I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
I say that 3e makes full use of this tool, but doesn't necessarily make it mandatory. I run a lot of encounters without a mat. And it's still a tool, to serve the game and its world, not the other way around.
Nothing is cemented in 3e or PF.
Unified mechanics make great sense in classless systems. Combined with a class system and you get the worst of both worlds IMHO.
Spot on. I think you nailed something I knew bothered me, but couldn't quite put my hands on.
It might just be personal preference, but I think Pathfinder does the class system really, really good. Maybe not perfectly, but close to it.
The Pathfinder classes all have a strong identity that sets them apart, and interesting, different ways they play to back up the individuality their themes set up. Fighter's feel like fighters, while paladins feel like paladins, and both feel different.
At the same time, the strong skill and feat system, as well as a passable multiclass system provide the freedom a class-based system so desperately needs to compete with the newer, more sexy, class-less systems.
It's not quite the best of both worlds (it's not a class-less/class-based hybrid), but it's a class-based system as it should be. It plays on its strengths and gets rid of enough of the weaknesses to make it a really nice option.
DC 15: Cave bears live in caves
DC 20: Dire bears attack with their claws
-----
Edit: Had to post this; it is too funny!
ROFL!
PS: Please note I have Trade Marked "Edition Wars". Please give $1 to the SPCA everytime you either (a) use the term "Edition Wars" or (b) think someones else game is wrong because you are playing it (no matter how self-justified you feel).
Haha, I'm immune to lawyers!
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
Edition Wars
And I state that EVERYONE plays the WRONG GAME.
See? You cannot touch me.
Oh, by the way: The Supreme Elect just called me and told me to tell you: Get your stuff and leave. Taldor or Cheliax, we care not, but your oppressive "Trade Mark" stuff made you unworthy to Flaunt The Eagle! ;-P
The game I like the most, i.e. GURPS, only uses a D6
That is pathetic! If I want to use only d6s, like some mundane drone out there, I'll play Yahtzee! ;-P
No, no, I prefer a game that lets me use all of those d2s (we call them "coins"), d3s, d4s, d8s, d10s, d12s, d16s, d20s, d24s, d30s, d34s, d100s. Okay, okay, d16, d24, d30 and d34 aren't used in Pathfinder, but I'll find a use for those... :)
And Pathfinder decided to marginalize combat maneuvers, furthering the 'charge and full attack' problem instead of mitigating it.
I've used them far more often with PF then I ever did with 3e.
Somewhere in time, when Pathfinder Second Edition will come out, we'll get our big sweeping changes. I predict that it will be a true New Edition - not a mere revision, and not a new game with a known name, either.
In before Pathfinder 1st vs. 2nd Edition Wars!
Well, the problem when they do that is a DM would decide to do something and a player would just say he couldn't do that because in page 38, paragraph 4 of this one book it says...Basically, the problem with completely developed settings is that nerds care way too much about every little detail of a setting being completely accurate.
That statement has a few severe errors of reasoning:
First, you shift a problem people have from those people to the game. It's not the game's fault that the players know more about the world than the GM does, and that the players decide to make an issue out of it, and the GMs don't tell the players which books are official in their games and which are not, and that the GMs version generally supersedes the published version.
Not the game's fault.
Second, you imply that because some cannot handle the option of in-depth information, that option shouldn't exist. It's the whole badwrongfun thing going on: "If I don't like something, I want it out of my universe, other people are not allowed their preferences!"
It's like people burning down libraries because they failed their history class.
Not the game's fault.
I know it's not the game's fault. Really, the only flaws to more setting-specific fluff books are that people would get too obsessed with every little detail of a setting being right and the fact that a good deal of people won't buy the book because they don't like the setting. (Well, that and they're badly written most of the time, but that's a flaw with everything.) Really, the second flaw is probably why Wizards isn't making more setting-specific books when they can just put whatever few bits of mechanics in a Dragon article and let DMs handle more of the setting details for their own games.
(Oh, and let it be noted that I liked at least the Eberron setting books as much as anyone else.)
I know it's not the game's fault. Really, the only flaws to more setting-specific fluff books are that people would get too obsessed with every little detail of a setting being right
Again, not a flaw of the fluff books.
Well, that and they're badly written most of the time, but that's a flaw with everything.
I liked most of the 3e FR stuff. Champions of Ruin was really, really bad, and once they started nuking the setting from space to set it up as a 4e drone (I can imagine poor Ed being locked in a room, being deprived of sleep and constantly assaulted by the PA system going "You will comply! You will bow to the new system! You will shape the world to suit its design goals! You will change the world to fit the new rules! You will obay! You will comply!"....) it all went to Hell, but before that, it was a decent setting with decent supply material.
|
Somewhere in time, when Pathfinder Second Edition will come out, we'll get our big sweeping changes. I predict that it will be a true New Edition - not a mere revision, and not a new game with a known name, either.In before Pathfinder 1st vs. 2nd Edition Wars!
Great point!
Let me get the ball rolling.
SWEEPING CHANGES!!!! Arrrrhhhhh, I don't want know stinking sweeping changes. Change is bad and evil - nothing good can come from change.
Pathfinder 2nd edition is just plain bad compared with old school 1st edition Pathfinder. The reqirement for full immersion holographic rooms (i.e. holodecks) totally goes against the idea of roleplaying and rollplaying. Also the 2nd edition classes have no class and the hyper-realistic(TM) hit point tracker - a Paizo staff member comes around to your house and cuts one of your fingers off if your character dies means I can ever only have 8 character before I can't hold a pencil! Oh,hangon now I understand the holodeck idea. Here's me thinking 2nd edition Pathfinder was just horrible game design from Jason B's greatgrandson Jason B. Jr Jr Jr!
But what choice do we have since Paizo will have grown so large that it will be the only publisher of RPGs in the world and will have its HQ on a moon base.
I'm weeping for the future on gaming when 2nd edition PF comes out.
S.
PS: Read the reviews of 3.5e from the designers of 3e... interesting stuff.
I hear Pathfinder 2e is expected out next GenCon. They are announcing it at this year's. :P
I mean, come on. Selling out 2 print runs & sure to sell the 3rd out. Why not capitalize on all of this gaming frenzy & get a new edition out soon.
Unified mechanics make great sense in classless systems. Combined with a class system and you get the worst of both worlds IMHO.Spot on. I think you nailed something I knew bothered me, but couldn't quite put my hands on.
It might just be personal preference, but I think Pathfinder does the class system really, really good. Maybe not perfectly, but close to it.
The Pathfinder classes all have a strong identity that sets them apart, and interesting, different ways they play to back up the individuality their themes set up. Fighter's feel like fighters, while paladins feel like paladins, and both feel different.
At the same time, the strong skill and feat system, as well as a passable multiclass system provide the freedom a class-based system so desperately needs to compete with the newer, more sexy, class-less systems.
It's not quite the best of both worlds (it's not a class-less/class-based hybrid), but it's a class-based system as it should be. It plays on its strengths and gets rid of enough of the weaknesses to make it a really nice option.
I have to agree with KaeYoss. I knew what it was I didn't like, but couldn't really say it plain enough.
I know it's not the game's fault. Really, the only flaws to more setting-specific fluff books are that people would get too obsessed with every little detail of a setting being rightAgain, not a flaw of the fluff books.
Well, that and they're badly written most of the time, but that's a flaw with everything.I liked most of the 3e FR stuff. Champions of Ruin was really, really bad, and once they started nuking the setting from space to set it up as a 4e drone (I can imagine poor Ed being locked in a room, being deprived of sleep and constantly assaulted by the PA system going "You will comply! You will bow to the new system! You will shape the world to suit its design goals! You will change the world to fit the new rules! You will obay! You will comply!"....) it all went to Hell, but before that, it was a decent setting with decent supply material.
For me the FR stuff was excellent as long as it was mostly fluff based. Crunch can go to hell, but the fluff must be there. The ending three hardcover adventures got my teeth grinding really, but following books really got me reading with blissful expression on my face (in this order).
Magic of Faerun
Lost Empires of Faerun
Underdark
Unapproachable East
Silver Marches
Faiths and Pantheons
Lords of Darkness
Serpent Kingdoms
Shining South
Races of Faerun
I must say that I also liked the Eberron books so far.
Well, I never really like the Forgotten Realms in the first place. Too many mythic heroes running around in 3.5 while being too much like any other generic fantasy setting, too changed from 3.5 but somehow still annoyingly generic in 4e
Anyway, I'll just shut up now because I didn't really make my point that well in the first place. (That, in an alternate universe where every rpg book is well-written and relevant to your interests, the only flaw with them would be that nerds care too damn much about setting details, which htey would do anyway but would have less to be obsessive with.)
Well, I never really like the Forgotten Realms in the first place. Too many mythic heroes running around in 3.5 while being too much like any other generic fantasy setting, too changed from 3.5 but somehow still annoyingly generic in 4e
Anyway, I'll just shut up now because I didn't really make my point that well in the first place. (That, in an alternate universe where every rpg book is well-written and relevant to your interests, the only flaw with them would be that nerds care too damn much about setting details, which htey would do anyway but would have less to be obsessive with.)
Well, the whole damn place was overrun with mythic heroes if you took commoner 1 as your average person.
I used commoner 1 only for children less than 10 years old. Around 15 they'd be lvl 2 or lvl 1 expert/warrior/noble/adept and around 18 they'd get they're commoner 3, Other non-heroic 2 or heroic 1.
Commonn people are about lvl 7 nonheroics, making the heroes somewhat less special.
For what it's worth, I happened to like Champions of Ruin. The eco-terrorist prestige class that granted spellcasting that was kind of a hybrid between that of a Ranger and that of an Assassin and had sneak attack was really cool, as was that fallen Solar demonlord (I actually used him in a game once, really epic)
As far as I remember, I thought the fluff was really weak. Sort of like a much-too-tame Book of Vile Darkness. A Book of Insufficient Light, if you will. And for me, fluff has always been important in setting books. Yet another PrC is nice and well, this is a setting book, not Book of PrCs Volume MCMXV (Though we are talking about wizards here)
The Justice of Weald and Woe might be nice on a mechanical standpoint, but it doesn't belong in a book about Evil with a capital E.
Stuff like the Dorian Grey portrait were down-right cheesy, too.
I remember getting stats for Dendar the Night Serpent. A beyond-legendary entity that will one day eat the world. Unless one of approximately a thousand epic level NPCs won't get around to kill the little worm. She might be colossal, but with CR 26, she's no more powerful than a 3e Great Red.
Nothing that is destined to destroy the world should have a CR way below the most powerful mortals, let alone deities. Just doesn't work.
Kezef the Chaos Hound was even worse. A creature that denies the gods the souls of the departed and is only CR21? Sounds like a good quest for a party of god-fearing adventurers to get their Epic Club Pass.
Same for the Elf Eater.
If you have a setting that is crawling with high and epic level characters, and insist on providing stats for Mythical Armageddon Bringers, at least make sure the stats make frikkin' sense.
I hear Pathfinder 2e is expected out next GenCon. They are announcing it at this year's. :P
I mean, come on. Selling out 2 print runs & sure to sell the 3rd out. Why not capitalize on all of this gaming frenzy & get a new edition out soon.
They have one problem: They repeatedly told their fans where they live. They even get the occasional offering of pizza brought into their temple-office.
They don't want to be stormed. They don't want to employ a food taster for their tasty 'Zas.
(And they said that it would be at least 10 years before PF2e would be made, and Paizo has so far stood by their word)
Well, I never really like the Forgotten Realms in the first place. Too many mythic heroes running around in 3.5 while being too much like any other generic fantasy setting, too changed from 3.5 but somehow still annoyingly generic in 4e
I interpret it a bit differently: Too changed from 3e to make it annoyingly generic in 4e.
In 3e, it was, for me, the Standard in Vanilla Fantasy. If I wanted to play classic D&D, that was FR. I liked the fact that things happened there, even if none of my characters/parties were doing them. I liked the proliferation of powerful characters, because that means that players could never just assume that now they hit level X, they're frikking invincible and start torching city after city.
Yet it had enough unique twists to appeal to me beyond the "this is my standard D&D fantasy setting" vibe. The weave was an interesting idea. The plethora of gods, and even pantheons, mean that there was ample supply of divine patrons - for all races. Not just "well, you're only demi-human, not the Real Race, so all you get is one god, the rest you have to borrow from us humans".
They also really pulled off the sub-races thing. While many other settings only had maybe two sub-races for non-elven races, the realms had several gnome sub-races, several halfling sub-races, and about as many dwarven sub-races as elven ones!
And then, for some reason, they decided that it was better to enslave the setting and make it fit the rules, no matter how much you have to mutilate it, and employed writing that would get them laughed out of the office of someone in charge of the plots for the world's most ridiculous soap opera and just tore down the setting.
The world-shaking events thing has become a bit too much before that (though it was probably a preparation for the Big One), but they went way, way beyond that.
And the result? A setting minus everything that used to make it special. A setting that was bent out of shape to fit the new rules and design goals. All for one player's guide, one GM guide, and an adventure.
Exactly. It's a generic fantasy setting, and I just dislike reading about generic fantasy settings any more than what you'd read in a Player's Handbook.
No complaints about racial pantheons here. So, no reason to keep talking about since we agree.
I like the idea of subraces to represent different cultures of a race, but I'm not a fan of the execution in 3.5. That's probably because most of the subraces released over the years were barely different from the base race and probably barely got used.
Really, the main issue with having a bunch of powerful NPCs running around is the lack of a sense of accomplishment. Congratulations, you're now level ten! There's still several hundred people who would do what you just risked your life to do with a wave of the hand if they felt like it! (Yes I know I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect.)
(Also, your players need to always have someone higher-level watching over their shoulder to keep them away from the old rape and pillage? I hate them already.)
Also, I agree with how badly they messed up the switch from 3.5 to 4e. I hate the setting and I still think they did it horribly. Why have an entirely-new world get fused with it? Why did Thay (one of the parts of the setting I actually liked) blow up from excess magic when Myth Drannor didn't when the latter is covered in a giant bubble of magic? Oh, yeah, because they didn't want to alienate the old fans too much and only fed half of the setting's sacred lamb into the meat grinder, leaving something hated by the old fans for being half of what they loved and hated by people who disliked the setting for not producing the sacred lamb sausage they hoped they might like.
Alright, that analogy went horrible but hopefully accurate places.
(Also, if they're going to radically change a setting's map, can't they put a complete map in the player's guide so we can know where everything is in relation to each other without having to piece all the individual nation maps together like a horrible jigsaw puzzle? The mechanics in it are good, but the player's guide to the forgotten realms really isn't that good a book.)
Well, Faerun wasn't that generic in the books IMO. It had a few twists of it's own and somewhat worked. It felt like it had some ancient history behind it (no matter what, neither Eberron, nor Tolkienfor example were able to get the same feel for me - please note the FOR ME part), it had a magic system twisted so that it meshed well with the game, it housed places that could see all manner of genres and stories, yet it happens to to somehow fit a bit better than for example Ravenloft (you know... medieval horror county neighbouring with mummy-filled desert empire... well mostly).
It's what Golarion could be with some filing of the details. Again personal thoughts. I like to have a varied place, but I also want the place to look like it's a bit more than a sum of parts.
|
Well, the problem when they do that is a DM would decide to do something and a player would just say he couldn't do that because in page 38, paragraph 4 of this one book it says...
Basically, the problem with completely developed settings is that nerds care way too much about every little detail of a setting being completely accurate.
Well, that player needs to understand a fundamental truth about RPGs, they aren't computer games, with identical experience for all players. No two DMs are going to run the same campaign setting in exactly the same way. If they keep insisting that the DM is wrong about HIS world, they they should feel free to find a more obsessive, anal DM, who they still will eventually have a problem with.
Well, that player needs to understand a fundamental truth about RPGs, they aren't computer games, with identical experience for all players. No two DMs are going to run the same campaign setting in exactly the same way. If they keep insisting that the DM is wrong about HIS world, they they should feel free to find a more obsessive, anal DM, who they still will eventually have a problem with.Well, the problem when they do that is a DM would decide to do something and a player would just say he couldn't do that because in page 38, paragraph 4 of this one book it says...
Basically, the problem with completely developed settings is that nerds care way too much about every little detail of a setting being completely accurate.
Come on, now. Think about the situation a bit.
If you're playing in an established campaign world with loads of background material about that world that you are familiar with, you are naturally going to start making assumptions about the way the world works. That's completely reasonable. Having a wrench thrown into those assumptions by a DM less familiar with the setting he's running than you are can work any number of harmful effects on the story you are creating for your character, or your plans for what you and the party want to do, etc.
The "RPGs aren't computer games" line is a little trite. Of course no two DMs are going to run their game identically, but one of the purposes of having an established campaign setting is that all of that setting's background already exists. While DMs might run the current events of their setting differently from one another, by and large DMs using a published setting will keep the history of the setting intact.
Or you can make quick fixes (he moved, ...). Players uing the knowledge of the setting against the Dm to gain advantage are asking for goodbye here.
If you run a game in an established world, just make clear to your players that this is your version of that world. Fine details may not be the same.
Or you can make quick fixes (he moved, ...). Players uing the knowledge of the setting against the Dm to gain advantage are asking for goodbye here.
Again, it's not about using it to gain some nebulous definition of advantage. It's forming the story of your character around the mold of a pre-established setting, and then later being informed that the mold you used was just wrong. This isn't something that's ever happened to me, but I've heard plenty of stories, and it's not an issue to just be dismissed as a symptom of "problem players".
Heck, I know two DMs personally who will not run a Star Wars game because they're concerned that the players knowing more about the setting than them will cause problems like this to crop up.
Or you can make quick fixes (he moved, ...). Players uing the knowledge of the setting against the Dm to gain advantage are asking for goodbye here.Again, it's not about using it to gain some nebulous definition of advantage. It's forming the story of your character around the mold of a pre-established setting, and then later being informed that the mold you used was just wrong. This isn't something that's ever happened to me, but I've heard plenty of stories, and it's not an issue to just be dismissed as a symptom of "problem players".
Heck, I know two DMs personally who will not run a Star Wars game because they're concerned that the players knowing more about the setting than them will cause problems like this to crop up.
Well, for Star Wars I usually pick some far away planet as the scene, reducing the well known places only for visits where possible.
I'm not defending standard vanilla fantasy or FR directly, BUT without a standard to compare to all settings become vanilla. You need a baseline so that you can say, "Hey! My homebrew is way off standard."
There are some people that prefer standard fantasy. My wife wants it that way, so it makes it hard on me as a DM. I personally am tired of standard fantasy. When Eberron came out, I thought, "Now something that can split the hairs. Standard enough for her & different enough for me." She really didn't like it at all.
Your wife belongs to my group pal... don't even try oriental settings or something like that if she's really like them.
Tempted to argue about settings with lots of detail or enough to get you by, but not tempted enough to argue it in this thread.
Yeah, she hated Spelljammer. Doesn't even want to do Star Wars, which I was going to do because my kids were interested in it. Forget anything that has guns. All she wants to play is a halfling rogue in a standard vanilla fantasy setting.
Tempted to argue about settings with lots of detail or enough to get you by, but not tempted enough to argue it in this thread.
ROFLMAO
Yeah, maybe not the best crowd for that discussion.
Tempted to argue about settings with lots of detail or enough to get you by, but not tempted enough to argue it in this thread.ROFLMAO
Yeah, maybe not the best crowd for that discussion.
Oh drat, my rennaisance setting with elven long guns and rapiers flashing is shelved again.
I can barely stomach reading the 4E player handbook.
I feel you on that one.
I just received an email from WotC today. It says that my DCI number has expired due to inactivity in 4th Edition events. I went once when I was trying to figure out if I liked it. I had just bought the core books, some used, which I thought odd at the time. That was my first hint before I ever rolled the dice for that stupid Dragonborn pre-made I played at my FLGS 4e event.
I'm now *insert colorful explicative that the kids are just crazy for*-deep in Pathfinder. That was the best expiry message I've ever received :)
4e books aren't really meant to be read, they're more liker reference or textbooks. Which annoys the hell out of me, because good christ I HAVE SO MANY REFERENCE/TEXTBOOKS AS IT IS. I DO NOT WANT THEM FOR MY LEISURE TIME.
Also, I love Eberron, I love Spelljammer, I love crazy and weird and out there settings, and I'm honestly not unfond of generic fantasy (though I tweak them a bit ;p). My issue is when fans of any of the above sneer at me for liking the others, and good lord did I go through that with Eberron.
4e books aren't really meant to be read, they're more liker reference or textbooks. Which annoys the hell out of me, because good christ I HAVE SO MANY REFERENCE/TEXTBOOKS AS IT IS. I DO NOT WANT THEM FOR MY LEISURE TIME.
I'm not the sort of person to read through RPG sourcebooks for leisure reading; I have real books for that. I like that the 4e books are meant for play. When I need to look something up, those books let me do it with ease (though I'm usually using the Compendium anyway).
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that the Essentials line will present the material in a much more readable fashion. I think that would be a good way to show off the material to new players.
4e books aren't really meant to be read, they're more liker reference or textbooks. Which annoys the hell out of me, because good christ I HAVE SO MANY REFERENCE/TEXTBOOKS AS IT IS. I DO NOT WANT THEM FOR MY LEISURE TIME.I'm not the sort of person to read through RPG sourcebooks for leisure reading; I have real books for that. I like that the 4e books are meant for play. When I need to look something up, those books let me do it with ease (though I'm usually using the Compendium anyway).
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that the Essentials line will present the material in a much more readable fashion. I think that would be a good way to show off the material to new players.
I think the problem with readability is really felt only when you are trying to learn the system and thus you are not just fishing for particular articles or rules. I lso think that the it's also the reason why some people dismissed the 4E. They didn't like the look of the books, then the rules read like &*#! and so the threw them away. And it can also be the reason why certain parts get omitted by some people. They've never pushed themselves to read that far.
And toward our shared love of weirdness... I think it may stem from the fact that we're DMs and thus want to see worlds with interesting inner workings and inspiring different images :)
|
|
4e books aren't really meant to be read, they're more liker reference or textbooks. Which annoys the hell out of me, because good christ I HAVE SO MANY REFERENCE/TEXTBOOKS AS IT IS. I DO NOT WANT THEM FOR MY LEISURE TIME.I'm not the sort of person to read through RPG sourcebooks for leisure reading; I have real books for that. I like that the 4e books are meant for play. When I need to look something up, those books let me do it with ease (though I'm usually using the Compendium anyway).
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that the Essentials line will present the material in a much more readable fashion. I think that would be a good way to show off the material to new players.
We all agree that this is true of the writing style/layout of 4e. This was by design. However, Prof is right, 4e doesn't inspire, it merely tells you how to play. I would be pleased to see that the Essentials line take the tack you suggest Scott.
S.
Also, I love Eberron, I love Spelljammer, I love crazy and weird and out there settings, and I'm honestly not unfond of generic fantasy (though I tweak them a bit ;p). My issue is when fans of any of the above sneer at me for liking the others, and good lord did I go through that with Eberron.
I love Eberron! Nothing beats a high-speed chase through the towers of Sharn, or a desperate fight on the roof of a speeding lightning rail!
|
|
And they are 'powers'. Only the name and focus differentiates a wizard from a paladin.
Not just the name and the focus, but the specifics of the powers' implementations - area effect versus ranged versus melee attacks, fixed damage versus damage based on weapon, pushing foes versus healing allies etc.
So ... 4e enhances what I see as a weakness of the system, and nerfs what I see as a strength. Now do you see where I am coming from?
I guess I can see where you are coming from, it seems for you a different structure of mechanics for each class is needed to differentiate them, but for me at least the different implementations of mechanics that use the same structure is enough to differentiate the classes to me.
AS for shoe horning into roles and that being more pronounced in 4e, I can see that yes, I don't think it is too bad with the original classes as they seem to have just made explicit what was implicit in 3.5 and perhaps emphasised it a bit.
But for new 4e classes I do wonder whether having to assign it one of the four roles (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller) is perhaps stifling some creativity (I haven't fully looked at PHB2 and PHB3 classes to comment adequately).
|
|
[...] by it's nature, 4e was a different enough change so that it would fracture the gamer base.
I don't think editions have to be that different to fracture the gamer base, I believe Pathfinder has to some extent fractured what was left of the 3.5 player base. I know that there are some heated debates on some forums comparing 3.5 to PF and it was one of the main contributing factors for me to leave my weekly gaming group of several years.
|
|
I think that's one of its worst features.
4e is great in that its settings are dealt with in just a players guide, GM guide and an adventure.
Well, my statement is from someone who is a setting completionist - so having already got the 3.5 Eberron books (though not yet read) I am happy to only have to buy 3 books for 4e for the setting info.
Once again, its horses for courses :)
I guess I can see where you are coming from, it seems for you a different structure of mechanics for each class is needed to differentiate them, but for me at least the different implementations of mechanics that use the same structure is enough to differentiate the classes to me.
AS for shoe horning into roles and that being more pronounced in 4e, I can see that yes, I don't think it is too bad with the original classes as they seem to have just made explicit what was implicit in 3.5 and perhaps emphasised it a bit.
But for new 4e classes I do wonder whether having to assign it one of the four roles (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller) is perhaps stifling some creativity (I haven't fully looked at PHB2 and PHB3 classes to comment adequately).
Yes, I think it does, because it's hard in 4e to make anything that's outside the intended role.
For example, with Pathfinder core, I can take a fighter and make several different 'themes' out of it.
A tank, specialising in heavy armour and shield use to have a huge AC.
A TWFer interested in getting in close and doing brutal damage to his foes.
An archer turning his bow into a machine-gun.
A swashbuckler using lighter weapons and armour but relying on manoeuvres and criticals.
A two-handed fighter using mobility and powerful single strikes.
Then, to enhance any of these I can multi-class them. I can add rogue to my swashbuckler, I can add barbarian to my two-handed fighter, I can add ranger to my archer, cleric to my tank ...
One class, many roles.
Really, the main issue with having a bunch of powerful NPCs running around is the lack of a sense of accomplishment. Congratulations, you're now level ten! There's still several hundred people who would do what you just risked your life to do with a wave of the hand if they felt like it! (Yes I know I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect.)
Well, in a way that is always the case: When you start out, you are newblood 1st-level adventurers. Everything you do is trivial to, say, 3rd- or 4th-level adventurers. When you ARE 4th-level, those 8th-levels consider you children.
I can see the lure of being the real stars when you're 10th-level, or 15th-level, or 20th-level, or whatever, but that means that you need throw-away campaign worlds, because once you ran a campaign there, there will be high-level heroes. Or wait a thousand years so they're all dead.
Sure, you can gloss that over, but you can do the same with the high-level NPCs if you don't need them right now.
(Also, your players need to always have someone higher-level watching over their shoulder to keep them away from the old rape and pillage? I hate them already.)
Not generally, but it has been known to happen.
And beyond the rape and pillage thing, I generally like the notion that the heroes aren't unique in being heroes - after all, there have been great heroes and villains, they're populating the legends with deeds and the artefact shops with merchandise. How come current times only have one party worth of heroes (but whenever one croaks, another shows up).
I'm now *insert colorful explicative that the kids are just crazy for*-deep in Pathfinder.
Ankle-deep?
Works if you're upside down!
Yes, I think it does, because it's hard in 4e to make anything that's outside the intended role.For example, with Pathfinder core, I can take a fighter and make several different 'themes' out of it.
A tank, specialising in heavy armour and shield use to have a huge AC.
A TWFer interested in getting in close and doing brutal damage to his foes.
An archer turning his bow into a machine-gun.
A swashbuckler using lighter weapons and armour but relying on manoeuvres and criticals.
A two-handed fighter using mobility and powerful single strikes.
Minus the irrelevance of the last one due to the different combat systems, I can make any of those besides the archer. Defenders don't make the best archers because they need to be in the fray to use their unique ability.
Classic Tank: One-handed Weapon TalentTWF: Tempest Technique
Swashbuckler: Brawler Style, or Battlerage Vigor
Basic Tank with THF: Two-handed Talent
Then, to enhance any of these I can multi-class them. I can add rogue to my swashbuckler, I can add barbarian to my two-handed fighter, I can add ranger to my archer, cleric to my tank ...
Hey, I can do that in 4E too!
One class, many roles.
Except most of those roles are effectively the same thing - a close-up fighter trading blows with the enemy.
I'm not the sort of person to read through RPG sourcebooks for leisure reading; I have real books for that.
A good RPG book is a real book.
In fact, even bad RPG books are real books. They're made of pages and everything.
Even phone books are real books.
But a good RPG book is a "real book" in that it is fun to just read.