I'm a long time roleplayer, Basic onwards all through the version and numerous other non-D&D rpgs as well. In D&D i've tended to play paladins and 4e will be no exception - or so I thought!
I always pictured my paladins as knights - riding warhorses, using lances, etc. So that's what I aim for. I sat down today to create my first paladin...
'Mounted Combat' feat? Check.
'Paladin's Mount'? Err, no. No power that does the same? No. A ritual then? No. Grr. At least I can get a real warhorse then. Check.
'Lance'? Err, no. No!? Where is it!?
You know, I like 4e (and will be playing it in addition to Pathfinder) but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.
...but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.
First, I think there is some evidence that 4e was rushed out -- but I don't think that's the problem.
Instead, I think it's fair to say that 4e is the game the designers like to play. I'll bet if any of them were into lances, lances would be in the game. I also think druids, monks, whips, and a host of other things that have disappeared would similarly be present if the designers had liked them.
But the game still looks fun, and I look forward to playing it. We'll just have to house-rule a lot or wait for more (overly-expensive) supplements.
|
You know, I like 4e (and will be playing it in addition to Pathfinder) but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.
You seem to be assuming this was a bug. I think they've been pretty upfront in letting people know its a feature, that way you have a real incentive in incorporating the next Player's Handbook into your collection and game.
You know, I like 4e (and will be playing it in addition to Pathfinder) but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.
You seem to be assuming this was a bug. I think they've been pretty upfront in letting people know its a feature, that way you have a real incentive in incorporating the next Player's Handbook into your collection and game.
I knew that a lot of books were in the pipeline, but this seems to be part of a trend. If I look closely, there just isn't that much difference between all the classes - they all gain at-will, encounter and daily powers that seem to have an effect there and then, for perhaps the duration of an encounter and then nothing. There doesn't seem to be anything that a class can lay claim to that is *always on*. For example the ranger's favoured enemy, paladin's divine health and so on. And what about clerics? It's okay calling their powers prayers but one cleric just uses the same powers another does (or can do). Where *are* the unique features that distinguish one class from another?
They have a common framework, but from personal experience the classes do feel different in play.
I would be surprised if anyone in 3rd Edition could sit down and make a mounted paladin right from the start, seeing as how a horse would cost you most of your starting cash, and you dont get a special mount until 5th-level.
That being said, it wouldnt take long to pull this archetype off in 4th Edition (roughly 3rd- to 5th-level), but your warhorse would be much more useful with its powerful charge ability (which doesnt discriminate between weapons).
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a mounted paladin as part of the martial book out later this year.
I would also expect to see some new weapons in it. The question is whether the new powers it contains, of which I expect there to be many, will cause a power creep that unbalances the game.
- Ashavan
My favorite part about the 4E Paladin...without clerics having a at-will cure-at-will ability, the lay on hand ability turns into the 4E "cure light wounds" and you'll spend half your fights running around the battlefield. At least that was my experience in both the games I participated in.
Your paladin must have had a nice Wisdom modifier and you must not have been having a lot of fights per day, since lay on hands can only be used a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier per day.
For most parties, a cleric's healing word, which can be used twice per encounter (no matter how many encounters they have in a day), affects any ally within 5 squares of the cleric, and does not burn the cleric's healing surges, is much more optimal.
The 4e Paladin in my game loves it. He is still first level, but since we do have a cleric he is not the main healer in the group.
To be honest, I have really enjoyed my 4e (I am DMing) experience to date. We played a marathon session from about 6:30 pm to 1:30 am on Thursday and it went smashingly well. I had a campaign and adventure idea of my own that I'd been itching to run and we got through about 7 encounters -- with a healthy dose of RP, player squabbles,and all the other stuff that has been a part of my group since 2e.
I realize this post is a bit off target, but I cannot really help the OP much; I have never been a fan of mounted combat in my D&D. Hopefully, some more accessories come out that alleviate the difficulty or barring that (or realizing you do not want more books) hopefully you can craft some specific feats with your DM that will better allow you to reach your ideal character.
Run some by your DM!
A longspear with high crit instead of reach could probably approximate a 3E lance pretty well, I'd think ...
But Martial Power probably will have rules/weapons to help you pull this off better.
Cheers! :)
I'm a long time roleplayer, Basic onwards all through the version and numerous other non-D&D rpgs as well. In D&D i've tended to play paladins and 4e will be no exception - or so I thought!
I always pictured my paladins as knights - riding warhorses, using lances, etc. So that's what I aim for. I sat down today to create my first paladin...
'Mounted Combat' feat? Check.
'Paladin's Mount'? Err, no. No power that does the same? No. A ritual then? No. Grr. At least I can get a real warhorse then. Check.
'Lance'? Err, no. No!? Where is it!?You know, I like 4e (and will be playing it in addition to Pathfinder) but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.
Which is why 3E is so much better. You get a whole lot more options for your dollar. At least their PHB had way more spells, classes, and rules to cover a lot of different scenarios. 4E is not only dumbed down to the point where me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-through, but there's so many damned limitations it's both pitiful and just plain stupid. I mean, when the book tells you that everything a PC wants to do that's not covered in the 4E rules is going to have to be done by the DM with a d20 roll and a relevant skill check, it doesn't get any simpler than that. I'm waiting on 5th Edition's coin-toss mechanic next. Heads your action is performed and tails it's not.
From the lack of classes, to the lack of spells, to the lack of equipment, rules, and even classic monsters it makes me wonder why no one is figuring out that WotC wants to dig deep in your pockets and offers very little on purpose. You want lances? Wait for PHB 2. Bards and druids? PHB2. Metallic dragons, rust monsters, iron golems? MM2. I mean, look at the font size of 4E! Bigger than 3E's books which means they COULD'VE fit more (at least double what you see now) but didn't. Yet you're still paying the same price.
You know, I like 4e (and will be playing it in addition to Pathfinder) but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.You seem to be assuming this was a bug. I think they've been pretty upfront in letting people know its a feature, that way you have a real incentive in incorporating the next Player's Handbook into your collection and game.
Incentive? More like a rip-off to me.
"Yeah, I know we used to offer a lot more material in a book worth the price but now we realized we need to keep you hooked because we're pretty sure we did ourselves in with 4E. We need money to please Papa Hasbro so please buy these next set of books which will partially give you back what you had in the 3e CORE books alone..."
me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-through
The proper way of writing this would be as follows: my friends and I have already memorized the damned rules (sorry, couldn't resist). But is the fact you know the rules without looking them up every few actions a problem?
I mean, when the book tells you that everything a PC wants to do that's not covered in the 4E rules is going to have to be done by the DM with a d20 roll and a relevant skill check, it doesn't get any simpler than that.
Um, Razz, the DMG says when the character tries an action that is not covered by the rules, that you should use a check based on the situations. It then goes on to give examples where you would use ability checks, skill checks, and attack checks. Do you seriously DM 3.5 in a different fashion? Isn't this just stating what many DMs have done for years and years? Also it does not say that it covers everything a PC wants to do, it says any action that is not covered. So if your PC wanted to swing of the giant Chain Devils chain then scramble up to his shoulders, then blind him with a dagger you would determine the CHECKS required to do that; again, a single roll does not rule the entire procession of actions. I hope that clears things up for people who might believe Razz's harsh criticism of 4e without giving it a fair shake.
Oh, and again, you mention your problem with simplicity; why does this bother you so much?
I think there should be a Rider core class (3.5 and 4) that allows you to make the classic mounted knight, Mongol mounted archer, wrangler, Plains Indian, Tartar of the steppes, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. etc.
I know I'VE developed one for my 3.5 game, and it seems pretty versatile for its role, as well as balanced mechanically.
Thanks all. I understand what you're saying about 'making your own' and after speaking to our DM he tells me there is detail about mounted combat in the DMG, but still no lances. Which seems odd.
I'm more concerned with the lack of any kind of distinct *always on* class features, rather than the instant powers they all seem to have. It's a game, and a fun one at that, but it's definitely lacking something.
...but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.First, I think there is some evidence that 4e was rushed out -- but I don't think that's the problem.
Instead, I think it's fair to say that 4e is the game the designers like to play. I'll bet if any of them were into lances, lances would be in the game. I also think druids, monks, whips, and a host of other things that have disappeared would similarly be present if the designers had liked them.
But the game still looks fun, and I look forward to playing it. We'll just have to house-rule a lot or wait for more (overly-expensive) supplements.
Totally agree and essentially this is usually how things turn out with later editions of a game. The designers basically stick the stuff they've been using into the rules and stuff no one has been using - well thats often forgotten or if it was not forgotten it was cut. When your desperately trying to figure out what to cut (and you know they were chopping like maniacs over there - there is always far more then page count allows) its the stuff you never used and don't care for that goes first.
Thanks all. I understand what you're saying about 'making your own' and after speaking to our DM he tells me there is detail about mounted combat in the DMG, but still no lances. Which seems odd.
I'm more concerned with the lack of any kind of distinct *always on* class features, rather than the instant powers they all seem to have. It's a game, and a fun one at that, but it's definitely lacking something.
Actually there are a number of "always on" abilities for most of the classes. Clerics add their Wisdom to their healing abilities. Warlords give initiative bonuses to allies, as well as HP or bonuses to hit when AP are spent. Fighters get a bonus to hit. Rogues get bonuses on SA damage or OA AC. Those are just off the top of my head, there are probably a few others (Rangers can choose to dual wield one-handed weapons on both hands, another one I just thought of)
Cheers! :)
Thanks all. I understand what you're saying about 'making your own' and after speaking to our DM he tells me there is detail about mounted combat in the DMG, but still no lances. Which seems odd.
I'm more concerned with the lack of any kind of distinct *always on* class features, rather than the instant powers they all seem to have. It's a game, and a fun one at that, but it's definitely lacking something.
I think your just SOL in this desire. One of the core ideas of 4E is that, fundamentally, all the classes are using the same rules. Their differences arise from the fact that their abilities are chosen to follow the theme of the class. Your just not going to see a whole separate mechanics aimed at fighters, wizards and druids.
Closest I suspect you'll get is stuff like Paladin feats that allow Paladins to ride cool animals and some powers that allow one to do cool stuff when mounted on animals.
me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-through
This right here? This is brilliant. God forbid you know how to play the game after reading the book.
Of course, if the 4e rules were more complicated than 3e, I guaranf%!*ingtee you that Razz would be talking about how WOTC made the rules hard on purpose so they could sell an new Rules Compendium.
me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-throughThis right here? This is brilliant. God forbid you know how to play the game after reading the book.
Of course, if the 4e rules were more complicated than 3e, I guaranf&&*ingtee you that Razz would be talking about how WOTC made the rules hard on purpose so they could sell an new Rules Compendium.
"This 4E crap is too damn complicated! I remember in the glory days of 3.5 when we knew all the bonus types and what stacked with what, and were able to calculate a Craft DC without looking it up. WOTC make me sick."
Which is why 3E is so much better. You get a whole lot more options for your dollar.
And a system that becomes very cumbersome to play some time shortly after 10th level. Seriously, 4e deserves at least a little credit.
4E is not only dumbed down to the point where me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-through...
Case in point. The game is easy to learn -- are you saying that's bad?
Don't get me wrong -- I think 4e has some bothersome shortcomings. I wish they'd kept a lot more of the past 30 years of the game. But it's not all bad. In fact, some of it is pretty good.
And if this had been the game EGG had launched thirty years ago, it would have been stunningly groundbreaking and applauded. It's a good game (just not the game you want).
Umm, can't you just use the stats for a longspear and call it a lance? Maybe give it the versatile property while you are mounted.
For your mount, use a warhorse or, if you DM allows, the celestial horse (or whatever its called) at a higher level.
I don't think paladins really NEED a specific power to get a mount.
PS. Somebody get Razz some tranquilizers, he's getting way too excited again.
I dunno. I think it's telling that the most successful gaming franchise of all time is being utterly gutted for no other reason than that the newest version of the game CANNOT work with it...
You mind elaborating? Are you saying that features that aren't in the game aren't in the game 'cause they don't work with the game? That's like complaining about how the newest Ford Focus doesn't have a space for a soft-serve ice cream machine because the car won't support it.
The Forgotten Realms is being gutted because the setting... cannot be modeled with the rules given in 4E.
I agree.
No matter how good the game is, I still think WotC has shown absolutely no interest in maintaining any compatibility with previous versions (not just rules, but even settings). Many similarities seem coincidental or accidental -- IMO.
Seriously, how hard would it have been to include half-orcs, gnomes, druids, monks, and a host of other components? And tey weren't just overlooked, they were deliberately excluded.
And the more I think about it, the more dismayed I am. Heroic fantasy with knights in shining armor -- sans lances.
Yup they killed Ellistraee. I'm a bit upset about this...
While I'm not a Forgotten Realms fan, it's upsetting to me, too. At what point does it stop being FR (no matter what the labels on the map say)?
And when they get around to my beloved Greyhawk, what can I expect? So far, I expect nothing less than a complete butchering of the setting. I hope they prove me wrong.
The Forgotten Realms is being gutted because the setting... cannot be modeled with the rules given in 4E.I agree.
No matter how good the game is, I still think WotC has shown absolutely no interest in maintaining any compatibility with previous versions (not just rules, but even settings). Many similarities seem coincidental or accidental -- IMO.
Seriously, how hard would it have been to include half-orcs, gnomes, druids, monks, and a host of other components? And tey weren't just overlooked, they were deliberately excluded.
And the more I think about it, the more dismayed I am. Heroic fantasy with knights in shining armor -- sans lances.
Keith Baker is very excited about 4e, and reworking everything so he doesn't have to blow up Eberron like they did FR.
And what if they did take out those classes? They were trouble classes, nobody knew how to fix them, so for now they're not included.
Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a@~~!#+, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian. Once again, needs re-working, but gnomes are in the MM, so gnomes are a moot point (in more ways than one :P).
Let's not forget the changes from 1st to 2nd ed. I mean the differences weren't that great, but they still dropped the monk, assassin and barbarian despite being so easy to incorporate.
And what if they did take out those classes? They were trouble classes, nobody knew how to fix them, so for now they're not included... Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a~&%&@~, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian...
I think you missed my point. I didn't say they broke the game, I said they took away popular (enough) races and classes that could have been painlessly left behind. Eliminating these elements needlessly provoked the anger of long-time players.
And I'm not sure what made druids and monks 'trouble classes.'
What they did was OK to you -- it does not follow that it is OK to me or others. Your satisfaction does not prove they made the best decisions.
Keith Baker is very excited about 4e, and reworking everything so he doesn't have to blow up Eberron like they did FR.
This is such a revealing point to me. One could argue that a more versatile game would have been adaptable to Eberron -- instead Baker is compelled to adapt to 4e or face the butchering of his creation.
IMO :)
Keith Baker is very excited about 4e, and reworking everything so he doesn't have to blow up Eberron like they did FR.This is such a revealing point to me. One could argue that a more versatile game would have been adaptable to Eberron -- instead Baker is compelled to adapt to 4e or face the butchering of his creation.
IMO :)
I think it has more to do with the fact that he still has rights to his creation, as opposed to Ed Greenwood who kinda no longer controls his.
In any case, Keith Baker's blog is here and he actually does a good job of explaining changes in the system and adapting them to Eberron.
Keith Baker does not own the rights to Eberron. They are owned solely by WoTC.
Keith Baker does not own the rights to Eberron. They are owned solely by WoTC.
That was clear when I looked at the blog mentioned above. WotC seems to be taking whatever liberties they wish without his input.
That was clear when I looked at the blog mentioned above. WotC seems to be taking whatever liberties they wish without his input.
I'm not sure I'd describe it as taking liberties when it is their property. Still, it was my understanding that Keith was involved in producing the 4E version of Eberron pretty extensively. At least that's the sense I got from his blog last time I read it.
Cheers! :)
Still, it was my understanding that Keith was involved in producing the 4E version of Eberron pretty extensively. At least that's the sense I got from his blog last time I read it.
Cheers! :)
Just as Ed Greenwood is extensively involved in 4e FR?
Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a@~!!~%, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian. Once again, needs re-working, but gnomes are in the MM, so gnomes are a moot point (in more ways than one :P).
And almost every halfling was a rogue (at least as reliably as every half-orc was a stupid berserker), so I don't really see your point. Lack of imagination in the player base would be a poor justification for omitting something from the core.
They probably discovered that, like Forgotten Realms, there was a lot they actually COULD NOT DO in Eberron, and have to rewrite the material accordingly.
No, Keith Baker is actually finding ways to fit Eberron into 4e, if you read his blog you would understand this.
And almost every halfling was a rogue (at least as reliably as every half-orc was a stupid berserker), so I don't really see your point. Lack of imagination in the player base would be a poor justification for omitting something from the core.
Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a@~!!~%, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian. Once again, needs re-working, but gnomes are in the MM, so gnomes are a moot point (in more ways than one :P).
Yeah Halflings were almost always rogues, but I have seen halfling rangers, monks, and bards too. Half-orcs on the other hand... I made a half-orc NPC who used to be a monk, all I got were giggles from my players. They eventually shut up, but the stereotype is there for half-orcs: if you're not a barbarian or fighter, you're really weird. Now maybe that is a dumb reason for getting rid of half-orcs, but if they can rework their back story a bit it might not be such a bad idea. Let's also not forget that half-orcs were offed once before. But yeah, I'd like to see half-orcs return, especially now that there's no more stat penalties.
Gnomes on the other hand... gnomes definitely need to be reworked. I don't think they had much of a class stereotype, and their favored class used to be illusionist. I think they really could have used a +2 to CHA instead of CON. It seems in 4e they're going for the fey touched thing, so I hope they'll give them a more firm place in the game other than "I'm a trickster, tee hee!" I mean seriously, +2 to Craft (Alchemy), of all the skill bonuses...
Yeah Halflings were almost always rogues, but I have seen halfling rangers, monks, and bards too. Half-orcs on the other hand...
I've seen half-orc clerics, monks, and rogues. So I think you are still utterly failing to show any distinction between the "stereotypical rogue halfling" and the "stereotypical half-orc fighter/barbarian."
Now maybe that is a dumb reason for getting rid of half-orcs...
There's no "maybe" about it.
Player's Handbook seems full with this group of classes and races. It seems impossible to fit more into it. They didn't throw the classes or races away. They will come back on PHB 2 with most of them if not all.
And what if they did take out those classes? They were trouble classes, nobody knew how to fix them, so for now they're not included... Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a~&%&@~, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian...I think you missed my point. I didn't say they broke the game, I said they took away popular (enough) races and classes that could have been painlessly left behind. Eliminating these elements needlessly provoked the anger of long-time players.
And I'm not sure what made druids and monks 'trouble classes.'
What they did was OK to you -- it does not follow that it is OK to me or others. Your satisfaction does not prove they made the best decisions.
Well considering each class takes up at least 12 pages (wizard was highest I think with 15), adding in the other standards of Monk, Bard, Druid, Sorceror, and Barbarian would have taken another 60 pages at least.
Adding in the missing races of Gnome and Half-orc may have been easier at 2 pages per race though.(Aside from the extra space for feats etc about them). The designers asked themselves what role these races played and could play and decided they werent major players. Every team needs benchwarmers.
Since eberron was brought up, I think it would be a good idea to include Half-Orc as part of the material so it would be divorced from the whole brutal creation things the designers didnt like.
As far as gnomes are concerned you have enough information to play one if you would like.
As far as missing weapons, I do not see it as that big of a deal. The stats can be figured out. I was never a fan of mounted combat or poke-paladins. Heck, I hated animal companions and familiars too. I am glad they are all gone.
No, Keith Baker is actually finding ways to fit Eberron into 4e, if you read his blog you would understand this.And the fact that they have to go in that direction should say something? They're having to rework a setting to fit the rules - which proves a weakness in the rules, nae?
No, it doesn't. Having to alter a setting to match a new rule set does not prove anything about 4th edition D&D or 3rd edition for that matter. You can't use the changes required to fit the setting to the rules as proof for weaknesses or strengths in the new rules. It's just proof that there are differences which need to be explained.
And frankly, Keith's changes to Ebberon have been really small. Even the Feywild/Shadowfell cosmology changes had little effect on the setting. In 3rd editon if you were headed to the evil outer realms, then you passed thru the border of shadows to get there. Now you pass through the Shadowfell. Not a very big change, just an expansion of the border territory..
Rituals actually helped the setting, becuase there were supposed to be a lot of people who could use certain limited magic spells. Allowing someone to be able to repeatedly cast a Ritual without a book modeled that part of the setting very well.
The thing which gave him the biggest trouble was the Healing themed Dragonmark house. The house isn't going to change, but who uses their services. Adventurers, who rarely suffer major injuries like a broekn bone because they are heroes don't go to the house much, but the common people don't have the vitality that a PC does, and still use the house's healing.
This lead to him creating a very cool expansion to the diesease rules which modeled broken bones, in case people wanted to play a more gritty style of game. If you haven't read that entry, I highly recomend it.
I've greatly enjoyed reading his blog, because he gives good insight into a designer's mindset.
As far as missing weapons, I do not see it as that big of a deal. The stats can be figured out. I was never a fan of mounted combat or poke-paladins. Heck, I hated animal companions and familiars too. I am glad they are all gone.
I don't think it's much point making a lot of hay about missing weaponry either. They're putting out a equipment book quite quickly here, and I expect it to have an unbearibly long weapon list.
I think that the design team really suffered because of the book design philosphy this time around. The book couldn't really be bigger then it is, and yet there was so much more information that needed to go in.
Things like magic items had to be included, because the designers wanted the Player's handbook to be the only book a player had to buy to play the game. Quite a nice idea, especially from the consumer point of view, but it played havoc with the info that could go into the book.
They also admited having trouble making cohorts and the like work well in the new system.They wanted to playtest them more, and I'm sure they'll work something out which will be pretty balanced.
We'll be seeing Lances, mounted combat, followers, and all the other missing things soon enough. I can understand why it's annoying not having these things right away, but they're coming.
No, Keith Baker is actually finding ways to fit Eberron into 4e, if you read his blog you would understand this.And the fact that they have to go in that direction should say something? They're having to rework a setting to fit the rules - which proves a weakness in the rules, nae?
Not really sure how that would equate to a 'weakness in the rules'. You have a campaign setting developed based on a set of rules.
A different set of rules comes out and the campaign setting does not work with these new rules out of the box. Of course the campaign seeting needs to be reworked. It's a new version for gods sake! If they developed it to work with all pre-existing campaign settings, then wouldn't it really just become an alternate rule-book? Welcome to D&D 3.5.1! Keep all of the old stuff, and just slap this on top of it!
3e is 3e
4e is 4e
If you want to compare them, or crap on either one, start a new thread. Better yet, let's petition Paizo to start a whole new message board where people can contrast and compare 4e with previous versions. It would be nice to have a place where people can place a question and know that they have not just provided a forum for people to rant on about how the situation they were asking about is proof of how 4e sucks!
And I am talking about Razz in particular...somehow you've taken that fact that they left out the lance as proof that the whole of 4e sucks.
We get it...you don't like it.
Enough already...
EDIT: See Teiran's response above for a less-convoluted response, but with the same intent as mine :)
I have to say, it kind of bugs me when someone says "well can't you just call a spear a lance" or "well I never liked mounted knights anyway." Its not that folks don't have a right to their opinion, but I think such comments are dismissive of a concern that reflects a broader point.
Lances are a staple of one of the most ancient medieval tropes, the mounted knight, which has existed from the birth of the paladin and cavalier classes in the game. What the lack of lances represents more broadly, is the overall sense of incompleteness that IMO permeates 4e.
With the missing core classes, classic monsters, limited paragon paths, limited epic paths, limited skills, etc. 4e seems unfinished in a way that I cannot say that 2e/3e or 3.5e was when these versions were released. Combat is exhaustively covered but it seems that many other things were given a lot less love.
Damn, I am begining to miss Gary Gygax's list of obscure polearms from the 1e Unearthed Arcana. IMO what is missing from 4e is what is missing from Las Vegas. Like Vegas, 4e is bright and shiny with lots of toys and constant excitement but like Vegas, 4e is missing an undefinable something, something I would call soul. This "soul" doesn't rely on glitz and glamour but unstead upon a depth and a quality of personality.
4e is all of the shine and none of the soul of D&D. Maybe in a few years, 4e will find itself and have the depth of prior editions. However, I am not holding out much hope because IMO D&D 3 had more of a sense of completeness and fullness right out of the gate. Part of this is WoTC's marketing strategy of dribbling out content over the years via multiple core books. IMO the secret to making this work is to not have the customer feel cheated by this lack of completeness and in this regard I believe WoTC failed. Unfortunately.
|
Damn, I am begining to miss Gary Gygax's list of obscure polearms from the 1e Unearthed Arcana.
No matter how many editions we traded up, we had to hold on to those 1st edition DMGs for all that cool stuff in the back. Different herbs and their effects! Gemstones and their magical associations! Names for royal ranks by culture!
I kinda miss the little funny bits as well. "Don't move Wizard, or the Familiar gets it!" Gamers didn't take the game (or themselves) quite so seriously back then, and it was acceptable to poke fun.
Nostalgia aside, Wayne Reynolds artwork is a damn sight prettier than that of Erol Otus, I will admit...