My thoughts on 4e...THIS IS NOT HOW IT LOOKS LIKE!

[tcrudisi]

Well considering there's not really much other than "combat" in 4E, I guess it's hard to really compare the enhanced skill set of the 3.5 ranger and his array of combat options to the 2 combat options the 4E ranger has.

Finally, I have run entire 4-hour sessions where there was no combat. I did the same thing in 3.5. Going from 3.5 to 4e did not diminish any of my groups ability to roleplay. Considering roleplaying is all about the characters, do you really need a spell that does everything role-play related? No, just use your skills (and rituals if the skills fail) and ... well, roleplay. I don't get why some people say that you can't roleplay in 4e when it's a roleplaying game. Can you not roleplay in GURPS when you are using tons of skills but no spells?

See, a 3.5 ranger begins as an archtype - much like the 4E classes I suppose - but then you can build on that. If you want, your ranger can be Aragorn or Legolas, or he could be Kaelsh the Nightstalker Bounty Hunter, using his skills to track down wanted criminals for the law or a military scout, or heck he could wield a pole-arm and not suck.

This can be done in 4e as well. Your Ranger can be Aragorn or Legolas. Heck, polearms are quite possibly the strongest weapon in 4e... and a Ranger, just like a Wizard or Sorcerer, can use them with the right build.

Then at the end of the day, when you had exhausted the ranger's options in core. Oh wait, oh no, oh crap, here it comes...he could multiclass. You can combine ranger/barbarian, ranger/sorcerer, ranger/druid, ranger/rogue, ranger/fighter, or even ranger/bard to make an effective character that branches out into other fields or areas of expertise.

You can't even multiclass ranger with with stuff in the core books of 4E; if you want to get to their paragon paths; since a "multiclass" anything/ranger doesn't even get the abilities needed for the ranger's paragon paths.

You can't multiclass in 4e with the PHB? Then what are pages 208 and 209 about? The pages that tell you how to multiclass, take powers from the class you've multiclassed, and even do paragon multiclassing where you progress as your multiclass instead of as a normal paragon path?

And, this is core here, so I'm gonna quote it:

A character who has taken a class-specific multiclass feat counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifying for paragon paths.

That is also on page 208.

[Esser-Z]

What sort of non-combat things do you want, Esrz? Spells? Those have been replicated with rituals. Skills? They are still in the game. Granted, I haven't played 3.5 in a long time, but that's all the "mechanical stuff" I can think of when it comes to outside combat. I feel that the main difference is 3.5 puts more of a focus on the spells and 4e puts more of a focus on the skills (with rituals being a fall-back in case you can't get it done with skills), which I approve of.

Rituals are terrible. They cost gold and take ridiculously long to do. I note this is a fault of a lot of 3.x noncasters, too, and something that erally needs to be rectified.

so 4th ed is bad for forcing the ranger into a certain combat style and 3rd ed is awesome for forcing the ranger into a woodsman?

No, 4e is bad for forcing certain combat styles into only being certain classes, which then from skill lists and sometimes class features and powers are still somewhat linked to archetypes.


Sorc exists in PHBII, yes. But until then, you could either be a warlock (Pact with something, blaster, not what I'm looking for) or wizard (int based, allegedly control but relies way too much on attack rolls to really classify). No summoning. No illusions. And then Sorc is all blasting, when it DID come out, so I can't be a cha based summoner or illusionist or battlefield alterer or debuffer.


Speaking on debuffing, don't get me started on how those last, like, a round. Wow.


And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

[AtopTheMountain]

For B, that's non-core!

For A, I have to spend a lot of feats getting heavy armor, thereby greatly reducing my capacity to get other ones, because 4e Classes are so stuck in a single mold.

Ranger's powers are specifically designed for DPS. I can't play a *defender* using him, because he has no defender-like abilities. I can't keep things off my allies like I could as a Fighter. Now, yes, Martial Power fixes this, but...

Or, what about a charismatic, instinct-based caster? Oh hey, not until Arcane Power, and even then, only as a blaster.

So you're pretty much complaining because that one book doesn't have every single character concept in it, reflected mechanically.

...

I'll just be going now.

[tcrudisi]

And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

Since you are talking about the Warblade, which is not core, how about this?

A hybrid Fighter/Swormdage, wearing armor like a Fighter and wielding two weapons, using powers like "Come and Get It" to bring all enemies within 15 feet beside him and his SM powers to teleport the ones that get away adjacent to him as well. Then he opens up with either Dual Strike, to smack two of them, or Sword Burst to hit all of them. The Fighter and Swordmage both have incredibly good stances that both damage and increase defenses.

[Esser-Z]

I'm just looking at previously-core designs. Say what you will about balance, but there's a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 3.5 core. Now, some aren't viable thanks to systemic issues, but....

That's a lesser issue anyway. I don't like how limited character abilities are, as a much much bigger thing. It's basically impossible to have any long term effects with your powers (in combat anything over a couple rounds, out of combat... much of anything), and epic feels incredibly not-epic. The fluff's there, but the mechanics... aren't.

[Meta]

Rituals are terrible. They cost gold and take ridiculously long to do. I note this is a fault of a lot of 3.x noncasters, too, and something that erally needs to be rectified.




No, 4e is bad for forcing certain combat styles into only being certain classes, which then from skill lists and sometimes class features and powers are still somewhat linked to archetypes.



And hey, I never said 3.x did concepts better. Just that 4e doesn't do 'em either. Of course, if I play a Warblade, I could indeed pick up stances and maneuvers that draw enemies towards me, away from my allies, while being TWF....

Warblade isn't core either, so your argument doesn't hold water. In fact TWF fighter's definitely came relatively sooner than warblades.

Also rituals are amazing, pretty sure you're doing it wrong. I once had a character who could make millions fake gold pieces and convince ANYONE he/she was looking at real gold.

And that's just one example, I'm sure people could flood the boards with their own unique experiences from 4e, be it rituals, character creation, or w/e else you think 4e lacks. With a new thread mind you

[tcrudisi]

I'm just looking at previously-core designs. Say what you will about balance, but there's a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 3.5 core. Now, some aren't viable thanks to systemic issues, but....

That's a lesser issue anyway. I don't like how limited character abilities are, as a much much bigger thing. It's basically impossible to have any long term effects with your powers (in combat anything over a couple rounds, out of combat... much of anything), and epic feels incredibly not-epic. The fluff's there, but the mechanics... aren't.

Just as there are a theoretically huge number of concepts represented in 4e core. See the previous posts about mechina and what-not. The beautiful thing about 4e is that they encourage you to change around the fluff, which truly does make for a near-infinite amount of character concepts.

[Ashiel]

And, 4e is bad because the Ranger can't "protect the party from a rampaging monster" like a 3.5 fighter can. Oh, wait... /boggle Really, one of the best ways to keep the monsters attention is to hit it hard. If you are the one putting the most damage on it, chances are it wants to eat you. Since nobody does that better than a Ranger, they actually don't do bad as a defender, in the sense that you can keep the monster attacking you.

What sort of non-combat things do you want, Esrz? Spells? Those have been replicated with rituals. Skills? They are still in the game. Granted, I haven't played 3.5 in a long time, but that's all the "mechanical stuff" I can think of when it comes to outside combat. I feel that the main difference is 3.5 puts more of a focus on the spells and 4e puts more of a focus on the skills (with rituals being a fall-back in case you can't get it done with skills), which I approve of.

That's kind of funny. Rituals aren't spells. Never will be spells from what I can tell. There was a handful of them in the core book, and the vast majority of them suck. Also knock is pointless because in the time it would take you to open a door or something, you could have burrowed your way through the door's HP by punching it repeatedly or using at-will powers.

A friend of mine who loves 3.x wizards - unoptimized mind you, unoptimized - hates 4E rituals because "they're boring and pointless".

Also missing all the staples like shapeshifting, enchanting, illusion, necromancy, or even abjurations for the most part. Evocations are pretty much built into wizards and the blastey-sorcerer (which you get in a splat-book for another 30 bucks).

Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

• A jack of all trades who dabbles in party buffing magics who can also fight fairly decently and be sneaky and such, as well as dabbling in illusion based magic. I call him Bard. What's 4E's name for him?
• A seedy dark anti-hero who trudges through his opponents with an army of undead at his side, arming them with the gear of his fallen enemies. I call him cleric or wizard or sorcerer (with specializations such as Death-Knight kinds going to cleric, and stuff like dark sorcery going to sorcerer and wizard).
• A sword and board ranger (who is effective in 3.5 with a heavy shield with shield spikes, going the two-weapon-fighting route) who uses thrown weapons such as darts and throwing axes.
• A standard enchanter or mind manipulating magician.
• Someone who turns into a bear (like in the Hobbit) through some sort of shapeshifting magical powers.
• Transform someone into a toad.

I'll wait.

[Leeham]

I'm just going to pitch in my two CP...

1) I'm sorry, are you seriously pinning this argument on TWF? come on guys. So what if you have to take feats to do it well in 4e without being a ranger? The same is true of 3.x. You just happen to get them if you're a ranger.
And another thing, in what 3.5 PHB are you looking in, because I only see two combat options for the ranger in there.

2) There's just as much non combat stuff going on with 4e. There's even a chapter on non-combat encounters. The skill list may be smaller, but you can get just as much use out of the few broad skills.

3) I'm going to be horrendously biased here. i frakkin' love rituals. Love em. To me, this is the way non-combat magic should be. Everywhere. Meaningless point to make, I know.

[Esser-Z]

Only ones the mechanics still agree with. There's a limit there, at least for somebody who likes what the rules say to match how he describes it.


And, say, finesse-TWF is right out, as all TWF powers use str! Or, uh. finesse as anyone but Rogue or later Monk.


ON THE OTHER SIDE.

Warlord is awesome. Like, really awesome. I love this class so much! So awesome. And some bard stuff is cool. My Charles Finley almost always succeeded on his bluffs, thanks to a couple of the features.

And it IS balanced. Not in the way I'd like, that being lower casters a bit while raising melee a lot, but it IS balanced. As such, it works great as a tactical squad situation. It's not at all a simulation--see Grease--but it's a really fun tactical game. And one can roleplay in a tactical game just fine!


(Note: Don't take me TOO Seriously. Looking back, I've exaggerated some of my grievance with 4e, for the sake of having a more fun debate.)

[AtopTheMountain]

Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

• A jack of all trades who dabbles in party buffing magics who can also fight fairly decently and be sneaky and such, as well as dabbling in illusion based magic. I call him Bard. What's 4E's name for him?
• A seedy dark anti-hero who trudges through his opponents with an army of undead at his side, arming them with the gear of his fallen enemies. I call him cleric or wizard or sorcerer (with specializations such as Death-Knight kinds going to cleric, and stuff like dark sorcery going to sorcerer and wizard).
• A sword and board ranger (who is effective in 3.5 with a heavy shield with shield spikes, going the two-weapon-fighting route) who uses thrown weapons such as darts and throwing axes.
• A standard enchanter or mind manipulating magician.
• Someone who turns into a bear (like in the Hobbit) through some sort of shapeshifting magical powers.
• Transform someone into a toad.

I'll wait.

Once again:

So you're pretty much complaining because that one book doesn't have every single character concept in it, reflected mechanically.

...

I'll just be going now.

[Tyndmyr]

If you give me all the details I can probably do it.

Here ya go. Typical level of optimization for our games. This character was played from level 1. Going to 4th, it seemed like everything had suddenly gotten very boring, but perhaps we judged it hastily. I played this character for several more levels, but this is the best snapshot I have of it laying around.

Grey Elf Storm Domain Wizard 5/Incantatrix 4/IoT7V 3

Stats:

Spoiler

Show

These are raw stats, buffed stats were drastically higher. The point buy system used was...generous. Flawed would be more accurate, as everyone received 25 points to slap wherever, and buying below 8 was allowed for additional points. Obviously, replicating the standard point buy instead of this homebrewed idea would be quite acceptable.

Str: 3-This was a royal pain w regards to carrying capacity. When you get down to my gear, you'll understand.
Dex: 20
Con: 16
Int: 23
Wis: 10
Cha: 10

Skills: A lot. Exact replication is unimportant, but he had the stock wizard ones maxed. Concentration, spellcraft, know:arcana. Also, crafting skills, UMD cross-class, and various minor dips in things that seemed handy, like sense motive.

Spells known:

Spoiler

Show

All up to 4th. I do mean all. L5: Cloudkill, CoP, Daylight, Dismissal, Fabricate, False Vision, Major Creation, Nightmare, Permanency, Heart of Fire. L6: Contingency, Circle of Death, Antimagic Field, Wall of Iron, Flesh to Stone.

Domain spells known so far: Ray of Frost, Obscuring Mist, Gust of Wind, Lightening Bolt, Ice Storm, Control Winds, Chain Lightening.

Familiar: Weasel
Banned: Enchantment
Permanencied effects: Detect Magic, See Invisibility, Darkvision.

Feats:

Spoiler

Show

Iron Will
Scribe Scroll
Fell Drain
Extend Spell
Persist Spell
Spellcasting Prodigy
Spell Focus(Abj)
GSF(Abj)
Storm Bolt
Skill Focus(Spellcraft)
Invisible Spell

Also, Flaw: Binge Drinker(from D&D wiki)

Languages:

Spoiler

Show

Common
Elven
Draconic
Gnoll
Gnomish
Goblinoid
Orcish

Magical Items:

Spoiler

Show

Goggles of the Golden Sun, Belt of the Wide Earth, Gloves of the Starry Sky from the Rainment of Four, MiC.
Amulet of Nat Armor +2
Ring of Counterspells(typically loaded with Dispel Magic)
Burning Veil, Veil of Storms from MiC, the set that is themed after prismatic wall.

Relevant boosts from enchanting items via MiC add-on rules: +4con, +6 int, +2 wis, +2 dex.

Robe of Useful Items.
Pearl of Power 1.
Handy Haversack
Bag of Holding Type IV.
Survival Pouch(used frequently, invariably for donkey abuse).
Spool of Endless Rope
Jumping Caltrops
Pearl of the Sirines

Non magical Items:

Spoiler

Show

1x MW longsword
6x longsword
spellbook
backup spellbook. Both trapped. A lot.
Crystal ball
MW Manacles
Commoners Clothes
2 Spell component pouches
Deck of cards, 1 with a sepia snake sigil on it, 19 with explosive runes on them.
MW spellcraft item.
Backpack, enchanted with Magic Mouth inside flap.
An underground fortress, built by me.
A spiffy hat.

Scrolls, Potions, and Wands:

Spoiler

Show

Eternal Wand - Prot from Evil.
Eternal Wand - Mage Armor.
Eternal Wand - Mage Hand.
Eternal Wand - Cat's Grace.

Wand of Dispel Magic CL 10, 6 chg
Wand of Wings of Cover CL 4, 5 chg
Wand of Wings of Cover CL 4, 42 chg
Wand of Magic Missile CL 10, 17 chg
Wand of Orb of Force, 50 chg
Wand of Hold Person, 42 chg

2x Potions of Heal
Potion of CLW
Potion of Heroism
Potion of Bear's Endurance

Scroll of Shield
Scroll of Grtr Mage Hand
Scroll of Burning Hands
Scroll of Prismatic Spray
Scroll of Transmute Mud to Rock
Scroll of Daylight
Scroll of Polymorph Self
Scroll of Deathwatch
Scroll of Remove Paralysis

Playstyle: Heavy buffing, using persist via incantatrix. Veils were saved for boss fights. Typically would buff entire party for the day, and use the odd short term buff in combat, and plink away with the reserve feat against mooks. Against more threatening opponents, would either metamagic the party mystic theurge's spells, or use CC. Blasting happened only when I had nothing better to do, which was rarely. Used heavily for out of combat utility purposes.

[Esser-Z]

Once again:

That's not even every concept, though. That's a selection of core concepts.


On the other side... show me where 3.5 can make a good tough melee combat party buffing dude, or basically the Warlord.

(seriously, I like 4e)

[SmartAlec]

Ok, I pose to you a challenge. Let us make the following characters using both systems, using only the core material of the games.

You do know that all the Player's Handbooks in 4th Ed are Core, right? The name for 4th Ed's equivalent of Bard... is Bard.

[Esser-Z]

Well, that's because they redefined Core. Here, I do believe 'Core' refers to the traditional definition of first PHB, MM, and DMG.

[Meta]

Gonna have to agree with metalhead.

You seemed determined to dislike 4e and that's not going to make the game any less fun for us, so I see no reason to continue trying to placate you and in the interest of not causing a flame war, I feel this discussion needs a new turn.

[Tyndmyr]

You do know that all the Player's Handbooks in 4th Ed are Core, right? The name for 4th Ed's equivalent of Bard... is Bard.

In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

If you prefer, 3.5 core + completes is probably similar to what 4e core is.

Trying to compare splatbooks + basic 3 of one to just the basics of the other isn't really fair.

[Esser-Z]

Gonna have to agree with metalhead.

You seemed determined to dislike 4e and that's not going to make the game any less fun for us, so I see no reason to continue trying to placate you and in the interest of not causing a flame war, I feel this discussion needs a new turn.

Me? I'm actually taking a position and arguing for it, meanwhile expressing some of what I feel are legitimate issues with the game. Personally, I actually really enjoy playing it. It has some design philosophy I disagree with, but it's still a good game.

[SmartAlec]

In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

In fairness, they're different systems.

3rd Ed - small amount of classes, high customisation.

4th Ed - large amount of classes, high specialisation.

Penalising 4th Ed because its' core material is spread over more than one book doesn't seem fair either.

[Meta]

In fairness, comparing core is supposed to be a roughly equal amount of books. Therefore, the equivalent to 3.5 core would be just the initial 3 books for 4e.

If you prefer, 3.5 core + completes is probably similar to what 4e core is.

Trying to compare splatbooks + basic 3 of one to just the basics of the other isn't really fair.

It's a good indication of design philosophy. 3.X had A LOT of stuff in it. Those spell lists were ridiculous.

4e focused more on it's first PHB being 'core' in a way the 3.X books were. In a good way I think. It was easy for a novice player to get bogged down in the 3.X books.

I'm not really sure why there's a need to compare to begin with but it's just as unequal to compare just PHB, MM, DMG in each edition because they were published with very different objectives

EDIT: not referring to you esrz, you have let your TWF Ranger issues die and I feel that will bring you nothing but increased happiness in your life

[Esser-Z]

Right. They're very differently designed games, only really unified by the d20 mechanic and the D&D name. It's pretty hard to actually compare them, because they're not meant to do the same things.

[Leeham]

I thought i was the only one who liked warlord

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

And to the above post: FINALLY! Someone gets it...

[Meta]

I thought i was the only one who liked warlord

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

Warlords are fantastic. From a charop standpoint they'd be tier 1.

Edited my post above to show i wasn't referring to you esrz

[AtopTheMountain]

Warlords are fantastic. From a charop standpoint they'd be tier 1.

Edited my post above to show i wasn't referring to you esrz

Yeah, taclords are probably the best leaders in the game. Resourcelords are my favorite though.

[Blackfang108]

I thought i was the only one who liked warlord

And can any one here (on EITHER side of the discussion) honestly say they only use the big three in there games? I personally have a bunch of supplements for both 3.5 and 4e.

Well, I know my DM in one 4e game has yet to touch the MMII and MMIII...

And still no possibility of inherent bonuses. (******* 2e-vet DM and his attitudes towards treasure..)

[nightwyrm]

Comparing the first three book of 3e and 4e (I'm avoiding the word core for now since everyone have their own definition) can be misleading. Non-caster classes in 3e takes up about 2-3 pages. All classes in 4e (including their own paragon paths) takes up 10-15 pages each. Size alone dictates that creating 4e classes takes more time and resources.

[Esser-Z]

Warlords are both great from a mechanical standpoint and the best class flavorwise in 4e. They're just so awesome.


Anyone have a 4e game I can join that needs one? I wanna play one now!

[Leeham]

You know, i was just thinking that... Anybody know how it plays PbP? I've got a campaign setting I like to run past some people...

[Esser-Z]

I've not tried. Last couple times I've done PBP, it's died pretty quickly, but... I'd be up to try again.

[Meta]

I have made a new thread with the intent on getting 1+ sessions of GitPers off the ground so as not to derail this one

edit: now under player recruitment