|
I purchased (against my better judgment and at a 40% discount) a 4e PHB today. I'm trying to decide whether to keep it as a curiosity or just take it back and exchange it for something I'll get more use out of.
First of all: 4e is not a bad game. It's slick, fast and pretty as hell. I can imagine it would be a great way to blow a few afternoons. I might play in a 4e game, but I'll never run one, because...
...unfortunately, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to 3.5, and can't even glint dimly around the PRPG alpha. One of the biggest joys of 3.5 for me is customizability. I can take five levels of any of the 11 core classes and make any number of different characters, and they will feel radically different. Pathfinder fosters this even more. 4e does not appear to make that possible. And then theres the loss of prestige classes. I know PrCs aren't everybody's thing, but I love 'em, and not only are they gone, there's no way to get them back. Leveling is handled SO differently in 4e, that there's no way you'd pull it off. I think, however, the biggest loss is the spells. Whether you like vancian spellcasting or something more like Midnight or GURPS, it won't matter. The spellcasting in 4e is so different as to be unrecognizable. And that's too bad, in a way. I could go on, but I'll leave it at this:
I (genuinely!) look forward to the 4e computer games, but for tabletop, I am sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder.
Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.
|
Just got back from the UK launch event for the 4th edition at the London Dungeon. First time we have played 4th ed. General opinions from my group are that it was fun but feels like a different game from other editions. Seemed to be well suited to one off games at events. Didn't feel like there was much to hook roleplaying on in some ways but seems to be a slick, balanced system. Better and more fun than I thought it would be but we'll definitely be sticking with Pathfinder for roleplaying campaigns.
|
|
Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.
So am I, but far less sorry than I'd be if not for Pathfinder. One quick note, though: best layout & design, ever. By putting all of the powers into little color-coded mini-tables, they made finding important stuff really easy. That's a lesson every other major RPG manufacturer should learn, and quickly.
Yep... spent the past couple of days reading over 4th, and even was part of a small game.
It was what I thought it was, with some things I didn't even think of tossed in. Solid game for some, and certainly not for me.
Back to the pathfinder boards it is!
|
OK I looked at "it" today...
L.A.M.E.
It's utterly insipid...As someone else mentioned, you basically have to use the monsters from the MM as is...to build your puzzle of doom for your players...
First thing I noticed...alignments...WHAT??? if you're going to break it down to less alignments, why stop at removing LG, LN, CN and LE...why not just make it G, N, or E...
Ugh I can't even talk about it...sorry it's like a Basic-advanced-3e hybrid...
I don't like "it"
Oh and another thing....
THEY REUSED ARTWORK from previous editions!!!!!!! What THE !!!!?
|
With 3.5, I can play a fine-sized character with perfect flight and greater invisibility right from the start. When I can do that or something better with 4e, I'll consider it. For now, I'm sticking with 3.5 (while keeping an eye on Pathfinder material).
... Your DM ought to have his books taken away.
Hey, if Jason happens to read this, consider it as one vote for "no munchkin fine-sized characters with perfect flight and greater invisibility" in PFRPG.
Pete
|
|
I purchased (against my better judgment and at a 40% discount) a 4e PHB today. I'm trying to decide whether to keep it as a curiosity or just take it back and exchange it for something I'll get more use out of.
I hear it does a great job holding doors open.
First of all: 4e is not a bad game. It's slick, fast and pretty as hell. I can imagine it would be a great way to blow a few afternoons. I might play in a 4e game, but I'll never run one, because...
And you know, that's interesting as I feel the opposite. With many of my friends (and family) that I play with, I'm the "game geek". I love reading rulebooks. Most of them don't pour over the 3.5 PHB between sessions. And they don't want to. (I know!? What is wrong with them?) They're tired of my always correcting them on all the varied rules. So many of them are really actually excited about playing in a more streamlined game and being able to "blow a few afternoons".
So I *am* looking forward to running it because it is something more approachable for the non-geekified-gamer.
...unfortunately, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to 3.5, and can't even glint dimly around the PRPG alpha. One of the biggest joys of 3.5 for me is customizability. I can take five levels of any of the 11 core classes and make any number of different characters, and they will feel radically different. Pathfinder fosters this even more. 4e does not appear to make that possible. And then theres the loss of prestige classes. I know PrCs aren't everybody's thing, but I love 'em, and not only are they gone, there's no way to get them back. Leveling is handled SO differently in 4e, that there's no way you'd pull it off. I think, however, the biggest loss is the spells. Whether you like vancian spellcasting or something more like Midnight or GURPS, it won't matter. The spellcasting in 4e is so different as to be unrecognizable. And that's too bad, in a way. I could go on, but I'll leave it at this:
Right, so, here I have to disagree. You're comparing 3E and 4E in areas that I actually see differently than you. "I can take five levels of any of the 11 core classes and make any number of different characters". I hate the "I'll take one of everything, chef!" character "build". I think it's a major bug "hole" in the 3E rules that too many people exploit. Same thing with PrC's - most of the PrC's are so powerful no one in their right mind sticks with the base character classes after 5th level or so. I think that's a shame.
As far as spells go - simplification was necessary to streamline the game. I'm struggling a bit with it myself to be honest. I think they went a bit too far with it. But it needed to get pulled back in a bit so the "batman" wizards didn't keep showing everyone else up.
I (genuinely!) look forward to the 4e computer games, but for tabletop, I am sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder.
After looking through the books a bit, you're spot on with the computer game comment. This is obviously going to be the easiest version yet to translate onto the small screen. Consoles especially. Does anyone know who has the rights to those?
And as for sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder, good for you! Looking at the new rules and how different they are, it's great that folks have something to stick with going forward. Choice is good!
With 3.5, I can play a fine-sized character with perfect flight and greater invisibility right from the start. When I can do that or something better with 4e, I'll consider it. For now, I'm sticking with 3.5 (while keeping an eye on Pathfinder material).
[threadjack]
What is this even in reference too? the closest I can find is the pixie, which is a +4 (potentially +6) LA race. This only seems to make sense if one does not equate "right from the start" with level 1.[/threadjack]
Hmm, I allowed one of my players to use a tiny-sized Pixie Warmage. They've had greater invisibility and perfect flight maneuverability from the start (party started at 6th level, not 1st) but then they also had a +4 Level Adjustment to go with it. The pixie really doesn't outshine the other characters and the other players think it's a cool character.
It's a game, everyone is having fun, there's no problem.
|
|
[threadjack]
What is this even in reference too? the closest I can find is the pixie, which is a +4 (potentially +6) LA race. This only seems to make sense if one does not equate "right from the start" with level 1.
[/threadjack]
It's a +5 LA race I created based off the +4 LA pixie.
Hmm, I allowed one of my players to use a tiny-sized Pixie Warmage. They've had greater invisibility and perfect flight maneuverability from the start (party started at 6th level, not 1st) but then they also had a +4 Level Adjustment to go with it. The pixie really doesn't outshine the other characters and the other players think it's a cool character.
It's a game, everyone is having fun, there's no problem.
I agree Laithoron. I didn't get all that for free as the race is very fragile due to the LA. But like you said, I enjoy playing that type of character, so I take the risk.
|
Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.So am I, but far less sorry than I'd be if not for Pathfinder. One quick note, though: best layout & design, ever. By putting all of the powers into little color-coded mini-tables, they made finding important stuff really easy. That's a lesson every other major RPG manufacturer should learn, and quickly.
That's just what I said some days ago. Did you read my mind?
|
|
Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.Enjoy 3.x/PfRPG! Heck, just enjoy gaming!
Good News! I finished reading all 3 4E books yesterday and last night and did not find one rule that says you can't keep playing 3rd edition and PFRPG too! Yaaaaa! Whew! :-)
|
|
I finally got to look at all 3 core books yesterday and I have to admit they are gorgeous. Looking at the game system it isn't nearly as linear and single minded as I thought it would be and the rules for gameplay were VERY easy to figure out.
I think that 4e looks like it will be a very fun game. That said, it wasn't enough to change my mind about sticking with PFRPG. 4e is a great product, but in my opinion PFRPG is better. I will be curious to see what products they put out in the coming years to support 4e. The core books were very information dense, so it is apparent they had to leave some things out simply because of space considerations. I will be curious to see how the support and splat books look as they start to come out.
|
|
Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.Enjoy 3.x/PfRPG! Heck, just enjoy gaming!
Good News! I finished reading all 3 4E books yesterday and last night and did not find one rule that says you can't keep playing 3rd edition and PFRPG too! Yaaaaa! Whew! :-)
You missed it. It's on page 97 of the DM's guide. Buried in the fine print. ;-)
|
|
I finally got to look at all 3 core books yesterday and I have to admit they are gorgeous. Looking at the game system it isn't nearly as linear and single minded as I thought it would be and the rules for gameplay were VERY easy to figure out.
I think that 4e looks like it will be a very fun game. That said, it wasn't enough to change my mind about sticking with PFRPG. 4e is a great product, but in my opinion PFRPG is better. I will be curious to see what products they put out in the coming years to support 4e. The core books were very information dense, so it is apparent they had to leave some things out simply because of space considerations. I will be curious to see how the support and splat books look as they start to come out.
QFT. I agree with you here. How the splat books add on to the 4E core rules will make or break their design goal to control the feature creep (creature feep?). If there's eventually a "book of nine swords" type of book for 4E that makes wholesale changes in the mechanic then they've failed in their design goal to streamline the gameplay.
" 4e is a great product, but in my opinion PFRPG is better. " I appreciate that opinion and agree with it. PFRPG is better *for what it is*. 4E is better *for what it is*. It's pretty clear now after reading PFRPG backwards and forwards and the new 4E books once that the design goals of each are radically different. It's like comparing apples and oranges now. (Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange)
Only skimmed the 4e books in the shop, but have been looking at information as it was released at Wizards.
Also been checking out reviews and actual play podcasts of 4e.
I know it's early days and people are still learning the rules, but someone was reviewing H1 Keep on the Shadowfell on Amazon.co.uk and made a comment that was frightening....
Combat lasting 5-6 hours.... in a 1st to 3rd level adventure!!!!
That does not sound like a fast moving system to me.
Sounds more like Rolemaster.
The longest fights should be around an hour and they should just be 'boss encounters'. Fights with 'minions' and low level monsters are 15-30 minute fights at most.
But then I guess I'm not the WOTC target audience!
I played the quick start play test the other weekend.
I found it easy to pick up and entertaining, the way powers work was great and I loved the second wind options. If only my only criticism would be that it felt like a computer game, not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing?
As it is, as I am the DM normally, I am going to stick with the pathfinder adventure path for as long as my players enjoy the adventures and I enjoy reading the modules.
|
|
Right, so, here I have to disagree. You're comparing 3E and 4E in areas that I actually see differently than you. "I can take five levels of any of the 11 core classes and make any number of different characters". I hate the "I'll take one of everything, chef!" character "build". I think it's a major bug "hole" in the 3E rules that too many people exploit. Same thing with PrC's - most of the PrC's are so powerful no one in their right mind sticks with the base character classes after 5th level or so. I think that's a shame.
You misunderstood me. I can take five levels of fighter five times and make five completely different characters.
Five levels of fighter in Pathfinder could mean:
An archer
A two-handed swordsman
A two-weapon fighter
A sword & boarder
A spiked chain wielder
An unarmed brawler
A highly-mobile skirmisher
A generalist warrior who has a smattering of all of the above
Five levels of rogue in Pathfinder could mean:
An assassin
A thief
An investigator
A street fighter
A military scout
Five levels of Cleric could mean:
A healer
An inquisitor
A summoner
Five levels of wizard could mean:
A specialist wizard of any type
A battle mage
A scholar
And so on. Much of this is lost in 4e.
|
|
That's just what I said some days ago. Did you read my mind?Sorry it didn't work for you. I've read it myself and I can see why many don't like it even if I happen to. It's quite different than past editions.So am I, but far less sorry than I'd be if not for Pathfinder. One quick note, though: best layout & design, ever. By putting all of the powers into little color-coded mini-tables, they made finding important stuff really easy. That's a lesson every other major RPG manufacturer should learn, and quickly.
Nope. Heck, until now I didn't even read your post. But we're right, WotC has some kick-ass layout & design people. ;)
|
|
I know PrCs aren't everybody's thing, but I love 'em, and not only are they gone, there's no way to get them back. Leveling is handled SO differently in 4e, that there's no way you'd pull it off. I think, however, the biggest loss is the spells.Paragon Paths are prestige classes.
No, not really. I can see the parallels, but it's not the same.
I did not care for the layout really...
|
|
No, not really. I can see the parallels, but it's not the same.I know PrCs aren't everybody's thing, but I love 'em, and not only are they gone, there's no way to get them back. Leveling is handled SO differently in 4e, that there's no way you'd pull it off. I think, however, the biggest loss is the spells.Paragon Paths are prestige classes.
Nor are prestige classes the same as Kits and many AD&D veterans prefer kits over prestige classes... because most prestige classes are garbage.
From what I've seen thus far, Paragon Paths are far superior to prestige classes. It's the one class system I don't really care for.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I purchased (against my better judgment and at a 40% discount) a 4e PHB today. I'm trying to decide whether to keep it as a curiosity or just take it back and exchange it for something I'll get more use out of.
First of all: 4e is not a bad game. It's slick, fast and pretty as hell. I can imagine it would be a great way to blow a few afternoons. I might play in a 4e game, but I'll never run one, because...
...unfortunately, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to 3.5, and can't even glint dimly around the PRPG alpha.
I (genuinely!) look forward to the 4e computer games, but for tabletop, I am sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder.
Well after Worldwide D&D Day and my first taste of 4e...
I'm not as unimpressed as I was, but still not fully convinced it's any better than 3.5/PFRPG, just different. It actally plays quite well and was moderately easy to get a hold of in the couple of hours of play. (As an observation, we had quite a bit of our DM on the day saying "sure you can do that" and making up a rule because it wasn't covered in the rules given. Mildly annoying).
My favourite part of the game is character creation, which unfortunately wasn't really addressed at WWD&DD, so the Jury is still out on that one.
I had fun playing it and can see where it would run faster than a 3.5 game. My DM, who was staunchly "I won't be converting to 4e" even bought the books and is considering converting our game to 4e (much to my disappointment, I have been looking forward to starting PFRPG in August with the release of Beta).
|
|
You misunderstood me. I can take five levels of fighter five times and make five completely different characters.
I did misunderstand you. You're quite right. Certainly if I wanted that flexibility I know where to look. It is nice to have that when you want it.
But are all of the 3E fighters as effective? Not really. You can build a pretty crappy fighter in 3E. If a newbie builds a 5th level fighter and a min-maxer builds a 5th level fighter you'd come out with very, very different results.
Reviewing the options available for the fighters in the 4E PHB I could build 5 different types of fighters. With Race and Feats and the level 1,2,3 and 5 Exploits that highlight different types of fighting styles there are a number different types of bonuses and effects possible.
But are the 4E fighter possibilities as broad in style as the ones you list? Oh Gosh No! Not even close. I'm with you on this. They've traded flexibility for consistency. It's defintely a design trade-off.
|
|
I purchased (against my better judgment and at a 40% discount) a 4e PHB today. I'm trying to decide whether to keep it as a curiosity or just take it back and exchange it for something I'll get more use out of.
First of all: 4e is not a bad game. It's slick, fast and pretty as hell. I can imagine it would be a great way to blow a few afternoons. I might play in a 4e game, but I'll never run one, because...
...unfortunately, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to 3.5, and can't even glint dimly around the PRPG alpha.
I (genuinely!) look forward to the 4e computer games, but for tabletop, I am sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder.
Well after Worldwide D&D Day and my first taste of 4e...
I'm not as unimpressed as I was, but still not fully convinced it's any better than 3.5/PFRPG, just different. It actally plays quite well and was moderately easy to get a hold of in the couple of hours of play. (As an observation, we had quite a bit of our DM on the day saying "sure you can do that" and making up a rule because it wasn't covered in the rules given. Mildly annoying).
My favourite part of the game is character creation, which unfortunately wasn't really addressed at WWD&DD, so the Jury is still out on that one.
I had fun playing it and can see where it would run faster than a 3.5 game. My DM, who was staunchly "I won't be converting to 4e" even bought the books and is considering converting our game to 4e (much to my disappointment, I have been looking forward to starting PFRPG in August with the release of Beta).
Why not GM yourself and run that Pathfinder game in August, then? GMs aren't born, they're made. Pretty much any gamer can GM if they're sufficiently motivated, particularly if you're using pre-made adventures. In fact, if you're still having cold feet, try listening to a few episodes of The Sons of Kryson and see if that doesn't help things. I'd also recommend Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, and the Advanced Gamemaster's Guide. The DMG is useful, but less so than you'd think (mostly you just need it for the rules it contains; ditto the DMG II. You certainly don't have to go the route I did and make up a whole plotline and setting for your first time behind the screen, not with Rise of the Runelords available.
|
|
You misunderstood me. I can take five levels of fighter five times and make five completely different characters.
I did misunderstand you. You're quite right. Certainly if I wanted that flexibility I know where to look. It is nice to have that when you want it.
But are all of the 3E fighters as effective? Not really. You can build a pretty crappy fighter in 3E. If a newbie builds a 5th level fighter and a min-maxer builds a 5th level fighter you'd come out with very, very different results.
Reviewing the options available for the fighters in the 4E PHB I could build 5 different types of fighters. With Race and Feats and the level 1,2,3 and 5 Exploits that highlight different types of fighting styles there are a number different types of bonuses and effects possible.
But are the 4E fighter possibilities as broad in style as the ones you list? Oh Gosh No! Not even close. I'm with you on this. They've traded flexibility for consistency. It's defintely a design trade-off.
I forget which Paizo staffer it was who said so (I think it was Eric Mona or James Jacobs, but I could be wrong) but 4e may actually be a nice gateway and training tool for PRPG. Because you're right, it is very consistent. But it's also very homogeneous. 4e is very much a beginners game, PRPG is definitely not.
|
|
I forget which Paizo staffer it was who said so (I think it was Eric Mona or James Jacobs, but I could be wrong) but 4e may actually be a nice gateway and training tool for PRPG. Because you're right, it is very consistent. But it's also very homogeneous. 4e is very much a beginners game, PRPG is definitely not.
But are the 4E fighter possibilities as broad in style as the ones you list? Oh Gosh No! Not even close. I'm with you on this. They've traded flexibility for consistency. It's defintely a design trade-off.
Yes, the Paizo folks are absolutely correct. Not only is it beginner friendly but it's also good if you have a mixed crowd of beginners and experienced folk. Levels the playing field a bit.
Btw, as far as the fighter example, I realized the upcoming martial splat book might open things up a bit more as well. I had forgotten about that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Why not GM yourself and run that Pathfinder game in August, then? GMs aren't born, they're made. Pretty much any gamer can GM if they're sufficiently motivated, particularly if you're using pre-made adventures. In fact, if you're still having cold feet, try listening to a few episodes of The Sons of Kryson and see if that doesn't help things. I'd also recommend...
I gave up DMing looong ago, back in my 2e days. I don't know all of the ins and outs of 3.5/PFRPG rules that I should to DM and to be quite honest I much prefer making and playing flavourful characters (like everyone, I have a bit of Powergamer in me, but much prefer the flavour, as evidenced by the fact that I am now onto my 3rd character by the time our party reached 3rd level). One of my other friends was meant to be DMing the PFRPG sessions using my books, but with the increased survivability of characters now our game could go on forever if we convert to 4e.
I went to my LGS (NYC) today and perused through the Core Books with one of my players.
After that I went further into the store and picked up the three Pathfinder modules that I was missing, the Harrow deck, 2 Goodman modules, and a new set of dice.
I brought more than enough money to pick up the core books too (im an impulsive shopper), but I decided not to waste the money even out of curiousity.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
" 4e is a great product, but in my opinion PFRPG is better. " I appreciate that opinion and agree with it. PFRPG is better *for what it is*. 4E is better *for what it is*. It's pretty clear now after reading PFRPG backwards and forwards and the new 4E books once that the design goals of each are radically different. It's like comparing apples and oranges now. (Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange)
Geez, Pete, how dare you sum up everything I was thinking in all of your posts! It's a good thing we play together, or I'd....well, I'd have to find you so we could play together. ;-)
I originally posted here briefing everyone on my time at the D&D Game Day HQ in Seattle...but I'll be moving that post to the 4e threads, as this is a Pathfinder thread, and posting "I like 4e" anywhere seems to irritate most people on the boards and results in threadjacks that border on outright rudeness...
Bottom line: I had fun playing 4e!
No, I'll not be giving up 3.5. I will be playing Pathfinder as much as possible, too, as I fully support Paizo. AND, I will be enjoying me some 4e flavor as well. You know, it's just a good time to be a gamer...
|
|
Did anyone else feel that there was a lot of white space and the type set used was large in the 4e PHB? It seemed kinda sparse to me.
Then again, I'm used to HERO products which are a lot of text, and thick, Paizo, who all put lots of info into their tomes, and BI, where the Dark Heresy books have been exemplary, IMO.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Did anyone else feel that there was a lot of white space and the type set used was large in the 4e PHB? It seemed kinda sparse to me.
Then again, I'm used to HERO products which are a lot of text, and thick, Paizo, who all put lots of info into their tomes, and BI, where the Dark Heresy books have been exemplary, IMO.
I have to admit, it feels that way to me too. On the other hand, a lot of people have been praising the layout and readability - not all of the market loves dense text and small margins :)
I gave up DMing looong ago, back in my 2e days. I don't know all of the ins and outs of 3.5/PFRPG rules that I should to DM and to be quite honest I much prefer making and playing flavourful characters
You know, I used to be 75% player, 25% DM at heart. Now I'm running Pathfinder adventure paths and enjoy it thoroughly.
Try it! Maybe get one of the GameMastery modules (I think there's one you can get for free as PDF) and try it out.
Wouldn't surprise me if you started running all the APs shortly after.
Btw, as far as the fighter example, I realized the upcoming martial splat book might open things up a bit more as well. I had forgotten about that.
I prefer a game where you don't have to buy an extra book for basic character concepts.
|
|
I prefer a game where you don't have to buy an extra book for basic character concepts.
Well, since I've seen enough of your posts to know you don't like 4E just on general principle, I realize you're just being you, but anyway... I'll bite. I've been up all night on pager so I'm punchy anyway. :-)
Timespike mentioned the following:
Five levels of fighter in Pathfinder could mean:
An archer
A two-handed swordsman
A two-weapon fighter
A sword & boarder
A spiked chain wielder
An unarmed brawler
A highly-mobile skirmisher
A generalist warrior who has a smattering of all of the above
All good examples. Of those, most of these are "basic character concepts" that you could do with 4E as so:
An archer (ranger)
A two-handed swordsman (fighter)
A two-weapon fighter (ranger)
A sword & boarder (fighter)
A highly-mobile skirmisher (ranger or rogue)
A generalist warrior who has a smattering of all of the above (fighter)
So of the "basic" ones mentioned, the spiked chain wielder and unarmed brawler aren't there. One could argue that both of these are a bit more specialized than a "basic" fighter, especially in the context of the new ruleset.
Now, I know, you're going to say "Oh-ho! I've caught you! You may think that 4E two-weapon fighter is so-and-so but it doesn't do <BLAH-BLAH> that I can do in 3E and only does some measily worthless <BLAH-BLAH> thing now in 4E! And I much prefer the way 3E does it!"
Yep! The rules are streamlined. That's a design trade-off. You like 3E then play it. I know I will when I want that. Or actually, I'll play PFRPG. :-)
|
Well, since I've seen enough of your posts to know you don't like 4E just on general principle, I realize you're just being you, but anyway... I'll bite. I've been up all night on pager so I'm punchy anyway. :-)
<snipped for length>
An archer (ranger)
A two-handed swordsman (fighter)
A two-weapon fighter (ranger)
A sword & boarder (fighter)
A highly-mobile skirmisher (ranger or rogue)
A generalist warrior who has a smattering of all of the above (fighter)So of the "basic" ones mentioned, the spiked chain wielder and unarmed brawler aren't there. One could argue that both of these are a bit more specialized than a "basic" fighter, especially in the context of the new ruleset.
<more snipped for length>
Conversely, one could say that you seem to be a huge 4E fanboy on general principal; I'd keep the finger pointing to a minimum, it doesn't get anybody anywhere. The real issue at hand, and the problem I have, is your response missed his point entirely.
KaeYoss was saying that when making a "fighter" he could make a ton of different options with different flavors using just the fighter class. The very design of 3.x allows players ultimate customization, and is designed to permit "specialization" to any degree the player can imagine. That's one of the beautiful things about the system. Some of us don't like to be shoved into a spot and told "this is the way you will play your class" or "you are a striker/controller/<fill in the blank>" (which may explain why I do so poorly in MMOs).
You responded that they're all available as character basic classes; however, of the list you made, only three are actually fighters, the rest are ranger or rogues. Two you admitted can't be done in 4E due to rules constraints. There's a pretty significant difference between a fighter archer and a ranger archer, or a fighter skirmisher and a rogue skirmisher, or a chain fighter vs. one that simply cannot exist. The end result may appear similar, but their abilities, history (this one is significant for role-playing), and the way you actually play them will be different. My problem (and I believe the problem KaeYoss was trying to demonstrate) is that 4E pigeonholes players into a single role and forces somebody to play a ranger if they want to be an archer, or a rogue/ranger if they want to be a skirmisher. Gone are the days where the sky's the limit on concept. If I want to be a street-thug who was recruited into the military and the DM is willing to entertain the idea, it's going to be a lot more flexible to do so in 3.x. Hell one of the most fun characters in any campaign I've run is when we first switched to 3.0 and somebody wanted to get a taste for a number of the classes and made the horribly underpowered rog3/cler2/wiz3 (who rolled better on every lockpick check than our actual rog8 and wound up outshining him on every trap/lock they came across). Try doing that in 4E.
Though I'd contend that 4E does not streamline anything, the very concept of streamlining in itself does not make something better. What the 4E "streamlining" has done is simply remove options, which frankly, is one (of a multitude) of reasons I'm sticking with 3.x.
|
|
Though I'd contend that 4E does not streamline anything, the very concept of streamlining in itself does not make something better. What the 4E "streamlining" has done is simply remove options, which frankly, is one (of a multitude) of reasons I'm sticking with 3.x.
To be fair, 4E has balanced the system better than 3E. It is much harder to create a non-viable character in 4E, but it has achieved this by slashing the options available. I prefer a multiplicity of options to perfect balance, so I'm sticking with 3P as well.
|
|
To be fair, 4E has balanced the system better than 3E. It is much harder to create a non-viable character in 4E, but it has achieved this by slashing the options available. I prefer a multiplicity of options to perfect balance, so I'm sticking with 3P as well.
I'll give you the 4E balance changes as 100% true. Of course this is one of my pet-peeves with the system, so I'll just leave it at that.
The very design of 3.x allows players ultimate customization, and is designed to permit "specialization" to any degree the player can imagine.
I agree that 3.x allows a greater range of cutomization than 4e, but "ultimate customization" is over the top. That would require a classless system like HERO, where every ability or power is purchased individually to match a concept.