I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D. Now 4E is so much more restrictive. Oddly enough, the Ritual Casting is freely open to ANYONE with the feat, which has a prerequisite an Int 5 Fighter can meet...
But several examples of restriction are:
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon path
I'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
Most of the groups I DMed multiclassed to get the sneak attack ability of the rogue, the weapon specialization of the fighter, the wisdom bonus to AC of the monk, the rage of the barbarian and so on. So dipping into one class will allow them to do the same.
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
In all 8 years of DMing, I've never seen a single player sundering a weapon, making a trip attack or disarming a monster. Only my monsters did so, and only when they had the appropriate feat.
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon path
Paragon path are the same as prestige class. And I'm pretty sure the list of Paragon Path will increase with each supplement.
- Zorg
4th Edition isnt more restrictive: its actually very much so more flexible than 3rd Edition. While at this point there is the technical loss of a few combat moves that were likely rarely--if ever--used, characters have many more actually functional AND useful options during combat.
There are plenty classes in 3E that all had set abilities and progressions. As I've said before, the barbarian and monk are culprits here, though I'm sure there are more. I would argue that even the ranger and paladin suffer from this somewhat, the key variations being your spell selection.
So far, all eight classes have the potential to be very much different depending simply upon your power choices. Some, like the ranger and rogue, are further differentiated by your character's focus: artful dodger or brutish thug? The ranger gets a lot more in the way of weapon selection, moreso than a few bonus feats.
Add to this additional customizing like implement specialties for wizards, paragon paths (or free multiclassing), and epic destinies for everyone and you are getting a lot for variety than what 3rd Edition could provide.
What I dont get is that you dont like 4E, yet you feel the need to pore through the books looking for what you and a minority determine are flaws, then feel the need to go out of your way here and complain about them.
What I dont get is that you dont like 4E, yet you feel the need to pore through the books looking for what you and a minority determine are flaws, then feel the need to go out of your way here and complain about them.
I find this kind of humorous. For someone who claims to be the biggest 4e hater, he certainly seems to have a particular obsession. Maybe it's love/hate. ;)
But it is an interesting topic - is 4e more or less flexible than 3e? Multiclassing certainly is less flexible and one cannot multiclass in the traditional sense. And you can only "multiclass" once, ever, in your whole career, and that multiclassing essentially replaces one's paragon path.
For me the verdict is still out. I'm not sure being less flexible is necessarily bad. If you're a fighter then you should be a fighter, not a fighter who detects traps, casts magic missile, and then heals his comrades. Interestingly, now that I think about it, a fighter could potentially do all those things in 4e (except maybe cast both magic missile and use some kind of heal power since that would require multiclassing more than once).
I think I'd have to create several characters to come to a solid opinion here - but my initial feeling is that character creation is a little more restrictive as far as the ability to use all three powers (martial, arcane, and divine) at once. That also limits the loopholes, which I think is a good thing.
Um, it's kind of hard to hate something when you don't know anything about it. Duh. Unless you WANT me to be as ignorant as some of the posters here? I do need to know what I am talking about and what I am comparing to, after all, or else all my efforts at debunking 4th Edition is moot.
|
What I dont get is that you dont like 4E, yet you feel the need to pore through the books looking for what you and a minority determine are flaws, then feel the need to go out of your way here and complain about them.I find this kind of humorous. For someone who claims to be the biggest 4e hater, he certainly seems to have a particular obsession. Maybe it's love/hate. ;)
You know, I can actually really sympathize with Razz on this (though the need to post every negative not so much). I haven't actually looked at the books yet but I'm almost 98.9 percent sure the 4.e game isn't for me.
But I want it to be for me. I've played Dungeons and Dragons for over 25 years. It's my game. I've owned almost every copy of the game ever published, I've played and enjoyed every incarnation of the game. I have a lot invested (emotionally, not just financially) in the brand Dungeons & Dragons. It depresses me that I like a system called Pathfinder better than a new system of D&D. But I still know that I will read almost every word of the new books and will likely break down and buy the PHB.
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D. Now 4E is so much more restrictive. Oddly enough, the Ritual Casting is freely open to ANYONE with the feat, which has a prerequisite an Int 5 Fighter can meet...
But several examples of restriction are:
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon pathI'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
If you're doing a complete reboot of the system, you'll have to expect that your options will be reduced, for a while at any rate.
In two years, let's see what the rules look like. I bet you that there'll be some power that allows you to do an overrun (for instance). And I'm sure that there'll eventually be just as many paragon paths/epic paths as there are prestige classes in 3.5.
I can think of a variety of valid criticisms to make about 4E, but lack of options is a pretty weak one.
Um, it's kind of hard to hate something when you don't know anything about it. Duh. Unless you WANT me to be as ignorant as some of the posters here? I do need to know what I am talking about and what I am comparing to, after all, or else all my efforts at debunking 4th Edition is moot.
Makes sense - but I'm not sure of your motivation for wanting to debunk 4e if you already know the game is not for you.
I normally stay out of this but, If razz does not know the system backward and forward all y'all would just say "You know nothing of the system,how can you say its bad if you haven't played/read the system".Now I know nothing but what I have seen posted but I do like to see both sides pro's and con's. Razz is gonna hate it that's a given. But at lest he is becoming informed and can helps shed light on just what he thinks is bad. I myself find that more helpful then"4e bad...smash 4e" just a thought.
Many of Razz's arguments were born from ignorance, and still suffer from it. His claim that 4th Edition is "so much more restrictive" is blatantly false, especially if you compare one PH to the other PH.
There is one more race than before, for starters. In addition, though it might appear to have less classes on the surface, there is so much more diversity once you actually check them out.
Compare the array of combat options (as not all class powers are combat oriented, and I'm not referring to rituals), and you have more stuff to consider during combat than you ever had in 3rd Edition. You lost trip? Big deal, there are plenty of other things to do that are more effective and reliable than trip anyhow. You want to sunder? Its there, its just not pretending to be available to everyone. Yeah, its built into more melee oriented classes, but then it was already built towards them before.
The wizard loses out on some spells, but everyone else gets more options (and the wizard gets more reliable ones, but also doesnt suffer from having to guess ahead of time whats going to be useful, either).
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D. Now 4E is so much more restrictive. Oddly enough, the Ritual Casting is freely open to ANYONE with the feat, which has a prerequisite an Int 5 Fighter can meet...
But several examples of restriction are:
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon pathI'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
Razz, I appreciate your passion. I think it's awesome quite honestly. But as one bloke who's sticking with 3.5 to another bloke who's sticking with 3.5, I implore you to let it go. The 4th Edition folks have got their game. They're going to play it despite the efforts you put forth to change their mind. I think your energy and passion would be better spent letting folks know, who don't want to switch, about Pathfinder.
Spread the good word about what Paizo's doing over here. If people want to look at 4th Edition, let them. If it suits their play style, they'll switch regardless of what negative bashing is put towards preventing them to switch. If it doesn't suit their play style then they won't. But please, for the sake of the community here on the boards, redirect your energy to a positive output. Let the 4th Edition folks have their threads, and start enjoying their game so all of us: you, me, Antioch, CWM, and every one else can get back to doing what we love to do and game.
4th Edition's out, and while we may not be switching buddy, many people are and there's not a damn thing we can do about it now. Let's keep 3.5 alive in a good way. Spread the word.
Thanks for hearing me out.
I agree that 4th Editions more restrictive. And it has the potential to be a good thing to fix the 'broken' multi-class system and munchkin builds. I think that is why WotC is doing it.
To illustrate the reduced flexibility. Try building a Wizard level 2/Ranger level 2/Rogue level 2/Ranger level 2/Fighter level 2 character in 4th Edition. In addition, 4th Edition does take away certain actions in combat that are currently open to all classes.
But they are working on a building a system that does allow a variety of different character builds. Just controlled builds. They seem to be allowing two per class at 1st level to start with. I am still learning the system, but after that I presume it your options grow with your level. I hope you don't have to wait for 11th level to branch off a bit. But I am also assuming it is controlled enough that you can not build 'something that is not intended.'
My analogy here is that 3.O is like the basic Legos I grew up with. They were all blocks. You can build anything, but sometimes it does not meet your imagination.
4.0 is the new Legos. You can buy some neat shaped 'blocks'. And the box set can make neat spaceships. Sure if you only have that one set it is hard to build a car. But when you start getting more sets, you can build some really neat stuff!
Time will tell if 4th Edition allows flexible builds that are still not broken. But I am still mad and think they could have made 4th Edition reasonably reverse compatible.
|
Many of Razz's arguments were born from ignorance, and still suffer from it. His claim that 4th Edition is "so much more restrictive" is blatantly false, especially if you compare one PH to the other PH.
Honestly, folks ... I don't know about you, but I was there when the 3ed ed PHB came out.
Almost everything you are bashing 3e about was lauded, praised and applauded when it came out. Such a progress it was. And I loved 2e, but I was rolled along the change.
You have the new game you enjoy, and I can understand that. I have played other games besides D&D (all previous editions) and all of them have their pro and cons.
Now, honestly, what can make you think today that 4e is perfect ? In a few years, 4.5, or 5e or whatever it is called will come out. And 4e will be bashed as the stupid grognard game.
The paradigms of 3e are largely built upon the collective experience of the previous editions, both in fluff and mechanics. That means I can access a 30+ years library of modules and rules supplement, and (maybe) with some effort use them all as if they were bright and shiny.
What makes you think, TODAY, that 4e will manage somehow to do better than all of this combined ? How will it endure better the passage of time ?
This is genuine question, I am curious about your opinion.
|
|
I agree that 4th Editions more restrictive. And it has the potential to be a good thing to fix the 'broken' multi-class system and munchkin builds. I think that is why WotC is doing it.
Hello Duncan,
I have been playing LG for some years, and at several points LG imposed more restrictions on the options the characters could take to avoid this.
Yet our own resident munchkin always kept finding loopholes, actually building broken PCs before we had even time to read the whole new ruleset.
Munchkin is apparently a state of art, and a way of life for some people. I don't think 4e is going to address that, even if the attempt deserves to be praised.
I can also see a worse case scenario : 4e succeeds, and these guys, who are not necessarily the worse contributors to the game, and to the fun around the table, siply pack and go play something else, leaving the hobby.
For all his defaults, my friend "Davidus munchkinus" as we have dubbed him, is a great guy, a good friend, and we would hate losing him around the table.
Honestly, folks ... I don't know about you, but I was there when the 3ed ed PHB came out.Almost everything you are bashing 3e about was lauded, praised and applauded when it came out. Such a progress it was. And I loved 2e, but I was rolled along the change.
You have the new game you enjoy, and I can understand that. I have played other games besides D&D (all previous editions) and all of them have their pro and cons.
Now, honestly, what can make you think today that 4e is perfect ? In a few years, 4.5, or 5e or whatever it is called will come out. And 4e will be bashed as the stupid grognard game.
The paradigms of 3e are largely built upon the collective experience of the previous editions, both in fluff and mechanics. That means I can access a 30+ years library of modules and rules supplement, and (maybe) with some effort use them all as if they were bright and shiny.
What makes you think, TODAY, that 4e will manage somehow to do better than all of this combined ? How will it endure better the passage of time ?
This is genuine question, I am curious about your opinion.
Your assumptions aint right.
4th is based on all the previous editions you happen to point out. And it certainly knows the plus and minus of each edition. It is heavily influenced by 3rd and uses a lot of its mechanics. It didn't change them rather than simplify them.
4th is not perfect. You would be naive to think like that. 4th is better from 3rd just like 5th will be better than 4th. This is evolution and it is a good thing.
One of the design and development previews more or less addresses this.
Fundamentally this comes down to play balance and the ability to put out more splat books for longer (that is to reduce the trend where splat book sales plummet later in the edition), which may or may not result in a longer lived edition.
The problem with an open system where everyone can more or less take everything is very quickly we enter into a play balance problem. An example of the problem is how badly play balanced adventures are. Essentially its impossible to play balance an adventure (unless you personally know the group) under 3.5 because different groups have wildly different power levels based around how much of a munchkin the various players are. We see this with the Dungeon APs like Age of Worms and Savage Tide. 45% of the people posting are complaining that the Adventure is way to hard and that its ruining the game, 45% of the players are complaining that its far too easy and their players are crushing it with ease and the last 10% are perfectly happy. This is probably the single greatest complaint with the adventures and likely the reason that a great many groups abandon them part way through.
Since WotC decided that play balance was going to be a key stone feature of the new edition they had to deal with the underly causes of highly variable play balance and at the core of that is the ability for any class to mix and match with nearly any other class or pick up nearly any feat. End result is that if I pitted two different groups of players against each both of 10th level and both with the same number of characters one group would utterly wipe the floor with the other because they had spent more time maximizing their characters.
The goal here is to get it so that one group of 10th level players is roughly on par with any other group of 10th level players and thus make creating a 10th level adventure more or less usable by any DM with a 10th level party. Here we also see the 'Make the DMs life easier' philosophy on display. The adventure your buying will not have to be completely reworked to match the power level of your personal set of players - it should work pretty darn well right out of the box. Very important if you want to sell more adventures as less DMs throw up their hands lamenting that 'every adventure is broken' resulting in many DMs just deciding to make their own, or in the case of time strapped DMs deciding to give up on playing because there simply is not enough time to extensively modify every adventure in their busy schedule. These are concepts near and dear to WotCs heart. How do you sell adventures to DMs that have given up on adventures and, worse yet, how do you sell splat books to DMs that have given up on playing?
Another aspect was the splat books. in 3.5 Splat books faced some significant issues with power level. Essentially one could add a new class but it became clear that you had to back load the classes - you could not put cool abilities near the front of the class otherwise you'd get a ton of players that just dipped into the class for these abilities. I noticed this myself when making a couple of campaign specific classes for my homebrew - I had to keep the good stuff away from at least the first three or four levels because otherwise I risked totally unbalancing my game. Again this is bad for splat book sales. If you make the Ninja Class the class should be chalk full of cool abilities - so that players that want to play Ninja's will be excited and run out and buy the book. But if the class is too good in a permissive system DMs will step in and start disallowing the books (bad for sales). On the other hand if you can't do lots of cool stuff until your fifth level then the class won't excite the players (again bad for sales).
Finally we get the same deal with feats. If one makes a feat in 3.5 one should really review every single class/feat/spell/etc. combo to insure that there is no mix that totally breaks the game, of course thats impossible so what we really get is a mixture of worthless feats that the designers are sure won't break anything and then a bunch of feats that turn out to be far to powerful once you figure out the combo WotC missed. Very few feats fall into the middle area of being good enough to take but not so good that its potentially unbalancing (in part because this is a moving target - some groups are bigger munchkins then others so whats 'good enough' varies from table to table).
The goal here is to skip the step were a feat or power has to be considered in light of every possible game combo and instead simply define from the beginning that this is a rogue power or a ranger power. Now the ability is play balanced for this class and since its difficult for the mage to get their hands on it there is no danger of the ability breaking the game. Better yet you can fix things 'after the fact' with abilities like this. Rangers woefully underpowered? Well make sure they get some good abilities in the next splat book to make them more comparable to fighters at the problematic level. Helps push sales of the book and if its done carefully makes DMs actually want the players to go get the new splat books instead of having it so the DM is concerned every time one comes out - essentially reposition the marketing of Splat Books as a 'medicine' for the DMs game instead of the way their widely viewed now as a potential 'toxin'.
Game balance concerns are significantly reduced and therefore splat book sales are protected. You are less likely to get DMs saying "I absolutely only allow Splat book X, Y, and Z in my game 'cause all the rest of them are busted. End result is that WotC can sell more splat books because they've alleviated DMs concerns about the books breaking the game. They also have an easier time selling the Splat books to the players since they can include a whole bunch of potent options for Rangers and Druids and don't have to nerf these abilities for fear that Fighters and Paladins will get their hands on them.
|
or else all my efforts at debunking 4th Edition is moot.
There is nothing to be debunked. 4e is a game. It has its own rules. You may like them or you may not. 4e is not a postulation or theory.
It's a game.
It's a game you don't like. It's a game you do not want anyone else to like.
But it is still just a game.
Many of Razz's arguments were born from ignorance, and still suffer from it. His claim that 4th Edition is "so much more restrictive" is blatantly false, especially if you compare one PH to the other PH.
Honestly, folks ... I don't know about you, but I was there when the 3ed ed PHB came out.
Almost everything you are bashing 3e about was lauded, praised and applauded when it came out. Such a progress it was. And I loved 2e, but I was rolled along the change.
You have the new game you enjoy, and I can understand that. I have played other games besides D&D (all previous editions) and all of them have their pro and cons.
Now, honestly, what can make you think today that 4e is perfect ? In a few years, 4.5, or 5e or whatever it is called will come out. And 4e will be bashed as the stupid grognard game.
The paradigms of 3e are largely built upon the collective experience of the previous editions, both in fluff and mechanics. That means I can access a 30+ years library of modules and rules supplement, and (maybe) with some effort use them all as if they were bright and shiny.
What makes you think, TODAY, that 4e will manage somehow to do better than all of this combined ? How will it endure better the passage of time ?
This is genuine question, I am curious about your opinion.
I'm not saying 4th Edition is perfect, I'm just saying its better. I'm also not bashing on anyone that plays, likes, or still plays 3rd Edition. Its was a fun game. I had fun playing it, otherwise I wouldnt have bothered with it for eight years.
The difference is that I'm not out there bashing anyone that still plays it. If/when 5th Edition comes out, I'm not going to turn around and start mocking people who play 4th Edition, and I'm not going to automatically like it, either. I was hesitant and a little worried when 4E was announced, but I'm glad Wizard was able to succeed and make it all around more accessible and fun. If you dont like it, fine. I dont see why some people who dont like it/hate it/revile it have to try and spread misinformation, misconceptions, or just in general gripe about the changes for no apparent reason except that they were changed.|
|
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D. Now 4E is so much more restrictive. Oddly enough, the Ritual Casting is freely open to ANYONE with the feat, which has a prerequisite an Int 5 Fighter can meet...
But several examples of restriction are:
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon pathI'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
Hey Razz! Great to hear from you again. It had been a few days, I was worried you had given up the good fight. Keep at it, buddy!
I would agree with you that the new edition is more "restrictive". That will bring more consistency to the game across the adventures and different groups. Other's have already pointed out the various reasons.
Interestingly enough, I believe that this will actually increase role playing in the game. By evening out the classes everyone can shine at different times and in different ways.
No more crazy-stupid "builds" that min/max to such a point they dominate the rest of the party. Everybody has one of those in their crowd. Gone is the Batman character "build" who can do most anything. Gone is the Batman wizard who has the swiss army knife of quick fixes and made other classes sometimes irrelevant.
I'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
Actually, harkening back to the days of 1st Edition is just fine. I liked it alot! :-)
One of the design and development previews more or less addresses this.
much good thought excised for shortness...
The goal here is to get it so that one group of 10th level players is roughly on par with any other group of 10th level players and thus make creating a 10th level adventure more or less usable by any DM with a 10th level party. Here we also see the 'Make the DMs life easier'...
QFT
I found that I couldn't allow any non-Wotc d20 material into my campaign due to how unbalanced most of it was. I easily can sink in 6-8 hours of prep time for every hour of play time. I enjoyed it, but it gets in the way of playing more often. If 4e cuts that DM prep time back, and I can still tell my stories, and my players still have fun, then 4e will be a success.
IMHO, 3.5e is fun. 4e is fun. Both are DnD.
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D.
Razz, I said it months ago that the anti 4th Edition people are just a vocal minority and that Paizo might be making a mistake with the Pathfinder RPG as opposed to embracing and moving on with 4E. They did it to appease people like you as they were afraid of losing business. They still may be hanging on to their core customer base, which is fine. But it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 4E.
Looking now (and thinking about all your inane posts), at the fact the the 4th Edition Core Rule Book gift set is the #3 best seller on Amazon and the #1 best seller on the Canadian Amazon, all I can do is smile.
|
|
QFTI found that I couldn't allow any non-Wotc d20 material into my campaign due to how unbalanced most of it was. I easily can sink in 6-8 hours of prep time for every hour of play time. I enjoyed it, but it gets in the way of playing more often. If 4e cuts that DM prep time back, and I can still tell my stories, and my players still have fun, then 4e will be a success.
IMHO, 3.5e is fun. 4e is fun. Both are DnD.
QFT right back at you! You've hit right on the head on multiple points here.
|
|
Having said that, I think the reason why some people have the feeling it is more restrictive is that the classes, at least for me, seem too similar. Everyone has the same number of powers, and no one is better than anyone else. It's like some sort of bizarre fantasy world political correctness.
I don't agree that "no one is better than anyone else". The role that each class fills has a unique gift that separates it from the others. A fighter can hold the line better than a rogue and a wizard can control the battlefield better than a warlock. Now that I have run the game for three different groups of characters it is becoming clear that 4e is really a team game. No one character can really carry the whole team like it did in 3e, so in that regard no one PC is "better" than another. I think that is a good thing.
Ignoring all other posts, because I am sure most of them were flaming me anyway since that's the norm here, I want to point out a few more restrictions in 4E that other editions ALLOWED:
---Craft, Profession, and Perform skills are gone... so if a player asks if his ranger can craft his own arrows, a DM has to say "Sorry, not until a sourcebook comes along that details this?" Then the PC has to how much time, how many, what about making silver arrows, arrows that fly farther, etc. etc. And I guess either everyone has NO skill at a profession or instrument or art form, or they're all EQUALLY good at doing all professions or art forms...that's so unrealistic and silly. "Hey, I can play the flute as good as YOU! Cool!"
---Though I mentioned prestige classes before, I would like to detail that multiclassing and prestige classing offered many more options and less restriction than the whole multiclass feat crap and paragon path junk. Paragon Paths are not equal to prestige classes. If that is true, one of my players asks if he can bring back his 3E character, fully fleshed in story, concept, and design, into 4E. He is a Ranger 11/Fighter 1/Shadowdancer 2/Tempest 5...same exact abilities and all.
Otherwise, it's a RESTRICTION. He can't Hide in Plain Sight, can't fast track, can't go through terrain unhindered, no animal companion, no spellcasting...shall I go on?
It's restrictive. Every Ranger/Beast Stalker paragon is the same as any other Ranger/Beast Stalker paragon. But a Ranger/Rogue/Foe Hunter or a Ranger/Fighter/Tempest or a Sorcerer/Ninja/Monk has much more options, personality, differences, and uniqueness than 4E characters, depending on rank build, feat choice, level choice etc.
---Though I mentioned prestige classes before, I would like to detail that multiclassing and prestige classing offered many more options and less restriction than the whole multiclass feat crap and paragon path junk. Paragon Paths are not equal to prestige classes. If that is true, one of my players asks if he can bring back his 3E character, fully fleshed in story, concept, and design, into 4E. He is a Ranger 11/Fighter 1/Shadowdancer 2/Tempest 5...same exact abilities and all.Otherwise, it's a RESTRICTION. He can't Hide in Plain Sight, can't fast track, can't go through terrain unhindered, no animal companion, no spellcasting...shall I go on?
It's restrictive. Every Ranger/Beast Stalker paragon is the same as any other Ranger/Beast Stalker paragon. But a Ranger/Rogue/Foe Hunter or a Ranger/Fighter/Tempest or a Sorcerer/Ninja/Monk has much more options, personality, differences, and uniqueness than 4E characters, depending on rank build, feat choice, level choice etc.
Beast Stalker, Foe Hunter, and Tempest weren't in the core rules. Also, Hide in Plain Sight wasn't in the core rules either. You had to wait until the Ninja class came along (and what kind of story excuse could you use to dip into ninja levels? That's a little awkward to justify.)
Back to one of your other points. Could you bring the exact same character from your 2nd edition game into 3rd edition with the exact same abilities? (and would you have wanted to?)
Could you bring the exact same character from your 2nd edition game into 3rd edition with the exact same abilities? (and would you have wanted to?)If that is true, one of my players asks if he can bring back his 3E character, fully fleshed in story, concept, and design, into 4E. He is a Ranger 11/Fighter 1/Shadowdancer 2/Tempest 5...same exact abilities and all.
Or for that matter can you bring a 4e character into 3e with the exact same abilities? No?! 3e is sooo restrictive!
I actually agree with Razz (but he wouldn't know it, since he's ignoring "all other posts") that 4e is somewhat more restrictive, but I think "creating the exact same character" as a criteria to evaluate restrictiveness is pointless.
|
|
Well, you must agree that in some way no one is better than anyone else, because you say so at the end of your post.
Yeah, but I am not sure you take my meaning. In football (the American variety) you could have an a solid squad where "no one is better than anyone else" but you would not put your wide receivers in the offensive line, just like you would want to avoid having your center returning a punt.
3e - especially at high level - felt like Ars Magica where the party was there to protect and serve the mage. Parties with monks in them seemed to always be looking out for him until at least 10th level, and fighters that ruled at lower levels found themselves as bit players around 12th.
I prefer games where all of the PCs matter throughout the life cycle of the game.
That does not mean that the spotlight will not fall on different PCs at different points throughout a campaign, but everyone should be able to contribute to the game most of the time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Also, Hide in Plain Sight wasn't in the core rules either. You had to wait until the Ninja class came along (and what kind of story excuse could you use to dip into ninja levels? That's a little awkward to justify.)
Wow, don't tell the 17th level ranger or 1st level shadowdancer that.
More seriously, I find this a strange paradox. it seems to me that I'm seeing arguements of the "3.x was broken because of all the splat books" and "You can't compare 3.x to 4.x because we don't have all the splat books." Which is it?
I'm waiting to pick up my own deadwood copy before really evaluating the OP's argument, but the following are pretty glaring:
While at this point there is the technical loss of a few combat moves that were likely rarely--if ever--used, characters have many more actually functional AND useful options during combat.
Demonstrably false. As evidence I point to the hundreds threads on character builds based on the Trip mechanic, culminating in the "machine gun tripper" type builds, posted on the old WoTC player development, class and charOp boards.
Also, Hide in Plain Sight wasn't in the core rules either.
In 3.0. It is core in 3.5.
More seriously, I find this a strange paradox. it seems to me that I'm seeing arguements of the "3.x was broken because of all the splat books" and "You can't compare 3.x to 4.x because we don't have all the splat books." Which is it?
ROFL
Iron Heroes is full of awesome! And fourth edition has not been shipped to me yet so i reserve judgement....i have tasted it, needs more Splat. Smurf
More seriously, I find this a strange paradox. it seems to me that I'm seeing arguements of the "3.x was broken because of all the splat books" and "You can't compare 3.x to 4.x because we don't have all the splat books." Which is it?
Both.
Significant issues cropped up in 3.X because of all the splat books AND you can't really compare 3.X with all the splat books to just the core rules of 4E.
But time will tell. If some powers are unbalanced (Sly Flourish comes to mind), then their won't really be as much of a choice. Even though Wizards has a ton of experience at balancing systems from Magic: The Gathering, we've seen from that game just how difficult it is to maintain balance in an exceptions-based game.So I agree with those who have said we may have to wait for a year or two and see how the game plays with splat books. Exception-based systems offer extraordinary flexibility, but they have the potential to become seriously unbalanced, as anyone who has played Magic can attest. If just a few choices are overpowered, then that isn't really much of a choice at all, but if the system maintains balance, then the number of choices in character builds and in combat will be amazing.
Yeah - this is a big concern of mine as well. I sure hope that WotC finds a pair and is willing to erratta obvously broken mechanics or change them in future splat books. In 3.5 they seemed to be willing to allow the most broken items/classes/feats/spells etc. to just remain in the edition. This is even more dangerous with an exception based system then with the system used in 3.5. On the upside its generally easier to fix becuase the components of an exception based system are so modular.
More seriously, I find this a strange paradox. it seems to me that I'm seeing arguements of the "3.x was broken because of all the splat books" and "You can't compare 3.x to 4.x because we don't have all the splat books." Which is it?
Like it or not, a steady stream of splatbooks is WotC's business model.
At any rate, all you can really compare at the moment is 3.x "core" vs. 4.0 "core". So far, 4.0 has more variety for fighters (and other non-spellcasters) and less variety for wizards (and other spellcasters). Whether the number of new choices will increase as fast as with 3.x, I don't know.
Ignoring all other posts, because I am sure most of them were flaming me anyway since that's the norm here...
Now see Razz, I didn't think my post was flaming. I can't speak for anybody else, but I know I've got the best intentions. I don't disagree with you. I'm not switching to 4th myself either. I'm gun ho... for pretty much all older editions at this point. But this is such a subjective thing man. yYou're not going to accomplish anything here. These folks have their game, and from what they say, they like it. You're working so hard on this when your enthusiasm and energy would be better spent finding tweaks with PFRPG, or coming up with and sharing some kick ass house rules for 3.5. I suppose you're going to ignore this, and that's really too bad. You can be an asset to the community here. I just wish you'd see that.
Um, it's kind of hard to hate something when you don't know anything about it. Duh.
You haven't had a problem with it the last half year or so. Duh.
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D.Razz, I said it months ago that the anti 4th Edition people are just a vocal minority and that Paizo might be making a mistake with the Pathfinder RPG as opposed to embracing and moving on with 4E. They did it to appease people like you as they were afraid of losing business. They still may be hanging on to their core customer base, which is fine. But it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 4E.
Looking now (and thinking about all your inane posts), at the fact the the 4th Edition Core Rule Book gift set is the #3 best seller on Amazon and the #1 best seller on the Canadian Amazon, all I can do is smile.
I have to disagree, sir (and lose the personal attacks as well). Of the dozen + gamers that I play with regularly in three campaigns, the only one I know who is switching AT ALL to 4.0 is doing so becuase he runs a game at a FLGS, and the owner asked him to (to keep bringing in the floor traffic). As it is, he doesn't really like the 4.0 rules, but will use them for that game.
As to the others, I know one of us pre-ordered the 4.0 rules, but has since been shouted down, as the rest of us rage from mildly to rabidly anti-4.0. I myself have seen the PDF's, and while they look nice, all seeing them has done is reinforce the idea that while 4.0 _maybe_ a good game, it is not for me, and really isn't even D&D. As one of my friends said, "They should have simply called it '4.0' and not D&D," or done something like the D&D / AD&D switch from when I was a kid.
In short, I know of three (mild) fence sitters leaning to 3.5 and eleven pro 3.5 people. No one is rabidly 4.0 around here.
I think a lot of people ordered the books simply to have them - even if they have no intent of switching to the game. Or perhaps they are on the fence and don't care, but want the books before deciding - or simply are preoderding them becuase they are collectors of anything labeled D&D (as I know some of us are).
However, that being said. Razz... I agree with the poster who said to let it go. I've seen the books, and I agree - they're not all that great, at least beyond the artwork (I won't discuss the system ;) ). Keep your blood pressure down and go play 3P. You'll be happier in the long run.
|
|
...Interestingly, now that I think about it, a fighter could potentially do all those things in 4e (except maybe cast both magic missile and use some kind of heal power since that would require multiclassing more than once).
Half-Elf Fighter with the Arcane Initiate feat: Grab Healing Word as a half-elf racial power and Magic missile as an arcane initiate: There you go, fighter who heals and casts magic missile. All at 1st level no less.
|
|
...Interestingly, now that I think about it, a fighter could potentially do all those things in 4e (except maybe cast both magic missile and use some kind of heal power since that would require multiclassing more than once).Half-Elf Fighter with the Arcane Initiate feat: Grab Healing Word as a half-elf racial power and Magic missile as an arcane initiate: There you go, fighter who heals and casts magic missile. All at 1st level no less.
True, but the healing word is once per day and the magic missile is once per encounter. So he can do it, but with a tremendous restriction.
...Interestingly, now that I think about it, a fighter could potentially do all those things in 4e (except maybe cast both magic missile and use some kind of heal power since that would require multiclassing more than once).Half-Elf Fighter with the Arcane Initiate feat: Grab Healing Word as a half-elf racial power and Magic missile as an arcane initiate: There you go, fighter who heals and casts magic missile. All at 1st level no less.
Yes, but then could he specialize in detecting traps at first level? He could at second level, by grabbing another feat.
I think there is a lot of tweaking power, but I'm not sure overall it has the same flexibility as 3e. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Rogue 1/Monk 1 never made a whole lot of sense.
I am a little turned off that a fighter is only a tank now. Gone are the days a fighter could specialize in ranged fighting, or two weapon fighting. They basically have a two handed weapon or a weapon and a shield. There's not a lot of room for deviation. One must become a ranger to specialize in the other types of combat.
I understand their reasoning - they are trying to emphasize roles in combat and the fighter is the classic Defender (i.e. tank). But not being able to create a powerful bow wielding fighter kind of jarred me a little bit. But I don't mind playing a Ranger.
I don't understand why they are going backwards with D&D. Now 4E is so much more restrictive. Oddly enough, the Ritual Casting is freely open to ANYONE with the feat, which has a prerequisite an Int 5 Fighter can meet...
But several examples of restriction are:
---You can't multiclass, you "class dip" and only ONE class
---You can't sunder
---You can't disarm or trip, they have to be "powers" so that pretty much leaves only fighters doing this
---You can't overrun
---No prestige classes, you're stuck with ONE paragon pathI'll list more as I find more, but I don't know what the hell was up with such "big talk" from WotC about being optimized when they seem to be harkening back to the days of 1st Edition with this.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but how about...
http://heresabunnywithapancakeonitshead.com/
Why is it more restrictive (and I agree that, for certain things, it is)? To more easily balance the gameplay. It makes the design a lot easier if you restrict certain options, restructure others, and otherwise make them very similar from character class to character class (as in same number of powers, defined amount of impact each level of power can achieve, etc).
That's why. The more open-ended you make everything, the complicated it is to design and referee.
Why is it more restrictive (and I agree that, for certain things, it is)? To more easily balance the gameplay. It makes the design a lot easier if you restrict certain options, restructure others, and otherwise make them very similar from character class to character class (as in same number of powers, defined amount of impact each level of power can achieve, etc).
That's why. The more open-ended you make everything, the complicated it is to design and referee.
I think that for having all of one book that its much more flexible than what you'd get if you just had the 3rd Edition PH to draw content from. I mean, I've already made two mechanically different dwarf fighters that both use axes, its easy to just keep applying new weapon types to them without even changing the race (which I can also do).