Short 4e Review


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

hmarcbower wrote:
CAN and WILL. Unless you think it's appropriate to compare a new game that they want us to buy with something 4 or 5 years old.... That's like saying "Hey, check out this new office application!" and when criticized for its lack of functionality and options saying "yah, but compare it with WordPerfect 4. It rocks, then."
crosswiredmind wrote:
Well, if that is what you want to do then there is zero possibility that 4e would have ever met your approval no matter how good the core system. Unless you compare PHB to PHB you will be making an unfair comparison.

Absolutely not. I'm comparing two games that exist contemporaneously. You're the one wanting to make anachronistic comparisons... let's compare this brand new game to a game that came out 5 (or even 8, if you want to consider 3.0 vs 4.0) years ago. How does that make any sense whatsoever? See my above analogy.


Polaris wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Polaris wrote:
False choice especially with retraining. There are basically only two valid meta-builds for rogues.

And if you play a straight rogue in 3.5 (just using the PHB) you also have very few options. In both systems you can use multiclassing to widen your options but even then you are limited.

I don't see any real difference between 3e and 4e on this issue.

I do. With 3.5E multiclassing it was possible to play a wide variety of "rogue type" characters (trap-finders, second-story men, etc) with the correct multiclasses because you got to mix and match both skills and class features. This made every rogue in 3.5 different. It was rare to almost unheard of for anyone to straight-class a non-caster in 3.5E.

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

What specific builds do you feel 4E can't handle? You can play a variety of types within the rogue class itself, and vastly more via multiclassing. Trapfinder? Still good. Second-story men? I don't see an issue here.

Sure, you can't run around sneak attacking people with a greatsword anymore. (Though you can build a character who sneak attacks people with a crossbow/daggers at the start of the fight, and then draws a greatsword and rolls into melee.) You can certainly build a brutal thug of a rogue who relies on brute strength as much as cunning or dexterity.

What are we missing here, in your opinion? Multiclassing is certainly a viable option. Indeed, since 4E has set aside the need to min/max or powergame that could creep into 3.5 games, you can much more easily not worry about optimizing and still have a more than capable adventurer.


Balance overated

I like penalties to play

To bad Cleric's Evil

Yes I Hiku'd it damn tooten...might not be good Hiku though.

Ignatz

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:


I am sorry that the context did not carry over. The pot shot was not for the choice of 3e over 4e but the desire to see WotC employees lose their jobs because they dared to make a new edition of D&D.

Not at all. *I* didn't make myself clear. I wasn't accusing you of taking "pot shots". It's frustrating when a minority of individuals poke into a conversation just to make negative remarks. I wish these few individuals on both sides would quit it.

See CWM and I can get along....maybe there is hope for world peace =)


Matthew Koelbl wrote:

What specific builds do you feel 4E can't handle? You can play a variety of types within the rogue class itself, and vastly more via multiclassing. Trapfinder? Still good. Second-story men? I don't see an issue here.

There are various ones. Building a classic 2e "gish" is basically impossible in 4E. So is a swashbuckler (dex based fighter), so is a muscle-rogue (as you admit), i.e. the thug with the greatsword. There are many many others.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Sure, you can't run around sneak attacking people with a greatsword anymore. (Though you can build a character who sneak attacks people with a crossbow/daggers at the start of the fight, and then draws a greatsword and rolls into melee.) You can certainly build a brutal thug of a rogue who relies on brute strength as much as cunning or dexterity.

Then you've ceded my point. The rogue with a greatsword (the thug) is a very viable choice in 3e and easily visuallized. For that matter how about the tripping master....another example. The fact you can't sneak attack with any weapon does indeed make some choices in 4E impossible that were possible before....and that's just one example.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


What are we missing here, in your opinion? Multiclassing is certainly a viable option. Indeed, since 4E has set aside the need to min/max or powergame that could creep into 3.5 games, you can much more easily not worry about optimizing and still have a more than capable adventurer.

TRUE multiclassing is not a viable option. The only thing that approaches that is paragon multiclassing and that is so bad that friends don't let friends paragon multiclass. Even then you don't really get the abilities of the other class that uniquely make them that class, i.e. their class abilities. The power-swap and "initiate" feats are good for splashing and taking off-class paragon paths, but that isn't 'multiclassing' and at best expands your possible options from four paragon paths to eight, i.e. not much difference and that's IF you can take a paragon path with just the initiate feat (with the ranger you can not).

-Polaris


Polaris wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:

What specific builds do you feel 4E can't handle? You can play a variety of types within the rogue class itself, and vastly more via multiclassing. Trapfinder? Still good. Second-story men? I don't see an issue here.

There are various ones. Building a classic 2e "gish" is basically impossible in 4E. So is a swashbuckler (dex based fighter), so is a muscle-rogue (as you admit), i.e. the thug with the greatsword. There are many many others.

All of those are viable in 4E. The gish is, honestly, more viable in the core 4E rules than it was in the core 3.5 rules... assuming, by that phrase, you mean a character that can both sling spells and swing swords in a capable fashion.

For your others, part of the issue seems to be that you are confusing concepts with builds. Assuming your concept is a lightly armored swordsman who fights with finesse and skill... building the character as a rapier-wielding rogue seems pretty much perfect. And, as I mentioned, the brutal thug is also perfectly viable - I'm not sure how you concluded that I said otherwise. Sure, you can't stack the biggest weapons in the game with the biggest damage-bonus class feature in the game - but you can still play a rogue who swings a greatsword in combat, or a fighter who beats people up and is trained in stealth and thievery.

If your character concept is all about twinking out the most damage possible, then sure, it might have hit a snag... but that doesn't seem to be a concept worth creating, in my mind.

Polaris wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Sure, you can't run around sneak attacking people with a greatsword anymore. (Though you can build a character who sneak attacks people with a crossbow/daggers at the start of the fight, and then draws a greatsword and rolls into melee.) You can certainly build a brutal thug of a rogue who relies on brute strength as much as cunning or dexterity.
Then you've ceded my point. The rogue with a greatsword (the thug) is a very viable choice in 3e and easily visuallized. For that matter how about the tripping master....another example. The fact you can't sneak attack with any weapon does indeed make some choices in 4E impossible that were possible before....and that's just one example.

Again - why do you need to be able to sneak attack with a greatsword? How is that a character concept?

You can play a rogue with a greatsword, in 4E. You can't use it to sneak attack people, sure, but if you want to play a rogue with good Str and Dex, who snipes people from the shadows and then drags out an enormous weapon when they get close, you are perfectly able to do so. If you don't plan to ever use sneak attack or powers based around dextrous weapon use, then build the character as a fighter, spend some feats to train in stealth and thievery, and you have a perfectly effective muscle thug.

Yes, certain choices aren't available in 4E that were possible before (usually ones that were unbalanced.) But the majority of character concepts are just fine. "Sneak Attacking with a greatsword" isn't a character concept, it is a mechanic. Being a low-life thug who beats people up with big weapons and takes their money - that's a character concept, and it is perfectly viable.

Polaris wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


What are we missing here, in your opinion? Multiclassing is certainly a viable option. Indeed, since 4E has set aside the need to min/max or powergame that could creep into 3.5 games, you can much more easily not worry about optimizing and still have a more than capable adventurer.
TRUE multiclassing is not a viable option. The only thing that approaches that is paragon multiclassing and that is so bad that friends don't let friends paragon multiclass. Even then you don't really get the abilities of the other class that uniquely make them that class, i.e. their class abilities. The power-swap and "initiate" feats are good for splashing and taking off-class paragon paths, but that isn't 'multiclassing' and at best expands your possible options from four paragon paths to eight, i.e. not much difference and that's IF you can take a paragon path with just the initiate feat (with the ranger you can not).

I'm not sure what you are looking for in a multiclassed character - someone who can perform both roles better than either pure class could independantly? Someone who takes advantage of synergy to become more powerful than anyone else? That seems to be what you are advocating - being able to combine two classes into one, more powerful whole.

Right now, multiclassing lets you build a character that gains versatility without gaining direct power. You end up... slightly behind any non-multiclassed characters, but not by much, and in return you gain variety.

Paragon multiclassing isn't my thing - I prefer multiclassing, taking the power swap feats and following up with a multiclass paragon path - at which point my powers are about 50/50 between my two class-types, and I'm actually effective at both!

Again, most standard multiclass concepts seem pretty viable from what I've seen. Sure, you can't build a cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue, but that's a pretty rare figure, in my mind. And a paladin/warlock or something similar actually gets pretty close - and is surprisingly effective at the same time.


Matthew,

What Wotc is calling "multiclassing" these days is not multiclassing. Multiclassing is the ability to be more than one class at once, and you can not do this in 4E. Multiclassing for thirty years of DnD had a very specific meaning, and 4E trashes it. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It would have been considerably more honest to either call it something else or admit that multiclassing was dead....and no you can not do a very good Gish in 4E. It's been tried (and failed) on the gleemax char-op boards. The viable Gish was a 4e design goal and to data a spectacular failure.

As for the thug, no you can't do a classic thug. The classic thug doesn't attack travellers with his daggers, but the rogue class virtually forces you to go dagger over all other choices. Brigands and Thugs used a wide variety of weapons but were definately "rogues" as the term is understood. This is another example of a 4E failure. The same applies to archers. In prior editions if I wanted a fighter who's primary emphasis was on archery, I could do that. Now I can not (I have to be a "ranger" which doesn't fit many archer archetypes).

-POlaris


Polaris wrote:
What Wotc is calling "multiclassing" these days is not multiclassing. Multiclassing is the ability to be more than one class at once, and you can not do this in 4E. Multiclassing for thirty years of DnD had a very specific meaning, and 4E trashes it. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Oh come on. Multiclassing has been handled differently in almost every edition to date. Demihuman multi-classing was very different from human dual-classing, which was in turn extremely different from 3e level-by-level multiclassing/prestige classing/gestalt multiclassing.

You can say that 4e "trashed" the 3e multiclassing system, but saying there was some sort of multiclassing tradition that is fundamentally different in 4th edition is a pretty obtuse viewpoint.


Polaris wrote:

Matthew,

What Wotc is calling "multiclassing" these days is not multiclassing. Multiclassing is the ability to be more than one class at once, and you can not do this in 4E. Multiclassing for thirty years of DnD had a very specific meaning, and 4E trashes it. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It would have been considerably more honest to either call it something else or admit that multiclassing was dead....and no you can not do a very good Gish in 4E. It's been tried (and failed) on the gleemax char-op boards. The viable Gish was a 4e design goal and to data a spectacular failure.

That's not true at all. In some of the higher-level play I've seen characters very much functioning as two classes at once. What precisely do you feel a class needs to be able to do in order to function as two characters at once? I've seen rogues that are also competent spellcasters, healers that are also effective tanks, melee combatants also able to unleash devestating spells. I've seen what could be described as three different Gishes played thus far - a low-level warlock/fighter played over several sessions that was primarily a caster, but also very capable in melee; a paragon level eladrin warlord/wizard/stormmage who could cover the field in lightning, even while wading into melee and giving orders to allies; and a paragon level wizard / wizard of the spiral tower who had the normal pack of standard wizard spells he would cast through his longsword, along with his spiral tower melee attacks to slice up foes in melee.

The last two I only saw in action in a one-shot, but both were perfectly effective, surprisingly durable, and shifted between casting and melee with ease. The characters are effective and perfectly viable when compared with other PCs of their level - from what data are you making the claim that "multiclassing is dead" and "Gishes are failures"?

Not to mention that 3rd Edition multiclassing was completely different than the multiclassing from previous editions - stating that 4E is a departure from "thirty years of DnD" is very misleading, imo.

Polaris wrote:
As for the thug, no you can't do a classic thug. The classic thug doesn't attack travellers with his daggers, but the rogue class virtually forces you to go dagger over all other choices. Brigands and Thugs used a wide variety of weapons but were definately "rogues" as the term is understood.

If you are playing a rogue you do need to use light blades, slings or crossbows to fully use your powers. (Though Martial Power might provide other options.) Brigands and Thugs would be, in your view, more likely to use Greatswords or other heavier weapons. So, given the concept is a brigand who relies on brute forth over dextrous attackks, what is precisely wrong with building as a fighter with a sword, who is trained in all the classic rogue skills?

Once again, you aren't stating character concepts or archetypes, you are talking about specific mechanical limitations. And, again, "Sneak Attacking with a Greatsword" isn't a character, it is a mechanic. If you wanted to play a highwaymen who robs people with greatswords, you can do so. He just can't be min/maxed to do more damage than all other classes are capable of.

I'm serious here - if your character concept has nothing to do with being a dextrous, nimble fighter, than you shouldn't be upset that the rogue class has nothing to offer you.

Polaris wrote:
This is another example of a 4E failure. The same applies to archers. In prior editions if I wanted a fighter who's primary emphasis was on archery, I could do that. Now I can not (I have to be a "ranger" which doesn't fit many archer archetypes).

I don't see many that it doesn't work for - but again, I really don't believe that mechanical requirements are legitimate character concepts. "A Fighter with a bow" isn't an archetype; "a fighter with a bow" is, and is perfectly playable. And, honestly, there isn't anything preventing you from playing a Fighter with a bow - it isn't especially effective, but it isn't useless either. Indeed, the fact you can mark people from range and are more accurate than most rangers might almost make up for all your powers only serving as backup if you get into melee.


Benimoto wrote:


Oh come on. Multiclassing has been handled differently in almost every edition to date. Demihuman multi-classing was very different from human dual-classing, which was in turn extremely different from 3e level-by-level multiclassing/prestige classing/gestalt multiclassing.

That's just not so. "Multiclassing" was introduced in 1978 (although you can argue that the "Elf" class in BCMI was a form of 'multiclassing' and in OD&D (tan books) an Elf could choose to be a man of arms (fighter) or man of twigs (wizard) before each session).

First of all the ADnD 2e "multiclassing" (and dual classing!) rules from 1e were virtually untouched (except to clarify that fighter/mus could not wear armor other than elven chain). Dual Classing required so high stats that it's not worth mentioning. Unless you played computer games (such as Baldur's Gate), you almost never saw Dual Classing.

In 3E they changed the mechanics slightly but did not change the underlying defintion. The underlying defination of multiclassing has always been since 1978 to be the ability to function in more than one class at the same time.

This applies to ADnD 1e and 2e (including dual classing), and 3E. It does NOT apply to 4E. Like it or loath it, 4E does not have multiclassing as it is commonly understood.

Benimoto wrote:


You can say that 4e "trashed" the 3e multiclassing system, but saying there was some sort of multiclassing tradition that is fundamentally different in 4th edition is a pretty obtuse viewpoint.

Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.


Polaris wrote:


Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.

It's an opinion. And a fighter _can_ boost dex through the ceiling just as much as the ranger can, so your second point might be accurate in that the ranger is _more likely_ to, but it's not an absolute, which you're presenting it as.


Matthew,

Here's the deal. Brigands and Thugs would most likely use heavier weapons...not greatswords perhaps but certainly heavy clubs, broadswords, spears, and the like.

However, the classic brigand will also perfer to ambush and definately would favor lighter armor.

4E doesn't really permit you to do both. If you want to be a "fighter" you are shoehorned into wearing heavy armor (preferably scale). If you want to be a "rogue", then you are a fool if you use any melee weapon other than the dagger (or perhaps scimitar at paragon).

In short the rules in 4E get in the way and aren't customizable outside of very sharp limits. What's worse, it's almost impossible to house-rule 4E because the system is so tightly constrained that even small changes can have catastrophic cascade effects (another problem with the balance uber alles approach).

-Polaris


CPEvilref wrote:
Polaris wrote:


Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.

It's an opinion. And a fighter _can_ boost dex through the ceiling just as much as the ranger can, so your second point might be accurate in that the ranger is _more likely_ to, but it's not an absolute, which you're presenting it as.

It's a practical fact. The fighter needs to boost his strength first and formost or he doesn't get to hit. If you look at the secondary stats, there is no incentive for the fighter to boost dex unless going heavy blade mastery and arguably not even then. The best secondary stat for a 4e fighter is wisdom (read Pit Fighter and you'll see why).

If a class assumes you will be heavily armored (and the fighter definately does), then investing in Dex as a primary is not something that will be done.

-Polaris


Polaris wrote:
In 3E they changed the mechanics slightly but did not change the underlying defintion. The underlying defination of multiclassing has always been since 1978 to be the ability to function in more than one class at the same time.

You're trying to pass off your particular definition as a fact. Multiclassing didn't exist in Basic D&D, it had a certain definition in AD&D and 2nd edition, and then it was completely changed in 3rd. It changes again in 4th, to no great surprise.

Do I need to quote wikipedia here? In its page on the difference between editions, it says in regards to 3rd edition:

wikipedia wrote:
Multi-classing and dual-classing as per previous editions was removed. In the new multiclassing system, multi-classing functioned similar to dual-classing had previously, except that a character could gain a level of any character class upon gaining a level instead of only gaining levels in the second class. Multi-classing was made available to all races, although easier for humans, and characters with multiple classes of differing levels would be penalized.

And besides, 4e allows you to use one of the class features of your multiclass and one of the skills. Further feats allow you to use some of the powers. That's all a class is in 4th edition, aside from small stuff like armor and weapon proficiencies.

I can see some of your point, certainly. You can't use everything available to another class through 4e multiclassing the way that class does. At least in the core rules. In podcasts and other media, the designers say that there's no architectural problems with taking some or all of the powers and class features of another class. It's just not how the core rules have implemented it, for balance or other reasons.

The Exchange

hmarcbower wrote:
hmarcbower wrote:
CAN and WILL. Unless you think it's appropriate to compare a new game that they want us to buy with something 4 or 5 years old.... That's like saying "Hey, check out this new office application!" and when criticized for its lack of functionality and options saying "yah, but compare it with WordPerfect 4. It rocks, then."
crosswiredmind wrote:
Well, if that is what you want to do then there is zero possibility that 4e would have ever met your approval no matter how good the core system. Unless you compare PHB to PHB you will be making an unfair comparison.

Absolutely not. I'm comparing two games that exist contemporaneously. You're the one wanting to make anachronistic comparisons... let's compare this brand new game to a game that came out 5 (or even 8, if you want to consider 3.0 vs 4.0) years ago. How does that make any sense whatsoever? See my above analogy.

You do not buy a single version of Microsoft Word in chunks over time. The analogy to D&D does not hold.

The Exchange

Polaris wrote:

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

Multiclassing in 3e was truly unlike anything that came before.

I agree that 4e has fewer option but they are not as few as you think. In 4e you have class selection, power selections, skill selections, feat selections, you can multi-class, you can spend a couple feats to use rituals.

If you look at the fighter 4e has more options, the ranger has more options, the paladin has more options, the rogue has fewer options, the wizard has fewer options, and the cleric seems to be a wash.


If we are talking pure mechanics I'll agree that a 3.5 fighter is a phenomenally versatile class capable of taking on a huge range of rolls. Its exceptional in that even in 3.5. However I don't really see that as being necessarily all good. Mechanically the fighters just got better and better with each new splat book released and they completely eclipsed most of the other possible class builds. I had a player take a Samurai as their first class in my last campaign based on my worlds fluff. However Samurai can't compete with fighters so the player eventually dropped the class. Several Players considered taking Swashbucklers but, in the end, they too can't compete effectively. In fact the only classes that seemed to be able to compete where either stunningly powerful, ala Tomb of Battle, or the Psychic Warrior, which in my campaign was almost always either a psychic Warrior with two levels of fighter or you played a fighter with two levels of Psychic Warrior. It was obvously the best build.

In fact the fighter is so good that when I'm statting up a monster to be a ranged combatant I never use Rangers - they suck, compared to fighters at doing ranged combat, their bonuses just can't compete with a dozens of feats chosen from a plethora of splat books.

Even so the fighter does excel at certain types of character builds over other types so we still see a fair amount of pigeon holing with the class from a mechanics perspective.

Hence if one wants to see mechanically effective light armoured warriors and whats available from the Ranger or Rogue (or Swordmage) don't yet fit what your looking for then you can put that character idea on the back burner for a little while and I have no doubt that the Samurai, Swashbuckler, Ninja etc. will eventually come down the pipeline. My hope is that this time we won't be in a situation were one martial class is so dominating mechanically that the rest of the classes are not actually viable. Samurai is a cool fantasy trope and I'd I'm excited by the concept of having one that plays differently from the fighter and yet holds its own.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Polaris wrote:

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

Multiclassing in 3e was truly unlike anything that came before.

The closest thing to 1st and 2nd edition multi-classing in 3.5 is the Gestault rules. That has a very similar feel.

crosswiredmind wrote:


If you look at the fighter 4e has more options, the ranger has more options, the paladin has more options, the rogue has fewer options, the wizard has fewer options, and the cleric seems to be a wash.

The cleric is a wash? Are you insulting my Cleric? Huh punk? You want to take this outside? Bring a d20 and we'll settle this!

Sovereign Court

Polaris wrote:
Benimoto wrote:


Oh come on. Multiclassing has been handled differently in almost every edition to date. Demihuman multi-classing was very different from human dual-classing, which was in turn extremely different from 3e level-by-level multiclassing/prestige classing/gestalt multiclassing.

That's just not so. "Multiclassing" was introduced in 1978 (although you can argue that the "Elf" class in BCMI was a form of 'multiclassing' and in OD&D (tan books) an Elf could choose to be a man of arms (fighter) or man of twigs (wizard) before each session).

First of all the ADnD 2e "multiclassing" (and dual classing!) rules from 1e were virtually untouched (except to clarify that fighter/mus could not wear armor other than elven chain). Dual Classing required so high stats that it's not worth mentioning. Unless you played computer games (such as Baldur's Gate), you almost never saw Dual Classing.

In 3E they changed the mechanics slightly but did not change the underlying defintion. The underlying defination of multiclassing has always been since 1978 to be the ability to function in more than one class at the same time.

This applies to ADnD 1e and 2e (including dual classing), and 3E. It does NOT apply to 4E. Like it or loath it, 4E does not have multiclassing as it is commonly understood.

Benimoto wrote:


You can say that 4e "trashed" the 3e multiclassing system, but saying there was some sort of multiclassing tradition that is fundamentally different in 4th edition is a pretty obtuse viewpoint.

Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.

I have to agree. In 3E you could have a fighter/rogue or a fighter/wizard or any number of combinations. In 4E you can play a fighter with a few rogue powers or a fighter with some wizard powers, but you can't have a true multi-classed character. They shouldn't call it muticlassing because that is a misleading term. It should be called power swapping because that's what it is. In fact, besides the first feats in the tree, they are called power swap feats even though people keep refering to them as multic-classing.

Sovereign Court

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Polaris wrote:

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

Multiclassing in 3e was truly unlike anything that came before.

The closest thing to 1st and 2nd edition multi-classing in 3.5 is the Gestault rules. That has a very similar feel.

crosswiredmind wrote:


If you look at the fighter 4e has more options, the ranger has more options, the paladin has more options, the rogue has fewer options, the wizard has fewer options, and the cleric seems to be a wash.
The cleric is a wash? Are you insulting my Cleric? Huh punk? You want to take this outside? Bring a d20 and we'll settle this!

The cleric is a wash? The 4E cleric is a shadow of the 3.5 cleric. He shoots laser beams, heals, and occasionally buffs. The 3.5 cleric is way more vesatile and fun.


Hello all! Its been a couple of days for me to fully get back into responding due to work, school, etc.
I was able to talk to Ford (the friend that I mentioned), and asked him what it was that caused his other gaming group to abandon 4th edition...
after filtering out the "I hate it, Pathfinder's so much better, it sucked, etc. etc. etc." (aka challenging him to give me real reasons), I got a mixed bag.
Some of these I expected, some were actually somewhat together different.
I was on par about him expressing that the cleric seemed sorta useless now... this, I figured he would say as Ford played paladins alot prior to 4th and also by that proxy, was very much up on clerics... clerics are extremely powerful in many regards in the 3.x platform, as are paladins for similar reasons... this in mind, there was probably a bit of personal bias on Ford's part here.

The more universal reasoning amongst the party, however, was a wee bit of a surprise. The group didn't like the fact that they couldn't use alot of the abilities and powers more than once per day. It seemed, I guess, that with the more cinematic style of play shift of 4th edition they wanted even more. I was a bit surprised, I figured as they went back to 3.x through Pathfinder it was more alongst my reasonings for not caring much for 4th...

which, most of mine were expressed partially in the statement of character builds...
I'm admittingly more into the role heavier, power lighter varieities of fantasy role playing... needless to say my local gaming group couldn't get me to play Rifts (which, I know, is not exactly fantasy role playing) back in the day, or at least playing around with its basic character creation seriously enough... I like the heavily flavor bit, where every character aspires of getting land, acquiring nice things for their homes, setting up little communities, and then trekking back off to bloody up the inhabitants of some other dungeon...
I'm in to holding trades, modifying raided caves and caverns to turn into panic shelters and wine cellars, extensively detailing the inhabitants of communities and the insides of taverns, so on and so forth.
This is not to say that these elements cannot occur with 4th edition, it is just that the gaming approach to me is less orientated to such trivial aspects than Pathfinder or one of the other variants of 3.x

I will also admit that for many gamers, my style of interest is probably quirky at best and boring at the most truthful.

But back to the issue at hand, the reasons for the group really surprised me... it was about not being able to use the powers enough, or running out of steam on them. What was also interesting was knowing that when they played the introductory module to 4th edition, half of them were quickly killed off and the other characters had to abandon the quest and flee for their lives.... I have heard other talks online from various anti-4th rules individuals that it was nearly impossible to die in the game... in the local gaming group, it seemed nearly impossible for them to live.

Eh, who knew?


Polaris wrote:

Matthew,

Here's the deal. Brigands and Thugs would most likely use heavier weapons...not greatswords perhaps but certainly heavy clubs, broadswords, spears, and the like.

However, the classic brigand will also perfer to ambush and definately would favor lighter armor.

4E doesn't really permit you to do both. If you want to be a "fighter" you are shoehorned into wearing heavy armor (preferably scale). If you want to be a "rogue", then you are a fool if you use any melee weapon other than the dagger (or perhaps scimitar at paragon).

That is... rather inaccurate. You can easily have a fighter with high enough dex to make lighter armor work just fine. You can also train in stealth and set up ambushes, take feats like Seize the Moment and Danger Sense - not to mention Evasion or Uncanny Dodge - and have a brigand who easily portrays the 'thief' archetype despite being built as a fighter. (Additionally, there is a Dragon Magazine article on a city in the feywild which has a number of new fighter powers that are very effective when used by dex-based spear fighters, which would certainly work for this build.)

As a rogue, daggers are certainly a good weapon, but claiming you are a fool if you use a different weapon is just absurd. The shortsword increases your damage at the cost of -1 to hit - not the best tradeoff, but not a terrible one, either... especially when using 2[W] or 3[W] powers. The crossbow is great for a rogue sniper - or shurikens, if you are willing to stay closer to the fight. And if you have the feat to spare, using a rapier is suddenly a very decent option - again, losing a bit of accuracy over the dagger, but for a decent boost to damage.

Honestly, the fact that your outlook is that a 1 point difference to hit is enough to make a player a 'fool' shows to me that you are looking at this from a min/max mindset, where only the most fully optimized character is acceptable. And that, in my mind, is just a silly view of things - if a character needs a 12 to hit, instead of an 11, they are still going to be plenty able to contribute to a fight.

Polaris wrote:
In short the rules in 4E get in the way and aren't customizable outside of very sharp limits. What's worse, it's almost impossible to house-rule 4E because the system is so tightly constrained that even small changes can have catastrophic cascade effects (another problem with the balance uber alles approach).

I still don't think you've really shown the 'very sharp limits' you keep insisting are there. Your biggest concern seems to be that you can't sneak attack things with a greatsword - do you really need to? You can still play a rogue that uses a greatsword, or play a brigand-style fighter... the concepts are still doable, just not specific mechanical goals.

Similarly, I haven't found 4E perfect - but every issue I have found with it I have found easily to adjust and house rule, whereas many of the problematic issues in 3.5 - like Polymorph/Wild Shape - went through year after year of revision without ever being fixed.

Look, I do understand your point - I have one friend who is upset that you can't sneak attack with unarmed attacks (not to mention that a build focusing on unarmed attacks simply isn't supported in the rules at the current time.) I can't deny his concern, nor can I deny that I wish you could sneak attack with other lighter weapons like clubs or saps (if saps existed.) I'm hoping Martial Power will address this - and I'm content to wait for monk to come along, in the hope that this time, they'll get it right.

But this is one of the strictest limitations found in the rules, and it still isn't all that limiting. Can a rogue that uses a greatsword still be effective? Sure. Is it the most effective build? No - but it doesn't have to be. Most important, to me, is that you can build most concepts without a problem.

A thief who wields their family's ancestral greatsword is a valid concept, in my mind, and is doable. A Rogue who Sneak Attacks with a Greatsword... is not. There is no actual story there, just a string of mechanical elements you want to see in effect, and the rules no more need to accomodate that then they should let me simply decide that my 3.5 cleric wants to use Dexterity as his primary spell-casting stat, just cause he worships the god of thieves.

Polaris wrote:

It's an opinion. And a fighter _can_ boost dex through the ceiling just as much as the ranger can, so your second point might be accurate in that the ranger is _more likely_ to, but it's not an absolute, which you're presenting it as.

It's a practical fact. The fighter needs to boost his strength first and formost or he doesn't get to hit. If you look at the secondary stats, there is no incentive for the fighter to boost dex unless going heavy blade mastery and arguably not even then. The best secondary stat for a 4e fighter is wisdom (read Pit Fighter and you'll see why).

If a class assumes you will be heavily armored (and the fighter definately does), then investing in Dex as a primary is not something that will be done.

Your argument is that fighters don't make good archers, since you personally refuse to build a fighter with a high dex. Not because the rules prevent - because you belieive it a practical fact that the fighter won't have good dex.

Which just isn't true.

For one thing, the new rules for stat boosting make it very easy for a character to have two primary stats. A 1st level character can start with 16 Str and 16 Dex, before racial modifiers. A 30th level character can end up with 26 Str and 26 Dex - again, before racial modifiers. Those are entirely competitive values.

A 1st level human Fighter can have Str 16, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8. Hide armor, for them, is just as good as scale. They are very effective with their bow - with the Fighter Weapon Talent, potentially more accurate than the ranger. Their melee attacks are only slightly less accurate - but if they use light blades, spears or flails, they can pick up a number of melee powers that capitalize on their higher dex.

Now, what do they lose by being an archer Fighter? They can't make use of most of their powers with their ranged weapons, and they can't take advantage of their Combat Challenge on marked enemies. On the other hand, their ranged basic attacks are still pretty effective and give enemies a penalty to hit, by Marking them.)

You can very much play a character who shoots them enemy from afar, and then engages them in melee when they get close - and I imagine it will be quite effective. If you only want a character that shoots their bow all day long... well, I recommend a Ranger, just because it will be more fun. The archer Fighter won't be useless... just boring.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I have to agree. In 3E you could have a fighter/rogue or a fighter/wizard or any number of combinations. In 4E you can play a fighter with a few rogue powers or a fighter with some wizard powers, but you can't have a true multi-classed character. They shouldn't call it muticlassing because that is a misleading term. It should be called power swapping because that's what it is. In fact, besides the first feats in the tree, they are called power swap feats even though people keep refering to them as multic-classing.

I don't think that is accurate. What are you defining a multi-classed character as? Someone who is effective at the fields of two seperate classes? A character who can hurl spells and swing swords with equal capability? Because you can build that, in 4E, in many different ways. You can have a character whose powers are split equally between spellcasting and swordswinging. (Or kidney-stabbing and divine-healing, etc.)

A Fighter/Rogue in 3.5 was someone who was skilled both at a diverse range of skills as well as melee combat, who could deliver devestating blows at vital organs, who could evade explosions and had an uncanny knack for dodging. In 4E, you can make a character who can do all that. Indeed, the shift of many former class features to feats (along with the presence of the skill-training feat), adds a vast capability of customization for many characters.

It is true that you can't have your character sheet state you are a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard anymore. But you can play a character in full-plate who unleashes devestating blows in melee, but can also heal their allies or unleash arcane powers upon their foes, while dodging incoming fireballs and darting into the shadows or disabling traps between combats.

That build is entirely doable - I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to do it just off the top of my head. What more do you need?


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I have to agree. In 3E you could have a fighter/rogue or a fighter/wizard or any number of combinations. In 4E you can play a fighter with a few rogue powers or a fighter with some wizard powers, but you can't have a true multi-classed character. They shouldn't call it muticlassing because that is a misleading term. It should be called power swapping because that's what it is. In fact, besides the first feats in the tree, they are called power swap feats even though people keep refering to them as multic-classing.

I don't think that is accurate. What are you defining a multi-classed character as? Someone who is effective at the fields of two seperate classes? A character who can hurl spells and swing swords with equal capability? Because you can build that, in 4E, in many different ways. You can have a character whose powers are split equally between spellcasting and swordswinging. (Or kidney-stabbing and divine-healing, etc.)

A Fighter/Rogue in 3.5 was someone who was skilled both at a diverse range of skills as well as melee combat, who could deliver devestating blows at vital organs, who could evade explosions and had an uncanny knack for dodging. In 4E, you can make a character who can do all that. Indeed, the shift of many former class features to feats (along with the presence of the skill-training feat), adds a vast capability of customization for many characters.

It is true that you can't have your character sheet state you are a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard anymore. But you can play a character in full-plate who unleashes devestating blows in melee, but can also heal their allies or unleash arcane powers upon their foes, while dodging incoming fireballs and darting into the shadows or disabling traps between combats.

That build is entirely doable - I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to do it just off the top of my head. What more do you need?

They need it be 3.5.

As far as I can see, the real multi-classing complaint here is that 4E isn't 3.5. Seriously.

Dark Archive

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Honestly, the fact that your outlook is that a 1 point difference to hit is enough to make a player a 'fool' shows to me that you are looking at this from a min/max mindset, where only the most fully optimized character is acceptable. And that, in my mind, is just a silly view of things - if a character needs a 12 to hit, instead of an 11, they are still going to be plenty able to contribute to a fight.

With a 11 to hit and 1d4 damage you do an average damage of 0.5*2.5= 1.25 average damage per round.

With a 12 to hit and 1d6 damage you do an average damage of 0.45*3.5= 1.575 average damage per round.

Calculating this through for every chance to hit. In most cases the average damage output of the shortsword is higher than that of the dagger.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


The cleric is a wash? The 4E cleric is a shadow of the 3.5 cleric. He shoots laser beams, heals, and occasionally buffs. The 3.5 cleric is way more vesatile and fun.

Disagree - I point blank refused to play clerics in 3.5. Don't much care to be a walking band aid and endless party buffer. I love the class in 4E. If you want that true "every action I take is basically to help some one else" feel in 4E you play a Warlord. Personally I won't touch Warlords with a 10' pole.


Tharen the Damned wrote:


With a 11 to hit and 1d4 damage you do an average damage of 0.5*2.5= 1.25 average damage per round.

With a 12 to hit and 1d6 damage you do an average damage of 0.45*3.5= 1.575 average damage per round.

Calculating this through for every chance to hit. In most cases the average damage output of the shortsword is higher than that of the dagger.

Well, that doesn't account for bonus damage from stats, feats, magic, etc, which is what tends to make the dagger's extra accuracy more valuable - though once you are dealing with multi[W] powers, the short sword is again in the running.

And that's just it - from the numbers I've seen, there is no choice so blindingly good as to render all others pointless.

Sovereign Court

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Polaris wrote:

Matthew,

Here's the deal. Brigands and Thugs would most likely use heavier weapons...not greatswords perhaps but certainly heavy clubs, broadswords, spears, and the like.

However, the classic brigand will also perfer to ambush and definately would favor lighter armor.

4E doesn't really permit you to do both. If you want to be a "fighter" you are shoehorned into wearing heavy armor (preferably scale). If you want to be a "rogue", then you are a fool if you use any melee weapon other than the dagger (or perhaps scimitar at paragon).

That is... rather inaccurate. You can easily have a fighter with high enough dex to make lighter armor work just fine. You can also train in stealth and set up ambushes, take feats like Seize the Moment and Danger Sense - not to mention Evasion or Uncanny Dodge - and have a brigand who easily portrays the 'thief' archetype despite being built as a fighter. (Additionally, there is a Dragon Magazine article on a city in the feywild which has a number of new fighter powers that are very effective when used by dex-based spear fighters, which would certainly work for this build.)

As a rogue, daggers are certainly a good weapon, but claiming you are a fool if you use a different weapon is just absurd. The shortsword increases your damage at the cost of -1 to hit - not the best tradeoff, but not a terrible one, either... especially when using 2[W] or 3[W] powers. The crossbow is great for a rogue sniper - or shurikens, if you are willing to stay closer to the fight. And if you have the feat to spare, using a rapier is suddenly a very decent option - again, losing a bit of accuracy over the dagger, but for a decent boost to damage.

Honestly, the fact that your outlook is that a 1 point difference to hit is enough to make a player a 'fool' shows to me that you are looking at this from a min/max mindset, where only the most fully optimized character is acceptable. And that, in my mind, is just a silly view of things - if a character needs a...

I made a lightly armored fighter with sneak of shadows to be a mercenary/enforcer for a thieve's guild as his background for a LFR game. He had high dex and used a short sword so he could sneak attack with it. I thought it would be good, but it wasn't. Due to lack of heavy armor, his AC wasn't high enough to survive (he spent a lot of time uncounscious). His damage output was pitiful (because he used a short sword instead of a greatsword), and he never even got a chance to use sneak attack. Despite the claims to the contrary, you can make a subpar character quite easily in 4E, and your character can suffer mechanically if you try to design him or her to fit a certain backstory or concept. The multiclass feats don't seem to live up to their potential. You can do a lot of concepts in theory with 4E, but they don't really work out at the table. You can do them a lot better in 3.5.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I made a lightly armored fighter with sneak of shadows to be a mercenary/enforcer for a thieve's guild as his background for a LFR game. He had high dex and used a short sword so he could sneak attack with it. I thought it would be good, but it wasn't. Due to lack of heavy armor, his AC wasn't high enough to survive (he spent a lot of time uncounscious). His damage output was pitiful (because he used a short sword instead of a greatsword), and he never even got a chance to use sneak attack. Despite the claims to the contrary, you can make a subpar character quite easily in 4E, and your character can suffer mechanically if you try to design him or her to fit a certain backstory or concept. The multiclass feats don't seem to live up to their potential. You can do a lot of concepts in theory with 4E, but they don't really work out at the table. You can do them a lot better in 3.5.

The inability to Sneak Attack sounds like a situational problem, rather than one natural to the character. As for the AC and damage... if you had high dex, your AC should be pretty close to a standard fighter in scale armor, and the d6 damage from a shortsword is only one step down from the d8 damage for a longsword. I can't imagine that 1 less AC and 1 less damage made the character useless - I'd expect bad rolling to be more of a culprit, honestly.

You had an offhand free - were you using a shield? Or did you have an offhand weapon? Two-weapon fighting would likely work well for such a character, as you could use a longsword in your main-hand, and have a short sword in the off-hand for when you had the opportunity for your sneak attack.

Out of curiousity, how well do you feel such a build would be supported at level 1 in 3.5 - where multiclassing wouldn't even yet be available, and you would have similar issues with AC and damage?

Sovereign Court

He had a light shield, but his AC still wasn't good enough for a fighter. I would rather have had two-weapon fighting and two-weapon defense, but it would have been a wash AC-wise, and I would have suffered more by giving up toughness. In 3.5, I wouldn't need such a high AC. He would have started as a rogue and would at least be able to use sneak attack to be effective in combat. I could have also started out as swasbuckler or fighter and still been way better off than the lightly armored, short-sword wielding 4E fighter. The lightly armored fighter doesn't really work in 4E. You need heavy armor, and a big-two handed weapon or longsword and shield or you are gimping yourself. You are pretty limited in what you can do without gimping yourself.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
He had a light shield, but his AC still wasn't good enough for a fighter. I would rather have had two-weapon fighting and two-weapon defense, but it would have been a wash AC-wise, and I would have suffered more by giving up toughness. The lightly armored fighter doesn't really work in 4E. You need heavy armor, and a big-two handed weapon or longsword and shield or you are gimping yourself. You are pretty limited in what you can do without gimping yourself.

I'm still a little confused here - what armor were you wearing? I still don't see how you were really all that far behind a character in heavy armor, as long as you had Dex 16 or so. +3 from Dex, +3 from Hide Armor, +1 from Shield = AC 17, which is the same AC as the fighter in Scale Armor with a Greatsword. His damage is higher than yours - d10 instead of d6 - but you get to occasionally spike your damage with a bonus 2d6 once a combat. 7 extra damage 1/combat vs 2 extra damage per hit - given a low level fight will last 5-6 rounds, and he will probably land 4 or 5 blows during that time, the difference doesn't seem that huge.

Now, I will admit - such a build will probably end up as less effective than a typical fighter (though you start looking quite a bit better a few levels down the road.) Your statement - that you can end up mechanically weaker due to RP choices - is true. But there isn't much that can be done to fix that - and I definitely found it was far easy to stumble into a bad build in 3.5 than in 4E.

And in this case... yeah, you are a few points behind the typical fighter, but I don't think those few points make the character unplayable. If you really had bad luck with it - such as dropping repeatedly, despite Defender HP + Toughness - it sounds like something else was really causing thhe problem.

Sovereign Court

Maybe, it seems like a fighter really needs an AC of 19 to 20 at first level to have enough staying power to be viable, and that doesn't seem possible. I think this is another example of the underlying math in 4E being off.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Maybe, it seems like a fighter really needs an AC of 19 to 20 at first level to have enough staying power to be viable, and that doesn't seem possible. I think this is another example of the underlying math in 4E being off.

How does *any* first level fighter get an AC of 19 or 20?

I certainly don't have a ton of 4E optimization experience, but isn't 18 about the expected value ( scale + large shield)? Or is that 19?


bugleyman wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Maybe, it seems like a fighter really needs an AC of 19 to 20 at first level to have enough staying power to be viable, and that doesn't seem possible. I think this is another example of the underlying math in 4E being off.

How does *any* first level fighter get an AC of 19 or 20?

I certainly don't have a ton of 4E optimization experience, but isn't 18 about the expected value ( scale + large shield)? Or is that 19?

Scale + Heavy Shield gets you 19. For a Paladin, Plate + Heavy Shield gets you 20. A Human Ranger in Hide, with 20 Dex, Two-weapon Fighting and Two-weapon Defense, has 19 AC.

I mean, getting AC to that point is good, most certainly, but I definitely disagree that this much AC is needed for a fighter to be 'viable'. Again, the mindset going on here - that something has to be the best or it is useless - just feels wrong to me. A character with 17 AC - who gets hit 10% more often than the character with 19 AC - isn't stuck with a death sentence.

Sovereign Court

It doesn't have to be the best to be viable, but it's nice to spend more than the first of combat round concsious, and that doesn't seem to happen with a lower AC than 19 or 20.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It doesn't have to be the best to be viable, but it's nice to spend more than the first of combat round concsious, and that doesn't seem to happen with a lower AC than 19 or 20.

Glancing through the MM, level 1 monsters seem to have an attack bonus of +4 to +6 vs AC, for around 6-7 damage. A fighter with AC 17 and 25 hp should be able to take 9 or 10 attacks before dropping, while one with AC 19 should be able to take an extra 2 or 3 attacks. That's 3 rounds of attacks if an entire group of enemies is focusing on the fighter. If the fighter is simply keeping half the group occupied, thats 6 rounds of combat he should last - about the length of most low-level combats.

Now, the numbers rarely work out so smoothly in play, and combat is always going to be filled with back and forth activity, unexpected changes in combat, and the occasional odd roll.

But if you have someone with AC 17 who is regularly dropping in the first round of combat, something weird is definitely going on.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Maybe, it seems like a fighter really needs an AC of 19 to 20 at first level to have enough staying power to be viable, and that doesn't seem possible. I think this is another example of the underlying math in 4E being off.

How does *any* first level fighter get an AC of 19 or 20?

I certainly don't have a ton of 4E optimization experience, but isn't 18 about the expected value ( scale + large shield)? Or is that 19?

Scale + Heavy Shield gets you 19. For a Paladin, Plate + Heavy Shield gets you 20. A Human Ranger in Hide, with 20 Dex, Two-weapon Fighting and Two-weapon Defense, has 19 AC.

I mean, getting AC to that point is good, most certainly, but I definitely disagree that this much AC is needed for a fighter to be 'viable'. Again, the mindset going on here - that something has to be the best or it is useless - just feels wrong to me. A character with 17 AC - who gets hit 10% more often than the character with 19 AC - isn't stuck with a death sentence.

Well, in fairness a character with a 17 AC *doesn't* get hit 10% more often than one with a 19. It might be as often as 200% more if the number line up just right, but it is nearly guaranteed to be at least 11% more often (unless the attack bonus is so high as to be completely unreasonable).

For example, someone with an attack bonus of -1 would only hit 19 on a natural 20. they would hit 17 on an 18,19 or 20, which is 3 times as often, which, barring other circumstances, is 3 times the damage. Assuming a more likely attack bonus of around +8, things work out to needing an 11 vs. a 9, which ends up being an increase of 20% in damage taken. If you figure +6, it works out to 13 vs. 11, or an increase of about 25% in damage taken.

I'm not endorsing the idea that a 17 or 18 isn't viable, but I just want to make sure we're lining the numbers up right.


bugleyman wrote:

Well, in fairness a character with a 17 AC *doesn't* get hit 10% more often than one with a 19. It might be as often as 200% more if the number line up just right, but it is nearly guaranteed to be at least 11% more often (unless the attack bonus is so high as to be completely unreasonable).

For example, someone with an attack bonus of -1 would only hit 19 on a natural 20. they would hit 17 on an 18,19 or 20, which is 3 times as often, which, barring other circumstances, is 3 times the damage. Assuming a more likely attack bonus of around +8, things work out to needing an 11 vs. a 9, which ends up being an increase of 20% in damage taken. If you figure +6, it works out to 13 vs. 11, or an increase of about 25% in damage taken.

I'm not endorsing the idea that a 17 or 18 isn't viable, but I just want to make sure we're lining the numbers up right.

Yeah, I might be phrasing the percentages wrong. The calculations I was thinking by was that, in each case, you are hitting 10% of the time more often. Someone with a +4 to hit would need a 13 to hit AC 17, instead of a 15 to hit AC 19, which is to say, have a 40% chance to hit instead of a 30% chance to hit. Someone with a +5 to hit would need a 12 instead of a 14, which is to say, have a 45% chance to hit instead of a 35% chance to hit. Someone with a +6 to hit would need an 11 instead of a 13, which is to say, have a 50% chance to hit instead of a 40% chance to hit.

Thus, why I said they got hit 10% more often. However, looking at things in a closer light, you are right that this works out to a much more significant damage increase.

With an enemy doing 6.5 damage on a hit at +5 to hit, over the course of 20 attacks, the person with AC 17 takes 58.5 damage, while the person with AC 19 takes 45.5 damage, which is around 23% less damage taken.

But it still plays out pretty closely in practical matters:

A level 1 fighter with AC 17 should take 9-10 attacks before going down. One with AC 19 should take 12-13 attacks before going down. Now, that is a solid difference - another round of combat they can stay standing, or more likely, one less healing surge they lose during a fight.

But the fighter with AC 17, with a bit of back-up healing, should still be able to hold the line against half the opponents in a fight. He certainly shouldn't be dropping in the first round of every combat unless something strange is goingon.

Sovereign Court

Except, no one seems to be using level 1 creatures in all the current level 1 modules. They are pretty much all in the level 2-4 range. Maybe its because they don't give enough exp or enough "challenge". Maybe they are trying to cram too much exp into too few combats. It makes me wonder why they even have level 1 monsters if they aren't going to use them.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Except, no one seems to be using level 1 creatures in all the current level 1 modules. They are pretty much all in the level 2-4 range. Maybe its because they don't give enough exp or enough "challenge". Maybe they are trying to cram too much exp into too few combats. It makes me wonder why they even have level 1 monsters if they aren't going to use them.

Sounds like it may have been more of an issue with the module than with anything else, then.

Now, this isn't to say you can't use higher level foes - but generally, if you are doing so, you will be using less of them, so the numbers should balance out. Some fights might be higher level and thus more difficult in general, but I am very much hoping that 4E adventure writers don't make those the standard. The fact that LG modules treated APL+3 as the default always bothered me, though I'm not sure if that was a response or a cause of the powerlevel competition between players and writers in that campaign.

Thus far, I've only played two LFR modules. The first one we had a group of 5 players, but no defender - we had one tough fight, and two trivial fights (largely due to having Cleric + Wizard for a group of undead filled with minions who we lured into a tight space.) In the second one, we have a group of 4 that filled out all the roles, and all of the fights felt at just about the right challenge level.

I haven't had the chance to look at any of the adventures from 'behind the scenes', so I can't say how the challenge level actually is - I'm hoping your experiences were a fluke, cause I do want LFR to avoid the path LG went down...


Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Sounds like it may have been more of an issue with the module than with anything else, then.

Now, this isn't to say you can't use higher level foes - but generally, if you are doing so, you will be using less of them, so the numbers should balance out. Some fights might be higher level and thus more difficult in general, but I am very much hoping that 4E adventure writers don't make those the standard. The fact that LG modules treated APL+3 as the default always bothered me, though I'm not sure if that was a response or a cause of the powerlevel competition between players and writers in that campaign.

Thus far, I've only played two LFR modules. The first one we had a group of 5 players, but no defender - we had one tough fight, and two trivial fights (largely due to having Cleric + Wizard for a group of undead filled with minions who we lured into a tight space.) In the second one, we have a group of 4 that filled out all the roles, and all of the fights felt at just about the right challenge level.

I haven't had the chance to look at any of the adventures from 'behind the scenes', so I can't say how the challenge level actually is - I'm hoping your experiences were a fluke, cause I do want LFR to avoid the path LG went down...

Can you elaborate on the path LG went down? I got involved near the very end and would like to hear your thoughts.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Sounds like it may have been more of an issue with the module than with anything else, then.

Now, this isn't to say you can't use higher level foes - but generally, if you are doing so, you will be using less of them, so the numbers should balance out. Some fights might be higher level and thus more difficult in general, but I am very much hoping that 4E adventure writers don't make those the standard. The fact that LG modules treated APL+3 as the default always bothered me, though I'm not sure if that was a response or a cause of the powerlevel competition between players and writers in that campaign.

Thus far, I've only played two LFR modules. The first one we had a group of 5 players, but no defender - we had one tough fight, and two trivial fights (largely due to having Cleric + Wizard for a group of undead filled with minions who we lured into a tight space.) In the second one, we have a group of 4 that filled out all the roles, and all of the fights felt at just about the right challenge level.

I haven't had the chance to look at any of the adventures from 'behind the scenes', so I can't say how the challenge level actually is - I'm hoping your experiences were a fluke, cause I do want LFR to avoid the path LG went down...

Can you elaborate on the path LG went down? I got involved near the very end and would like to hear your thoughts.

I saw the same pattern in the WWGD scenarios. Either the math is wrong on the exp end, and they have to have "challenging" encounters to level at a decent pace or something else is out of whack. Many people seem to confirm a trend towards excruciatingly long and repetitive combats in 4E do the overly high hit points and high defences on the opponents side.


bugleyman wrote:
Can you elaborate on the path LG went down? I got involved near the very end and would like to hear your thoughts.

Well, it sort of ended up with a Catch-22 - character became more and more min/maxed as more options became available via splat books, and in order to compensate, adventures would get more and more lethal. Encounters would be written that were really, completely absurd - and those on the powergamer end of the spectrum would find even more ridiculous combos to overcome it. Which, I suppose, worked out fine for everyone... except for those who weren't pushing the mechanics of the game to the limit.

Now, I don't mean to give the impression that every adventure completely destroyed ordinary players and their characters - plenty of mods were well-written and balanced just fine. But especially in things like Core Specials and Battle Interactives and, unfortunately, any adventures connected to major plot events... the gloves came off, and writers would often just throw the CR guidelines out the window and produce encounters that, for a normal group of PCs, were almost unwinnable.

While I think 4E is less vulnerable to that sort of thing happening, it is certainly not immune - if writers want to put in encounters 3, 4 or 5 levels above the party, they can do so. (As happened in Keep on the Shadowfell...)

And doing so isn't game over, sure, but it strikes me as a poor design to start from. So I'm hoping they try to keep things as a reasonable challenge, rather than start that same competitive environment. It didn't ruin LG for me - I played it through the end, and my own character was probably just as guilty of the power creep as anyone elses - but I felt it was a problem in the system that I am hoping will be avoided in LFR.

Scarab Sages

hmarcbower wrote:
hmarcbower wrote:
CAN and WILL. Unless you think it's appropriate to compare a new game that they want us to buy with something 4 or 5 years old.... That's like saying "Hey, check out this new office application!" and when criticized for its lack of functionality and options saying "yah, but compare it with WordPerfect 4. It rocks, then."
crosswiredmind wrote:
Well, if that is what you want to do then there is zero possibility that 4e would have ever met your approval no matter how good the core system. Unless you compare PHB to PHB you will be making an unfair comparison.

Absolutely not. I'm comparing two games that exist contemporaneously. You're the one wanting to make anachronistic comparisons... let's compare this brand new game to a game that came out 5 (or even 8, if you want to consider 3.0 vs 4.0) years ago. How does that make any sense whatsoever? See my above analogy.

crosswiredmind wrote:
You do not buy a single version of Microsoft Word in chunks over time. The analogy to D&D does not hold.

I'm not following what you're saying there. And actually, you *do* acquire a single version of Microsoft Word over time... you just don't have to pay for the patches. ;) If you're running Office 2003 now and it's fully patched, it's somewhat different from an unpatched Office 2003. The big difference with software is that when they make a new version it almost always has all of the functionality of the previous product and then adds some. If you want to point to a reason that the analogy isn't sound you could use that... because 4e definitely did not give us everything we had in 3.5 and then some.

What I'm saying is this: I can play 3.5 D&D or I can play 4e D&D. (In truth I can play anything I want, but for the sake of this example, I'll assume those are the two relevant choices).

3.5D&D has a lot of material right now and if I buy into 3.5 I have a LOT of options open to me.

4eD&D has almost no material right now. If I buy into it, I can do very little that isn't included in a single book.

Compare it to a novel series. Saying I'm only allowed to compare PHB to PHB is like saying I'm only allowed to compare book one of a new series to book one of an older series that is actually 14 books long to decide which is the better series RIGHT NOW. I think you're missing the 4th dimension in this discussion. I don't care what 4e will become in 8 years. I want to play a game right now. Do I pick up the game that has lots of options, lots of stuff that I want to do, or do I pick up 4e that has... well, considerably fewer options? Sure, maybe in 8 years it will be as fleshed out as 3.5 is *right now*, but this particular consciousness is stuck at this particular point in the spacetime continuum. I can't play [4e in 8 years] - the only 4e available to me is [4e as it is now]... I can only base my decision on what to play on what is available to me right now. 3.5 has lots available to me right now, 4e doesn't. If I'm basing my decision on what to play this Thursday on the available options in the system, then I'm not thinking about what 4e will be in 8 years.

However, it's entirely possible we're discussing totally different things and you do perfectly understand what I'm trying to say, but your counterpoint is to something I didn't realize was being countered. :)


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Except, no one seems to be using level 1 creatures in all the current level 1 modules. They are pretty much all in the level 2-4 range. Maybe its because they don't give enough exp or enough "challenge". Maybe they are trying to cram too much exp into too few combats. It makes me wonder why they even have level 1 monsters if they aren't going to use them.

My bet is on your second theory. As far as published adventures, Paizo themselves is famous for making "difficult" encounter the norm. Page counts leave too little room for a truly appropriate number of encounters, so often published adventures pump up the XP in each encounter.

I hope that this is a point that gets addressed in the DMG2, or in a Dragon article or something. Too many "difficult" combats I think is a primary cause of too-many-hitpoints syndrome.

Scarab Sages

Polaris wrote:

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

crosswiredmind wrote:

Multiclassing in 3e was truly unlike anything that came before.

I agree that 4e has fewer option but they are not as few as you think. In 4e you have class selection, power selections, skill selections, feat selections, you can multi-class, you can spend a couple feats to use rituals.

If you look at the fighter 4e has more options, the ranger has more options, the paladin has more options, the rogue has fewer options, the wizard has fewer options, and the cleric seems to be a wash.

(I'm not forum-stalking you, CWM - you just manage to condense posts into nice, short packages which say exactly what needs to be said, so they're easy to quote :)

When you say "you can multi-class" in 4e... are you saying multi-class as the concept of multiclassing as it was known in previous editions (ie. you gain the full abilities of a second (or more) class in addition to the full abilities of your other class(es)"? Or are you saying "the book says right here that this is Multiclassing so it must be multiclassing"? Are you talking about a concept or the fact that the word that is used to describe the mechanic is the same? That is something I think 4e is rife with - reusing familiar terms to describe something that is, in concept, very different.

I haven't read all of the PHB for 4e, but I did try to wrap my head around the multiclass section with the assistance of someone who had played and enjoyed 4e. It doesn't seem like multiclassing... it seems like you are able to get one (or two?) class features from a different class in exchange for one of your own existing class features by using feats. Now I haven't read much about Paragon stuff, so is that what people are considering to be the multiclassing concept for 4e? If so I will go away and read it to try to understand it a little better. The little bit I do understand is that if you take that prior feat it gives you access to the Paragon paths of the other class specified by the prior feat. Is that what is being considered as the multiclassing concept?

Scarab Sages

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


It is true that you can't have your character sheet state you are a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard anymore. But you can play a character in full-plate who unleashes devestating blows in melee, but can also heal their allies or unleash arcane powers upon their foes, while dodging incoming fireballs and darting into the shadows or disabling traps between combats.

That build is entirely doable - I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to do it just off the top of my head. What more do you need?

I don't *need* it, but could you share a few of those builds? :) I don't know the 4e rules thoroughly, but I think an example like this would definitely help illustrate some of the things that you're saying can be done.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
A level 1 fighter with AC 17 should take 9-10 attacks before going down. One with AC 19 should take 12-13 attacks before going down. Now, that is a solid difference - another round of combat they can stay standing, or more likely, one less healing surge they lose during a fight.

Somethings wrong with this number. I don't know specifically what the issue is but I've been in enough 4E combats to know that we are not just nonchalantly sticking even the PCs with 19's and 20's in AC up front and laughing as the enemies struggle to take down the Paladin or the Sword Mage. Even with two defenders in the party things are hairy a friggen lot of the time -there is no 12-13 hits going on, thats just not happening.

I've got a Cleric with 17 AC and I'm very much the back up fighter. If I have to hold the line for any length of time we start burning through healing like its going out of style.

Now I'm not going down after a single round of combat or anything but being mobbed is not my idea of good times at the table either. In fact if I'm being mobbed I'm probably screaming - get me the f$&@ out of here by about halfway through round two.

In any case if one makes a low AC fighter your not really a Defender anymore. You have used a Defender class to create something thats maybe a striker or some form of hybrid. Beyond that I don't think the numbers are off - you'd not use a low AC fighter in any edition of D&D at 1st level and expect them to hold the line for any significant length of time. If your AC is not up to snuff your just going to have to approach things differently.


hmarcbower wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


It is true that you can't have your character sheet state you are a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard anymore. But you can play a character in full-plate who unleashes devestating blows in melee, but can also heal their allies or unleash arcane powers upon their foes, while dodging incoming fireballs and darting into the shadows or disabling traps between combats.

That build is entirely doable - I can think of 3 or 4 different ways to do it just off the top of my head. What more do you need?

I don't *need* it, but could you share a few of those builds? :) I don't know the 4e rules thoroughly, but I think an example like this would definitely help illustrate some of the things that you're saying can be done.

Paladin with the rogue multi (sneak of shadows) and possibly skill training (stealth) seems like it would cover the warrior w/ healing and some thieving bit.

If you want the arcane bit you'd probably do fighter with a warlock multi (pact initiate) with skill training (stealth) and skill training (thievery). It takes a few more feats, but I don't see how a guy running around in plate throwing arcane power was viable at all in 3.5E core due to ASF.

Those are what come to mind for me, though others might have a better answer.

Scarab Sages

Benimoto wrote:
As far as published adventures, Paizo themselves is famous for making "difficult" encounter the norm. Page counts leave too little room for a truly appropriate number of encounters, so often published adventures pump up the XP in each encounter.

Totally unrelated to the current thread, but hell yes. I'm actually starting to become very frustrated with the Paizo AP because of this. For example, our level 12 party just met up with the AC 39 Huge White Dragon (which, if it's like many of the other Paizo monsters will also have lots of immunities and an unrealistic SR as well) that does fly-by breath weapons doing 8d6 with a save of I think 26 or 29 for half.... my only solution to avoid TPK until we could prep a bit was Rope Trick and re-memorize some spells, get our fighting classes ready, etc. We don't tend to min-max or cruise the charop boards to make our characters, so it makes it extra hard for us. Plus we have crap for magic (though the DM tells us he's given us everything the modules have provided, plus a few extra things rolled randomly).

Sorry.... back to the discussion at hand. :)

101 to 150 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Short 4e Review All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.