|
- Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
Sorry, I had to comment on this, it has nothing to do with the thread really or with 4e, so forgive me.
This is a clever idea and on the one hand I would want to reward it as a DM but on the other... Doesn't this present the exact same problems as filling a waterskin with air and breathing from it? There's only so much 'stuff' to breath and it gets used up quickly. If you don't have a problem with it as a DM then why use up the spell when you could have just used an empty waterskin?
Sorry for the interruption, this discussion is very interesting.
Good question. I was not the one who did this, nor was I the DM, but in my understanding it was a tournament setting with a very limited time frame. As a result, yes, the air would eventually run out, but because the player had five waterskins (from the various group members), and create water, he really was just fine for the duration the adventure lasted.
Not everyone believes that tactical combat is the most fun and important part of their game. If you do, great; have lots and lots of fun with 4th ed. A lot of ppl here don't. And they don't really care if they are able to do two five-foot steps in a round.Tactical combat has always been a huge aspect of the D&D game system. Perhaps you should check out a different game system...
For my group, we've always loved a very nice blend of intense tactical combat and plot thick roleplaying.
I never said it is not important. I only said it is not the MOST important. I enjoy it too. I find the level of sophistication of tactical combat of the 3.X system sufficient for my needs though. And I don't care if I can pull off two five-foot-steps in one round :-) Sorry couldn't resist.
My groups always loved the blend you mention. Yet 3.X never failed to deliver that.
|
So I guess I am not sure what flavor was present in 3e that is now lacking in 4e.
If you allow me to help on this part :
it's probably not just the rulebook itself, but the whole context of change around (Flavour, races, worlds ...) that is causing the problem.At the time, DRAGON was running a series of articles on how to convert 2e to 3e.
Of course the conversion was crap and not worth the effort mostly : better in the end to roll up new PCs.
Still you were encouraged to keep the old coolness rather than dismissing it. You kept your old campaign and "improved ot" rather than trashing it for playing in an empty "point of lights".
Changes nothing to how the game plays out.
As I understand from one of your previous posts, you do not ofte play in prolonged campaigns ? In the end, this may be the real reason of all our disagreement after all.
Best regards
|
|
On the flip side there are non-combat spells that are often used in creative ways for combat in 3e.You may have something here but I am not totally convinced. Can you give me an example?
if you allow me, I will : in Tomb of horrors, there is an altar which spews lightning when you touched it, and we were figuring some way to destroy it.
I summoned an unseen servant and told it to touch it after a few seconds. Then I cast an Otiluke invulerability sphere (not sure what exact name) around them both. Servant touched the altar, got zapped by lightning, and lightning kept accumulating inside the sphere, destroying the altar itself).
Sure, a bit far-fetched, and you need a permissive DM, but you get the idea.
Just looked at the Tenser's Floating Disk ritual.
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Duration: 24 Hours!!!
It was a decent review. But it does highlight a big problem for me. I do not like "battle mats". I didn't play in 2E with one. I played with one breifly in 3E (tried it, hated it and then went matless again). I think 4E would be a fun weekend get together game but I don't think I could play a whole campaign of it. 4E doesn't seem connected with battle mats, it seems merged with them.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
<wrote a bunch of examples of creative spell usage>
Not sure how to preface this, except to say that there is some tension in an rpg between the game rules and the world (and, there's a whole other thread that appears to be dedicated to that topic). I would say that 3e did the most to crimp creative spell usage of any edition change. 1e and 2e spells were sprawling text boxes that begged for creative applications. A good example (albeit, not a spell) is the decanter of endless water. In a 1e/2e game (with an amenable DM), that thing was crazy powerful. 3e came along and provided a list of things you could do with it, each that fit within the game rules. In general, 3e rarely provided an effect without some type of rules text to help interpret how to run it in the game. Perhaps I'm alone, but my tendancy in 3e was to say that if there wasn't any rules text, the spell/magic item couldn't have a new rules text effect.
Now, without a doubt, 4e continues this trend of codifying all interactions so as to further squeeze out creative (ab)uses. As your post notes, there is a lot of fun to be had in exploring that creativity, so clearly something is lost everytime we strap on more rules to the more fantastical elements.
So, I guess the question for me is, what is gained by having additional rules given that some flexibility in interpretation is inevitably surrendered.
The obvious answer is structure. By having rules text associated with flavor, you've got a pre-set means of resolving the more common usages. One problem that cropped up in 1e/2e games with on-the-fly creative usages is that there's a danger of creating a superior tactic that players will naturally gravitate towards. So, while using the decanter of endless water to push some kobolds back into a trap or drown a bunch of bad guys is cool once, it gets pretty obnoxious if it becomes your players' primary means of dealing with enemies. Flaming oil is another good example of that tactic. No 1e/2e character worth his salt began adventuring without a few flasks to set their enemies on fire (which 3e later codified,and thereby constrained, as alchemical fire).
4e appears to use a bunch of keywords as mechanical hooks to describe how things interact. So, if you use a decanter of endless water (assuming such a thing exists, which I find unlikely), it would push back enemies so many squares and work so many times per day. The description of the item would theoretically provide for the more common creative uses of the magic item, but would also give you some rules text to arbitrate those uses. 3e did much the same thing.
Anyway, end of the day, I have a really hard time laying the blame for the death of creative spell use at the feet of 4e. That being said, I do agree that its structure of mechanics first, flavor second, does further limit that space, but I don't think that is insurmountable if creative usage is your play style.
The OP is very compelling. This is the first 4E post that I have read in months that actually made me consider playing the game. I still am not interested in it, but at least now I can see why other people are. Very good read -- thanks for sharing.
For those concerned about creative spellcasting, I'd urge you (if you have the time, capability, and interest) to read the DMG. I can't tell you how many times recommendations on rewarding creativity pop up. In the skill challenges chapter there's a whole section titled "Reward Clever Ideas." There's a sidebar in the traps section called "Winging It." In the "running the game" section, there's a section on saying Yes to creative ideas.
Also, here's my little "secret" about the DMG: Everything you need to run 4th Edition is on page 42. Seriously. The table on that page provides everything you need to improvise challenges, monsters, and skill challenges, plus the rules on "actions the rules don't cover" which is pretty much the "How to adjudicate player creativity" section of the rules.
Meant to comment on this earlier. Your solution does not fix the problem of being able to move and multi-attack if you are a ranger, which I believe was part of the point.By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.You mean a move action with tumbling? Same effect, different way of doing it.
By taking the Two-Weapon Pounce feat from Player's Handbook II, a ranger can attack with both weapons as part of a charge. By taking all five levels of the tempest PrC from Complete Adventurer, a ranger can attack with both weapons during a Spring Attack (among other benefits). A ranger/dervish (from Complete Warrior) can full attack with two slashing weapons (with a scimitar counting as a light weapon for all purposes, explicitly including two-weapon fighting) and move at full normal move while in a Dervish Dance.
Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
This is a clever idea and on the one hand I would want to reward it as a DM but on the other... Doesn't this present the exact same problems as filling a waterskin with air and breathing from it? There's only so much 'stuff' to breath and it gets used up quickly. If you don't have a problem with it as a DM then why use up the spell when you could have just used an empty waterskin?
Maybe water breathing eliminates the need for oxygen. In any case, it's magic :)
And I agree -- an idea this clever deserves to work, anyway.
That was a very interesting post and a good read.
It did, though, seem to talk a lot about movement. A lot.
... I can promise you that I'm going to prep the 4e encounter and use the other 40.5 minutes trying to convince my girlfriend that it's too hot in our apartment to wear all those clothes. Every time.
Yes, but for those of us who find it difficult to get a girl to come down into the basement of our parent's house, the 45 minutes of prep-time that 3.5 requires is a non-issue. I mean, I'm not busy.
Sorry. Couldn't pass it up.
I don't believe I've ever posted my thoughts on 3e/4e, mostly because I can't really define them. I've played D&D for a *very* long time, through many versions and although the rules have changed many times they've always felt 'consistent'. I've played 4e a few times now and I find it a very enjoyable game, and will continue to play it, but it isn't D&D.
How can I make such a bold assertion? Well, it's because it's true for me - it might not be true for you. A lot of comment has been made on options versus lack of options, combat versus non-combat and so on, but when I look at my 1st level character concept in both versions I find the the 3e is crafted with care. I've taken time to flesh it out with backgrounds and history, mundane skills and combat skills - it *feels* almost real. But when I look at the 4e version I just see a cookie-cutter character - it's the same old dwarf fighter, or human wizard. It may be carefully crafted, but I feel disconnected. I can't summon up the energy to flesh it out - what would be the point? It'll just be like the next one I create.
I suppose then, that that is where I depart from 4e's take on D&D. It's an excellent game for tactical combat - but I want my characters to be individual, to stand out.
I will continue to play 4e, and enjoy it, but my passion will be for 3e ... and Pathfinder.
One good (maybe) thing to be said for 4E: I have 2 more new players. Two of my players' wives have rolled characters and "informed" me that they'll be coming to the game next week. My girlfiend is also considering playing. She's made 3 Eladrin Rangers, now (I think she likes Eladrin Rangers) and is going to "watch us" play. She actually really likes the "Play an Eladrin to be..." sections in each book.
That would be 8 players. I've never ran that many and am a bit intimidated to say the least. I think I should make a thread asking for advice for managing larger parties. :/
One good (maybe) thing to be said for 4E: I have 2 more new players. Two of my players' wives have rolled characters and "informed" me that they'll be coming to the game next week. My girlfiend is also considering playing. She's made 3 Eladrin Rangers, now (I think she likes Eladrin Rangers) and is going to "watch us" play. She actually really likes the "Play an Eladrin to be..." sections in each book.
That would be 8 players. I've never ran that many and am a bit intimidated to say the least. I think I should make a thread asking for advice for managing larger parties. :/
Managing large parties *is* difficult but also strangely satisfying, but the key is to divide your time evenly. Sometimes players get left out, and when they get left out, they get bored - and when they get bored, they get distracted - and when they get distracted - you get the idea. :)
Not to pick on you Babbage, but, well, I'm going to. There is nothing stopping you from bringing a 4E character alive. Absolutely nothing. Except YOU. You said it yourself, you're not motivated to come up with a character.
This probably stems from the core point of the OP, which was that a player doesn't have as many options during creation as before. Well, maybe that is true, but DAMN, the game is fun to play, and like the OP said, there are WAY more options in game. Which, for me, is AWESOME. I love it.
I'm running Keep on the Shadowfell with a group of 7 players, at least 3 of whom were very skeptical about 4E, and we're having an absolute blast. We're using pre-generated characters for God's sake, and the players have come up with awesome, amazing characters. The half-elf priest and half-drow warlock are brothers with an amzingly interesting background and squabling relationship. The tiefling talks with a fiendish growl. The rogue talks and acts like a mobster out of Goodfellas.
The characterization is no better and no worse than in 3E. Roleplaying comes from the players and DM and not the rule books. I honestly don't get where it's "harder" to role play in 4E.
If one doesn't like the system in 4E, doesn't like that WOTC is "milking" them by making a new edition, whatever, that's fine. Stick with 3.5. You have Paizo to support you (bummer, because I am loving 4E and wish Paizo was supporting it). But, seriously, I can't believe people are trying to say it's not "roleplaying friendly". Give me a break.
Give one example that doesn't involve, "I'm just not into it" (oh, that's a good one) or "My wizard/priest can't dominate everything while all of the other party members sit and watch."
|
So I guess I am not sure what flavor was present in 3e that is now lacking in 4e.If you allow me to help on this part :
it's probably not just the rulebook itself, but the whole context of change around (Flavour, races, worlds ...) that is causing the problem.
Since the very beginning D&D players and GMs have been replacing "official" fluff, tone, setting, etc. with their own. The flavor of D&D is what you make of it (even though I still believe their is an essential D&Dness).
I have seen people house rule 3e into nearly unrecognizable reflections of the original yet when faced with the changes in 4e they seem determined to pronounce it static and unchangeable. I get that 4e is not for everyone but come on - since when did bad fluff ever keep anyone from playing this game?
At the time, DRAGON was running a series of articles on how to convert 2e to 3e.
Of course the conversion was crap and not worth the effort mostly : better in the end to roll up new PCs.
Still you were encouraged to keep the old coolness rather than dismissing it. You kept your old campaign and "improved ot" rather than trashing it for playing in an empty "point of lights".
Changes nothing to how the game plays out.
Now here you are on to something deep. The transition from 2e to 3e was nearly as daunting as the current transition yet people felt like it might be possible. This is where I believe Wizards made a BIG mistake. They way they talked about 4e made it seem as if the changeover was going to be HUGE and that all notions of what D&D was should be shed for the new coolness.
That is a big problem but it leads to something that has been in the back of my mind for some time now and has only recently become so clear I can no longer dismiss it ...
I wish more people would simply say that they just don't like 4e. It is that simple. They try to justify it on a rational level but it is purely and emotional response. In fact the more the rationalizations are examined the clearer it becomes that it is just a gut feeling.
... and that's okay. It is perfectly reasonable to say "You know, I just don't like 4e."
All of this pointless bickering actually misses the real heart of the matter - but for a few the choice between 3e and 4e is driven by emotion.
WotC failed to realize this and pushed too hard on the coolness argument. Many of the critics fail to realize this when we see labels like 4evil being batted around.
As I understand from one of your previous posts, you do not ofte play in prolonged campaigns ? In the end, this may be the real reason of all our disagreement after all.
Best regards
I have been a part of some very long campaigns - just never with D&D. WFRP, Traveller, RuneQuest, Star Wars d6, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Aftermath, Star Trek (FASA edition), Marvel Superheros, heck even Call of Cthulhu. D&D was the game of my childhood (76-82) and my insanely paced recent past (2000 to present). In both of those times in my life change, chaos and flux ruled so i have never played a long term home campaign - Living Greyhawk was fairly fractured and episodic.
I will have to give your point some thought as it may color my view of this edition change.
Thanks for the thought provoking observations.
|
|
Managing large parties *is* difficult but also strangely satisfying, but the key is to divide your time evenly. Sometimes players get left out, and when they get left out, they get bored - and when they get bored, they get distracted - and when they get distracted - you get the idea. :)
I'll second this one. Time management is extremely important. Giving one player 30 minutes to deal with their minor issues may not be a problem in a five player game because you may be able to juggle 2-3 players at a time, but in an 8 player game, you're likely going to need to dedicate a full 30 minutes to deal with that player's issues.
One thing I try to do in big groups is automate. I know players like to feel like they're all powerful negotiating the sale price of that 20th masterwork greataxe, but frankly, in a group that big there are better uses for one's time. Certain tasks should be left up to the players (if you trust their honesty) and the long tasks that will impact the entire group often are better served in an off-line capacity over e-mail, over the phone, or when everybody goes home. Make sure you let your players know your intent prior to playing; you'll discover some people will even say "I'd like to do X, can we do it one-on-one later?" That's been my experience so far with large groups and how I've handled them.
Another option in particularly large groups is tag-team DMing. This one isn't often discussed, but if you can find two creative people that can work together, tag-teaming the DMing activities can work wonders when the group gets too large. I once was involved in a 12 player werewolf/vampire/mage crossover game, we had three Storytellers, one for each system, and they had their combat duties divided. it's some of the most fun I've ever had in a game.
Good advice, thanks. :) I think I'm going to heavily automate. The other DM of the group can help out with things that don't need full time, like some people going to buy supplies or what not. I'll see how it goes. I've known them all for years, so that should hopefully help.
Not to pick on you Babbage, but, well, I'm going to. There is nothing stopping you from bringing a 4E character alive. Absolutely nothing. Except YOU. You said it yourself, you're not motivated to come up with a character.
This probably stems from the core point of the OP, which was that a player doesn't have as many options during creation as before. Well, maybe that is true, but DAMN, the game is fun to play, and like the OP said, there are WAY more options in game. Which, for me, is AWESOME. I love it.
I'm running Keep on the Shadowfell with a group of 7 players, at least 3 of whom were very skeptical about 4E, and we're having an absolute blast. We're using pre-generated characters for God's sake, and the players have come up with awesome, amazing characters. The half-elf priest and half-drow warlock are brothers with an amzingly interesting background and squabling relationship. The tiefling talks with a fiendish growl. The rogue talks and acts like a mobster out of Goodfellas.
The characterization is no better and no worse than in 3E. Roleplaying comes from the players and DM and not the rule books. I honestly don't get where it's "harder" to role play in 4E.
If one doesn't like the system in 4E, doesn't like that WOTC is "milking" them by making a new edition, whatever, that's fine. Stick with 3.5. You have Paizo to support you (bummer, because I am loving 4E and wish Paizo was supporting it). But, seriously, I can't believe people are trying to say it's not "roleplaying friendly". Give me a break.
Give one example that doesn't involve, "I'm just not into it" (oh, that's a good one) or "My wizard/priest can't dominate everything while all of the other party members sit and watch."
I can see where you're going with this and I'm assuming that comments about 'milking' and so on are directed at others (as I've made no mention of it). I certainly didn't say that it's not 'roleplaying friendly' (I haven't played it often enough to determine that yet) - my whole point is that I feel disconnected to my characters in 4e, which can't be a good thing.
I agree (mostly) that that's my fault and I hope it changes over time. I also understand why Wizards have done it - less options means less downtime creating characters, less 'un-optimized' characters and you're straight into playing. I agree that it's great fun to play - but it isn't D&D to me. I enjoy the more esoteric character builds, the plans on skills and feats. It may be less optimized for play, but I never really had a problem with it. Making combat to be the focus of the game (more so than it ever really was) drives out people who 'just aren't into that kind of thing'.
D&D 4e is a good game. I enjoy it and I urge others to try it out. It won't replace 3e though - they're two different animals now.
What frikkin' page of the DMG says 'do not create long epic stories with your friends, just roll dice and move plastic around. If someone speaks in character mock them. If an NPC tries to say something not related to the plot shout them down and attack!'?People seem to really be projecting their misgivings onto the game rather than looking at what is actually there. It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
True. But when someone buys a "RULE"book they are looking for rules. If you don't need a rulebook for role-playing non-combat encounters, ad you don't really do the whole "combat thing", then I suppose you don't need the rulebook, right?
The unspoken truth, despite complaints of price-gouging, fleecing, etc. is that people want to buy rulebooks, and they want the rulebooks to be about the rules they care about.
4E doesn't have some rules in it that ome people value.
Um, you know they did errata the target rule for that very reason. Now the PHB (or at least the future printings of will) say "Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM's discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential target." So while the gouging book I bought doesn't say it explicitly, WOTC addressed the problem within a week, instead of leaving it to the common sense of the DM (which I'm sorry to say I know a few who won't bend the rules in any way unless it's for their convenience).
By taking the Two-Weapon Pounce feat from Player's Handbook II, a ranger can attack with both weapons as part of a charge. By taking all five levels of the tempest PrC from Complete Adventurer, a ranger can attack with both weapons during a Spring Attack (among other benefits). A ranger/dervish (from Complete Warrior) can full attack with two slashing weapons (with a scimitar counting as a light weapon for all purposes, explicitly including two-weapon fighting) and move at full normal move while in a Dervish Dance.Meant to comment on this earlier. Your solution does not fix the problem of being able to move and multi-attack if you are a ranger, which I believe was part of the point.By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.You mean a move action with tumbling? Same effect, different way of doing it.
Okay fair enough. But are we to completely gloss over the fact that every solution involves a non-core source book? Or how for two of those I have to go into a prestige class, depriving me of my precious ranger spells? Not to mention my ranger can do a bit of all of that at first level. But digress, I did say 3.5, bravo.
By the way, you still didn't provide a way to make two five-foot-steps in one turn. But I completely missed the Two-Weapon Pounce when I read the PHB II, I'll have to use that next time I play a 3.5 game.
CEO
|
One good (maybe) thing to be said for 4E: I have 2 more new players. Two of my players' wives have rolled characters and "informed" me that they'll be coming to the game next week. My girlfiend is also considering playing. She's made 3 Eladrin Rangers, now (I think she likes Eladrin Rangers) and is going to "watch us" play. She actually really likes the "Play an Eladrin to be..." sections in each book.
That would be 8 players. I've never ran that many and am a bit intimidated to say the least. I think I should make a thread asking for advice for managing larger parties. :/
You know, this is my big hope for 4e...that WotC brings a ton of brand new people into the joy of roleplaying games. Our industry really hasn't had an influx of new blood since Vampire: The Masquerade in 1991. I think that the simplicity, streamlining, and modular approach makes creating a character much less intimidating for new people. And if they enjoy the game, they may want to try other games and we will have them hooked! And that can only help our industry grow again.
My group and I will be sticking with Pathfinder for many of the reasons that have been repeated numerous times on this board, so I won't repeat them. But I sincerely hope that 4e brings in a great big bunch of new players into this hobby of ours.
-Lisa
|
Contributor
|
BabbageUK and ArkadyV:
I'm not going to quote your entire discussion about cookie cutter characters and reduced connection to the character, but what you were discussing looks like exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier post in this thread (on page 1).
I don't think that the characters are any less interesting to play, but the fact that they are less involved to create, gives the impression that they are less unique (even though I feel this impression is ultimately false). It also fails to engage the player in the same way as 3E character generation.
On the flip side, it's faster and easier, and less prone to weird combinations that destroy balance.
BabbageUK and ArkadyV:
I'm not going to quote your entire discussion about cookie cutter characters and reduced connection to the character, but what you were discussing looks like exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier post in this thread (on page 1).
I don't think that the characters are any less interesting to play, but the fact that they are less involved to create, gives the impression that they are less unique (even though I feel this impression is ultimately false). It also fails to engage the player in the same way as 3E character generation.
On the flip side, it's faster and easier, and less prone to weird combinations that destroy balance.
I figure as time moves on and more options for characters become available, people will have this issue less and less.
|
|
I figure as time moves on and more options for characters become available, people will have this issue less and less.
Unfortunately for 4E, the more material that comes out, the more "unbalanced" the game will become. What happens after a year goes by and you've seen the 10th class expansion book? It's the same universal problem RPGs always face; developers are creative, but they're just not capable of seeing all of character optimization options available. Then, the game that has been carefully built around the concept of class balance starts to drift, and you've got the same complains being made against 3.x now. Interestingly, the game design decisions for 4E will make potential future balance issues still now allow for the same level of customization (at least in my opinion standing from my little hill viewing the game) that we currently have in 3.x. At that point what happens? If balance is so important for 4E, what happens when the system begins to outgrow that basic tenant they've set forth?
|
|
I don't think that the characters are any less interesting to play, but the fact that they are less involved to create, gives the impression that they are less unique (even though I feel this impression is ultimately false). It also fails to engage the player in the same way as 3E character generation.
I agree that the impression is ultimately false. I loved rolling up characters in OD&D. Once the mechanical part was done I would launch into writing up quirks, phobias, interests, etc. etc.
OD&D had just about the quickest character generation process ever but boy did it have some of the most memorable characters ever.
|
|
One good (maybe) thing to be said for 4E: I have 2 more new players. Two of my players' wives have rolled characters and "informed" me that they'll be coming to the game next week. My girlfiend is also considering playing. She's made 3 Eladrin Rangers, now (I think she likes Eladrin Rangers) and is going to "watch us" play. She actually really likes the "Play an Eladrin to be..." sections in each book.
That would be 8 players. I've never ran that many and am a bit intimidated to say the least. I think I should make a thread asking for advice for managing larger parties. :/
One idea that could be really cool: Split the group in two. Let both groups play in your world. Both groups will hear of each other an their exploits. For big fight encounters both groups can get together. Monte Cook did such a thing for his Ptolus campaign. Of course this is a lot more work and time than just one group.
Now that I have finally read through practically all of the 4e rulebooks (player’s guide, DMG, monster manual) I feel I can now give a more coherent discussion on the attributes of the new system.
Abstraction
I believe that a large amount of difference in how 4e is perceived is based on the idea of abstraction. 3.5 tends more toward the idea of world consistency and simulation. This is why, at its core, 3.5’s mechanical system builds all its life-forms similarly through the idea of Hit Dice (player classes being the ultimate form of Hit Dice advancement). The problem with this is that not all Hit Dice is created equal. Some Hit Dice is inherently better than others, so to make up for that, some Hit Dice (undead in particular) must be had in large numbers to try and match those other Hit Dice who are more powerful (like Player classes). But this in itself creates imbalance, especially when so many mechanics hinge on the number of hit dice a creature has.
For example: the reason Turn Undead is considered to be so worthless is because the challenge of the undead does not match up with its Hit Dice. A 20 Hit Dice undead is a CR 9, but a Level 9 Cleric could never possibly achieve such a number on his or her Turn check.
Hit Dice are like the building blocks of life; they’re meant to try and standardize the way life-forms are made in the D&D world, but because of their unbalanced nature, they end up being unwieldy. 4e does away with this notion by building monsters because of their roles, not their “blocks.” And it does so with the idea that monsters advance at the rate Players do (at half-level) which helps balance out how challenging monsters will be.
A good example of 4e abstraction is the concept of Minions. Minions have decent defenses and an attack rating, but they have only 1 HP. This concept troubles us at first because something only having one HP seems extraordinarily weak. The truth behind this notion is that the creature doesn’t really have only 1 HP in the health sense, but rather, the creature’s role is that of a mook: the player slashes it aside as he drives forward, cutting a swath through the unworthy to reach the real threat.
I think you’ll find a lot of 4e design philosophy is about the abstract rather than what is more to simulation.
The Roleplay Argument
A significant argument against 4e concerns the roleplay value of the new system. First off, most roleplay is completely opinionated. Different players expect different amounts and styles of roleplay in their games. This means that, most of the time, arguments about roleplay are pretty much invalid. With that as the case, let’s focus on roleplay in the mechanical sense, i.e. skills like diplomacy, bluff, and so on.
First off, roleplay in the 4e Player’s Handbook is talked about as much as it is in the 3.5 PHB. It’s got about one chapter dedicated to it. In 3.5 this was Chapter 6: Description. The chapter was only a handful of pages long and was probably only refered to at all because it had deity descriptions in it. In the 4e PHB, the roleplay chapter is the first chapter, which off the bat, is significant. It alludes to the idea that character creation should start with the imagination of a concept, not a selection of race and class (which it ultimately ends up anyway). The chapter talks, at length, about imagining your character in a non-mechanical way. Things like “How would your character react to a pressure situation?” or “Is your character impulsive? Calm? Nervous?” Things that do not have any statistical value and yet can help define what your character is. This is a far cry more than what the 3.5 PHB offers with regards to character creation, which puts the emphasis on roleplaying that character.
Now for the so-called “roleplay skills.” A lot of flak is put upon the new skill system because, like everything else, all skills advance at half-level. What this really ends up doing (and it’s portrayed very well in the DMG) is that it enables every player at the table to contribute to the success of an encounter. In the DMG, there is a table that shows the typical DC’s for each subset of levels all the way up to 30. In this skill system, the only difference between two characters is +5 (skill training) and the attribute (str, dex, con, ect.). Then they show moderate, easy, and hard DC’s. Without going into particulars, one can easily deduce that with this system, moderate DC’s are on the easier side to accomplish if one is trained, and a bit challenging for those who are not. What this does, is it enables even a poor charisma, no diplomacy character to contribute to a diplomatic encounter.
Consider 3.5: if you didn’t have ranks in diplomacy, only one of two things was possible for you: A) you could not meaningfully contribute to the encounter, or B) the DM has to fudge the check so that you can be helpful (usually because he felt you roleplayed well). Now in 4e, those trained in diplomacy can have a go as they used to, and those who are not still have a decent shot at being helpful, and in the end, everyone plays the game and not just the one with all the ranks in diplomacy.
If that doesn’t make sense, then just ask yourself this: would you rather one member of your gaming group have all the talks, or would you rather everyone have a shot at meaningful conversation?
This is why I believe the mechanics of 4e actually enhance the idea of roleplay more than 3.5 does. Basically, the system proposes the idea of everyone getting a shot, and not just the one who dedicated his limited character resources to it.
Now that I have finally read through practically all of the 4e rulebooks (player’s guide, DMG, monster manual) I feel I can now give a more coherent discussion on the attributes of the new system.
Abstraction
I believe that a large amount of difference in how 4e is perceived is based on the idea of abstraction. 3.5 tends more toward the idea of world consistency and simulation. This is why, at its core, 3.5’s mechanical system builds all its life-forms similarly through the idea of Hit Dice (player classes being the ultimate form of Hit Dice advancement). The problem with this is that not all Hit Dice is created equal. Some Hit Dice is inherently better than others, so to make up for that, some Hit Dice (undead in particular) must be had in large numbers to try and match those other Hit Dice who are more powerful (like Player classes). But this in itself creates imbalance, especially when so many mechanics hinge on the number of hit dice a creature has.For example: the reason Turn Undead is considered to be so worthless is because the challenge of the undead does not match up with its Hit Dice. A 20 Hit Dice undead is a CR 9, but a Level 9 Cleric could never possibly achieve such a number on his or her Turn check.
Hit Dice are like the building blocks of life; they’re meant to try and standardize the way life-forms are made in the D&D world, but because of their unbalanced nature, they end up being unwieldy. 4e does away with this notion by building monsters because of their roles, not their “blocks.” And it does so with the idea that monsters advance at the rate Players do (at half-level) which helps balance out how challenging monsters will be.
A good example of 4e abstraction is the concept of Minions. Minions have decent defenses and an attack rating, but they have only 1 HP. This concept troubles us at first because something only having one HP seems extraordinarily weak. The truth behind this notion is that the creature doesn’t really have only 1 HP in the health sense, but rather, the...
Thanks Crowheart, that is actually a pretty neat way of looking at things. I'll have to keep that abstraction in mind while browsing through the books.
|
|
Consider 3.5: if you didn’t have ranks in diplomacy, only one of two things was possible for you: A) you could not meaningfully contribute to the encounter, or B) the DM has to fudge the check so that you can be helpful (usually because he felt you roleplayed well).
This is only true if you use the mechanics to decide if diplomacy is successful. If you focus on the roleplaying aspect, even the gruff dwarven fighter can convince with good arguments.
Now in 4e, those trained in diplomacy can have a go as they used to, and those who are not still have a decent shot at being helpful, and in the end, everyone plays the game and not just the one with all the ranks in diplomacy.
That is one of the things that 4th IMO has done better than 3rd.
BUT due to the simpliefied skill system there is not much difference skillwise between PCs. Most Rogues with the same theme will have the same skill bonuses, differing only in their Ability bonuses.Or even worse, the Wizard, played as the bookish Sage with his special knowledge of the arcane messes up a die roll. The Fighter on the other Hand rolls high and now the Fighter tells the Wizard about the basics of some arcane stuff. Can be frustrating for the sage...
All in all IMHO 4th went to far with the Skill simplification.
|
|
Consider 3.5: if you didn’t have ranks in diplomacy, only one of two things was possible for you: A) you could not meaningfully contribute to the encounter, or B) the DM has to fudge the check so that you can be helpful (usually because he felt you roleplayed well).This is only true if you use the mechanics to decide if diplomacy is successful. If you focus on the roleplaying aspect, even the gruff dwarven fighter can convince with good arguments.
If you eschew mechanics in favor of pure roleplay then we are back to being able to roleplay the manual to a VCR. That is what Crowheart is saying, if i read it correctly. Arguments about role playing are moot because the mechanics can always be circumvented AND individual taste in the quality and quantity of roleplaying are subjective.
..Some incredible s@*%...
Incredible post. Thanks.
|
|
If you eschew mechanics in favor of pure roleplay then we are back to being able to roleplay the manual to a VCR. That is what Crowheart is saying, if i read it correctly. Arguments about role playing are moot because the mechanics can always be circumvented AND individual taste in the quality and quantity of roleplaying are subjective.
What I wanted to say was: If you have a PC with no diplomacy skill you do not have to sit silent at th table and wait for the one with the skill to finish. You can still participate.
Of course you are of no mechanical help if you are a dwarven fighter and try to sweet talk to a tribe of goblins.That is true.
The PC with the diplomacy skill can roll the dice, but all other still can roleplay an have fun!
But you are right, for those who like to solve most social encounters through intensive roleplaying, every system does it. For those on the other side of the spectrum who like to solve these situations with a single die roll 4th is the better system.
Thos in the middle ground, and I think most of us are in this area, have to decide which system is more to their liking.
This is a clever idea and on the one hand I would want to reward it as a DM but on the other... Doesn't this present the exact same problems as filling a waterskin with air and breathing from it? There's only so much 'stuff' to breath and it gets used up quickly. If you don't have a problem with it as a DM then why use up the spell when you could have just used an empty waterskin?
I agree completely.
3rd Edition is the "best" version of D&D to resolve social encounters with a die roll, since its incredibly easy to get a ridiculously high Diplomacy bonus, and you only need one roll. You dont even need to be a bard: you just need to play any class that gets it as a class skill.
Roleplaying isnt eschewing the dice, its taking on the role of a personality different from yours in some way. If you just make attack rolls the entire session, you're still roleplaying. It may not fit the style you like, but its no better or worse that what you prefer.
Sure, a character with an average Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy could try to assist in a social encounter, and would have a 50:50 chance of lumping on a +2 to the guy doing the real talking (since there is no penalty for failure, everyone might as well try), but in the end it comes down to that one die roll that makes or breaks the deal.
4th Edition rules allow everyone to pitch their two cents in, and have potentially rewarding or devastating results. Really, I prefer my characters to roll first and determine their dialogue based on the results (only when it comes down to rolls: they dont need to roll when saying hi to someone) because it helps the simulation aspect of the game: characters bad at talking are going to fail those Diplomacy checks more often than not, while characters good at talking will succeed.
This is a long post, and for that I apologize. I admit that I have decided I don't like 4e enough (yet) to switch and will continue enjoying D&D 3.5. In what follows, I articulate why I came to this conclusion: I'm not trying to knock D&D4e or people who like it, but if I am operating under any false impressions of 4e, please correct me.
Most common issues and points of comparison, and my thoughts are as follows.
Like others, I initially got the impression that "D&D4e puts too much emphasis on combat, and not enough on the Role-Playing". But several have pointed out, I think correctly, that "you make your own role-playing", and the rules system is largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I have noticed a significant decline in plot-focused products coming out of Wizards of the Coast, and a great deal more emphasis on action and combat. I think action in a fantasy game is great, even very important. But it can't be the most important thing. A good plot and story is what many of us veteran gamers hunger for. If I want visual action, I can play video games, which I do.
This comment has less to do with the intrinsic properties of 4e and more to do with the emphasis of the products being published and the tastes of a new generation of players/consumers. I don't think it's "wrong", since so many people seem to enjoy it so much. But that's not what I look for in an RPG. Personal preference, not absolute judgement.
The concept of "character roles" is not new, and has been used in 3.5 games for years to aid in overall party balance by ensuring that the party, as a whole, had a characters with complementary skills and abilities, thus ensuring
1. most challenges could be overcome by someone having the appropriate skill / ability / tool, and that the party had no major weakness that would hamper their ability to overcome challenges, and consequently,
2. every character (and thus, player) can contribute without feeling redundant, superfluous, or unnecessary ;-) Everyone gets a "moment to shine"
The difference between 3e and 4e as I understand it, is that this is now absolutely central to a character and the class they choose: each class has an explicit role in 4e. One of the aspects of the 3.5 rules I like is that each character can be "built" to fit one of several roles. Having a role is useful from a strategy point of view, but can feel very constraining from a storytelling or playing point of view (see the next section for constraints on playing). While I do find the concept of party role useful, I resent it being so central: it feels like I'm being hit over the head with it. Balance is also really only important for a standard dungeon crawl. A good DM creates adventures and campaigns suitable to the players and characters, not the other way around. If all your players want to be sneaky rogues or ninjas, suitable adventures can be created (or even found if you look in the right places). Just don't expect them to fight hordes of undead. They will suck badly at that. But, if that's the party you have in front of you, they are obviously not interested in doing so. Players in such a party will probably tend to distinguish their characters in other, possibly subtle ways. If you do get two people wanting to play the same character and role, what you have is a personality issue, and "player balance" issue, not a problem with the rules.
This gets at what I ultimately do not like about the 4e system. I am one of those people who honestly spends a lot of time thinking of character concepts and building them. That's my approach to strategy in the game: the action is the fluff and realization of the possibilities I have imagined while creating a character. I like putting the emphasis on the character, rather than the party. Fortunately, I have varied enough tastes that I'm not likely to want to play the same character concept as someone else, but I don't want my role dictated so strictly by my class.
Party balance and character roles can be achieved in 3.5, but are not necessary, whereas it is central in 4e. Personal taste will determine your preference.
It has been pointed out that although 3.5 gives you considerably more options in character-building, most 3.5 characters end up being specialized to the point of only being effective at so few skills and abilities, that in a game, there are few options for character's actions. The rogue spends all their time flanking & sneak attacking, the fighter runs to the front and swings his sword, etc. For some people, that's boring. For others, it greatly simplifies the process of playing, and they are satisfied with the creativity that went into making that character so good at whatever it is they are doing. It's annoying when another player can't decide what to do.
This issue is eloquently summarized in The Philosophy of Class Design.
Give it options in play. Using the same tactic over and over is boring. If you're a trip fighter with that one trick (trip, trip, trip) then your gameplay is going to become more monotonous. By contrast, the Warblade introduces more versatility and options into every battle.
This is notably distinct from versatility in build. Versatility in build refers to the ability of a Fighter to be built in many different ways, but versatility in play refers to have many options of actions available to you during play.
Does there have to be a trade-off betwen versatility in build and play? The above quote is referring to 3.5 character building, not necessarily 4e. To me, this suggests that versatility in play CAN be accomplished within the 3.5 ruleset, even if it isn't easily achieved with many of the core base classes. I see this is an issue of class design, not the 3.5 rules per se. Perhaps class design is easier in 4e, I don't know. I'd rather not have to give up versatility in build, to gain versatility in play, if I don't have to.
One area where versatility in play is lost in 3.5 is perhaps as a result of the skills system. Someone pointed out that there are so many skills in 3.5 that most characters either have to specialize in a few skills (reducing their play options) or try to generalize, which becomes problematic at higher levels when your skill bonuses are so low that the chance of success is effectively 0. 4e has taken the approach of greatly simplifying skills such that each skill covers applications that traditionally fall under separate skills in 3.5. This is always the challenge of any skill system: where do you draw the line between one skill and another, and how do you justify each skill being "separate" and deserving of another skill point. I like the versatility in build that the 3.5 skill system offers, which appears to be lacking in 4e (correct me if I'm wrong, however) but I also admit that I have been frustrated on many occasions in character building where I just did not have enough skill points to be good at all the skills I wanted.
So, this is one area where 4e represents a marked improvement, even for someone like me. However, I also see this as an issue that can be addressed within the 3.5 system without overly destroying compatibility with existing products and other games. A fine example is in the Pathfinder RPG: by subsuming many of the redundant skills into fewer skills with broader applications, each skill point goes much farther and allows versatility in play, as well as versatility in build.
This is perhaps where I see 4e diverging significantly from D&D 3.5, and is perhaps the biggest reason why the two are not easily compatible. 3e is viewed to be much more "modular" than 4e, because rules are easily grouped into large compartments (skills, feats, class abilities, spells), that leave a lot of room for tinkering, house rules, and the like, but because the rules are largely separated, it makes it easier to tweak individual rules, while retaining much of the compatibility with the rest of the 3.5 system. And people are sharing a lot of neat ideas and approaches in this regard. Effects of rules and abilities, however, are not so easily compartmentalized.
Rambling Scribe had this point that I found very helpful:
Most class features, feats, spells, and even base ability scores in 3E interact with each other in a very complex way. They come together to create an overall effect, but if you make an adjustment in one place, it's repercussions trickle through the whole character. For example, if you cast Bull's Strength, your to hit, damage, carrying capacity and some skills are all affected, and this could have complex results. If you are a 2H weapon fighter, your damage increases differently. Not that anyone would use this, but if your increased carrying capacity put you in a lower load category, your move rate and max dex change. To go a step further, if you change size categories it increases your strength and adds a bunch of other effects, including changing the relative encumbrance of your equipment (again, most people ignore half of these effects).The more bits you add on, the more complex these repercussions become, and every new feat, power, spell whatever needs to be assessed based on ever more complex combinations of results.
This makes game design incredibly difficult, but it also makes character design incredibly fun for those of us who like to sit and work out all of those complex combinations that will result in an unexpected benefit.
In 4E, almost all of the class features, powers and whatever are truly modular. They do something specific, that has little impact on any other part of your character. The effects are designed specifically to not trickle through to other parts of the character, at least not in any complex way. There are powers that let you increase the number of times you can use another power and things like that, but I think the most complex effects are the stat-ups when you go up levels (which don't happen on the fly).
I haven't decided if this means 4e is harder to tweak: only experience will tell, and I have none. However, it is clear to me that modularity refers to different things: 3e is more modular in terms of rules, whereas 4e appears to be more modular in terms of effects and bookkeeping. This helps speed up play in 4e, but might again feel constraining to people who like to simulate things in a way that's different from the rules as stated. One of the things I had trouble with when reading some of the previews of 4e is that I could see how many of the abilities were simple to use in game terms, but they lacked the "evocative" quality I hunger for in a fantasy RPG. I believe that the versatility in play is really up to your own imagination: the rules should really only serve to help you and the DM adjudicate the results of the actions you choose. 3e was complex, but so is imagination. I like the approach of ignoring the rules, picturing my character and the surroundings, come up with some creative action, and then represent it in game terms using the rules and tools available.
It's more fun for me to play this way, than pick one of my pre-determined game actions and play it like a Magic card. That just feels too artificial to me. The problems many people see with 3.5 is perhaps that rules supplements got overzealous and tried to represent far too much explicitly with rules. I want rules to be a guide and an aid, not a game mechanic unto themselves.
I like the 3.5 rules because that kind of modularity in rules and versatility of build (and hopefully action) gives me a sense of freedom I seek in a fantasy game. Freedom to make a character that inspires me, freedom to use the rules I like and ignore the rest, and the freedom to simulate the fantasy however I choose. A lot of the combat rules in 3.5 were obviously designed with miniatures and a grid in mind, but they weren't necessary. In the old days, we just used our imaginations and narrative to describe the action. Miniatures can certainly make for helpful aids, but can also be constraining if you rely on them too much. They also require an investment in time, money, and space. I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the combat system is increasingly reliant on the grid and minis in 4e. Even the powers and abilities are geared towards push / pull / slide -ing an entity a certain number of spaces / squares (unless I am misunderstanding the mechanics and rules). This is obviously an artefact of representing the action on a 2-dimensional field (even if the representations are 3D plastic, lead, or CG). And that's what I don't like: the rules have become an outgrowth and thus largely dependent on, the method of simulation. Perhaps they always were: such rules didn't exist before minis were being used more commonly for this purpose. Still, that type of action and combat feels too artificial for me. I want miniatures and a grid to be an optional aid: I don't want to have to rely on them to play D&D.
As a result of all these aspects, the 4e rules system feels too much like a strategy board game to me (i.e. the "World of Warcraft" influence, Board-game feel, etc. that others have mentioned). I can believe that combat is smoother and people feel there are more options in play. However, I feel like versatility in play can be created without constraints on versatility in build, or simulation that are built-in to D&D 4e. This makes the game more casual, smoother, but also more constraining in terms of mechanics, and possibly flavour. This is something I expect from a strategy or video game, not a pen & paper RPG like D&D. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned?
In the end, All of the aspects of 4e that I have seen lauded can largely be accomplished within the 3.5 ruleset. It's just a lot more streamlined and explicit in 4e. Maybe 4e is really more about emphasizing casual gaming than overly cumbersome rules. Either way, it's a matter of personal taste.
Therefore, 4e is going to be largely irrelevant for me and my D&D games. But, it does appear to be bringing a whole new cohort of players to pen & paper (& miniatures) tabletop role-playing games that are social, interactive, and rely a lot on imagination, learning and applying complex rule sets. The core elements of D&D have not changed, but the emphasis has shifted in many ways with various complex rule sets. At the end of the day, the DM is god, and the rules just help the players and DM tell the story, whether it be a social drama, comedy, or visual actiona.
Throughout the discussions comparing 4e and 3e, I have gained an even greater appreciation for the 3.5 system and its ability to be altered in custom ways, but still ensure compatibility according to the 'core SRD' standard. I just wish and hope that 3.5 and 4e players can play together, and that the community grows rather than fractures.
4e is here to stay and I will watch it with interest. But 3e is nowhere near dead yet, and I applaud groups like Paizo for giving it new life with products like Pathfinder RPG (and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved). That's something for me to get excited about, and I hope you are excited about your D&D game, whatever rules you use.
I have also dug up my old AD&D (and even D&D) products to reminisce and re-discover my own RPG roots. Even after 20 years (!), it's inspiring again.
Like others, I initially got the impression that "D&D4e puts too much emphasis on combat, and not enough on the Role-Playing". But several have pointed out, I think correctly, that "you make your own role-playing", and the rules system is largely irrelevant.
This is not entirely true IMO. While players will play as they want, the content and tone of the rules will influence how they play, some more than others. My problem with 4e is that influence is much greater and more focused than it was in previous editions.
Nevertheless, I have noticed a significant decline in plot-focused products coming out of Wizards of the Coast, and a great deal more emphasis on action and combat.
Which supports my theory that WotC has written 4e with a deliberate attempt to change or influence how people play the game.
<Pause while I put on my tin-foil hat>
I think action in a fantasy game is great, even very important. But it can't be the most important thing. A good plot and story is what many of us veteran gamers hunger for. If I want visual action, I can play video games, which I do.
I think WotC is trying, in part, to compete with computer games -- that only works if you're selling computer games.
BTW, good post, and I agree with most of what you say :)
That does sound intriguing. Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that. I didn't really care too much for the earlier editions of D&D because the characters were not terribly variable. On the flip side, the system sounds quite elegant (if blandly described) and this could be a big, big plus. I would be interested in seeing the views of people who have actually seen the rules and played the, as to whether the above review is a good summary.
Its not really the modularity that you like but the variability. 4E is phenomenally modular, far more so then 3.5 but its not as variable.
Sorry to nit pick - just trying to get us all on the same page. Then we can at least argue with each other intelligibly.
Then we can at least argue with each other intelligibly.
What makes you think people want to argue intelligibly? :P
I figure as time moves on and more options for characters become available, people will have this issue less and less.Unfortunately for 4E, the more material that comes out, the more "unbalanced" the game will become. What happens after a year goes by and you've seen the 10th class expansion book? It's the same universal problem RPGs always face; developers are creative, but they're just not capable of seeing all of character optimization options available. Then, the game that has been carefully built around the concept of class balance starts to drift, and you've got the same complains being made against 3.x now. Interestingly, the game design decisions for 4E will make potential future balance issues still now allow for the same level of customization (at least in my opinion standing from my little hill viewing the game) that we currently have in 3.x. At that point what happens? If balance is so important for 4E, what happens when the system begins to outgrow that basic tenant they've set forth?
You might be right and to a certain extent I suspect that what you say is true. But I don't expect this to be on the same degree as 3.5 for two reasons.
A) Exactly what a class should be able to do in terms of damage output, hps, to-hits etc. at any given level is actually spelled out. Its hard coded into the system.
B) Character classes are far more restrictive - your playing class (A) pretty much all the way through unless you want to use feats to pick up other class abilities - but those feats pick up other class abilities that are significantly lower in level (and therefore presumably power) to the ones you'd get if you just stuck with your core class - and your only allowed to choose stuff from one other class so its not exactly easy to pick and choose all your favorites.
Essentially the designers have elevated play balance in terms of the games goals. This is not an absolute good and I'm not claiming that it is. Strong play balance does mean sacrificing other aspects of play. Most notability the variability of 3.5 characters where you could choose from a huge amount of alternative options for each character. Thats has been brutally scaled back in 4E and its play balance that is at the core of that scale back.
Thus I tend to suspect that screwed up play balance will be something that won't come up too much with 4E. We've already sacrificed variability (in character design) on the alter of play balance and hence should not have to deal with the issue to much even with splat books. Not that everything will always be perfect, WotC will surely screw up here and there but these will be highly isolated incidents that they might even errata. It won't be something thats inherent to the system based purely on players mixing and matching diverse elements to come up with synergies far more powerful then their component parts - mainly because your almost never allowed to mix and match stuff outside of your class and the stuff that can be mixed and matched tends to be very basic and generally pretty weak.
B) Character classes are far more restrictive - your playing class (A) pretty much all the way through unless you want to use feats to pick up other class abilities - but those feats pick up other class abilities that are significantly lower in level (and therefore presumably power) to the ones you'd get if you just stuck with your core class - and your only allowed to choose stuff from one other class so its not exactly easy to pick and choose all your favorites
For the most part I agree with your post. Class/power design is much tighter in 4E, with less ways to find unexpected synergies. Splats will strain it, but not to the extent they did in 3E.
However, I do think you have the power swap feats wrong here. It's my understanding you can swap out the highest level power you have for one from the other class. Plus, each time you level, you can give the power you gained back and swap out another one. That is, I'm pretty sure a 30th level Fighter with the Wizard swap feat can swap his 29th level Fighter whats-it for the 29th level Wizard's Meteor Swarm.
Cheers! :)
I think it is becoming clearer and clearer where the divide is:
- Some people love the character building in 3E and would miss the incredible flexibility that is available. I get that. It IS fun to build a character in 3E. BUT, I totally agree that often those characters end up being unfulfilling in combat.
- Some people are beginning to love the combat possibilities in 4E. It is much more exciting and interesting than 3E, IMHO.
So, yes, character building is less complicated in 4E. That doesn't mean you can't still do just about anything you want, though. Make your character a barber, sailor, or actor. What's to stop you? Give him or her whatever background you want. There are no rules stopping you. Then role play him just as you would've role played in 3E.
What don't I like about 4E:
- Lack of equipment options in the PHB... although another book is coming out.
- Limited power selections... although other books are coming out (and I still think martial classes have WAY more options now than they did in the past).
- That there are some iconic classes missing, like the bard, barbarian, monk, and druid. Although more books are coming out.
- The absolutely terrible and incredibly lame plot of Keep on the Shadowfell. I sure hope they aren't abandoning interesting stories for the crap cliched piece of garbage that module is.
I think it is becoming clearer and clearer where the divide is:
- Some people love the character building in 3E and would miss the incredible flexibility that is available. I get that. It IS fun to build a character in 3E. BUT, I totally agree that often those characters end up being unfulfilling in combat.
- Some people are beginning to love the combat possibilities in 4E. It is much more exciting and interesting than 3E, IMHO.
So, yes, character building is less complicated in 4E. That doesn't mean you can't still do just about anything you want, though. Make your character a barber, sailor, or actor. What's to stop you? Give him or her whatever background you want. There are no rules stopping you. Then role play him just as you would've role played in 3E.
What don't I like about 4E:
- Lack of equipment options in the PHB... although another book is coming out.
- Limited power selections... although other books are coming out (and I still think martial classes have WAY more options now than they did in the past).
- That there are some iconic classes missing, like the bard, barbarian, monk, and druid. Although more books are coming out.
- The absolutely terrible and incredibly lame plot of Keep on the Shadowfell. I sure hope they aren't abandoning interesting stories for the crap cliched piece of garbage that module is.
Nice succinct break down Arkady. I think you hit most of the major points this thread has pointed out, and I think you're right. I definitely think down the road once a good numbers of books are out there will be less room to complain about versatility at character creation, although I don't know if it could ever really match 3E's (which, not being the focus of 4E, is understandable)
As an aside though, MANY people have ragged on KotS. I've avoided reading too much about it since I will be playing through it soon, but how does it compare with, say, the original 3.0 AP? Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Speaker in Dreams, Standing Something-or-Others?
Just curious if we're talking better, worse, or about equal?
I'd say it is about the same as the original 3E offerings. But, Paizo has upped the ante so much that KotS was a HUGE disappointment. Shoot, look at some of the stuff that was put up in Dungeon on-line by WOTC since the end of the magazines... Some excellent adventures. I don't understand why they couldn't get someone awesome like Nickolas Logue to do a killer adventure for the debut... instead of the cliched dungeon crawl that we did get.
Don't get me wrong, I love the maps and I love the adventure format, but I'm just not too thrilled with the plot. It has serious holes in believability and it is also just incredibly (I'm saying it again) cliched. Finally, the town of Winterhaven is just plain terrible. They'd have been better off making it a small village with just an Inn or something. This weird 20-building walled town that supposedly has 900 residents? Yes, I know that's including all of the local farmers... but, if the local farmers are threatened by the same PC killing kobolds that the PCs face, why are the farmers still alive and not all holed up in the town? It just doesn't make logical sense. It is really a major POS.
I'd say it is about the same as the original 3E offerings. But, Paizo has upped the ante so much that KotS was a HUGE disappointment. Shoot, look at some of the stuff that was put up in Dungeon on-line by WOTC since the end of the magazines... Some excellent adventures. I don't understand why they couldn't get someone awesome like Nickolas Logue to do a killer adventure for the debut... instead of the cliched dungeon crawl that we did get.
Don't get me wrong, I love the maps and I love the adventure format, but I'm just not too thrilled with the plot. It has serious holes in believability and it is also just incredibly (I'm saying it again) cliched. Finally, the town of Winterhaven is just plain terrible. They'd have been better off making it a small village with just an Inn or something. This weird 20-building walled town that supposedly has 900 residents? Yes, I know that's including all of the local farmers... but, if the local farmers are threatened by the same PC killing kobolds that the PCs face, why are the farmers still alive and not all holed up in the town? It just doesn't make logical sense. It is really a major POS.
I get all that, but tell me how you REALLY feel? :P
Just kidding, thanks for the review. I'll keep that in mind when we start playing on the 18th.
By the way, you still didn't provide a way to make two five-foot-steps in one turn. But I completely missed the Two-Weapon Pounce when I read the PHB II, I'll have to use that next time I play a 3.5 game.
Tumble, dc 40. Move 10' as a 5' step. In the Extreme Tumbling sidebar from Oriental Adventures. (I think it's chapter 4, around page 46, but I'm not at home and don't have the book with me.)
B) Character classes are far more restrictive - your playing class (A) pretty much all the way through unless you want to use feats to pick up other class abilities - but those feats pick up other class abilities that are significantly lower in level (and therefore presumably power) to the ones you'd get if you just stuck with your core class - and your only allowed to choose stuff from one other class so its not exactly easy to pick and choose all your favoritesFor the most part I agree with your post. Class/power design is much tighter in 4E, with less ways to find unexpected synergies. Splats will strain it, but not to the extent they did in 3E.
However, I do think you have the power swap feats wrong here. It's my understanding you can swap out the highest level power you have for one from the other class. Plus, each time you level, you can give the power you gained back and swap out another one. That is, I'm pretty sure a 30th level Fighter with the Wizard swap feat can swap his 29th level Fighter whats-it for the 29th level Wizard's Meteor Swarm.
Cheers! :)
I think we are both at work and can't look this up but I think your wrong except for the at will power and the marking power. For the encounter and daily stuff that your picking out my impression was you can pick any encounter or daily from the other classes list - but the designers hedged the bet and added the bit about this being of a notably lower level.