Nice article! Good that someone at WotC decided to give some support to those who weren't happy at dumping their old campaigns. For those who often can't play more than once a month, like me, "rebooting" an existing campaign may be completely out of question.
Well I'll be! They broke down and did it!
Interesting... I like it. Though, I'm not sure I'm going to use it the bard/druid/barbarian/monk fixes for my game... I'd rather just wait for the real versions (or Necromancer's) to come out. The loss of druids (who pretty much can be found anywhere except urban locations.. Not to mention the fact that druids usually work with rangers) is what hurts the most, in my view, but I think I'll live with it.
They are compromising.
They've been doing a lot of that.
Money talks.
They stood to loose a lot of business if they didn't.
Interesting... I like it. Though, I'm not sure I'm going to use it the bard/druid/barbarian/monk fixes for my game... I'd rather just wait for the real versions (or Necromancer's) to come out.
My feeling too. Are there druids in my home-brew? Yes of course there are.
Can you play one? No.
I disliked the article. Having played in games with people who played both Ninja and Spellthief, neither of the ways to tweak them felt right. While you could use thier suggestions and make a multi classed rogue and call it a 'spellthief' for instance, it would not feel, nor have the abilities, of the class people currently used.
I would much rather Wizard's stop taking current classes, saying 'build like this and call it a <insert class name> and instead say "You have 8 classes, you'll have more with time. Be patient, just like you were with the 3.5 splatbooks."
After all, 4E has been out for 2 weeks, no one's taken a game to level 30 yet with the 8 classes we have :)
I disliked the article. Having played in games with people who played both Ninja and Spellthief, neither of the ways to tweak them felt right. While you could use thier suggestions and make a multi classed rogue and call it a 'spellthief' for instance, it would not feel, nor have the abilities, of the class people currently used.I would much rather Wizard's stop taking current classes, saying 'build like this and call it a <insert class name> and instead say "You have 8 classes, you'll have more with time. Be patient, just like you were with the 3.5 splatbooks."
After all, 4E has been out for 2 weeks, no one's taken a game to level 30 yet with the 8 classes we have :)
I agree Amelia. And in fact they said that originally, but you know how nerdrage can be. Think of this as stopgap just so people stop complaining! :P
Cheers! :)
I've wanted to convert a couple of my favorite characters just to see what they would be like. I have no intention of running them though - rather build a new story over time.
Laughable attempt. O you miss your Ferrari? Take this Ford Escort and put a carbon fiber hood on it, add some fuzzy dice and voila..your Ferrari. So not useful.
Overdue, but as good an attempt as 4e allows (so far).
More kudos than criticism :)
Laughable attempt. O you miss your Ferrari? Take this Ford Escort and put a carbon fiber hood on it, add some fuzzy dice and voila..your Ferrari. So not useful.
a agree THAT much !
Nothing ín that article you couldn´t do by yourself...
I remember their proposal to emulate a necromancer:
"just let your magic missiles look like little skulls" !
lame
I think it's a step in the right direction.
The main difference between a computer game and an RPG is that you design worlds and characters using an effectively infinite number of choices.
My group is probably going to finish the two adventure paths we are working on. We might start playing a 4th edition campaign at the same time. I personally want to wait for the color pallet to expand somewhat. If I didn't like the release, I would offer suggestions.
Necromancers, for example, should be able to call unaligned undead back from the Shadowfell. Either to speak with dead, or to assist the Necromancer in other ways. All their powers could be based on this communion with the dead. Maybe they could drain negitive energy back into the Shadowfell, undoing level and stat drains.
|
They are compromising.
They've been doing a lot of that.
Money talks.
They stood to loose a lot of business if they didn't.
I think that it's more Nerds talk. I think they did it 'cause we kept moaning about it, and yeah - we don't want to wait till October or next year for Druids etal to come out.
As for Ferrari's Character Op will always be there. But if all the other characters are in the Ford Class (high level fighters/rogues) then why have a Ferrari anyway (high level Wizards). The idea of 4th Ed (as i understand it) is to balance an otherwise unbalanced game.
Anyways it's early days and complexities (ninjas and what have you) will come at the rate they came to 3rd Ed (and AD&D and Boxed set D&D if I remember rightly)
Necromancers, for example, should be able to call unaligned undead back from the Shadowfell. Either to speak with dead, or to assist the Necromancer in other ways. All their powers could be based on this communion with the dead. Maybe they could drain negitive energy back into the Shadowfell, undoing level and stat drains.
Have you seen the Death Master template in the DMG? It's basically a way to make any monster (or character with some work) into a necromancer.
For a PC, you could simply substitute the template bonuses for the Wizard class bonuses, replace one of the Wizard's class abilities with the Shroud of the Grave aura, and Call of the Grave could substitute in for one of the Wizard's encounter powers. Probably have to playtest it a bit, but seems doable.
|
|
Necromancers, for example, should be able to call unaligned undead back from the Shadowfell. Either to speak with dead, or to assist the Necromancer in other ways. All their powers could be based on this communion with the dead. Maybe they could drain negitive energy back into the Shadowfell, undoing level and stat drains.
speaking of which I would have liked more fluff in the new D&D re Shadowfell and Feywild. If they're cruicial fluff pieces for PC classes then GIVE US SOME INFO!! <pant pant pant>
|
Laughable attempt. O you miss your Ferrari? Take this Ford Escort and put a carbon fiber hood on it, add some fuzzy dice and voila..your Ferrari. So not useful.
I agree. "Make a two-weapon ranger, and call him a monk." just doesn't cut it. If he gets the same powers as a two-weapon ranger, he is a two-weapon ranger, not a monk. What PP is he supposed to take? None of them really fit a monk. The same can be said for the barbarian, druid, and bard.
Laughable attempt. O you miss your Ferrari? Take this Ford Escort and put a carbon fiber hood on it, add some fuzzy dice and voila..your Ferrari. So not useful.I agree. "Make a two-weapon ranger, and call him a monk." just doesn't cut it. If he gets the same powers as a two-weapon ranger, he is a two-weapon ranger, not a monk. What PP is he supposed to take? None of them really fit a monk. The same can be said for the barbarian, druid, and bard.
I think in this case, they're figuring that someone who really wants to play a monk, and can't wait for the official class to be published, probably knows that the "R" in "RPG" stands for "roleplaying" and will let the mechanics slide a bit in order to play the character they want to play. I would agree that for a newbie it would be potentially more difficult.
|
|
I think in this case, they're figuring that someone who really wants to play a monk, and can't wait for the official class to be published, probably knows that the "R" in "RPG" stands for "roleplaying" and will let the mechanics slide a bit in order to play the character they want to play. I would agree that for a newbie it would be potentially more difficult.Laughable attempt. O you miss your Ferrari? Take this Ford Escort and put a carbon fiber hood on it, add some fuzzy dice and voila..your Ferrari. So not useful.I agree. "Make a two-weapon ranger, and call him a monk." just doesn't cut it. If he gets the same powers as a two-weapon ranger, he is a two-weapon ranger, not a monk. What PP is he supposed to take? None of them really fit a monk. The same can be said for the barbarian, druid, and bard.
I don't mind renaming and reflavoring things a bit until the actual class comes out, but you are still stuck with the mechanics and feel of the other class and you really aren't playing the character you want to play. If you have a two-weapon ranger PC and a psuedo-monk PC in the same party, they pretty much do the same attacks for the same damage, which is not good if you were goning for a very unique monk character.
I think in this case, they're figuring that someone who really wants to play a monk, and can't wait for the official class to be published, probably knows that the "R" in "RPG" stands for "roleplaying" and will let the mechanics slide a bit in order to play the character they want to play. I would agree that for a newbie it would be potentially more difficult.
A newbie wouldn't know what a monk was about, would he? I would think that, for the most part, only people with experience from previous editions (or other games) that had monks would care about being able to play monks in 4E.
Without any intention of offend anyone I just can say this is silly (to not use ridiculous).
WotC said since day one that both systems are not compatible so you had to start from the beginning with your characters, but as someone said in a previos post: "money talks", yes it talks and made WotC talk too bringing this to calm 3.5 fans giving them the illusion that you can buy 4th edition and continue enjoying with the 3.5 flavor.
I don't think so a bard is a bard and full stop.
Actually, I think this points out 4E's biggest flaw in that all the classes are very much alike, regardless of the flavor of each class. Changing fluff text to turn a Ranger into a Monk is stupid... yet that's pretty much the main differences between ALL the classes now.
I have only played two sessions under 4E, but what you are saying here does not match up with what I have seen in actual games. There is significantly more than just flavor separating a paladin from a wizard, or a cleric from a warlord. The types of powers (and when they become) available to each class are what makes each different from the others.
Would you say that only flavor separates a 3.x cleric from 3.x druid? Or a 3.x sorceror from a 3.x bard?
|
|
A few were passable, but many of them seemed to be like "You want to play a fishmonger? Use the great weapon fighter build, and call your greatsword a frozen halibut. Then rename your combat challenge "fresh fish call." In other words, they are laughable and incredibly lame.
Brillant! I am so playing a fishmonger now.
A few were passable, but many of them seemed to be like "You want to play a fishmonger? Use the great weapon fighter build, and call your greatsword a frozen halibut. Then rename your combat challenge "fresh fish call." In other words, they are laughable and incredibly lame.Brillant! I am so playing a fishmonger now.
Name your character Polonius!
|
|
Name your character Polonius!A few were passable, but many of them seemed to be like "You want to play a fishmonger? Use the great weapon fighter build, and call your greatsword a frozen halibut. Then rename your combat challenge "fresh fish call." In other words, they are laughable and incredibly lame.Brillant! I am so playing a fishmonger now.
Even better!
|
|
Actually, I think this points out 4E's biggest flaw in that all the classes are very much alike, regardless of the flavor of each class. Changing fluff text to turn a Ranger into a Monk is stupid... yet that's pretty much the main differences between ALL the classes now.
There are differences, but they are much smaller than in previous editions. You could change the names and descriptions for a lot of powers and switch them between classes, and not tell the difference. It's much more a powers based game than a class based game. That's why the multi-class feats are basically just power swap feats.
|
|
I had a conversation with my good friend and fellow dnd player of 25 years yesterday. He alerted me to the "Come and Get It" power/feat/thingy where you move an opponent closer to you/whatever.
And.... as he paused and looked at me, I could see him struggling to wrap his mind around just how Come And Get It belongs in a d&d game. ... my point today is that while someone might be able to convert a PC from 3.5 to 4e, wotc has failed to convert dungeons and dragons into fourth edition.
I mean, improvements and new editions should have seasoned dnd lovers jumping up and down with excitement, right?
Maybe I just don't understand this new style of marketing where you treat your consumers like idiots, do things to make them loathe your product and your company, but still expect them to act like sheep and not call you out when you backpedal and suddenly provide 3.5 conversion suggestions, after you've asked the world to "wrap up" 3.5 campaigns and start fresh for the past six months.
|
There are differences, but they are much smaller than in previous editions. You could change the names and descriptions for a lot of powers and switch them between classes, and not tell the difference. It's much more a powers based game than a class based game. That's why the multi-class feats are basically just power swap feats.
Uh, no. The classes are drastically different. A fighter does not have the same powers as a wizard who does not have the same powers as a rogue. Even the individual classes that share the same role play very differently. D&D is still very much a class based game.
|
|
D&D is still very much a class based game.
In some ways it is even more of a classed based game than 3e was. While the mechanics are different they stick pretty tightly to the archetypes presented in previous editions. The new multiclassing rules actually do a good job of reinforcing the importance of classes and the job they are designed to perform. I know a lot of people hate those new rules but I never cared for the 3e way of doing things, so there you go.
Uh, no. The classes are drastically different. A fighter does not have the same powers as a wizard who does not have the same powers as a rogue. Even the individual classes that share the same role play very differently. D&D is still very much a class based game.Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one, Crosswired. Numerous powers are identical across the classes, aside from flavor-texted and possibly the damage type.
Post some up vance. I'd wondered if there was any power duplication, but I just don't have the free time to really read through and examine it that closely. If you've seen some power duplication let us know, I'd be interested to see! :)
|
|
There are differences, but they are much smaller than in previous editions. You could change the names and descriptions for a lot of powers and switch them between classes, and not tell the difference. It's much more a powers based game than a class based game. That's why the multi-class feats are basically just power swap feats.
Class in Pre 4.0 was about expertise in different venues. For example, in 3.5 Fighters were about manipulation of feats, and there was much more contour in designing those manipulations. Rogues were skill hounds with interesting combat advantages. Wizards had a concise number of powers that radically manipulated material reality.
Class in 4.0 is a bucket in which different powers are loaded. Each has a distinct flavor and way to manipulate the battle mat, but all are focused on combat effects on squares or targets.
In specific, I think the 4.0 DMG says your character is the interface through which you interact with the game world. This interface is viewed from the battle map in 4.0 and is NOT concerned at all with the game that went before. It is about making a table top minatures game that has strong roleplaying components.
Now I am playing and judging 4.0. I am playing a half-elven warlord and am splitting DMing duties with a buddy. I just started Keep on the Shadowfell for the neighbor kids and my sons. I am also running a PFRPG playtest. I see 3.5 and 4.0 as two entirely separate systems focused on different aesthtics in much the same way AD&D and "classic" red box D&D were focused on different places in the market.
4.0 plays faster, with less characer options and a more homogenized surface. 3.5 is crunchier, requires more prep and commitment from the players. Both are different.
Total personal non-scientific opinion: The people I consider "serious" roleplayers do not like 4.0. The people more focused on combat seem to really like it. Me, I like both. Of course I also like red and white wine, have voted for democrats and republicans, and driven both foreign and domestic cars.
Post some up vance. I'd wondered if there was any power duplication, but I just don't have the free time to really read through and examine it that closely. If you've seen some power duplication let us know, I'd be interested to see! :)Well, since I want to avoid being SUED these days... :)
Honestly, though, if you look at the Warlord and Fighter, you'll see a LOT of overlap in the early levels. Paladins largely duplicate Warlord powers but swap the key stat involved. The Wizard swaps out (W) for d6 most of the time.
I don't think anonymous message board avatars are that exposed to legal action. ;)
Still, I'm playing a Warlord currently with Fighter being a class that has drawn a lot of attention from me, and so far I haven't seen any duplicate powers. Similar powers, sure, but it's the differences that count. I'll try taking a closer look at Paladins and Fighters, but like I said, not much time for work so detailed. :)
|
|
I don't think anonymous message board avatars are that exposed to legal action. ;)Still, I'm playing a Warlord currently with Fighter being a class that has drawn a lot of attention from me, and so far I haven't seen any duplicate powers. Similar powers, sure, but it's the differences that count. I'll try taking a closer look at Paladins and Fighters, but like I said, not much time for work so detailed. :)
Looks like variaations on a similar theme to me. For example:
Fighter
Combat Challenge
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every
time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or
misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark
lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target
is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any
attack that doesn’t include you as a target. A creature
can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark
supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is
adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not
include you, you can make a melee basic attack against
that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
Paladin
Divine Challenge
You mark the target. The target remains marked until
you use this power against another target, or if you fail
to engage the target (see below). A creature can be subject
to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a
mark that was already in place.
While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack
rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target.
Also, it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma
modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn’t include
you as a target before the start of your next turn. The
damage increases to 6 + your Charisma modifier at 11th
level, and to 9 + your Charisma modifier at 21st level.
On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged
or challenge a different target. To engage the
target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent
to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn,
the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge
on your next turn.
You can use divine challenge once per turn.
These are similar powers with different flavor and effects. Now, whether the differences are that substantial is another issue and their impact on play is still up in the air at Chez Tad's.
The difference, to me, is that both of those are Class Features. More over, they're both abilities designed to allow their respective classes the ability to fulfill their role (that being Defender). Even with that said, the fact that the Fighter can A) Mark multiple targets and B) can get an immediate attack on one Marked foe who shifts or attacks someone else while the Paladin can A) Mark only one target and B) does automatic Radiant damage to the for if he attacks someone else, gives a good bit of a difference.
Compare this to the preliminary version of the Swordmage's Marking ability that has been seen. His Mark seems much like the Paladin's (one target within Close Burst, I think) but instead of doing damage on its first attack that doesn't include him, he reduces the damage the target does.
Check out Warlord/Cleric's Inspiring/Healing Word. Those are pretty much exactly identical ... and I'd expect every Leader to likewise possess an ability that did the same thing.
It's duplicate powers we're looking for here. ;)
If we agree that one of the goals of 4e is to have more balance between the classes, then I would suggest some uniformity among all powers of a certain level is necessary. Even desirable - I hope that there is a "standard" by which each power is judged at each level to help prevent power creep with future splatbooks. It took me a while to wade through all the powers, and my sense was that each level, particularly within a class, had a "base" damage of so many die of damage against a single opponent, and then each modification of the power (ie burst, secondary target, push/pull etc. ) "cost" a certain number of dies of damage. (Not sure if I'm getting across what I mean). If they didn't do that, its unfortunate and the potential for future abuses is higher.
In 3.5, a difficulty in creating a new spell was judging (or at least coming to agreement with the player creating it) what level it was. Trying to compare class features can be even more difficult. So far, by standardizing the options 4e seems to have given an easier way of directly comparing what each class offers. Clearly, some classes excel in certain areas aimed at fulfilling their roles, though.
I have trouble understanding the difficulty people have with changing the flavour in order to play a different class. I remember when a suggestion for differentiating a 3.5 necromancer from another wizard was to describe their magic missile as "mini-skulls". Sounds a little silly but the underlying idea was that a first level spell will cause so much damage, the actual description of how that damage is caused is really up to us.
Take the fishmonger example above, if I describe "Fresh Fish Call" as "The scent of the sea and its creatures clings to you, creating an irresistible hunger in one target and distracting it from your allies, allowing you to mark it until the end of your next turn. While marked, the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that does not include you as a target", I would hope that the player would roleplay it differently then Combat Challenge. I think it feels different despite causing the same effect.
Maybe we'll need to agree to disagree here, but I maintain its the roleplaying that makes a character, and not the mechanics of what rolls you make in combat. I do agree that when the actual classes come out and there are different mechanics, it will be an improvement. Until then, if I have someone who really wants to play a monk, I would rather give him some way to do that then just say "no".
I ended up having to pull double duty when someone wanted to run Treasure of Talon Pass, playing a dragonborn warlord and warforged fighter: neither of them played at all alike, or did anything the same with the exception of using a melee weapon in combat. The warlord was able to shift other characters about to get them out of harm's way, or to get someone into a flanking position, while the fighter was knocking people around with his shield.
As for the Combat/Divine Challenge, they are both similar only in that they impose a -2 penalty to attacks if the creature does not include the fighter/paladin in the attack. This is true of the marked condition, period.
Otherwise they are both activated very differently (fighter can mark anything he attacks, hit or miss; the paladin has to burn a minor action to get one creature) and impose different effects (free attack as opposed to static, automatic radiant damage).
|
|
As for the Combat/Divine Challenge, they are both similar only in that they impose a -2 penalty to attacks if the creature does not include the fighter/paladin in the attack. This is true of the marked condition, period.
Otherwise they are both activated very differently (fighter can mark anything he attacks, hit or miss; the paladin has to burn a minor action to get one creature) and impose different effects (free attack as opposed to static, automatic radiant damage).
My point was that they are differnt versions of the same effect. It's a mechanic re-worked to add differences in flavor to each class. NOT saying they are the same power.
And your rules foo is mighty indeed.
A newbie wouldn't know what a monk was about, would he? I would think that, for the most part, only people with experience from previous editions (or other games) that had monks would care about being able to play monks in 4E.
I think in this case, they're figuring that someone who really wants to play a monk, and can't wait for the official class to be published, probably knows that the "R" in "RPG" stands for "roleplaying" and will let the mechanics slide a bit in order to play the character they want to play. I would agree that for a newbie it would be potentially more difficult.
Exactly. Someone from other editions/games is going to have the experience to describe how their choice of powers, feats and trained skills makes their character a monk rather than a ranger. Alternatively, you could build the monk and give it to the newbie to play and how would he know there was any difference from previous editions?
|
|
Uh, no. The classes are drastically different. A fighter does not have the same powers as a wizard who does not have the same powers as a rogue. Even the individual classes that share the same role play very differently. D&D is still very much a class based game.Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one, Crosswired. Numerous powers are identical across the classes, aside from flavor-texted and possibly the damage type.
Of course there may be some that are very similar but from role to role you will find that the total package of stats, feats, powers, etc. make for very varied and unique classes.
Actuall, I think that the higher level you go, the more you play, the MORE alike that the classes seem to be. This has been a common complaint of the '4E addict', the realization that their entire games get more and more samey as they go.
To be honest vance, I've only seen that complaint given by those who already dislike 4E. Have you actually seen anyone who has played a good deal of 4E with this complaint?