Y'know, I think a good analogy about how I feel about 4E is that it just feels like they describe the the dark side of the Force. Easier, quicker... but in the end shallow and hollow.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh come now... Have you even PLAYED the game??
4th Edition is shallow because it doesn't give races a -2 penalty to certain abilities????
I'd have to say the opposite. 3rd Edition is shallow because a lot of races (ummm Shifters...) were reduced to only a handful of classes because they would simply suck trying to play anything that took into account Intelligence or Charisma... I guess I'll throw out my idea for a Shifter Bard, or a Shifter Wizard or a Shifter Sorcerer, Paladin, etc...
Those negative penalties put SHACKLES on you at character creation. 4th Edition has freed character creation up and allows MORE robust and interesting character concepts.
In fact, guess what, with the BASE WIZARD CLASS I made a "war wizard" just last night! HAIL! No more "variants" to make a wizard who can wear some armor...
Menlo the Red, my Aundairian War Wizard, would not have been possible in 3rd Edition without "sucking".
..I was hoping we could discuss your campaign and see if we could get it to (largely fit) with the new game. :)
Our campaign is (and has been for many years) a pretty conventional Greyhawk campaign. That means grey elves, gnomes, half-orcs, Vancian spellcasters, and monks (along with a bunch of other things).
Our campaign would be dramatically altered if any of the examples above (and others) were eliminated -- more than I'm prepared (or able) to compensate for.
Despite those reservations, we're going to take a long, careful look at 4e. I'm just not optimistic.
As an aside, I'd love to replace grey elves with eladrin, and will probably adapt that change whether or not we feel like 4e would work.
To me the best roleplayers are those that give their PCs life in spite of the mechanics and not those that can take numbers and play out the stereotypes.
Hm, there we get to the difference between "archetypes" and "stereotypes".
*edit* Now that the current super-troll of the 3e/4e threads has arrived two posts above me, I don´t feel like I will be able to contribute anything of further usefulness. Such is the power of Trollitude! (tm)
Also, it seems my point don´t get across very well, which speaks to a marked difference on how the posters criticising my posts and me perceive character building and how mechanics affect roleplaying. Or that I suck at explaining, which I normally don´t do *that* much. ^^
|
They've annihilated the game; it's worse than I thought. The flavor I thought was awesome though, the concepts, arts, the setting and the mood, to that I take my hat off; they've given the game some good ambiance..
That's my biggest fear, actually. I couldn't care less about what artwork made it to 4th edition, but the fact that a great many Paizonians like it may contribute to seeing more of it in Paizo products (thanks to the awesome democratic vibe this company carries :) ).
I already think that the difference in artwork between 4th edition and some of the artwork in Pathfinder modules isn't wide enough for me. My problem is that I dislike the former and may soon find myself disliking the latter (which occasionally I do already) to an extent that I have to reconsider where to get my adventures for 3.5 (e.g. try old stuff from other companies).
Boy, am I old fashioned!
Our campaign is (and has been for many years) a pretty conventional Greyhawk campaign. That means grey elves, gnomes, half-orcs, Vancian spellcasters, and monks (along with a bunch of other things).
Our campaign would be dramatically altered if any of the examples above (and others) were eliminated -- more than I'm prepared (or able) to compensate for.
Despite those reservations, we're going to take a long, careful look at 4e. I'm just not optimistic.
As an aside, I'd love to replace grey elves with eladrin, and will probably adapt that change whether or not we feel like 4e would work.
Are you familiar with Necromancer's Advanced Player's Guide written by Ari Marmell. It will apparently be including a lot of elements that didn't make the initial cut and it may be what you need to bridge the gap.
Though to be fair to WoTC, I think their statements were predicated on people not intentionally making the sub-optimal choice!
This might be me wearing my tin-foil hat, but that hasn't been my sense.
Among other things, I think WotC made a number of deliberate decisions to strongly encourage the use of miniatures in 3.x. I assume this is due to the fact that minis have a much higher profit margin than the rest of the D&D line.
In the same vein, I think they've made a number of specific, deliberate decisions which more narrowly define the style of play in D&D. Furthermore, there is little or no support or enthusiasm for players that want to play outside the box now. WotC's design team seems to be first-rate -- thus I think these changes were neither oversights nor accidental.
I think the profound changes being made to FR are an example -- long-standing components of their most popular campaign are eliminated in favor of what is now core D&D. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Greyhawk, when it's re-released, includes dragonborn -- I would take that as proof I'm right. Mark my words :)
Again, it might be tin-foil-hat thinking, but that's what I see.
And it still looks like a cool system and a good game :)
Are you familiar with Necromancer's Advanced Player's Guide written by Ari Marmell. It will apparently be including a lot of elements that didn't make the initial cut and it may be what you need to bridge the gap.
I didn't know about this -- I'll definitely check it out.
Thanks :)
Every race only getting bonuses *is* a big shift away from previous editions, where for the goodies you got, you normally had to take a penalty. And, yeah, if you *deliberately* choose powers for which you have sub-optimal stats, then you still can gimp your character, but only the most oblivious player would be able to do that now.
Being, as you say, unable to accidentally make a crappy character is bad how?
I´ve been pretty vocal about my dislike of 4E, but I want to clarify that it is not because the rules are *bad*, per se. The rules are just fine, I just don´t think that they keep the spirit of what I feel is Dungeons and Dragons.
The spirit of D&D has always been heroic fantasy, or action-adventure, or both. Its still there.
The new edition is, IMO, designed to make you feel that your character is cool and powerful... and while that of course also applies in large parts to 3rd edition, 4th edition seems to want to archieve this by minimizing any weakness your character may have. 3rd edition still made you keenly realize that your character wasn´t perfect.
My thoughts are that 4th Edition is designed to make a fun, playable game. Players like having options in a game, and earning meaningful rewards for their efforts (rewards help keep a player hooked).
3rd Edition had the same basic stuff in mind that you overcome challenges in order to gain rewards (loot, XP, and perhaps other stuff like prestige), it was just more...random. Your class might be good at what it was supposed to do, or it might suck. You might suffer no ill effect from an attack, or you might die.
Among other things, I think WotC made a number of deliberate decisions to strongly encourage the use of miniatures in 3.x. I assume this is due to the fact that minis have a much higher profit margin than the rest of the D&D line.
I bet your completely right about the minatures. A company has to be profitable or it goes down the tubes (like TSR did). And I don't blame them for trying.
In the same vein, I think they've made a number of specific, deliberate decisions which more narrowly define the style of play in D&D. Furthermore, there is little or no support or enthusiasm for players that want to play outside the box now. WotC's design team seems to be first-rate -- thus I think these changes were neither oversights nor accidental.
They have come up with a almost complete new system. Give them a chance. In a year or two you will see a lot of variant systems spring from 4e and many people thinking outside the box. But it will mainly come from players and 3rd party developers. WOTC can't be everyting to everyone. Though their online format might be a good place to show what you can do with the system.
I think the profound changes being made to FR are an example -- long-standing components of their most popular campaign are eliminated in favor of what is now core D&D. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Greyhawk, when it's re-released, includes dragonborn -- I would take that as proof I'm right. Mark my words :)
I have seen FR slipping in popularity and with support of late. The changes that WOTC has made to FR should (and I believe it's their intention to) breath some life back into the grand old girl.
When was the last time that Greahawk was released as a campaign setting. Back in the 2nd edition days? I would love to see a re-release of it as a complete campaign setting instead of just a default setting for published adventures.
To me the best roleplayers are those that give their PCs life in spite of the mechanics and not those that can take numbers and play out the stereotypes.Hm, there we get to the difference between "archetypes" and "stereotypes".
*edit* Now that the current super-troll of the 3e/4e threads has arrived two posts above me, I don´t feel like I will be able to contribute anything of further usefulness. Such is the power of Trollitude! (tm)
Also, it seems my point don´t get across very well, which speaks to a marked difference on how the posters criticising my posts and me perceive character building and how mechanics affect roleplaying. Or that I suck at explaining, which I normally don´t do *that* much. ^^
Calling people names now eh? Isn't that a bit uncivil?
I mean all I asked was, "have you played the game?" Your response to me assumes you haven't.
I just find it laughable that people can make such rash judgements without even playing the damn game...
Regarding racial stat bonuses and penalties. IMO, stat modifiers, whether positive or negative, developed for two reasons. First, the racial stat modifiers reinforced specific racial/class archetypes that the early designers thought were desirable. Second, and more importantly, they were a balancing mechanism that were required because of all the cool abilities that demihumans received at the expense of the humans.
Admittedly in 4e, the designers went in with the intent that a player's racial choice would not automatically penalize them from the start. That said, the mechanical idea of stat penalties are not really necessary in 4e. Racial archetypes are clearly still in the game, though they are reinforced by the racial stat bonuses and powers instead of a negative disincentive. But more importantly, every race, including humans, has a relatively small amount of racial abilities that are roughly equal in power. In theory, there is nothing so good that would necessitate a negative stat modifier to balance it out.
Again IMO, racial stat modifiers were really important when stat generation was primarily based on random rolls of the dice. Arrays and point buy systems give players a lot more flexibility, so if a player wants to play to their racial archetype, they'll get a really good example of that archetype (especially with the various intra-class builds and 1st level multi-classing). If they want to play against type, they can and because of the various stat generation methods, they can still be effective (especially since powers are spread across several different stats).
In this respect, I think that 4e encourages outside-the-box thinking when it comes to race and class combos.
They have come up with a almost complete new system. Give them a chance. In a year or two you will see a lot of variant systems spring from 4e and many people thinking outside the box. But it will mainly come from players and 3rd party developers. WOTC can't be everyting to everyone.
I think you miss my point. I believe they mean to deliberately limit such options -- they can be all things to all people if everyone is doing the same thing.
Yeah, it's paranoid. Don't pay attention to me when I start foaming at the mouth :P
When was the last time that Greyhawk was released as a campaign setting. Back in the 2nd edition days? I would love to see a re-release of it as a complete campaign setting instead of just a default setting for published adventures.
There's talk they're going to do exactly that (and there was an excellent Greyhawk sourcebook released with 3.0 to support Living Greyhawk). While I've very hopeful, FR hasn't filled me with confidence.
Many have disputed your interpretation that they're breathing new life into FR. The old girl is dead -- they're just using her name. What purpose this serves, beyond alienating most FR fans, escapes me. I fear there is also a bullet with Greyhawk's name on it.
Regards :)
I think you miss my point. I believe they mean to deliberately limit such options -- they can be all things to all people if everyone is doing the same thing.
:)
Ok, my response would be.
Why would they do that? What would their reasoning be to deliberately limit options?
Plus, when as everyone ever done the same thing.
Regards
;)
Admittedly in 4e, the designers went in with the intent that a player's racial choice would not automatically penalize them from the start. That said, the mechanical idea of stat penalties are not really necessary in 4e. Racial archetypes are clearly still in the game, though they are reinforced by the racial stat bonuses and powers instead of a negative disincentive. But more importantly, every race, including humans, has a relatively small amount of racial abilities that are roughly equal in power. In theory, there is nothing so good that would necessitate a negative stat modifier to balance it out.
Ability scores are, to me, and interesting indicator of where D&D is going.
3.5 offered a point buy as an option -- 25 point buys were standard, while 28 and 32 were considered powerful. Racial modifiers typically balanced one another.
The first method of generating ability scores mentioned in 4e now is equivalent to a 30-point buy -- plus a net gain with racial bonuses.
Not bad, just not to my taste.
Ability scores are, to me, and interesting indicator of where D&D is going.3.5 offered a point buy as an option -- 25 point buys were standard, while 28 and 32 were considered powerful. Racial modifiers typically balanced one another.
The first method of generating ability scores mentioned in 4e now is equivalent to a 30-point buy -- plus a net gain with racial bonuses.
Not bad, just not to my taste.
You have to take into account the lessened reliance on magic items to bump up ability scores.
my 2 cents
;)
I think you miss my point. I believe they mean to deliberately limit such options -- they can be all things to all people if everyone is doing the same thing.
Ok, my response would be: Why would they do that? What would their reasoning be to deliberately limit options?
Because it's easier to support.
WotC walked away from a plethora of campaign worlds because they couldn't support such a badly-fragmented customer base -- hence FR and Eberron were the only campaigns a year ago.
Ability scores are, to me, and interesting indicator of where D&D is going.
3.5 offered a point buy as an option -- 25 point buys were standard, while 28 and 32 were considered powerful. Racial modifiers typically balanced one another.
The first method of generating ability scores mentioned in 4e now is equivalent to a 30-point buy -- plus a net gain with racial bonuses.
Not bad, just not to my taste.
I'm not sure that this is an example of "power creep" (for lack of a better term) since unlike in 3.5e, class powers are based on multiple attributes. From what I've seen of the classes, you need above average stats in at least two of the abilities (if not three).
I'm not sure that this is an example of "power creep" (for lack of a better term) since unlike in 3.5e, class powers are based on multiple attributes. From what I've seen of the classes, you need above average stats in at least two of the abilities (if not three).
Well, I was getting ready to disagree (and I still don't totally agree).
But I was looking at the 4e point buy carefully (I was going to compare sets of 3.5 and 4e ability scores), and I see that the 4e power creep isn't as bad as I was suspecting. In particular, it now costs more to take stats above a 13 than it once did.
This is important in my group -- we always use point buys.
And your point is well taken :)
Oh, yeah! What's the deal with the goofy dice icons? (When monsters recharge powers)
Oh, yeah! What's the deal with the goofy dice icons? (When monsters recharge powers)
I was told (no direct quotes or anything) that WoTC decided to use icons to represent key data because it was easier to quickly notice the information if you were scanning the stat block. I have no idea of it really works that way or not.
|
Oh, yeah! What's the deal with the goofy dice icons? (When monsters recharge powers)I was told (no direct quotes or anything) that WoTC decided to use icons to represent key data because it was easier to quickly notice the information if you were scanning the stat block. I have no idea of it really works that way or not.
Yes - differentiation helps tremendously when scanning a block of text. The icons do help to break up the block. It's good design at work.
|
Are you familiar with Necromancer's Advanced Player's Guide written by Ari Marmell. It will apparently be including a lot of elements that didn't make the initial cut and it may be what you need to bridge the gap.I didn't know about this -- I'll definitely check it out.
Thanks :)
Assuming the GSL even allows it. Considering hwo WotC has been dealing with 3rd party companies lately, that's a pretty big "if".
Assuming the GSL even allows it. Considering hwo WotC has been dealing with 3rd party companies lately, that's a pretty big "if".
Yeah, that continues to worry me. Management doesn't seem to be paying attention to a lot of things that most consider important:
- We'll get that GSL out to you 3rd party publishers soon... or late... or sometime.
- Yeah, we're blowing off GenCon... or not.
- Yeah, DDI is the greatest thing since sliced bread... not that we've decided what's in it yet...
- ...nor are we in a hurry -- deadlines are for loser companies, not the industry leader.
<sigh>
4th Edition Monster Manual, pg 278: Hobgoblin Racial Traits...
|
For instance, if you wanted to play a hobgoblin wizard on 3.5E, the talk with your DM would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay... uh.. why?
Player: Well, no particular reason.
DM: But... do you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes.
DM: And... you know that you won't have 3rd-level spells because of this level adjustment?
Player: Yeah, I don't care.
DM: Alright. But don't complain later.
Player: I won't.
DM: ... Hey, look, I will warn you that this is a serious campaign with a very well prepared plot. No comic relief characters, please?
Player: But it's not a comic relief character.
DM: Then, why do you want to play a hobgoblin wizard?
Player: I dunno... maybe because I like hobgoblins and wizards?
DM: Okay, enough of it.And on 4E would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay.
I completely disagree that a change in Edition would change that conversation that much.
How does 4th edition make a hobgoblin wizard any less a comic relief character than 3rd edition? Is it because 3rd edition DMs are jerks and 4th edition DMs are permissive?
What exactly are you trying to say here, and could you say it without totally misrepresenting a 3rd Edition DM next time?
Edit: For the record, I haven't ever given a player a hastle about playing a level adjusted character race in 3rd edition if they were starting at an appropriate level.
For instance, if you wanted to play a hobgoblin wizard on 3.5E, the talk with your DM would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay... uh.. why?
Player: Well, no particular reason.
DM: But... do you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes.
DM: And... you know that you won't have 3rd-level spells because of this level adjustment?
Player: Yeah, I don't care.
DM: Alright. But don't complain later.
Player: I won't.
DM: ... Hey, look, I will warn you that this is a serious campaign with a very well prepared plot. No comic relief characters, please?
Player: But it's not a comic relief character.
DM: Then, why do you want to play a hobgoblin wizard?
Player: I dunno... maybe because I like hobgoblins and wizards?
DM: Okay, enough of it.And on 4E would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay.
What are you saying...? That's completely to the players (including DM) if they like unusual characters, how much freedom the DM allows, etc... anyway, if one of my players wanted to play a Hobgoblin Wizard I would've stopped at:
"DM: ... you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?Player: Yes."
And just because some people forget about this stuff.. otherwise would be just like your 4th ed talk.
Anyway, here's my view on this conversation.
3.5
---
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Interesting, that's different, but sure, if you want. Just remember you'll have a +1 level adjustment, is that Ok?
Player: Oh yeah, Ok, no problem.
DM: Go ahead then.
.
.
4.0
---
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Ok, here's your character:
Hobgoblin Warcaster
Level 3 Controller (Leader)
Medium natural humanoid XP 150
Initiative +5 Senses Perception +4; low-light vision
HP 46; Bloodied 23
AC 17; Fortitude 13, Refl ex 15, Will 14
Speed 6
m Quarterstaff (standard; at-will) ✦ Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 1d8 + 1 damage.
M Shock Staff (standard; recharge ⚃ ⚄ ⚅ ) ✦ Lightning, Weapon
Requires quarterstaff ; +8 vs. AC; 2d10 + 4 lightning damage, and
the target is dazed until the end of the hobgoblin warcaster’s
next turn.
R Force Lure (standard; recharge ⚄ ⚅ ) ✦ Force
Ranged 5; +7 vs. Fortitude; 2d6 + 4 force damage, and the target
slides 3 squares.
C Force Pulse (standard; recharge ⚅ ) ✦ Force
Close blast 5; +7 vs. Refl ex; 2d8 + 4 force damage, and the target
is pushed 1 square and knocked prone. Miss: Half damage, and
the target is neither pushed nor knocked prone.
Hobgoblin Resilience (immediate reaction, when the hobgoblin
warcaster suffers an effect that a save can end; encounter)
The hobgoblin warcaster rolls a saving throw against the eff ect.
Alignment Evil
Languages Common, Goblin
Skills Arcana +10, Athletics +4, History +12
Str 13 (+2) Dex 14 (+3) Wis 16 (+4)
Con 14 (+3) Int 19 (+5) Cha 13 (+2)
Equipment robes, quarterstaff
Hobgoblin Warcaster Tactics:
A hobgoblin warcaster uses force lure and force pulse to maneuver
enemies into the waiting steel of a line of soldiers, followed
by shock staff to daze them while within its allies’ reach
------
For instance, if you wanted to play a hobgoblin wizard on 3.5E, the talk with your DM would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay... uh.. why?
Player: Well, no particular reason.
DM: But... do you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes.
DM: And... you know that you won't have 3rd-level spells because of this level adjustment?
Player: Yeah, I don't care.
DM: Alright. But don't complain later.
Player: I won't.
DM: ... Hey, look, I will warn you that this is a serious campaign with a very well prepared plot. No comic relief characters, please?
Player: But it's not a comic relief character.
DM: Then, why do you want to play a hobgoblin wizard?
Player: I dunno... maybe because I like hobgoblins and wizards?
DM: Okay, enough of it.And on 4E would be like this:
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay.
What are you saying...? That's completely to the players (including DM) if they like unusual characters, how much freedom the DM allows, etc... anyway, if one of my players wanted to play a Hobgoblin Wizard I would've stopped at:
"DM: ... you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes."
And just because some people forget about this stuff.. otherwise would be just like your 4th ed talk.Anyway, here's my view on this conversation.
3.5
---
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Interesting, that's different, but sure, if you want. Just remember you'll have a +1 level adjustment, is that Ok?
Player: Oh yeah, Ok, no problem.
DM: Go ahead then..
.4.0
---Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Ok, here's your character:Hobgoblin Warcaster
Level 3 Controller (Leader)
Medium natural humanoid XP 150Initiative +5 Senses Perception +4; low-light vision
HP 46; Bloodied 23
AC 17; Fortitude 13, Refl ex 15, Will 14
Speed 6m Quarterstaff (standard; at-will) ✦ Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 1d8 + 1 damage.
M Shock Staff (standard; recharge...
You know hobgoblin is a playable race from the Monster Manual, right?
Hobgoblin
Ability Scores: +2 Constitution, +2 Charisma
Size: Medium
Speed: 6 squares
Vision: Low-light
Languages: Common, Goblin
Skill Bonuses: +2 Athletics, +2 History
Battle Ready: You gain a +2 bonus to initiative checks.
Hobgoblin Resilience: You can use hobgoblin resilience as an
encounter power.
Hobgoblin Resilience Hobgoblin Racial Power
And maybe you have the most benevolent DM in the world, and maybe the poster you replied to exaggerated a bit, but I've never seen anyone use a monster race in a serious campaign for said reasons of not making sense.
I cited the page for the hobgoblin as a race above, but I suppose we shouldnt let facts get in the way of ignorance or exaggeration.
I cited the page for the hobgoblin as a race above, but I suppose we shouldnt let facts get in the way of ignorance or exaggeration.
He was only mocking.
In the same vein, I think they've made a number of specific, deliberate decisions which more narrowly define the style of play in D&D. Furthermore, there is little or no support or enthusiasm for players that want to play outside the box now.
I doubt their intent was to discourage "outside the box" playstyles. Real estate in the core books is limited, and that space needs to be used for information that will be useful to the widest range of players. Variant rules and playstyles should be reserved for splatbooks.
|
|
And maybe you have the most benevolent DM in the world, and maybe the poster you replied to exaggerated a bit, but I've never seen anyone use a monster race in a serious campaign for said reasons of not making sense.
And how does 4th Edition, as he seems to have asserted, change that?
Honestly. I know 3rd edition fans are also creating false arguments.
This one just got me riled, because my experience has been the opposite. I only run "serious" campaigns, and I allow all sorts of LA races if the players want them, can create a cool background as to why they are "Adventurers" instead of "Monsters" and realize there will be serious role-playing challenges ahead.
The fact that 4th Edition allows some of these races to be played without LA, and in the process gimps the races in order to streamline them into "1st level" monsters, which was ALSO an option in 3rd via the Savage Species splatbook, hasn't changed any of the other issues involved with playing a "Monster". To pretend it is some kind of magic band-aid that makes it OK now is disingenuous.
And maybe you have the most benevolent DM in the world, and maybe the poster you replied to exaggerated a bit, but I've never seen anyone use a monster race in a serious campaign for said reasons of not making sense.And how does 4th Edition, as he seems to have asserted, change that?
Honestly. I know 3rd edition fans are also creating false arguments.
This one just got me riled, because my experience has been the opposite. I only run "serious" campaigns, and I allow all sorts of LA races if the players want them, can create a cool background as to why they are "Adventurers" instead of "Monsters" and realize there will be serious role-playing challenges ahead.
The fact that 4th Edition allows some of these races to be played without LA, and in the process gimps the races in order to streamline them into "1st level" monsters, which was ALSO an option in 3rd via the Savage Species splatbook, hasn't changed any of the other issues involved with playing a "Monster". To pretend it is some kind of magic band-aid that makes it OK now is disingenuous.
I think what posters are trying to get across is that you can now play any class with any race (playable race, yes) without being seriously gimped in your effectiveness.
In 3.5 many races were unsuitable for many classes, mostly caster classes who used the stat the race received a penalty to. Other races, because of LA and Racial HD simply "cost" too much levels to ever be particularly effective, although you were allowed to play them if you wanted.
In 4E you lose the ability to play any race, but those you can are relatively balanced and workable from any class.
Neither approach is absolutely better or worse, but they are different, with different strengths and weaknesses. 3.5 lets you do whatever you want, sometimes gimping you, sometimes being ok, and sometimes being crazily overpowered. 4E keeps you at the base line but restricts your options slightly to do so.
As time goes by 4E will undoubtedly add more races statted up to be PCs, however I doubt all of the races from 3E will make it, since 3E essentially let you play whatever you wanted (and damn the consequences!)
Cheers! :)
|
|
I think what posters are trying to get across is that you can now play any class with any race (playable race, yes) without being seriously gimped in your effectiveness.In 4E you lose the ability to play any race, but those you can are relatively balanced and workable from any class.
Except that, in 4th Edition (to a lesser degree than in 3rd perhaps) not having a racial bonus to the class' favored attributes is like having a penalty. Your character's effectiveness is assumed to have the +2 bumps included somewhere, and I'm not sure that there's any magic items that will help you regain the needed bump (as I haven't had an opportunity to look at magic items yet... rumor has it no nhancement bonuses to stats?)
You are balanced relative to any other race in the PHB. Which is one method of "balancing" monster races. But you're not really playing a Monster Race, you're playing a PC Race in Monster's clothing. Compare any of the Minotaurs to the Minotaur PC Race. Not really the same.
In 3.5 many races were unsuitable for many classes, mostly caster classes who used the stat the race received a penalty to. Other races, because of LA and Racial HD simply "cost" too much levels to ever be particularly effective, although you were allowed to play them if you wanted.
As time goes by 4E will undoubtedly add more races statted up to be PCs, however I doubt all of the races from 3E will make it, since 3E essentially let you play whatever you wanted (and damn the consequences!)
Cheers! :)
No doubt, and if this balancing method appeals to you, great! I don't doubt that there will be plenty of options for the 4E Player with a DM who allows "Monster" Races.
Which is win for those who love 4th.
Except that, in 4th Edition (to a lesser degree than in 3rd perhaps) not having a racial bonus to the class' favored attributes is like having a penalty. Your character's effectiveness is assumed to have the +2 bumps included somewhere, and I'm not sure that there's any magic items that will help you regain the needed bump (as I haven't had an opportunity to look at magic items yet... rumor has it no nhancement bonuses to stats?)
You are balanced relative to any other race in the PHB. Which is one method of "balancing" monster races. But you're not really playing a Monster Race, you're playing a PC Race in Monster's clothing. Compare any of the Minotaurs to the Minotaur PC Race. Not really the same.
Well, yes, some races are more suited to certain classes than others, but I would say there is a large difference between Fred having a +2 to his classes primary stat and me having a -2. As for the difference between a monster raced PC and NPC, I'd chalk that up to the different rules for PCs and NPCs. If those don't bother you, I don't think this will either. If you already dislike that dichotomy, well, I don't think you'd like that either (since it's just a continuation of that idea).
And yes, no stat enhancing spells/items in 4E, and ditto for stat reducing. Your stats change via leveling and that is pretty much that.
No doubt, and if this balancing method appeals to you, great! I don't doubt that there will be plenty of options for the 4E Player with a DM who allows "Monster" Races.Which is win for those who love 4th.
Yay I win! :)
Off-topic, on ENWorld when you quote a post, the quotes within that post are removed for you. Anyone know if there is a way to do so here? I like to take quotes from my own posts out of replies to my posts that I quote, but it can be time consuming, especially if my original post is broken up into smaller separate quotes. Uh, I hope that made sense.
Cheers! :)
I can't believe some people are bashing the art in 4E. The art in the PHB is hands down FAR better than in 3.5. There are a few stinkers, but not as many as in the 3.5 PHB. In my opinion.
4E is a lot of fun to play. I'm bummed Paizo isn't going to be supporting it.
I can't believe some people are bashing the art in 4E. The art in the PHB is hands down FAR better than in 3.5. There are a few stinkers, but not as many as in the 3.5 PHB. In my opinion.
4E is a lot of fun to play. I'm bummed Paizo isn't going to be supporting it.
Yeah it was a shock to me at first in previews but having the PHB in my hands it looks a lot better than the 3x version. I still think the dragonborn look dumb, the tieflings horns are a little unsubtle and some of the monsters have been 'chunkified' in strange ways but there is some sweet art in there.
As for the overall discussion, it's really hard to care. Nerds love to complain, film at 11.