Getting used to 4th edition?

[Melamoto]

Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

[Otodetu]

This is edition war in it's purest form you know.

[Swordgleam]

The skills thing bothered me at first. I got over it. To my preference, Iron Heroes has the best skill system, and anything else (including normal 3.5) is simply a compromise. 4e's compromise now bothers me no more than any other.

Off the top of my head, I think small races can wield 2-handers, they just have to use versatile weapons as a 2h. So no halflings with a bastard sword and board.

There's plenty of feats that get around the (admittedly kind of stupid) rogue thing. There's one in Martial Power that lets you play a dwarf rogue who can sneak attack with axes, for example.

Give 4e a chance. I thought it was stupid at first, too. Now I love it. You just have to actually play it.

If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

That's just plain silly. This is probably the most flexible edition ever in terms of character concepts.

[nepphi]

Check out the Rogue's Handbook thread on the Wizards CharOp boards. It explains some of the better ways to get around at least a few of the initial class restrictions on rogues, all within RAW. The sheer volume of material posted in issues of Dragon, the Power books, and other sources change the nature of the game pretty extensively. Even if you don't twink out and over-optimize your character, you can still find some features that address the worst worries.

As for the skill system, it isn't as bad as you think. Remember that every skill gains a bonus of 1/2 your character level as you go up, and you can use a number of feats to boost those further (skill training feat for a skill outside your class list, skill focus for better talent in a trained skill, jack of all trades for a minor but wide-reaching boost...). Since the skill list is so small, and each skill is focused on those tasks related to the adventure you're likely to be having, you really don't have anyone who ends up being -useless- at skills.

As for the halfling issue...there's not much that can be said there. In 3e, it was the 'small weapons' rule, now it's one size of weapons all around and halflings just kind of have to make do. In practice it doesn't really cause problems for halfling rogues (for example), because many of the best rogue powers are dagger-based, as is the (arguably) most powerful Paragon Path, so...

tl;dr version (I do go on, don't I?)

Yes, the restrictions do feel cumbersome at first. However there are many options for getting around them as you grow, and being able to make a successful character who does so is really rewarding, and the edition is definitely worth your time to get to know.

[bosssmiley]

This is edition war in it's purest form you know.

No, it isn't. It's asking for an explanation of the design choices that inform 4E.

Simple answer: 4E is designed the way it is to model a particular sub-genre of modern fantasy (in this instance the assumed world is a "WOTC D&D fantasy" setting). The character options presented in the books help you to model this type of play, and limit non-genre-appropriate choices.

WOTC had tried offering a la carte character creation in the previous edition, and got the horrors of Char Op for their trouble. Because the assumed world of D&D wasn't sufficiently explained (or simply from edge case-poking devilment) we got Pun Pun, the Wish and the Word, the Tippyverse, etc.

If you want to model a different type of play in 4E (be it the pulp fantasy of OD&D, the medieval fantasy of 1E, the kitchen sink fantasy of 3E) then just change what doesn't fit for you. The Gaming Stasi won't kick in your door.

-----

The halflings can't wield 2-handers thing? That's just restoring the status quo ante after the outbreak of wild mad gas huffing that led to 3E's weapon size rules. 'obbits just aren't big enough or heavy enough to swing man-sized halberds, pikes or tetsubo. Sorry.

[oxybe]

Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

concept first, then mechanics, is the best way to approach character creation. what kind of character are you envisioning that requires you to be a rogue with a large heavy object? in combat, the rogue archetype is one of a light armored, light weapon combatant. if you want a light armor, heavy weapon, you may want to look at the barbarian, avenger, ranger, some fighter types, or whatnot. find your concept and then the class that fits it best.

"rogue with greataxe" is not a character concept but a mechanical concept made to go against the system.

as for the skills, i'm personally glad they got rid of skills ranks. in 4th ed you actually have 3 basic degrees of training: untrained, trained, (skill) focused. then you have stats, feats, racial bonuses, item bonuses, ect... that all help to give a bigger tweaking to the numbers. a high dex rogue with the stealth boosting boots will still be the better sneak then the full plate paladin.

as for small characters with big weapons, i believe there was an errata that allows small characters to treat one-handed versatile weapons as a 2-hander or something. i'm generally not a small-race user.

honestly, the "restrictions" don't show up unless you're actively trying to go against the system. a class in 4th ed is not the same as a class in 3rd. a 4th ed class is a grouping of thematic archetypes that you can reflavor if needed to better fit your character.

in 3rd ed classes are generally more of a nebulous thing due to the way multiclassing works so it can't normally be just a simple archetype, but it loses out on focus IMO.

[Artanis]

Well, my friend's group is playing 4th edition, and I want to join in, so I've been taking a more in depth look at the rules. And I'm really trying to not burn it with fire. The problem is this:

The rules are, as far as I can tell, overly restrictive on what you can and can't do. I can't play a Rogue without being unable to use any of my powers, should I have the audacity to wield anything other than a "Crossbow, Light Blade, or Sling". How about putting different ranks in a number of different skills? That's old talk. We have both kinds of skills in 4th: Trained, and Untrained. And god forbid you might want to wield 2-handers effectively as a halfling.

I don't want to start a full-out edition war, I really don't. What I do want to know is:

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?
If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

The restrictions aren't really real in actual gameplay.

What is it about the Rogue that makes you want to play it?

Fluff is mutable. The name of the class you're playing only affects your character concept if you really, really want it to. If you want to play a sneaky stabby guy who uses something other than "Rogue weapons", then use some other class's mechanics and fluff the character as a sneaky stabby guy anyways.


As for skills, how often in 3e did it really and truly matter whether you shifted around a couple points? Generally, there'd be two types of skills: ones you maxed out and used, and ones you didn't max out and never used. In 4e, a CHA-heavy character trained in Diplomacy is going to be the Official Party Face just as much as a CHA-heavy 3e character with maxed-out Diplomacy would. In 3e, the Wizard wasn't going to be busting down any doors even if he put a few points into the relevant skill because the Barbarian was going to be doing so anyways, and the exact same thing is the case in 4e.

In short, 4e's skill system works out being pretty much the same in gameplay as 3e's skill system, with the sole difference being that the Wizard knows how not to drown in 5' of water and the Barbarian picks up the answer to an occasional Trivial Pursuit question due to spending time around said Wizard.


As for Halflings and 2H weapons: like nepphi said, it's the same as 3e in practice. Halflings wield smaller weapons two-handed than Medium-size characters wield two-handed.




Edit: basically, what that dirty, dirty ninja said just moments after I started writing my post

[LurkerInPlayground]

Doesn't it strike anybody as ironic that it's easier to say that you're a rogue that dual-wields full-length swords by playing a Ranger than actually picking up Rogue?

Or for that matter, that it's easier to be a ninja in 3e by being a Rogue with levels in Warlock/Assassin/Shadowdancer/etcetera than actually taking the Ninja class?

There's something obviously screwy about the class-based game mechanic here.

I can understand that it wouldn't matter if the game was less about optimizing the character and just playing the game. But as it is, it seems like 3e and 4e make a game of the customization as well.

My biggest complaint with 4e, however, is that the rituals suck and don't seem very exciting.

[Saph]

Are these restrictions I'm saying real in actual gameplay?

To an extent. You can still do things in a way that goes against type, you'll just be less effective.

If so, then why are things this way? Why can't you make character concepts that WotC didn't plan for?

4e is designed to be a more restrictive system than 3.5. You can describe a character any way you like, but you have to accept that mechanically, your set of choices is limited. The plus side to this is that it's more balanced and easier to learn; the price you pay for it is fewer options. It's a tradeoff.

[Swordgleam]

Doesn't it strike anybody as ironic that it's easier to say that you're a rogue that dual-wields full-length swords by playing a Ranger than actually picking up Rogue?

That depends on your personal concept of "rogue." If you think a duel-wielding swashbuckler best epitomizes a rogue, then yeah, 4e's rogue is a little off. If you think a rogue is about clever battlefield positioning, sneak attacks, disarming traps, and fast-talking, then 4e's rogue is perfect.

My biggest complaint with 4e, however, is that rituals suck and don't seem very exciting.

Check out Goodman Games' "Azagar's Book of Rituals." Over 300 pretty awesome rituals.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Well here's the main complaint about rituals:

You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time. You'd have better luck just trying to pick that lock yourself. Or for that matter, just blasting down the door (at-will powers).

Nor can you do big exciting things that influence the game world but wouldn't necessarily have a lot to do with direct combat. Divination is a good example of this, except that these Rituals tend to be hellishly restrictive and/or expensive.

Other good concepts would include things like carving out a tower from the rock face of a mountain. Immortality. Gate. Wish.

You know, big and important stuff that introduces roleplaying opportunities or makes life convenient but doesn't directly influence combat power.

[Artanis]

Well here's the main complaint about rituals:

You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time. You'd have better luck just trying to pick that lock yourself. Or for that matter, just blasting down the door (at-will powers).

Nor can you do big exciting things that influence the game world but wouldn't necessarily have a lot to do with direct combat. Divination is a good example of this: Except that these spells tend to be hellishly restrictive and/or expensive.

Other good concepts would include things like carving out a tower from the rock face of a mountain. Immortality. Gate and Wish would also work, if their entries were worded properly.

You know, big and important stuff that introduces roleplaying opportunities but doesn't directly influence combat power.

That's pretty much everybody's complaint about rituals: they make you pay for the privilege of using something that sucks.


I wouldn't want them to put in a Gate- or Wish-type ritual. At all. Ever. It would be pretty much impossible to balance between being brokenly powerful and too limited to be even remotely worthwhile.


Also, Epic Destinies already provide immortality.

[PallElendro]

I love 4e. You don't have prepare spells! the only downfall is that small creatures can't use 2hs, and versatiles are 2h to the, no more damage, but at least people can reach level 30, +6 items, and more magic items than you can put in a Handy Haversack, not just a Bag of Holding.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I wouldn't want them to put in a Gate- or Wish-type ritual. At all. Ever. It would be pretty much impossible to balance between being brokenly powerful and too limited to be even remotely worthwhile.

I disagree. I think they're doable.

Gate would be restricted to DM-made NPC's who you have to know the "true name" of. Also, this thing is more inclined to eat you. And it probably won't fight on your behalf. You can't make it do anything that it doesn't want to, so bargaining would be required. Eliminate the convenience of summoning lower level minions and it's workable.

Wish is the same. Except the DM has free license to try and twist or abuse the wish. If it's really a sore point, introduce hard restrictions of what the Wish cannot do (e.g. give players permanent bonuses to stats, wealth must always be earned by another quest, etcetera). And above all else, the DM is allowed to Rule 0 the hell out of the ritual.

Geas is a definite must though. Because being cursed or punished by a wizard to undertake a quest is classic. And in most cases, it's unlikely that a PC will pull it off on a character they haven't already defeated in combat yet. NPC's could easily force it on PC's.

[flyingchicken]

If you feel that your character concept is so original and unique that not even changing the fluff of the pre-existing (and I should add constantly updated and playtested) mechanical classes won't cut it, maybe you have a legitimate concern. The mechanics are there to keep actual playing fun and fair, the fluff is there for roleplaying and flavor.

[oxybe]

i think the problem people have with rituals is that they're not the "instant speed i win" buttons magic used to be.

the knock ritual is for when your rogue isn't around and you don't want to "BANG KLANG CLUNK BOOM CRASH" your way through a door. mostly because the noise will alert enemies. and 10 minutes really isn't that long, 2 short rests.

true, they're not the old 6-second problem solver, but they're not supposed to be.

some could have been made less lenghty, but magic is no longer the be-all-end-all in 4th ed. it's a new paradigm.

[Thrawn183]

Yeah, the real key is that "class" means different things in 3rd and 4th editions. A ranger in 3.5 means something, it's a guy with an animal companion and some limited nature based spell casting. At a certain point, it actually starts to determine the fluff of your character.

4th edition is different. Instead of asking "What class are you playing?" and then defining it by that, it instead asks "What do you want your character to do?" and then finds a class that gets as close to that as possible.

In other words, in 3.5 I play a rogue, who happens to be a halfling that wields giant swords (not that that matters much in the long run other than making you spend way too many feats on TWF and OTWF), in 4e I play a quick and fast dual wielder. Oh hey, that happens to be a ranger.

[LurkerInPlayground]

the knock ritual is for when your rogue isn't around and you don't want to "BANG KLANG CLUNK BOOM CRASH" your way through a door. mostly because the noise will alert enemies. and 10 minutes really isn't that long, 2 short rests.

Standing around for 10-minutes to gab at a door isn't exactly much better than blasting it off its hinges.

You could reduce the casting time to 3-rounds and now it's a much better ritual. It still costs money for the privilege of opening the door as it is and it won't replace your Rogue any time soon.

Plus the whole thing is a bit absurd. I can open doors. Just so long as I can spend money and rest in between.

Wait . . . that's impressive? Hey, the Rogue can pick the doors and make it look like magic. And he can do it all day. Wow.

true, they're not the old 6-second problem solver, but they're not supposed to be.

some could have been made less lenghty, but magic is no longer the be-all-end-all in 4th ed. it's a new paradigm.

The problem is that magic is supposed to be dangerous. People are supposed to fear it. Somehow, that it's just a grab-bag of convenient parlor tricks really does a lot to neuter the whole point of it in the setting.

Which is why I feel WOTC struck-out on rituals, because wizards can still be dangerous on a level that doesn't involve the directly attacking you. The whole, "subtle and quick to anger" bit but with more of the subtlety.

[Swordgleam]

You have to play money and 10 minutes to pick a lock that the Rogue could do for free and at a fraction of the same time.

That's the point. 4e is big on niche protection. If the wizard can get through a locked door as well as a rogue can, why bother being a rogue? Knock is to keep you from being totally helpless when you don't have a rogue.

[LurkerInPlayground]

That's the point. 4e is big on niche protection. If the wizard can get through a locked door as well as a rogue can, why bother being a rogue? Knock is to keep you from being totally helpless when you don't have a rogue.

I just pointed out that you could do the same thing and reduce the casting time to 3-rounds and still have "niche protection."

Frankly, this is over-kill, because the 10-minute thing makes a lot of these Rituals outright useless. Few of them are interesting or unique things that "Only The Wizard Can Do." Instead, it's more of a case of "me too."

The few things that he can only do are just silly metagame things like being the magic item merchant or convenient travel for fast-forwarding plot or getting your character back. If they aren't those things (e.g. divination), then they're hideously expensive or restrictive to the point of being useless anyway.

Again, WOTC could have opted to take the "big important and impressive stuff but useless for small stuff" route but didn't. The end result is that they traded off too much of the appeal and romance of magic for the balance.

[Swordgleam]

Frankly, this is over-kill, because the 10-minute thing makes a lot of these Rituals outright useless. Few of them are interesting or unique things that "Only The Wizard Can Do." Instead, it's more of a case of "me too."

How many of the 10 minute rituals are weaker duplications of things other classes can do? I'm honestly curious what you're thinking of. Knock is the only one that comes to mind for me. Plenty of them, like Tenser's Floating Disk, are useful minor things.

[LurkerInPlayground]

How many of the 10 minute rituals are weaker duplications of things other classes can do? I'm honestly curious what you're thinking of. Knock is the only one that comes to mind for me. Plenty of them, like Tenser's Floating Disk, are useful minor things.

Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

[Swordgleam]

Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

You're just not being creative enough. You know what stat wizards have a decent amount of in 4e? Dex. Cast Tenser's Floating Disk, have the low-dex plate-clad pally get on the disk, and let the wizard walk across the precarious catwalk. Can a porter do that?

[Anonymouswizard]

Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

Hire a games designer.

I think some people here would jump at the chance.

[LurkerInPlayground]

You're just not being creative enough. You know what stat wizards have a decent amount of in 4e? Dex. Cast Tenser's Floating Disk, have the low-dex plate-clad pally get on the disk, and let the wizard walk across the precarious catwalk. Can a porter do that?

Ropes as a life-line. Have the party rogue tie it off on the other end.

If it's precarious already, then having the clanking party tank balance on top of a flying disk doesn't really change matters.

[Artanis]

I disagree. I think they're doable.

Gate would be restricted to DM-made NPC's who you have to know the "true name" of. Also, this thing is more inclined to eat you. And it probably won't fight on your behalf. You can't make it do anything that it doesn't want to, so bargaining would be required. Eliminate the convenience of summoning lower level minions and it's workable.

Wish is the same. Except the DM has free license to try and twist or abuse the wish. If it's really a sore point, introduce hard restrictions of what the Wish cannot do (e.g. give players permanent bonuses to stats, wealth must always be earned by another quest, etcetera). And above all else, the DM is allowed to Rule 0 the hell out of the ritual.

Geas is a definite must though. Because being cursed or punished by a wizard to undertake a quest is classic. And in most cases, it's unlikely that a PC will pull it off on a character they haven't already defeated in combat yet. NPC's could easily force it on PC's.

GATE:

You can already do this through a combination of existing rituals, existing powers, the NPC cohort rules, and good ol' RP


WISH:

*looks up Wish in the SRD*

Almost everything on that list either A) simply doesn't work with 4e's mechanics; B) is something that 4e went to great lengths to get rid of; or C) can already be done by existing rituals and whatnot anyways. So Wish just wouldn't work.


GEAS:

Using Geas on a PC was little more than forcibly giving them a quest. If you really really want an actual, ink-on-paper ability to point to as "motivation" the way 3e's Geas spell was, there's nothing keeping the DM from giving an NPC the ability to put such a curse on the PCs.

So the only thing a Geas ritual would do is let PCs force other people to do things. If you want the PCs to be able to enslave NPCs, well, I guess you really do have something that (AFAIK) 4e doesn't have an answer for.

[flyingchicken]

Hire a porter.

Bags of holding.

For someone who says WotC traded "the appeal and romance of magic for the balance" you're being quite unromantic.

But anyway, hey, why buy an iPod when a Sony Discman can practically do the same thing at the fraction of the cost right?

[LurkerInPlayground]

For someone who says WotC traded "the appeal and romance of magic for the balance" you're being quite unromantic.

But anyway, hey, why buy an iPod when a Sony Discman can practically do the same thing at the fraction of the cost right?

I fail to see your point.

Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.

Magic lets you do the equivalent of swishing water in your mouth and spitting it back out and makes you pay for he privilege.

[LurkerInPlayground]

GATE:

You can already do this through a combination of existing rituals, existing powers, the NPC cohort rules, and good ol' RP

I'd rather see rituals as a chance for PC's to initiate RP on their own terms. Which is to say, they can alter the game world in their favor. Because that feels rewarding.

Being a glorified second-string to the Rogue is less-so.

In short, it's an excuse for the PC to establish an option of establishing a powerful (but optional) contact, even if the DM's plot doesn't normally allow for it.

WISH:

*looks up Wish in the SRD*

Almost everything on that list either A) simply doesn't work with 4e's mechanics; B) is something that 4e went to great lengths to get rid of; or C) can already be done by existing rituals and whatnot anyways. So Wish just wouldn't work.

I'm thinking more of 2e wishes and not 3e wishes. The thing just literally being a free shot at doing whatever you wanted with the exception that the DM was allowed to screw you on it for getting unreasonable.

3e decided it had to be specific about what you could and could not do, but I fail to see why this couldn't be adapted to 4e with some work. ("Sure, you can swap out a power, if you really want to pay for it." Or "Sure, you can have a magic item of the same worth as the component cost or less.")

GEAS:

Using Geas on a PC was little more than forcibly giving them a quest. If you really really want an actual, ink-on-paper ability to point to as "motivation" the way 3e's Geas spell was, there's nothing keeping the DM from giving an NPC the ability to put such a curse on the PCs.

So the only thing a Geas ritual would do is let PCs force other people to do things. If you want the PCs to be able to enslave NPCs, well, I guess you really do have something that (AFAIK) 4e doesn't have an answer for.

It needn't be a railroading mechanic so much as it is a consequence of wizard actually having power to make you do what he wants if you lose out to him. Or it could be a likely tool for the lawful authority types.

Otherwise, I suppose your point is actually valid.

It's notably short of slavery though since it's not really Dominate Person/Monster and wouldn't necessarily have to be. Especially if you choose the right wording.

Likewise, trying to get the BBEG to follow the groups command isn't going to work if he decides he'd rather just kill you instead, consequences be damned.

[flyingchicken]

I fail to see your point.

Tenser's Disc has no point. The way it's defined, it's not even very versatile so you can't get creative with it.

The original statement was that the disc (flashy iPod) was useful; you proposed a porter and a Bag of Holding (cheap discman). It's not as cheap, it's not as practical, but those issues never stop a romantic from being brain-dead retarded with his ideals. If you want you could even replace "iPod" with "knighthood" and "discman" with "being a regular gentleman hidalgo."

Besides, depending on how flexible the GM is willing to be I could think of a few ways of using the disc creatively. A cushion for falling, an awesome movable chair (even in combat: probably could throw lightning bolts while comfortably lounging, laughing maniacally as I outrun the saps who slow down on difficult terrain)... actually that last one was pretty good, I wanna do that some time.