|
While I understand many of the PF changes seem to be geared toward making 3E more like 4E, this is one area where I wish they would not have gone that route. Link
Really?
Chief Technical Officer
|
[moved to Pathfinder RPG forum]
(and for the record, no, that's not in any way one of our goals. For one thing, there wouldn't be much point in it—people who want a game "like 4E" will probably actually just buy 4E. But even if that had been our goal, it would have been awfully silly to have come this far so quickly, since we still haven't been given the 4E rules. Not much value in trying to hit a target we can't see yet...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
[moved to Pathfinder RPG forum]
(and for the record, no, that's not in any way one of our goals. For one thing, there wouldn't be much point in it—people who want a game "like 4E" will probably actually just buy 4E. But even if that had been our goal, it would have been awfully silly to have come this far so quickly, since we still haven't been given the 4E rules. Not much value in trying to hit a target we can't see yet...)
Why burden a good conspiracy story with logic and facts?
|
Hey I like the ability. It's just one 0 level and one 1st level spell IF you take both of them.
Let's see, good 0 level utilities...
Resistance, Dancing Lights, Light, Ghost Sound, Message, Open/Close, or Prestidigitation.
Good 1st level utilities...
Alarm, Disguise Self, Endure Elements, Shield, Unseen Servant, Animate Rope, Enlarge Person, Feather Fall, Jump, and Reduce Person.
Why no combat spells?
Well.. True Strike is the only combat spell that doesn't fail to be useful at high levels.
Either way, a rogue doesn't have to take these two talents, I'd rather get free Weapon Finese, Focus and the combat feats.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
That's just ridiculous... the Rogue's choice to pick up minor magical abilities (which isn't mandatory) is nothing like 4E's built in power sources. It's comparing apples to handgrenades. The option for some useful low level spells without having to dip into a full casting class makes the Rogue more attractive to players who would likely multiclass and/or max out UMD.
I think it's a great choice.
*shrug*
As long as it doesn't snowball, we should be fine.
I'd been contemplating a string of feats (sort of like minor heritages) that would allow ANY character to select a small string of 0-level spells or develop minor spellcasting (1st-2nd level spells max), and this was something I'd been contemplating back in 3.0.
Everybody's beeng getting to grab the fighter's feats, why not the wizards/clerics/druid's spells?
|
|
A couple of minor spells they can take as an option doesn't really strike me as a big deal. But my campaigns tend to be so magic heavy that it wouldn't be noticed. I run a lot of Eberron games and they have an NPC craft class (Magewright) with a higher level of spell access.
It could also slow down the "take a level in wizard" multiclassing that was common in a lot of 3.5 games I have sat in on.
|
|
Not that I'm adding too much to this discussion but I quite liked the addition of spell like abilities for the rogue. It is consistent given the class predilection for Use Magic Device and though I'm sure someone else has made the comparison it is reminiscent of the Gray Mouser's tinkering with magic. Works for me.
Making PFrpg more like 4e? If it entails looting good ideas from 4e like vikings looting an English monastery, I'm all for it. There are plenty of good ideas in 4e that could be sprinkled in with a 3.5 game without changing its fundamental nature - advanced feats for the various races, second wind, some of the death's door rules, all come to mind as potential loot fodder for my 3.5 or eventual PF game.
|
|
Compared to the horror of playtests I hear regarding 4E from my players...."...horror of playtests..." That's a new one. Could you elaborate? NOTE: I'm not one of those "4E or Else" zealots. I currently plan to run both 4E and 3.x, with the latter to segue into PFRPG. I'm just simply curious.
Heh heh, sure! I run two D&D campaigns. A few players also play in other games, where some player there has conned the group into trying 4E with the rules at hand. And universally, without comparing notes (or even being in the same group) I hear the same stories over and over (these are not my quotes, just what I heard).
"It's kinda fun, but it's like I'm playing a diifferent game than D&D."
"It's repetative and sort of boring."
"Everyone shares abilities different only in name and needs cards to deal their powers before tapping them."
"I'm not sure I jsut didn't do a 4E test or just clicked my mouse a whole bunch of times."
They were the brave ones, then even went and tried it and it always left a poor taste. 3.5 for them, they say.
And, happily, Paizo is about to see 4 new orders for Guides to Korvosa, Pathfinder Gazeteer, and CotCT player's guides...
:-)
-DM Jeff
|
|
Well, the point of the PFRPG is to fix some of the big problems with 3.5. It turns out that, in addition to all the orrible things it's doing, 4.0 is also fixing some problems. So, there might be a bit of overlap, because the same things have been fixed. Beyond that, I'm not worried in the slightest.
|
|
I love the minor magical abilities for the rogue. Ever since Basic D&D, the rogue has always been capable of eventually mastering a small amount of magical skill. I see these new abilities as merely reinforcing that possibility.
And I really like that it's now possible to play a jack-of-all-trades who isn't focused on music (though the Factotum already fills that spot nicely).
I love the minor magical abilities for the rogue. Ever since Basic D&D, the rogue has always been capable of eventually mastering a small amount of magical skill. I see these new abilities as merely reinforcing that possibility.
And I really like that it's now possible to play a jack-of-all-trades who isn't focused on music (though the Factotum already fills that spot nicely).
I have to agree, I like the added talents for the rogue I just wished they would do things like this for other classes so that it allowed you to customize more.
|
|
"Everyone shares abilities different only in name and needs cards to deal their powers before tapping them."
"I'm not sure I jsut didn't do a 4E test or just clicked my mouse a whole bunch of times."
That was them making jokes based on the similarity of powers right (I took them for so and laughed), cause if they thought those were real rules then someone is seriously bad at reverse engineering
|
|
That was them making jokes based on the similarity of powers right (I took them for so and laughed), cause if they thought those were real rules then someone is seriously bad at reverse engineering"Everyone shares abilities different only in name and needs cards to deal their powers before tapping them."
"I'm not sure I jsut didn't do a 4E test or just clicked my mouse a whole bunch of times."
I think I read somewhere that 4e actually uses literal cards to represent powers.
I think I read somewhere that 4e actually uses literal cards to represent powers.
I saw that too. I guess there will be card sized accessories that you can fill in with your various powers, allowing you keep them on hand.
There was a article about them being used while the game was being developed. The designer kept his cards in MTG covers, allowing him to write on them with wet erase markers. With the cards, he would flip over his various daily/encounter cards as they were used.
It seems I saw it over at ENworld, but I can't find it now.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think I read somewhere that 4e actually uses literal cards to represent powers.I saw that too. I guess there will be card sized accessories that you can fill in with your various powers, allowing you keep them on hand.
There was a article about them being used while the game was being developed. The designer kept his cards in MTG covers, allowing him to write on them with wet erase markers. With the cards, he would flip over his various daily/encounter cards as they were used.
It seems I saw it over at ENworld, but I can't find it now.
I know it was suggested for Bo9S, and Mark was even kind enough to put them up for printing off the website.
Going back farther, I've a set of 2e psionic cards, and remember there being spell cards as well. It's nothing new.
Making PFrpg more like 4e? If it entails looting good ideas from 4e like vikings looting an English monastery, I'm all for it.
Probably not the best analogy, considering all the books the Vikings burned while looting the shiny stuff...
I am hoping that PF RPG feels like D&D 3.75. An improved 3.5 with some of the better 4th ed ideas included. I like 3.5, but there are some areas that need work, and I think there are some good ideas in 4th edition.
I agree. I certainly don't think that an idea should be rejected outright just because 4th edition has something similar!
|
|
*shrug*
As long as it doesn't snowball, we should be fine.
I'd been contemplating a string of feats (sort of like minor heritages) that would allow ANY character to select a small string of 0-level spells or develop minor spellcasting (1st-2nd level spells max), and this was something I'd been contemplating back in 3.0.
Everybody's beeng getting to grab the fighter's feats, why not the wizards/clerics/druid's spells?
I can't imagine any fighter who wouldn't want to cast True Strike at the outset of combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can't imagine any fighter who wouldn't want to cast True Strike at the outset of combat.
Actually I can.
A figther built on speed, who's a mage slayer build who wants to hit them before they get their buffs up, isn't going to want to spend a round getting true strike cast.
While I understand many of the PF changes seem to be geared toward making 3E more like 4E, this is one area where I wish they would not have gone that route. Link
Really?
The original post is by "Wisom Penalty". Nomen est omen, especially in this case :D
The ability to choose to cast a first level spell doesn't equal tying everything the rogue does to some powers you have to choose and that limit you in many ways, including the weapons you can use them with.
Disclaimer: If Alpha 3, Beta, or the final Pathfinder RPG should contain "In order to use your 1st-level spell, you must wield a weapon on the wizard proficiency list" or something like that, I retract my statement and congratulate the original poster for his uncanny insights into the twisted minds of Paizo. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
I don't fear that 3.p will be too "4e-ish".
When it comes to the rogue, I am in favour of a completely "magic-less" rogue.
Agreed. I don't feel anybody's talking about PF being "like 4E". Rogue and Wizards share a good synergy in the original system. I feel, however, that there are ways to make the Rogue "more Roguish" without resorting to magical abilities and such.
Using a Luck rating like the Book of Roguish Luck for instance with abilities powered by it would just be one of many potential variants. Maneuvers and acrobatics, possible Merchant specializations... tons of others are possible.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: a rogue is a rogue. If I want to play a Wizard, I play a Wizard and may multiclass/PrC to provide me with the concept I desire.
I'd largely prefer to provide the Rogue with more roguish options rather than flash-bang abilities.
When it comes to the rogue, I am in favour of a completely "magic-less" rogue.
That's still possible, Günni: Just don't choose those magical options. Because they're options.
I'd also say that they're no less appealing for low magic campaigns than the wizard class. The rules assume that magic is readily available - if you want to change that, you'll have to tweak things, anyway. Cutting options from a list is the smallest of your problems, then.
And it's not as if rogues are getting quickened meteor swarms at will or anything.
I can understand the argument that PF is looking like 4E. i'll be honest, when I saw most of the changes, so did I. The base races getting more stat bonus's to "Balance out" against other races, the semi-magical powers that the non-magical classes get (such as the barberian elemental rage or the rogues spell-like abilities). Even the origonal skill system was almost a clone of how Wizards described making the skill system for 4E.
If you don't want to play 4E, fair enough, but don't say "PF is nothing like 4E". It may not be exact, but you can't deny that it doesn't have similarities.
The base races getting more stat bonuses to "Balance out" against other races
Pathfinder's races are still way more similar to 3e than 4e: Races still have stat penalties (which isn't true in 4e as far as I know), they still feel like the races I know (no "because it's more cool and fun and stuff, dwarves are now surface-dwellers"), without a whole virtual class that keeps giving you abilities for many levels to enforce the new stereotype.
I can see them making the races a bit stronger as an overal effort to move more of a character's power to his own abilities, away from magic items.
the semi-magical powers that the non-magical classes get (such as the barbarian elemental rage or the rogues spell-like abilities).
Let's just agree that elemental rage should be gone. Something like giving your attacks the vicious ability (+2d6 damage, and 1d6 to you) would be a better fit.
But a couple of low-level spells for rogues is absolutely not 4e. Quite the opposite: Minor Magic and Major Magic provide you with more options for the kind of character you want to play, while the 4e rogue gets less options for the "builds" he can do with the rogue. (I guess that with extra books - or the totally not necessary subscription to DDI - you will get extra builds for your classes, to take them someone near the versatility 3e classes had for free in the core rules)
Even the origonal skill system was almost a clone of how Wizards described making the skill system for 4E.
But with the difference that Pathfinder at no point forced any skills upon you.
If you don't want to play 4E, fair enough, but don't say "PF is nothing like 4E". It may not be exact, but you can't deny that it doesn't have similarities.
There might be similarities, but the differences far outweigh them. It's like saying that WoD is like D&D because both have skills and use d10s, and are RPGs. It's not nearly similar enough - and the differences are in key points - to say that they look similar beyond the fact that both use the d20 system (or something like it in the fact of 4e).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Hey I like the ability. It's just one 0 level and one 1st level spell IF you take both of them.
Let's see, good 0 level utilities...
Resistance, Dancing Lights, Light, Ghost Sound, Message, Open/Close, or Prestidigitation.
Good 1st level utilities...
Alarm, Disguise Self, Endure Elements, Shield, Unseen Servant, Animate Rope, Enlarge Person, Feather Fall, Jump, and Reduce Person.
Why no combat spells?
Well.. True Strike is the only combat spell that doesn't fail to be useful at high levels.
I'd have to add Ray of Enfeeblement to the list. It's a ranged touch attack, which a rogue would be very good at, and the Str penalty is useful at just about any level when facing off vs a single tough melee fighter opponent. Finally, there's no saving throw.
The base races getting more stat bonuses to "Balance out" against other racesPathfinder's races are still way more similar to 3e than 4e: Races still have stat penalties (which isn't true in 4e as far as I know), they still feel like the races I know (no "because it's more cool and fun and stuff, dwarves are now surface-dwellers"), without a whole virtual class that keeps giving you abilities for many levels to enforce the new stereotype.
I can see them making the races a bit stronger as an overal effort to move more of a character's power to his own abilities, away from magic items.
the semi-magical powers that the non-magical classes get (such as the barbarian elemental rage or the rogues spell-like abilities).Let's just agree that elemental rage should be gone. Something like giving your attacks the vicious ability (+2d6 damage, and 1d6 to you) would be a better fit.
But a couple of low-level spells for rogues is absolutely not 4e. Quite the opposite: Minor Magic and Major Magic provide you with more options for the kind of character you want to play, while the 4e rogue gets less options for the "builds" he can do with the rogue. (I guess that with extra books - or the totally not necessary subscription to DDI - you will get extra builds for your classes, to take them someone near the versatility 3e classes had for free in the core rules)
Even the origonal skill system was almost a clone of how Wizards described making the skill system for 4E.But with the difference that Pathfinder at no point forced any skills upon you.
There might be similarities, but the differences far outweigh them. It's like saying that WoD is like D&D because both have skills and use d10s, and are RPGs. It's not nearly similar enough - and...
If you don't want to play 4E, fair enough, but don't say "PF is nothing like 4E". It may not be exact, but you can't deny that it doesn't have similarities.
Just because I didn't mention all of them doesn't mean there aren't more, I didn't add the fact that paizo are potraying gnomes as Fey, somthing NOT done in 3.5 (But being done for 4E). Also, I don't see how 4E is "forcing" skills on you either, theres nothing to stop houseruling. The difference is Paizo Pathfinder is supposed to be a book of -houserules-.
[QUOTE/]I can see them making the races a bit stronger as an overal effort to move more of a character's power to his own abilities, away from magic items.
I hate to break it to you, but it's the exact same reasoning given by 4E designers.
[QUOTE/]There might be similarities, but the differences far outweigh them. It's like saying that WoD is like D&D because both have skills and use d10s, and are RPGs. It's not nearly similar enough - and...
Sorry, but it's not like saying that at all. The base game mechinics of Wow is completely different from D'n'D, while 4E is still based on D'n'D (though I'll quite happily agree that, at best, it's loosly based on it).
Just because I didn't mention all of them doesn't mean there aren't more, I didn't add the fact that paizo are potraying gnomes as Fey, somthing NOT done in 3.5 (But being done for 4E).
PF has gnomes as a standard race, 4e hasn't.
Gnomes needed a facelift, anyway. By the way, that part is probably from before 4e was announced, since it's from Pathfinder (the setting/APs).
Also, I don't see how 4E is "forcing" skills on you either
In 4e, the classes get some skills, plus a choice of others. Those skills are mandatory.
theres nothing to stop houseruling. The difference is Paizo Pathfinder is supposed to be a book of -houserules-.
No, it isn't.
I hate to break it to you, but it's the exact same reasoning given by 4E designers.
It's still a lot different, even though there might be some small similarities in stated reasons:
As I said, 4e doesn't have penalties, and races are basically classes now. And magic items still work basically the same. No "You have to be level 16 to use this armour" or "You need level 10 for one ring, level 20 for two".
Sorry, but it's not like saying that at all. The base game mechinics of Wow is completely different from D'n'D, while 4E is still based on D'n'D (though I'll quite happily agree that, at best, it's loosly based on it).
For every similarity, there's a dozen key differences.
Some similarities are inevitable, but I say there not nearly enough to call the games similar, and those that are there are only superficial.
PF has gnomes as a standard race, 4e hasn't.
Yes they are, there just in the MM
In 4e, the classes get some skills, plus a choice of others. Those skills are mandatory.
I admit, I wish the Skill System was a bit more customizable but its
better than the last system.No, it isn't.
PRPG pretty much is just a bunch of house rules and things from splat books put together (Heres looking at the Sorcerer)
It's still a lot different, even though there might be some small similarities in stated reasons:As I said, 4e doesn't have penalties, and races are basically classes now. And magic items still work basically the same. No "You have to be level 16 to use this armour" or "You need level 10 for one ring, level 20 for two".
Only Rings have the level restriction. And wait, how the hel are races classes?
|
|
@ Chris Braga - In March you said, "This is a thread for those who plan to switch to 4E. If you feel the need to ridicule us or 4E, please do so elsewhere. Or better yet, don't say anything at all."
Please note that I understand why you may feel p.off... It is never my intention to make you feel that way.
Yes they are, there just in the MM
PF has gnomes as a standard race, 4e hasn't.
That's not a standard race. Standard races are those you find in the PHB - you know, the only book you're supposed to look at.
That's like saying. that 3e has goblins and drow and bralani as standard races.
Standard races are those you get in the PHB. Those who get all the support a standard race is due, like its own feats and weapons and stuff and PrCs.
In 4e, the classes get some skills, plus a choice of others. Those skills are mandatory.I admit, I wish the Skill System was a bit more customizable but its
better than the last system.
It's still different from Pathfinder's, which is what this thread is all about. Oh, and for the record: PF Alpha 2's skill system beats everything else.
Only Rings have the level restriction.
And that would be bad enough, but those diablo2-nightmare-difficulty-style armours, like feyleather or whatever, have it, too.
And wait, how the hel are races classes?
Because they grant abilities over lots of levels.
Not that I'm adding too much to this discussion but I quite liked the addition of spell like abilities for the rogue. It is consistent given the class predilection for Use Magic Device and though I'm sure someone else has made the comparison it is reminiscent of the Gray Mouser's tinkering with magic. Works for me.
I agree. The Gray Mouser was clearly a big inspiration for some of the magic abilities that the 1st edition Thief had. Although given the Gray Mouser's relatively low success rate with magic, I think the designers meant for the Thief to fail spectacularly (and amusingly) as often as not.
I guess if you got tired of scrolls blowing up on you, you could alway try mixing potions...
I think that if you're in a "high magic" world, it's inevitable that rogue types will employ some type of magic. It doesn't necessarily mean spellcasting abilities, but I don't think that's a bad optional choice.
You could build a rogue that was very focused on physical abilities as opposed to magic, but I can't imagine the character never using potions, magic weapons and armor, or useful wonderous items.
PF has gnomes as a standard race, 4e hasn't.
Yes they are, there just in the MM
That's not a standard race. Standard races are those you find in the PHB - you know, the only book you're supposed to look at.
That's like saying. that 3e has goblins and drow and bralani as standard races.
Standard races are those you get in the PHB. Those who get all the support a standard race is due, like its own feats and weapons and stuff and PrCs.
I'll give you this one but I could give two s%@$s whether a race is in the PHB or MM, if it can be used I'm going to use it.
It's still different from Pathfinder's, which is what this thread is all about. Oh, and for the record: PF Alpha 2's skill system beats everything else.
In 4e, the classes get some skills, plus a choice of others. Those skills are mandatory.I admit, I wish the Skill System was a bit more customizable but its
better than the last system.
Far from it, Alpha 1's was good, this new one I can't stand.
And that would be bad enough, but those diablo2-nightmare-difficulty-style armours, like feyleather or whatever, have it, too.
Only Rings have the level restriction.
No they don't/ If you can prove it to me than I'll give you that.
Because they grant abilities over lots of levels.
And wait, how the hel are races classes?
And........thats a bad thing how? If anything thats a major plus.
Could you please do something approaching proper formatting?
Alpha 1's skill system was too restrictive, didn't allow customisation including "hobby skills", and thus, sucked. It might be good enough for 4e, where character options are being downplayed in favour of making everything as simple as possible. Alpha 2 is still fairly easy, including making it very easy on DMs, but still allow a lot of options. Thus, it rocks.
You can't stand it, and that's fine. You like 4e. You should play 4e, not Pathfinder, because that will be like 3e, which you don't like. Pathfinder will not be like 4e, no matter how much some people want it to - because a lot more people don't want it to.
The diablo-armours in 4e have the restriction. Go hunt down that page scan from the 4e PHB down. It explains that these "masterwork" armours are always magical and don't appear until high level (16th and above). It's true whether you believe it or not, and I can't be bothered to get that page. Plus, it also has the astral diamond reference on it, and that makes me puke.
Races as classes is a major disadvantage because it's a lot harder to change them if you don't agree with them. Again, it's a 4eism: Force their version of flavour on people by making it harder to change stuff.
PF races are like 3e races: They give you a bunch of abilities now, from the start, and after that you don't have to look up one more place to look what you're getting. Plus, if you don't want your half-orcs to be priestlike, you change the favoured class to druid, or exchange Wis for something else. In 4e, you'll have to get rid of a dozen different things that help you to be a better cleric. Well, actually, you don't play any half-orc in 4e, unless you subscribe to the purely optional thing they have there.
You might like 4e races better, but they're wrong for PF, because it doesn't fit the game concept (freedom instead of restrictions)
|
|
I agree with KaeYoss, Gnomes needed a "face lift". I'm not sure if the fey thing is the right way to go, but one of the things i've agreed with from 4e is removing them from the list of standard player races. I don't know if I'd replace them or not, however, with another race.
Perhaps making them less fey is in order, and perhaps emphasizing their penchant for tinkering. I'd like to see them as a race of mad-scientists, perhaps even leaning toward evil a little bit.
Could you please do something approaching proper formatting?
Not used to this system yet.
Alpha 1's skill system was too restrictive, didn't allow customisation including "hobby skills", and thus, sucked. It might be good enough for 4e, where character options are being downplayed in favour of making everything as simple as possible. Alpha 2 is still fairly easy, including making it very easy on DMs, but still allow a lot of options. Thus, it rocks.
Do you really need mechanics to represent your characters hobbies? What ever happened to roll playing (Really just light hearted joking on the last part). Plus 4E is trying to make RP an even more focal point of the game due to skill challenges.
You can't stand it, and that's fine. You like 4e. You should play 4e, not Pathfinder, because that will be like 3e, which you don't like. Pathfinder will not be like 4e, no matter how much some people want it to - because a lot more people don't want it to.
Yeah I like 4E I all so like PRPG despite all the flaws (Backwards compatability is actually hurting it more than helping).
The diablo-armours in 4e have the restriction. Go hunt down that page scan from the 4e PHB down. It explains that these "masterwork" armours are always magical and don't appear until high level (16th and above). It's true whether you believe it or not, and I can't be bothered to get that page. Plus, it also has the astral diamond reference on it, and that makes me puke.
Cause 3.5E didn't have that either. And it says when and should (Emphasis on when and should) they appear, not restricted to a level like rings are.
Races as classes is a major disadvantage because it's a lot harder to change them if you don't agree with them. Again, it's a 4eism: Force their version of flavour on people by making it harder to change stuff.
How is this different from any edition of D&D?
PF races are like 3e races: They give you a bunch of abilities now, from the start, and after that you don't have to look up one more place to look what you're getting. Plus, if you don't want your half-orcs to be priestlike, you change the favoured class to druid, or exchange Wis for something else. In 4e, you'll have to get rid of a dozen different things that help you to be a better cleric. Well, actually, you don't play any half-orc in 4e, unless you subscribe to the purely optional thing they have there.
You get a bunch of abilites from the start in 4E, you just gain more later on. Your right on the half orc though.
You might like 4e races better, but they're wrong for PF, because it doesn't fit the game concept (freedom instead of restrictions)
What restrictions?
Do you really need mechanics to represent your characters hobbies?
Yes. Sometimes, people want to dabble in a couple of skills instead of striving to become masters.
Yeah I like 4E I all so like PRPG despite all the flaws (Backwards compatability is actually hurting it more than helping).
Not really: The big errors will be fixed anyway, and they're a lot less than some people are claiming.
The fact is that a lot of people do like 3e. They believe that it does a lot of things a lot better than 4e. PF RPG is for them.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Cause 3.5E didn't have that either. And it says when and should (Emphasis on when and should) they appear, not restricted to a level like rings are.
You're right: 3e didn't have that. There might have been suggestions, or probabilities based on treasure tables, but it never restricted what a character could use.
In 3e, if you happen upon a +5 vorpal sword on 1st level, you can use it. If you happen upon a ring of universal elemental immunity, you can use it - and a ring of protection +5 on the other hand. Not to mention fancy armour like a +5 heavy fortification heavy plate made out of adamantine, or glass-steel, or whatever.
How is this different from any edition of D&D?
Races as classes is a major disadvantage because it's a lot harder to change them if you don't agree with them. Again, it's a 4eism: Force their version of flavour on people by making it harder to change stuff.
3e: Races - especially the standard races - get ability score adjustments, some skill bonuses, and a couple of abilities.
Example: Elves
+2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Immunity to magic sleep effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.
Low-Light Vision
Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.
+2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.
Automatic Languages: Common and Elven. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, and Sylvan.
Favored Class: Wizard.
(I left out size and speed)
Now, let's say that in my campaign, elves aren't like that. I want them to make the most civilised race - the race that invented civilisation and all that comes with it, like Government, cities, the arts....
+1 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Con. (They're smart and courteous, but not used to hardship)
+2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantments (I did away with elven reverie)
(no low-light vision - they're used to well-lit streets)
Swashbuckling: Proficiency with rapier and dagger, weapon finesse and two-weapon fighting when using any combination of those two weapons: Elves prefer a gentlemen's way of fighting.
+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive. (Elves prefer to use the Battlefield of the Courts)
Automatic Languages: Common (which is the elven language, since they invented civilisation). Bonus Languages: Any.
Favoured Class: Rogue
Now, that took only a couple of minutes.
In 4e, you'll have to change the starting stuff. Then, you'll have to change all the level-dependant stuff, too, and look whether that scales too much or not enough, and whatnot. You'll have to invent a whole bunch of abilities
What restrictions?
As I said: Overloading races with abilities makes it harder to change the race, which I call a restriction of sorts. 4e seems hard-wired to its new flavour.
Yes. Sometimes, people want to dabble in a couple of skills instead of striving to become masters.
Roll play it that way then.
Not really: The big errors will be fixed anyway, and they're a lot less than some people are claiming.
There taking the nerf stick to magic then I take it?
The fact is that a lot of people do like 3e. They believe that it does a lot of things a lot better than 4e. PF RPG is for them.If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Good for them. There are all so people that believe 3.5 is so broken its going to take to long to fix and find 4E the answer (Note I like 3.5 alot but admit there are alot of problems with it, enough to the point where I just said F trying to fix it and play it as is, though its gotten to the point where I've only played one 3.5 game in four months IRL)
You're right: 3e didn't have that. There might have been suggestions, or probabilities based on treasure tables, but it never restricted what a character could use.In 3e, if you happen upon a +5 vorpal sword on 1st level, you can use it. If you happen upon a ring of universal elemental immunity, you can use it - and a ring of protection +5 on the other hand. Not to mention fancy armour like a +5 heavy fortification heavy plate made out of adamantine, or glass-steel, or whatever.
And you can still use that +5 Vorpal Sword at first level or that +5 Heavy Fortification Heavy Plate made out of adamantine, the only thing level restricted are Rings.
3e: Races - especially the standard races - get ability score adjustments, some skill bonuses, and a couple of abilities.
And thankfully 4E gives you the ability to do that if you want (Its in the DMG)