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

[kyoryu]

Sorcerer is player's handbook 2. I think you're being overly picky. 3.X pigeonholed base classes more than 4e does.

Yeah. It appears that 3.x encourages customization by multiclassing, while 4e encourages customization within a class by choosing differing powers.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah. It appears that 3.x encourages customization by multiclassing, while 4e encourages customization within a class by choosing differing powers.

Agreed. When I played 4E, my character was a Dragon Sorcerer, and I only took burst and blast powers for him, with only one single-target attack from a PP.

[Crossfiyah]

Here ya go.

I threw this together quick. It's not overly optimized, but I could easily do that by swapping Dex for Wis or Con. Still completely playable, and will do well.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 15
Eladrin, Artificer|Wizard, Spellstorm Mage
Hybrid Artificer: Hybrid Artificer Fortitude
Hybrid Talent: Arcane Empowerment

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 9, Con 14, Dex 22, Int 22, Wis 12, Cha 11.

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


AC: 28 Fort: 23 Reflex: 26 Will: 26
HP: 81 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 20

TRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +20, Perception +13, Insight +13, Arcana +20

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Bluff +9, Diplomacy +7, Dungeoneering +8, Endurance +9, Heal +8, History +15, Intimidate +7, Nature +8, Religion +13, Stealth +13, Streetwise +7, Thievery +13, Athletics +6

FEATS
Level 1: Arcane Familiar
Level 2: Implement Expertise (Wand)
Level 4: Hybrid Talent
Level 6: Unarmored Agility
Level 8: Accurate Magic Weapon
Level 10: Ritual Caster
Level 11: Iron Will
Level 12: Enhanced Resistive Formula
Level 14: Dual Implement Spellcaster

POWERS
Hybrid at-will 1: Magic Weapon
Hybrid at-will 1: Ray of Frost
Hybrid encounter 1: Empowering Lightning
Hybrid daily 1: Freezing Cloud
Hybrid utility 2: Arcane Insight
Hybrid encounter 3: Altered Luck
Hybrid daily 5: Corrosive Sigil
Hybrid utility 6: Energy Conversion
Hybrid encounter 7: Gale-Force Infusion
Hybrid daily 9: Ice Storm
Hybrid utility 10: Dancing Shield
Hybrid encounter 13: Prismatic Burst (replaces Altered Luck)
Hybrid daily 15: Ice Archon's Armor (replaces Corrosive Sigil)

ITEMS
Shielding Accurate wand +3, Master's Accurate wand of Illusory Ambush +3, Amulet of Life +3, Robe of Scintillation Githweave Armor +3, Handy Haversack (heroic tier)
RITUALS
Explorer's Fire, Magic Mouth, Make Whole, Purify Water, Secret Page, Silence, Detect Secret Doors
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


Didn't fully flesh-out the items or the rituals, but you could grab permanent darkvision that way if you wanted. You would primarily be a buffer, working towards emboldening your allies, but you'd still have your wizard blasting abilities to fall back on. I tried to stick with powers revolving around Cold and Storm, which would allow further optimization at higher levels if you so desired.

You could also pick up Quick Draw and add a bunch more wands for utility purposes.

[Tyndmyr]

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.

Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint.

However, I think it's silly to argue that you need to buy all the "core" books in order to play 4e. You can play just fine with the normal 3 that match up to the previous definition of "core". Compare them head to head if you wish to compare. Any thing else is clearly biased.

[Tyndmyr]

Didn't fully flesh-out the items or the rituals, but you could grab permanent darkvision that way if you wanted. You would primarily be a buffer, working towards emboldening your allies, but you'd still have your wizard blasting abilities to fall back on. I tried to stick with powers revolving around Cold and Storm, which would allow further optimization at higher levels if you so desired.

You could also pick up Quick Draw and add a bunch more wands for utility purposes.

Im not seeing the buffing aspect, Im afraid. I admit Im not familiar with all those powers, but I see a lack of the battlefield control options, which was the main focus in major combats, and there's the lack of the at-will lightning, which I frankly assumed would be what would be easiest for 4e to replace.

Unless I've overlooked something, there's also no metamagic, which is pretty significant, considering I only spent two feats on anything that wasn't metamagic, or a way to boost class features to use metamagic more.

The spont casting via items isn't replicated, though I assume scrolls could substitute for my wand/scroll stockpile if you wished to detail them.

Also, there is nothing like the veils in there, which are the main reason for taking one of the three classes I had. For being three levels higher than the original, Im afraid it only manages to give me a fraction of the buffing I had available, without replicating the other aspects of the build. In particular, it's greatly lacking in defensive power.

[Meta]

Im not seeing the buffing aspect, Im afraid. I admit Im not familiar with all those powers, but I see a lack of the battlefield control options, which was the main focus in major combats, and there's the lack of the at-will lightning, which I frankly assumed would be what would be easiest for 4e to replace.

Unless I've overlooked something, there's also no metamagic, which is pretty significant, considering I only spent two feats on anything that wasn't metamagic, or a way to boost class features to use metamagic more.

The spont casting via items isn't replicated, though I assume scrolls could substitute for my wand/scroll stockpile if you wished to detail them.

Also, there is nothing like the veils in there, which are the main reason for taking one of the three classes I had. For being three levels higher than the original, Im afraid it only manages to give me a fraction of the buffing I had available, without replicating the other aspects of the build. In particular, it's greatly lacking in defensive power.

Lightning weapon for at-will lightning. It changes your damage type and keyword. disembodied hand familiar making draw/stow a free action. Now you can use w/e item you'd like to replicate your powers. The consumables you can use will replicate the metamagic you'd like. Buffing is an artificer thing. Magic weapon is a great at-will buff. Resistive formula is a good defensive touch and if he flushed it out there could be more. But really he's just proving a point that you CAN recreate your character he just doesn't have the incentive to flesh it out because the people who know what their talking about recognize that it can indeed be recreated.

If you're not familiar with a system you can't accurately say that your character can't be recreated

[RebelRogue]

I remember that char from the old thread, and I must say that it's a losing battle trying to do a decent conversion of it to 4e. This is mostly, because a lot of its shticks are prohibited from 4e by design. Also, let's face it: that build is bordering on cheesy mechanically, and since 4e tried to limit 'rules abuse', naturally a lot of what the character does is simply not an option. So yes, you 'win' this one, I'd say

Again: it has to do with design philosophy. There's number of things 4e avoids, such as long time buffs/debuffs, characters in control of (lots of) other creatures, in-battle stat changes (so you don't have to re-calculate everything every other round), emulation of monster abilities to name some of the "worst" offenders. Very reasonable changes from a balance/ease of play perspective. Some don't mind the resulting imbalance (or keep it in a strict leash) and tracking these things, and if that's your idea of fun, more power to you. Others find these things to bog down the game and/or don't really think they are essential for defining what D&D is. It's all a matter of preference.

[Tyndmyr]

Lightning weapon for at-will lightning. It changes your damage type and keyword. disembodied hand familiar making draw/stow a free action. Now you can use w/e item you'd like to replicate your powers. The consumables you can use will replicate the metamagic you'd like. Buffing is an artificer thing. Magic weapon is a great at-will buff. Resistive formula is a good defensive touch and if he flushed it out there could be more. But really he's just proving a point that you CAN recreate your character he just doesn't have the incentive to flesh it out because the people who know what their talking about recognize that it can indeed be recreated.

If you're not familiar with a system you can't accurately say that your character can't be recreated

Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

[Kish]

Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint.

I'm glad someone said that.

[DeltaEmil]

Yes, it does. Buying 8 books instead of 3 is a legitimate complaint.

If you don't buy all the books, God will come down and kill all your pets, and give you never-ending itches that are really annoying, especially when you try to sleep.

Also, core in 4th edition only means that everything's legal and seemingly balanced, because people had the crazy idea back then in 3rd edition that only core was balanced and legal, and refused to buy or use additional material.

It's a marketing ploy, intended to sucker in people who really did believe that. If they were so naiv to only use things that were labeled core, they might also buy more books labeled core in the new edition. And should that really work, they might declare all splat-books to be core too in 5th or Vista edition.

[tcrudisi]

Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

It is a weapon enchant that changes any power that you cast through it into lightning. It basically turns all the Artificers powers (or any classes powers, for that matter) into lightning bolts.

Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

I do not know Incantrix, as myself nor anyone in my groups ever played one. However, doing more than combat-length buffs just isn't happening in 4e. Buffs last for either 1 round or the entire combat. However, you can take feats to improve the buffs you do, it just improves them in ways that are not duration-based. For instance, a simple example would be one that changes buff A to be +2 to hit instead of +1 to hit.

Also, most buffs are single-target, though quite a few do work for the whole group. I would speak for the Artificer, but for whatever reason, my groups have never played one and I do not want to comment on a class that I've only read about and not actually experienced.

The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Once again, I can't speak for the Artificer, but he does have a hybrid Wizard attached to it. The Wizard is, bar none, the best controller in the game. Nobody can lock down a battlefield like a Wizard. In one of my games, the 4e Wizard (through the help of his allies setting him up) managed to lock down and make trivial a combat which should have TPK'ed them. It was one of my proudest moments as a DM. That player used to play a blaster Wizard, but now you can't convince him to play anything other than a control-focused Wizard.

Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

See, this is a bit tricky. Metamagics don't exist in 4e because the magic system is so different. What, exactly, are you wanting to replicate? If by "metamagic system" all you really want to do is have tricks to make your spells more powerful, well, that's easy. (It's amazing how quickly my intricate knowledge of 3.5 has left me since I haven't been using it.) Isn't there a metamagic feat that allows you to expand the burst of a spell? There's a feat that does that in 4e (instead of increasing the "level" of the spell, it does less damage). Isn't there a metamagic that allows you to quicken a spell? There's a feat for that (albeit epic levels). I'm not saying that it's all there, as this is a much different system of magic. But at least some of it is.

[Meta]

Lightning weapon? Is that a weapon enchant? That's entirely different from a lightning bolt.

Im aware that Magic Weapon is a nice buff. It was in 3.5 too, as was it's greater cousin. However, a single buff does not make someone a buffer. IIRC, I could apply a total of 26 metamagics per day between the incantatrix abilities for free. The most obviously useful were persist and extend, allowing most buffs to last for 2 days, creating an ongoing rotation of buffs that require no combat actions to maintain.

The battlefield control is also a significant part of a wizard, and despite not dedicating any PRCs to it, he was quite proficient off it based mainly off of core spells. That's a pretty significant aspect to have missing. So is the entire Iot7v aspect. He is struggling simply to replicate the domain wizard portion of the build, which is a whopping five levels.

Im also a bit confused about your advice to replicate metamagic via consumables. I admit to not being very familiar with 4th ed, but are metamagics available in consumable form, and is it cost-effective to use them like that? In 3.5, you can replace actual class abilities with consumables to some degree too, as Giamoco has shown, but take it too far, and it becomes unsustainable. How much of this is doable?

K ill try to do this one point at a time. How well you can translate your character into a different game system is not even on the map in good ways to rate a game but w/e, ill bite.

Lightning weapon will make every power you use (if you choose) lightning. Lightning fireballs, lightning rays of frost, lightning cloudkill. Carry multiple wands if you'd like different elements.

you're not going to have powers that last 2 days. 4e is much more oriented towards good use of resources and tactical decisions than 3e. I see no point in a buff if it lasts for days at a time in the 4e system and am extremely glad their gone, I consider them only a bad thing as they are complete non-choices and require 0 intelligence (OoC) to use well.

Battlefield control is the wizard's specialty. His role is even called controller. Even just in the first book he creates fire walls, storm pillars, prismatic walls, what have you. Status effects are his thing. There's nothing he does better so if people said your wizard couldn't do battlefield control, idk what they're thinking.

And there are far too many consumables available for me to break them down for you but they can pull off some meta-magicy things. Plus there are similar feats.

You can do all of these roles you've described. I think the real issue here is that you're trying to compare a 3.X wizard to a 4e wizard in terms of power level relative to the other characters in the game. of COURSE you were a gamebreaking bad*** wizard in 3e. pretty much any wizard was?

In 4e the wizard is awesomely cool and can fulfill all of the roles you ask of him with some good character building. He's not an 'I win' button for your party though, so if you're looking for that you would indeed be happier playing 3e

[tcrudisi]

Battlefield control is the wizard's specialty. His role is even called controller. Even just in the first book he creates fire walls, storm pillars, prismatic walls, what have you. Status effects are his thing. There's nothing he does better so if people said your wizard couldn't do battlefield control, idk what they're thinking.

A Wizard in 4e can do battlefield control better than anyone. However, the player can pick powers that are damage-oriented rather than control-oriented and change that. And for a beginner, it's easier to think that "more damage = better power." In the example above, I said that I had a Wizard player that completely owned an encounter. There's a bit more to it than that.

I created his character for him. I know what he likes to play and I know how good a controller wizard can be. So, I gave him one power each level that he would like and one in his spellbook that was control-oriented. After he played a few sessions, I said, "Okay, now you see what you can do damage-wise. But -- for just this one session, try your other powers and see what they can do."

After that session, I had every player come up to me and talk about how awesome his wizard was. After that, he was a pure control wizard and ignored his damage powers completely. He was okay doing less damage because he saw that he truly impacted the battlefield and made more of a difference by doing less damage but more control.

My point? If someone said that his wizard couldn't do battlefield control, it probably had to do with the powers chosen.

[Chrono22]

I'd say 4e is very good at what it provides. Which is balanced and dynamic combat. 3.5, even heavily houseruled, cannot come close to 4e's level of balance. As far as combat dynamic, though... well, one of 3.5's strengths is that it did try to emulate reality. Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame that has existed within D&D since the beginning.
So, I'll say this: 4e's combat is dynamic, but it isn't for the most part player-driven, it's hard wired. To me, using a power in the "right way", such as during a flank, isn't innovation- it's canned fun. 4e prioritizes balance over everything else- and in my experience this principle is the antithesis to clever or creative use of a power, spell, or other ability. Going outside the box throws out 4e's balance... but in 3.5, this type of thinking is both a consideration and expectation. Many, many combats I've played using 3.5 (and now, pathfinder) would have resulted in total party death if not for a risky and daring plan. And that's part of the fun of D&D for me. Facing impossible odds and overcoming them. It's the essence of heroism. In my experience, the 4e games I played in were just a race to see who could do the most damage to the enemy in the shortest span of time. The thing is, if all I wanted was dungeon delving, and canned fun, I would play an even simpler game: Descent. Why play 4e, if it's offering me the same experience as a less expensive game that's easier to set up and play with friends?

[tcrudisi]

I'd say 4e is very good at what it provides. Which is balanced and dynamic combat. 3.5, even heavily houseruled, cannot come close to 4e's level of balance. As far as combat dynamic, though... well, one of 3.5's strengths is that it did try to emulate reality. Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame that has existed within D&D since the beginning.
So, I'll say this: 4e's combat is dynamic, but it isn't for the most part player-driven, it's hard wired. To me, using a power in the "right way", such as during a flank, isn't innovation- it's canned fun. 4e prioritizes balance over everything else- and in my experience this principle is the antithesis to clever or creative use of a power, spell, or other ability. Going outside the box throws out 4e's balance... but in 3.5, this type of thinking is both a consideration and expectation. Many, many combats I've played using 3.5 (and now, pathfinder) would have resulted in total party death if not for a risky and daring plan. And that's part of the fun of D&D for me. Facing impossible odds and overcoming them. It's the essence of heroism. In my experience, the 4e games I played in were just a race to see who could do the most damage to the enemy in the shortest span of time. The thing is, if all I wanted was dungeon delving, and canned fun, I would play an even simpler game: Descent. Why play 4e, if it's offering me the same experience as a less expensive game that's easier to set up and play with friends?

Last week, I was able to go to one of my old gaming groups (I now live in another city, so I am still looking for a gaming group. If you are in Raleigh, NC, hit me up!). They were teaching a new guy how to play 4e and asked me to play a couple of characters and function as sort of a "mentor" to him.

The DM was running a module (like always /sigh) and I was handed a Druid and Rogue. At one point, I look over at the FNG and say, "Don't try this at home." I move the Rogue into the fireplace (and yeah, it had a fire in it) and use Bait and Switch - a power that allows me to switch places with the bad guy. I then proceeded to immobilize him in the fire. When that wore off, I simply moved my characters in such a way as to block his exit. Needless to say, hilarity ensued. Also, from then on, I told the FNG that "Any time you get a chance to put a bad guy in a fire, you do it, even if they are immune. It's just the cool ... err, hot, thing to do."

I had a Wizard in a game that I was running proceed to use his rituals and cantrips brilliantly - in such a way that it completely bypassed the challenges set before the group.

In a LFR module that I was running, the players had possession of an artifact that, when held, would force the players to tell the truth. They were supposed to hold it high over their heads and say something like, "I swear to not let this leave my possession until such a time that.. blah blah blah". Well, each group had their own way of getting past this. One group had a Wizard use Mage Hand to levitate it just slightly over his hands so it looked like he was holding it. Another group had the Wizard use Prestidigitation to make a different cup look like the real one. But hey - each group had their own way of bypassing the challenge in a fun way.

As for Descent - do you really think that game is quick to set up? I know it normally takes us about 30 minutes to set up the game, which normally lasts 2-5 hours. When I DM 4e, I prep for about 30 minutes before each session. It taes about the same amount of time. But when I ran 3.5? Oh god, I would literally prep for hours just to create the BBEG. Now, 3.5 was fun, for sure, but if you are arguing prep time, no version of D&D beats 4e.

Besides, in Descent, it's literally a board game. You can't do any of the shenanigans I listed above. You can't really make a good comparison with a board game to any version of D&D. 4e is not simply dungeon delving unless your group makes it that way. It is no more dungeon delving than 3.5 was. If your DM ran dungeon delves in 3.5, chances are that's what you get with him/her in 4e. If your DM ran murder mysteries in 3.5, chances are that's what you'll get from your DM in 4e. That didn't change, at all.

Except, I will say this: my first couple of months running 4e, I did run a lot of dungeon delves (while I normally run social/mystery type games). I did it so that myself and my players could become more comfortable with the new edition. Now, however, I'm back to my normal self when it comes to running games.

[Leolo]

I would say you should not play such games. Obviously you had not that much fun as with other games.

But to bring a simple anecdote: i once played a Wizard who was infiltrating a castle disguised as a juggler among with other actors. It was a skill challenge where we have to prove that we where indeed traveling actors, get information about the castle and find out where a individual is we are searching.

We have stolen the guards keys to the inner castle where i created a magic curtain near the cellar to hide behind for the group and used the illusion of a little girl to get someone into a silent room to ask him for the prisoner of this castle.

The game is what you make out of it. If you play it as if your only options is to deal a certain amount of damage than it sure looks limited. But this is no inherit limit of the system. In fact i have found no other edition of d&d that encourages more clever ideas or to solve problems by acting in your characters role.

[The New Bruceski]

The DM was running a module (like always /sigh) and I was handed a Druid and Rogue. At one point, I look over at the FNG and say, "Don't try this at home." I move the Rogue into the fireplace (and yeah, it had a fire in it) and use Bait and Switch - a power that allows me to switch places with the bad guy. I then proceeded to immobilize him in the fire. When that wore off, I simply moved my characters in such a way as to block his exit. Needless to say, hilarity ensued. Also, from then on, I told the FNG that "Any time you get a chance to put a bad guy in a fire, you do it, even if they are immune. It's just the cool ... err, hot, thing to do."

Leaf on the Wind is the reason I never play a Warlord without a pole-arm. I can swap either myself or an adjacent ally with the target? Instant flanking, pulling enemies into hazards, pulling them OUT of safe areas (and putting yourself in the safe area), it's a blast. I once poked a foe through an arrow slit and tried to swap with him, but everyone agreed to veto that shenanigan.

[Chrono22]

Actually 4e's lack of persistent (more than one or two round) status effects, and the number of hitpoints the enemies possess is what usually renders creative strategies ineffective. In the long term, over the span of an entire combat, such strategies don't usually amount to more than if you had used a daily power. That and the attitude of the DM that runs it- some DMs give alot of pushback against such plans because they consider them to be "cheating" an encounter.
Games aren't only what you make them. They have strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn't say Soccer is known for its elaborate hand movements, but I'm sure there are people that use magic fingers while they kick. I'd rather say, soccer is an endurance sport that requires alot of precision and nimbleness. But that also doesn't preclude the obese or clumsy from playing it either. Yes it's my opinion, but it isn't unjustified and it isn't entirely subjective. My reasons for not enjoying 4e in the way you do isn't just some delusion. It has strengths and weaknesses, and I think its strengths support a style of play I can find more easily in other games, and its weaknesses detract from the experience I'm looking for in D&D.

[jseah]

Coming up with clever plans to defeat your enemies, contriving traps, and bypassing challenges is a minigame <...>

Actually, that is it. Exactly what I found wrong in my first (and currently only) game of 4e.
It's not so much that you can't do it, but that you can't specialize in it.

There is also that ambushes in 4E are pretty underwhelming. Some minor to-hit bonus for one round and one extra action... which can't do much because everything deals damage (and not enough to kill in one action) or imposes a small/medium penalty for a few rounds.

Getting that out of combat advantage was heavily nerfed, and so the portion of the game is likewise smaller.
- Some of the best moments I had in 3.5 games were the players pulling off a roundabout plan that took advantage of enemy oversights. They managed to totally bypass 3 out of the 5 encounters (including the supposed boss fight) and demolished the other two. When I say demolished, it was killing a CR+2 encounter with not even a threat of damage.


That said, I like the way the powers are written in 4E. By that I mean the strict keyword system + clear delineations of what happens when. Makes clearly conveying what you want a power to do very very easy.

I have been considering houseruling 4E to be more like a system that I like although I haven't worked out all the details.

[Leolo]

Games aren't only what you make them. They have strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, and in fact i do not agree if people say that rules does not matter for roleplaying. Because they can encourage or hinder roleplaying.

But one of the strengths of 4e is that it encourages creative ideas, roleplaying and out of combat solutions. It has improved these aspects compared to previous editions by adding new rules for improvised actions, a modified skill system that let more players be part of out of combat challenges to make those easier to implement, as you won't have to worry about bored players watching a single character filling his niche. Traps now have a way to overcome them with tricks, and if you create new traps you are guided to provide such possibilities. That is true in fights, too. As the system encourages DMs to provide obstacles, traps or terrain that can be used with creativity. And the DM guidelines tell you to say yes as often as you can when a player has a idea

[dsmiles]

Here's what I get out of this, after being gone for a couple of days:

Blah, blah, blah...4e =/= 3.5, blah, blah, blah.

Nobody ever said that 4e would be like 3.5. Granted, when it first came out, I was resistant. I said, "There's no roleplaying in my roleplaying game." I said, "Powers? WTF are powers?" Then I played it. Then I liked it. No, it's not the same game, and 3.x is not the same game as 1e/2e. You know why?

Things change to keep up with changing audiences.

I've played all editions, and personally, I like 1e the best. Do I play it? No, not very often, since nobody else does. But 4e games are available, and 3.5 games are available. If I have to choose, I'll play 4e.

[jseah]

But one of the strengths of 4e is that it encourages creative ideas, roleplaying and out of combat solutions.

Interesting. I get the exact opposite effect. My GM asked us what we wanted to do in a skill challenge and we all used the logical skill to apply or aid another.
I think that's because we don't have powers that apply to a broad range of situations. Spellcraft might qualify... if they gave us a guideline as to what it could do.


As a GM, I can't just say yes to "X" application of a skill without considering what it'll do. If I allowed it to make minor telekinesis, my players would abuse it faster than you can blink.
Would also have to explain why every single caster NPC I had before then didn't know how to do it.


It strongly depends on what you consider a creative idea.
You imply that making a previously non-existent connection between X skill or power with a certain effect is creative. Eg. using spellcraft to pull the guard's keys to you, or using a refluffed fireball to set a house on fire (when normal fireball doesn't hit objects)

[Chrono22]

4e's "improvised actions" are anything you would normally be able to do anyway, in 3.5. Do I really need to be told I can throw sand in someone's eyes to blind them? Do I need to be told I can lay a rope across a darkened corridor so that it trips opponents?
I just can't see how having your "creativity" handed to you in a table, or through the use of a standard power, or through a skill challenge is anything close to being innovative. All of these extra mechanics point to a perspective that encounters are events that are to be acted out, not attempted.
I feel no sense of risk, no sense of having a chance to fail, when I play 4e. Everything is so balanced, so planned out, that it holds no surprises for me. When I'm told that swinging across a rope to bullrush someone off a ship is an athletics check with a fixed DC (according to my level, of all things), I am underwhelmed. Even more so when I find out the guy I knocked off can get back on the ship again the following turn. Then the combat proceeds for ten or more rounds before one of us finally succeeds the 45-55% chance to hit the final villain with a daily. Statistically my strategy, no matter how badass, is just one small event in a series of whiffs and hits. When I play 4e, I don't feel like a Big Badass Hero. I feel like a toddler on training wheels, who also happens to be a 340 lb dragonborn warlord. I don't like knowing what the outcome of a battle is going to be an hour before it's supposed to end.
My inability to take 4e combats seriously is kind of compounded by the fact that 4e combats happen in some kind of disconnected mirror world with no resemblance to a conceivable (or at least internally consistent) reality. I mean, I've DMed players existing in the far realm. Nonsensical random violence is expected in such a world. But shrodinger's deaths, inconsistent rules (minions in a living world), and actions that fly in the face of reason abound in what would otherwise be a world that's supposed to be superficially like our own. I've been under the curtain- I've DMd almost exclusively- but these problems just shatter any suspension of disbelief that I have.
And yes I know 4e's disregard for any attempt at realism was a designer choice. And yes I know their rebalancing of challenges and encounter design was so that the outcomes would be more predictable for DMs. You call these things strengths, I call them weaknesses. Why should I care about what happens in a world that only exists to facilitate the kool stunts of a handful of imaginary characters? Why should I care that I defeated an encounter that is carefully measured and balanced to allow me to win? Why should I care that I defeated an army, if an outbreak of the common cold can do the same?
I'm blathering at this point, but I hope I've made myself clear. My priorities, the experiences I'm looking to acquire through the medium of tabletop roleplaying, aren't supported by the 4e rules system or its design goals. Obviously I'd prefer to play something else.
Well, I guess I've said my piece. Cya
*gets on WoW to do a raid*

[Lord Raziere]

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.

and I think that is really the point.....because hey if you designed a system then everyone started breaking it with things like CoDzilla, batman wizard and fracking pun-pun, wouldn't you eventually make something that makes sure such game-breaking stuff doesn't happen- ever again? 4E is the result of the DnD fandom's own faults: they keep trying to find ways to break the game and as a result the designers must find ways to fix that.

I mean who honestly expected for WotC to put up with that kind of stuff forever? if anything people should have saw 4E and its new balanced system coming the moment pun-pun became common knowledge.

[Lord Raziere]

*gets on WoW to do a raid*

{Scrubbed}

[FelixG]

{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

[Lord Raziere]

{Scrubbed}

first of all bad form/manner: don't care, I'm me. I do what I wanna do.



I don't get this....I've played both 4E and WoW.....and your saying that WoW allows you more ways to customize your character? um yeah....whatever....on second though I'm leaving this thread to, its starting to heat up in here.

[Sir Homeslice]

4e's "improvised actions" are anything you would normally be able to do anyway, in 3.5. Do I really need to be told I can throw sand in someone's eyes to blind them? Do I need to be told I can lay a rope across a darkened corridor so that it trips opponents?

No, the oft referenced page 42 provides a guideline for damage for improvised actions and leaves the effects to the DM.

I just can't see how having your "creativity" handed to you in a table, or through the use of a standard power, or through a skill challenge is anything close to being innovative. All of these extra mechanics point to a perspective that encounters are events that are to be acted out, not attempted.

This snippet makes no sense whatsoever. Just because a table exists doesn't mean that the event/events it represents automatically become something to act out.
{Scrubbed}

I feel no sense of risk, no sense of having a chance to fail, when I play 4e.

Ah, so you haven't actually played it with a decent DM who knows what he's doing.

Everything is so balanced, so planned out, that it holds no surprises for me.

Again, shoddy DM, not a failing of the system. I may be speaking from personal experience flavored with other people's experiences since I lurk 4e's charop, but an encounter that isn't sloppily put together will always pose a risk to the PCs, and even though generally the PCs will win, the path there is never clear and they'll have to fight for it.

{Scrubbed}

When I'm told that swinging across a rope to bullrush someone off a ship is an athletics check with a fixed DC (according to my level, of all things), I am underwhelmed.

No it's not. Whoever told you this doesn't know the rules. Bullrushing involves using the actual Bullrush maneuver, which is a combat action, which is found in the combat chapter.

Even more so when I find out the guy I knocked off can get back on the ship again the following turn.

If the man falls off a boat and doesn't manage to grab on somehow (typically by passing his saving throw to grab hold), then he's going to be plunging into the water which is probably quite a bit lower than the ship's edge, unless you're fighting on the world's tiniest rowboat, in which case you have your own problems.

Then the combat proceeds for ten or more rounds before one of us finally succeeds the 45-55% chance to hit the final villain with a daily.

Or the percentage is greatly swung in your favor because of utilities, combat advantage, or a previous set up.

Statistically my strategy, no matter how badass, is just one small event in a series of whiffs and hits. When I play 4e, I don't feel like a Big Badass Hero. I feel like a toddler on training wheels, who also happens to be a 340 lb dragonborn warlord. I don't like knowing what the outcome of a battle is going to be an hour before it's supposed to end.

{Scrubbed}

My inability to take 4e combats seriously is kind of compounded by the fact that 4e combats happen in some kind of disconnected mirror world with no resemblance to a conceivable (or at least internally consistent) reality.

Sure.

shrodinger's deaths,

Doesn't exist. Also, Schrodinger, you're missing a 'c.'

inconsistent rules (minions in a living world),

Minions are a narrative device. {Scrubbed}

and actions that fly in the face of reason abound in what would otherwise be a world that's supposed to be superficially like our own.

You mean like magic, your mere existence as PCs, and creatures that biologically should not be able to exist? Because I'm sure 4e invented all three of those.

I've been under the curtain- I've DMd almost exclusively- but these problems just shatter any suspension of disbelief that I have.

You're one of the strangely many people I've spoken to with an extremely weak suspension of belief.

And yes I know 4e's disregard for any attempt at realism was a designer choice.

Yes it was, to an extent.

And yes I know their rebalancing of challenges and encounter design was so that the outcomes would be more predictable for DMs.

No it wasn't, the creation of a working CR system was to create a working CR system that meaningfully (to an extent) acted as a guide to monster power levels, thus making it a good metric for knowing how to push your players. I've seen steamrolled EL+5 encounters and unexpectedly terrifying EL+2 encounters.

You call these things strengths, I call them weaknesses. Why should I care about what happens in a world that only exists to facilitate the kool stunts of a handful of imaginary characters?

Well, if you create a world that you don't care one whit about, why did you create it in the first place? Alternately, why haven't you spoken to your DM that you'd like a different campaign, preferably with player backup and a good amount of reasonableness.

Why should I care that I defeated an encounter that is carefully measured and balanced to allow me to win?

Because (good) encounters aren't "push button, receive victory" affairs like you've been lead to believe.

Why should I care that I defeated an army, if an outbreak of the common cold can do the same?

{Scrubbed}

I'm blathering at this point, but I hope I've made myself clear. My priorities, the experiences I'm looking to acquire through the medium of tabletop roleplaying, aren't supported by the 4e rules system or its design goals. Obviously I'd prefer to play something else.

Sure.

Well, I guess I've said my piece. Cya
*gets on WoW to do a raid*

Have fun.

[Leolo]

I think you have to watch at it from a dm perspective. you can always try to do something creative but the dm needs to provide the environment. And have to plan in that players will use creativity. so a system that binds in such things encourage dms to provide this more often. For example a dm could always count in that players infiltrate a castle. But if i have skill challenges implemented i am encouraged to detail this out as something dangerous and difficult where multiple characters could work together. The anecdote above regarding the group disguised as actors jugglers and an oracle is a good example. It would be possible in 3.5 even if there are no actual rules for it as a complete task. But it would not happen in most groups because the system does not encourages dms to provide such encounters. And of course because simple spells would do the job easier and without effort or any clever idea.

[jseah]

You're one of the strangely many people I've spoken to with an extremely weak suspension of belief.

Could it be that your suspension of disbelief is higher than the norm?

Some people like their explanations to be consistent. My preferred level of versimilitude includes a simple principle, "rules are universal".
I would also like a fully explanatory rule-fluff correlation but that's neither here nor there.

Of course, people like me are unsatisfied at the use of narrative devices. To us, an RPG is not a place you write stories in. It's a game, in a world that doesn't just revolve around the PCs.

EDIT:
About tactics, I think this nicely summarizes the difference between 3.5 and 4.

In 4, the tactics are focused on maximizing your chances of winning an encounter.
In 3.5, the tactics are focused on winning the encounter before it starts.