid for trying to make a fun, balanced, and exciting game that I am PROUD to call Dungeons and Dragons. Because new people, young people, are going to want to try Roleplaying, and we'll introduce them to Dungeons and Dragons, and they are going to have FUN.

Not to say 3.5 wasn't fun, it WAS, but the bookkeeping could be tedious, and intimidating. Some people want to play a spellcaster and not have to flip through three seperate books looking at a gigantic list of hundreds of spells and try and find the ONE glittering jewel(or dust, if you so desire) that they want to add to their spell lists.

Some people LIKE bookkeeping, and that's fine. I play with several of those guys. But I think they might have more fun PLAYING the character than spending 2-4 hours MAKING it.

[Daracaex]

I don't exactly have time to read through all five of these pages right now, so I'm sure if this has been mentioned, but I did notice one thing in the initial post. It was said that "feats are stand-alone instead of in chains." This isn't exactly true. One example is that Two-Weapon Defense has the feat Two-Weapon Fighting as a prerequisite.

[ghost_warlock]

Not to say 3.5 wasn't fun, it WAS, but the bookkeeping could be tedious, and intimidating. Some people want to play a spellcaster and not have to flip through three seperate books looking at a gigantic list of hundreds of spells and try and find the ONE glittering jewel(or dust, if you so desire) that they want to add to their spell lists.

On the other hand some of us look at those gigantic lists of hundreds of spells and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, reflecting on the vast assortment of options we have to choose from, imagining the various ways they could be used to really ruin someone else's day. Then, after some reflection and internal debate, we say "Ah, that's the one. That's the option that will make the destruction of my enemies taste the sweetest."


Some people LIKE bookkeeping, and that's fine. I play with several of those guys. But I think they might have more fun PLAYING the character than spending 2-4 hours MAKING it.

Something must be said for craft, though. There's a certain feeling of satisfaction to be had, after spending hours making a character, when you sit back and know that it will make your DM cry.

But one man's fun is another's hell. :smallamused:

[Matthew]

I, DO think that 4e is an evolution of 3.5. Not in that everything is improved for the better. Evolution doesn't HAVE to improve EVERYTHING, it just makes sure what sticks around is suited for how we're going to work.

This is an important point. Whether we consider the brand to be evolving or the game is of interest, but let us put that aside for the moment. 4e as an evolution of 3e need not be considered an improvement in any way. The nature of evolution is that it is a generational response to the changing environment. 4e may turn out to be the best way for D&D (brand or game) to survive and prosper in the current environment, or it may turn out to be an evolutionary dead end. If you put 4e into an environment that 3e was better suited for [say a group of 3e Pathfinder loving die hards], it will in all probability fail. If you put 3e into an environment better suited for 4e, the same will be true.

Ascribing evolution to a game system is, of course, a metaphorical and not literal description of the changes between editions.

[Skyserpent]

On the other hand some of us look at those gigantic lists of hundreds of spells and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, reflecting on the vast assortment of options we have to choose from, imagining the various ways they could be used to really ruin someone else's day. Then, after some reflection and internal debate, we say "Ah, that's the one. That's the option that will make the destruction of my enemies taste the sweetest."



Something must be said for craft, though. There's a certain feeling of satisfaction to be had, after spending hours making a character, when you sit back and know that it will make your DM cry.

But one man's fun is another's hell. :smallamused:

As a DM I know all too well the pain of watching my Big Bad get hit with a Ray of Idiocy...

and as an avid player of fun crazy spellcaster builds I know the unrelenting joy of watching my crazy specific situational spells that I was able to research and cast for the express purpose of annihilating whatever we were supposed to be fighting in a flash of tactics and arcane power.

But I DM more often than not, so I am biased on that point. 4e is MUCH easier to run. But it IS missing that little thing for those really clever and driven players who thrive on superior research.

I suppose enforced balance has a way of feeling UNbalanced to those who excel. You spend a lot more time and energy working out your character, so it's not too much of a stretch to believe that you ought to be rewarded...

But still... I DM for a lot of people, sometimes up to 4 groups at a time, and so when I see a streamlined and simple system it makes me happy.

So 4e panders to me, but not necessarily everyone, and I think I'm okay with that...

I will miss Vancian Spellcasting just a bit... I mean... when asked to bring my favorite book to a class, I brought Spell Compendium...

Ah well... win some, lose some...

I overuse "..."

...

sorry...

DAMMIT

[Aquillion]

This is an important point. Whether we consider the brand to be evolving or the game is of interest, but let us put that aside for the moment. 4e as an evolution of 3e need not be considered an improvement in any way. The nature of evolution is that it is a generational response to the changing environment. 4e may turn out to be the best way for D&D (brand or game) to survive and prosper in the current environment, or it may turn out to be an evolutionary dead end. If you put 4e into an environment that 3e was better suited for [say a group of 3e Pathfinder loving die hards], it will in all probability fail. If you put 3e into an environment better suited for 4e, the same will be true.I disagree; I think you're seriously underestimating the power of labels, marketing and the Dungeons and Dragons brand in particular.

Try going telling a group of people who aren't into gaming at all that you like roleplaying, and there's actually a decent chance they'll have no idea what you're talking about. Tell them you play D&D and they'll recognize it instantly. For the same reason, someone who goes into a store looking to get into the game is going to grab the book with the D&D label; people will be curious and interested in joining D&D games when they might skip names they don't recognize; and so on.

Dungeons and Dragons has been the big system since it came out. I don't think, given the number of systems that have been out there over time, that you can really make a strong argument that it was always the 'best' system, the one with the most well-designed mechanics or well-thought-out framework or anything like that. But in a game that is played with so many other people, which depends on constantly drawing in 'casual' players in college dorms and on bases and everywhere else, that D&D label is an overwhelming advantage, one that no other company has really found a way to touch. (The most successful competitors have been very very specific systems aiming at a particular demographic; nobody touches D&D in its core market.)

Could they screw it up? Sure, I guess. But most people aren't obsessive like us, following all the details and everything. They'll go to the store and say "Oh, hey, I want to buy a D&D manual so I can join that game -- hmm, D&D is like this now?" And unless the new system is awful (and it isn't), that'll be that. Most of the fun in a game doesn't come from the system anyway, so it's not like it's a big deal.

But the point is: If any publisher but WotC had come out with a system along the lines of 4th edition (using slightly different names for product identity stuff, of course), we would be discussing it with some interest in the handful of threads it might manage to get here (although if they didn't give it its own unique shtick to distinguish it from D&D, I doubt it would manage more than a single thread.) People would probably mention what a nice system it is and how it's a fun break from D&D occasionally, particularly for something easy to teach to new people.

Sure, it's an evolution of 3.5, in that it has the D&D logo on it and is published by the same company. Heck, it even shows some hints that the people who made it were paying attention to other games on the market (this is true, though, for most role-playing systems.) You could publish it with a few simple changes to 'iconic' things that were left in, though, file off the serial numbers, and there's no way you'll convince me you'd have guessed it was supposed to be D&D 4.0.

[Matthew]

I disagree; I think you're seriously underestimating the power of labels, marketing and the Dungeons and Dragons brand in particular.

I think you may be disagreeing with something I haven't said. :smallwink: I find nothing in what you say here to disagree with nor contradict what was said above. I certainly didn't say that 4e will live or die on its merits as a system, only that there are environments (say, my gaming group for instance) where it will not thrive.

[JaxGaret]

Aquillion, what you are describing is how every monopoly enjoys that status. Because D&D has the largest market share and thus better profit margin, they can release more splatbooks that will be purchased more widely, and the more splatbooks that are released, the more likely it is that the players of the game will find something that they like, which makes the game better for them, which then increases the game's market share since the game is more enjoyable...

It's a cycle loop. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just how it works with these things.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with anything that you are saying, just expanding upon it.

[Sebastian]

According to page 242 of the player's handbook they do. Though apparently they can only hold encounter powers so featherfall doesn't work.

And they can use it just once for day.

Generally speaking what strike me of 4e is how boring it is.
Monsters are boring, magic items are boring, feats are boring, powers are boring, races are boring.

Rituals are almost interesting, or at least have the potential to be, but are still a little bland, 3.5/d20 modern incantations are much, much better. I really don't like that the only balancing factor seems to be money.

[Reel On, Love]

And they can use it just once for day.

Generally speaking what strike me of 4e is how boring it is.
Monsters are boring, magic items are boring, feats are boring, powers are boring, races are boring.

Rituals are almost interesting, or at least have the potential to be, but are still a little bland, 3.5/d20 modern incantations are much, much better. I really don't like that the only balancing factor seems to be money.

Really? It feels pretty damn exciting in play. Especially as a Rogue.

[SamTheCleric]

Really? It feels pretty damn exciting in play. Especially as a Rogue.

Having played it twice and gonna run it tonight (the 5 encounter dungeon in the back of the DMG)... I have to agree with Reel. Its very fun, very exciting.

[Sebastian]

Funny how tastes are differents, uh!?

If you like you can replace "boring" with "uninspiring", I just can give a rat's ass to most of the options I found in the books, or imagine a simgle characters that I'd like to play, maybe because "what it does my character in combat?" usually for me is a secondary point and it seems to be the 95% of 4e character creation.

(yes, it was central even in previous edition, but the part dedicated to it seems to be grown in 4e while the non combat part seems to have shrunk.

I'll wait for the PC version, I'm sure they will make some kick-ass videogames out of it (I just hope some will be turn based)

[JaxGaret]

Having played it twice and gonna run it tonight (the 5 encounter dungeon in the back of the DMG)... I have to agree with Reel. Its very fun, very exciting.

Yeah, agreed. I can see that there are a few things that need a bit of work, but I also see a lot of potential in 4e. It's not going to have the same overall feel as 3e, not at all. It's its own game with its own play experience, definitely.

So far, overall, I'm really quite pleasantly surprised with 4e. I'm even (hopefully) winning over some of the members of my gaming group who said they would never switch over to 4e.

The real test is to have some real roleplaying sessions, instead of mere combat run-throughs.

[Fizban]

Agreed. Though I haven't played it (heck I've hardly played much 3.x either, sigh), I get the distinct feeling looking at the material that doing anything besides combat through damage dealing will ride completely on the DM's ability to ad hoc. While combat is surely exciting, and 4e does it well and balanced, it's all one-dimensional and has nothing outside of combat (don't even say skill checks, those are even more dull, and are best used as part of something else, not as a challenge on their own).

Also: note the durations of the scrying type rituals. So much for the great and powerful whoever secretly spying through magic. With a cost in the thousands of gold pieces, casting time of 10 minutes, and a duration of 30 seconds, dragon's definitely won't be watching the world from their lairs anymore. Just something specific I wanted to gripe about.

[dyslexicfaser]

On the other hand some of us look at those gigantic lists of hundreds of spells and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, reflecting on the vast assortment of options we have to choose from, imagining the various ways they could be used to really ruin someone else's day. Then, after some reflection and internal debate, we say "Ah, that's the one. That's the option that will make the destruction of my enemies taste the sweetest."

That's just beautiful, ghost.

As for me... I don't know. Pros and cons, you know? I would honestly have rather they just handed me 3.5 with most of the bugs ironed out than practically creating a new game with the D&D label, but I haven't played it yet. Maybe it'll be beautiful and pure and right, and I'll never look back.

One point: perhaps we should be comparing the 4E fighter to the 3.5E Warblade, instead of 3.5E fighter? Just a thought.

Oh, and also: I saw some people suggesting the homebrew option to fill in things like illusions. But should we have to add whole branches of magic, or is that something WotC should have figured out for us?

But hey, I'll withhold comment until either my book gets here or I break down and find a copy online.

[Indon]

Just got the books.

Being prone apparently makes it easier for people to shoot you.

I think I'm going to have to do some pretty heavy system revising to make this playable for anything.

[Reel On, Love]

Just got the books.

Being prone apparently makes it easier for people to shoot you.
Well, hey--you're not moving around.

[Thrawn183]

Yeah, those moving targets. I always hate it when they run...

Edit:
We ran a group of 5 level 5 PC's against the EL 7 red dragon and wow did that thing woop up on us. Dragons are officially no longer pushovers. And just to throw oil onto the fire; level 1 kobold minions are still a threat to level 5 characters. Its more than a little frightening what they can do when they mob you.


I think 4e isn't for that type that loves to poor over book after book looking for the absolute right spell. It's for people who play casually (who doesn't have those friends who take forever to make a move because they don't understand the rules?). It's for people who love fighters and want them to be competent. Its for DM's who want an easy time coming up with encounters. In other words, its for everybody I know except one and he always builds these durn twinked out builds that are really annoying so I don't think I even mind. Stupid metamorphosis cheese. *grumble grumble*

And on a somewhat related note: I love the new way of designing encounters. Getting a set amount of xp to spend and then going shopping. Combined with the cool monsters, it really makes me excited to come up with encounters again.

[JaxGaret]

Just got the books.

Nice.


Being prone apparently makes it easier for people to shoot you.

Patently false. While Prone, you grant Combat Advantage only to enemies making melee attacks against you. The Prone condition also grants you a +2 to your defenses against ranged attacks, making it harder for enemies to hit you, not easier.

Please try and do a more thorough reading of the rules in the future.


I think I'm going to have to do some pretty heavy system revising to make this playable for anything.

If you're going to read the rules so carelessly, then yeah, I imagine you will have to start houseruling things, since you're butchering the system.

[kjones]

Agreed. Though I haven't played it (heck I've hardly played much 3.x either, sigh), I get the distinct feeling looking at the material that doing anything besides combat through damage dealing will ride completely on the DM's ability to ad hoc.

Hmm... So they're returning to the design principles of 1st edition!

[Bleen]

Hey, some of us LIKE our book-diving-looking-for-just-the-right-feat-or-spell-whacked-out-multiclassing-madness DnD. That's why I'm still going to play 3.5 once in a while even with 4e in my repetoire now.

[Trizap]

since I'm a bit rookie in DnD, (haven't got a lot of experience- I'm little more than newbie) I don't know what to think about this since I haven't been around long enough to dig deep enough to 3.5 to feel resentment towards 4E, yet this is the only information I have of 4E so I can't really consider 4E superior or better or anything to 3.5, so yea I think I'm True Neutral in this conflict.....

[Suzuro]

See how calm we've all become? A distinct difference from our aggressive selves on the previous pages, I sense a positive white chi flowing now, but I digress.

I just got into DnD about a year and a half, two years ago. Of course, we were using 3.5, and I played a Barbarian. I saw something horrible happen, a caster. It's the reason I've never played a caster in 3.5. Now, since I've never played one, I guess I can't really judge, but the ones in 4e seem much more balanced, and much simpler to make. As many people have said, you don't have to go diving through multiple splatbooks for spells, and I like that. Despite the fact that I had many splatbooks, I hated looking through spells.......they made me sleepy...

So, now I get onto my actual point. 4e is wonderful for people like me, who enjoy a clean, smooth system that doesn't require too much. I play it casually, and don't really want to do too much to play a game. Now, I know, there are many people out there who actually enjoy creating those casters that kill so many catgirls...oh the poor Japanese people...and for them, 3.5 is a wonderful system. It was versatile, it was adaptable, but it was a bit crude. Not crude in a bad way, mind you, just rough around the edged.

I understand many of the issues that people have with 4e, and I agree with a lot of them, I really do. But, the system makes fighters better, C'mon! Honestly, though it does balance it out in combat which is actually what my group did mostly before we had a falling gout....errr..out. The combat is quick, effective and streamlined, it may not have all the options, but it doesn't take forever either.

Just an opinion of someone who had fun with 3.x and will have fun with 4e.

-Suzuro

[Kompera]

As for me... I don't know. Pros and cons, you know? I would honestly have rather they just handed me 3.5 with most of the bugs ironed out than practically creating a new game with the D&D label, but I haven't played it yet. Maybe it'll be beautiful and pure and right, and I'll never look back.
They did hand you 3.5 with most of the bugs ironed out. The did that when they removed that list of hundreds of spells which was allowing for arcane power escalation at a far greater rate than melee power escalation. That sole step provided for the possibility of balance, without that step there was no possibility or hope for 4e to be a balanced game system.

And from all indications this release is the most balanced since OD&D, which also had a very abbreviated spell list.

[Tough_Tonka]

[LIST]
lacks all but a few noncombat solutions to problems


It's like it had rules for diplomacy besides making a single skill check. Creative solutions to problems by there really shouldn't be the categorized and stated.

With the reasoning that no pre-stated rules means no options, I guess you consider FATAL to be the perfect RPG?

[Tough_Tonka]

I really don't think you should judge 4e as a separate entity form 3.5e and previous editions. Since every edition of D&D has been made in response to the major complaints of the previous editions.

1st ed gave these random fantasy fights in the Chain Mail game a story to bring them together and single characters per player gave the player a greater attachment to his or her character.

AD&D responded to the problem of class=race problem by making classes and races separate, but they realized that humans lacked the supernatural abilities of other races and didn't want to stray to far from the previous arch-types so they also established a myriad of racial class restrictions and multi-classing rules that were difficult to understand.

In 3ed WotC addressed uncomfortable rules like THAC0 and the different experience tables for separate classes. They also took expanded on the skill system to give players something to do look up the PHB for besides hitting stuff and provided feat to give players some build variety. They also created a simple multi-classing system in response to the confusing 2e system.

4e continued this tradition. With less rules discriminating against them (such as the high XP requirement) Wizards only had to go through a few levels of balanced play before they became on par with gods. Powers that were easily abusable, (such as summoning, ability damage, save or die effects) were taken away. They also finally addressed the irritating Rope Trick dependent party (there awesome for a while but then there worthless for the rest of the day so its balanced right?) model with the different tiers of powers.

And because of this 4e is dealing with a new set of problems. Its not superior in any way it just fixed the problems a lot of people complained about in the last edition.

[Kurald Galain]

Hey, some of us LIKE our book-diving-looking-for-just-the-right-feat-or-spell-whacked-out-multiclassing-madness DnD. That's why I'm still going to play 3.5 once in a while even with 4e in my repetoire now.

Wanna bet that within two years, there will be power players who enjoy diving through the dozen source books to find the right power (or power combo) for their 4E character?

What? You didn't seriously think that no future book would ever contain, say, fighter powers, now did you? :smallsmile:

[Trizap]

ha! 4E's introduction is basically change at work, and I have a law about change, what I call the Law of How Humans View Change: Humans (us) don't like change until it becomes familiar I.E. when its not change anymore.

4e is a change to D&D, and since the stuff we see are unfamiliar to us, we don't like what we see, cause compared with whats familiar, it doesn't look too great, but when 4E becomes familiar to us, when we adapted to the change, everything will fall back into place, and when 5E comes that same thing will happen since 5E will be unfamiliar to everyone, since we will be familiar with 4E.
see? everything you see here is perfectly normal, the change and how we view it.

I'd just like to say that for wizards the question has just changed from: how many spells do I have left to how and when should I use them? With the old question, if you had many? you were good, had medium? ok.... not many? bad. none at all? DANGER!

with the new question you instead have a bunch of tools you can use, just like last time, but you just have to know the right time to use them, you can't just cast them willy-nilly and waste them like in 3.5, you have say to yourself is this the right time to use this spell?.

that is all

[Oslecamo]

So, who else thinks that 4e is D&D closer to a tactical wargame than any other edition before?

After all, both PCs and monsters lost almost all real noncombat capacities, most combo possibility was eliminated and damage is the only way to permanently disable something.

[Kurald Galain]

So, who else thinks that 4e is D&D closer to a tactical wargame than any other edition before?

Yep. And that's obviously by design, because WOTC aren't stupid. As the Alexandrian points out (somebody whom I rarely if ever agree with otherwise), this is because the miniatures are the most profitable part of D&D.

[YPU]

i might be wrong, and it might already have been mentioned (havent back read, yes i know:smallredface:)
But for all i can see, there are no rules for starting at higher levels... or did i mis them? Now i there isnt much hard about the powers etz, but what moneyz should the guys have? i would like to show my players what they could do in 4th, but knowing what magic items they can buy would be usefull?

[Scintillatus]

There are rules in the PHB for powers and etc; the WBL rules are in the DMG, which is slightly irritating.

You get;

Any adventuring gear you want from the adventuring gear bit in the PHB

1 magic item of your level +1
1 magic item of your level
1 magic item of your level -1

Gold to spent on whatever equal to an item of your level -1.

[YPU]

could you give me the page nbr, i'm going to tag that. and thanks :smallbiggrin:
@V in my opinion thats a good thing. there are a lot of people who dont like roleplay much, hey each to his own. the game now bether alows for that, tough perhaps it somewhat downed the rolepay, which is bad.

[Sebastian]

So, who else thinks that 4e is D&D closer to a tactical wargame than any other edition before?

After all, both PCs and monsters lost almost all real noncombat capacities, most combo possibility was eliminated and damage is the only way to permanently disable something.

4e *is* a tactical boardgame.

Or, to say it better, 4e combat is a tactical boardgame.

You could take the 4e combat and sell it as a miniature combat game, it works perfectly fine, you create a a group of level X pcs, take a XP budget appropriate to their level and build an encounter. This is exactly how tactical boardgame works. Then if you want you could join more encounters together to form a roleplaying campaign, but it is not necessary, and neither required, to enjoy the game.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I've only seen the pregen characters and some of the previews. Bu from what people have said so far, like the OP and others on this thread, I like what they've done to the meelee classes. Combat in 4e seems like a lot of fun.

But the wizard spell selection is just boring. Fine fly, scry, buff, teleport and save or die needed to be fixed but there seems to be nothing special about the wizard now. It's nice that he has a daily use of say magic missle but what is the wizard's niche?

The 4e wizard seems to have be less of a "controller" then the fighter. He has no buffs. The warlord seems to take that role. He's a worse blaster than warlock. He has no utility spells, well not anything interesting until high level.

Maybe new spells or rituals or magic item creation will bring the coolness factor back to the wizard. Or maybe I'll just have to wait for the psion.

[Tough_Tonka]

So, who else thinks that 4e is D&D closer to a tactical wargame than any other edition before?

After all, both PCs and monsters lost almost all real noncombat capacities.

If by that you mean wizards I whole heartedly agree. I'd like to an example of a non-caster class that lost non-combat options in 4e

[ghost_warlock]

ha! 4E's introduction is basically change at work, and I have a law about change, what I call the Law of How Humans View Change: Humans (us) don't like change until it becomes familiar I.E. when its not change anymore.

4e is a change to D&D, and since the stuff we see are unfamiliar to us, we don't like what we see, cause compared with whats familiar, it doesn't look too great, but when 4E becomes familiar to us, when we adapted to the change, everything will fall back into place, and when 5E comes that same thing will happen since 5E will be unfamiliar to everyone, since we will be familiar with 4E.
see? everything you see here is perfectly normal, the change and how we view it.

I'd just like to say that for wizards the question has just changed from: how many spells do I have left to how and when should I use them? With the old question, if you had many? you were good, had medium? ok.... not many? bad. none at all? DANGER!

with the new question you instead have a bunch of tools you can use, just like last time, but you just have to know the right time to use them, you can't just cast them willy-nilly and waste them like in 3.5, you have say to yourself is this the right time to use this spell?.

that is all

Honestly, I openly embraced 3.0 when it came out and remember fighting in threads like this about how 3.0 was "better" than 2e. I had very specific reasons why I felt 3.0 was a better system and now I'm saying 4e is the lesser system for, really, almost the same reasons. In other words, some of the same things I saw as wrong with 2e I'm now seeing as wrong with 4e.

Obviously, there were also some issues I had with the mechanics of 2e that don't apply, such as THAC0, ability scores that weren't unified (different abilities used different rules, such as percentile strength, and the modifiers granted from same score in different abilities were not the same), removal of silly racial level limits, and if you want to talk about a nightmare try looking for grappling rules in 2e; at least 3e had indexes!

But, I digress.

The specific things I wanted to see change from 2e to 3e were:

1) True freedom to multiclass
That is, you can truly multiclass from the get-go without waiting to pass 10th level and without using feats to swap out powers from your list with ones from another class. Rogue 4/Cleric 3-type multiclassing.
2) Lots of playable monsters.
Lots! As in, there are rules in place to play just about every monster in the game if desired. Some exceptions should apply for truly inappropriate things (such as Orcus), but excluding a monster from the list of playable races simply because it isn't humanoid is silly to me.
3) Support for specific, favored niches.
Such as illusions, necromancy, and polymorph-type effects. Sure, the Splatbooks Will Come, but these are iconic parts of the game and, really, should have been included as more than out-of-combat rituals in the 4e PHB.
4) Easy to learn but still intricate.
2e could be a beast to learn and I'm glad that 3e did a lot to streamline character creation and unify the mechanics. But, If I was looking for a game that a 3rd-grader could learn, play, and do so almost as effectively as an experienced player, I'd go play Clue, not Dungeons and Dragons. Freeing people from making stupid decisions during character creation isn't the system's job, it's the DM and the other players' job. I've always thought that character creation should take place the same way that the game is played - with everyone there and at least somewhat involved. The DM and other players should counsel others about what the party needs (it is a cooperative game, after all) and what the effective ways to achieve this are within the system.
5) High-magic.
If I wanted a game where magic functioned the same as non-magic, mechanically, I'd seriously play Alternity. I like dripping with magic items. I like powerful, world-shattering magic. I like a spellcaster being somewhat dependent on the martial classes for survival at low-levels and then coming into his/her own and surpassing them at higher levels. It's pretty much the way the game has always been played - Casters Rule High Level. I think casters freed themselves from the martial shackle a bit earlier in 3.x than in earlier editions, which I like because I think players willing to manage pages and pages of spellbook sheets and cleverly pick just the right spells should be rewarded. The people willing to put in hours building a character and choosing spells are the same ones I can expect to regularly show up to sessions. Not that playing a fighter automatically makes someone a Casual Gamer, but Casual Gamers tend to graviate towards classes they perceive as simple.

I realize these might not be everyone's boat, but they're what I'm looking for in Dungeons & Dragons that I feel that 4e lacks. My 4e PHB has been ordered and I'm waiting for it to arrive but, if the information I received from the previews, and the reactions I'm seeing on these boards are true, I'll stick with 3e because it is a far superior system, even with all of its bugs, for me.