4e is boring?

[Krump985]

I: just finished my first game of 4e, well first campaign really. It went until level 5 and ended. I played a rogue, in a party with a wizard, ranger, and cleric. the game was extremely boring to me. I didn't like being a rogue, but I did like the damage I delt.

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me. I loved being able to take any character and have that uniqueness to myself. I had TONS of races and classes to choose from, so I could RP as I saw fit.

We are starting a brand new campaign tonight, and well... I just don't know what I want to be. I don't see myself having fun as any of the classes really. I made this thread hoping for advice from some of you, to tell me what classes and races you had the most fun with, so I can get an idea of what I want to be.

[Nail]

Originally Posted by Krump985

I: just finished my first game of 4e, well first campaign really. It went until level 5 and ended. I played a rogue, in a party with a wizard, ranger, and cleric. the game was extremely boring to me. I didn't like being a rogue, but I did like the damage I delt.

IIRC, you posted a board thread on whether or not your PC was broken. In that thread it seemed as if many of your difficulties came from the DM not understanding the game completely. Has that changed?

Originally Posted by Krump985

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me.

Don't confuse yourself. You are talking about 3.xe, and after all of the supplements came out. This is still very early in the game cycle for 4e. there aren't lots of choices only because there aren't lots of supplements....yet.

Originally Posted by Krump985

We are starting a brand new campaign tonight, and well... I just don't know what I want to be. I don't see myself having fun as any of the classes really. I made this thread hoping for advice from some of you, to tell me what classes and races you had the most fun with, so I can get an idea of what I want to be.

For you, I'd recommend the Fighter. Plenty of defender fun to have there.

[Henry]

First, does your DM seem to be really into running the game? If the DM's not very enthused about it, then another edition or game might be the better call here.

If it seems like the DM and other players are really 'into' it, and you're just not feeling excited about it, but want to keep trying, I'd suggest a couple of things:

1) take the class and race you'd want to play in 3e, and figure out the core element of that class in 4e and play it that way. Half-elf monk of House Lyrandar, Ask the DM for a couple of tweaks on the ranger, like doing a d6 weapon damage on your hands with option for a feat to push it to d8, and just use the rest of the mechanics which fit well. Got an idea for a summoner-type? reflavor the warlock or cleric's powers to fit closer. One person told me his warlock was using his eldritch blast as an "energy whip", and had some other flavor tweaks.

2) Try some off-the-wall stuff like trips, cinematic swings, and other feats of action, and remind the DM of page 42 in the DMG. There's a pretty freeform underlying mechanic which allows players to do some wacky stuff, so that feeling of "do anything" can be recaptured, with a bit of innovation.

Past that, are there any specifics that came up in game that can quantify the problem you were having with it? Sometimes specific examples can highlight what's going on moreso than people starting to bog a thread down with "can nots" and "can, toos".

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Henry

2) Try some off-the-wall stuff like trips, cinematic swings, and other feats of action, and remind the DM of page 42 in the DMG. There's a pretty freeform underlying mechanic which allows players to do some wacky stuff, so that feeling of "do anything" can be recaptured, with a bit of innovation.

This is important. People see powers and go from "this is stuff my character can do" to "this is the ONLY stuff my character can do". Remember every character gets bonuses to all skills now, so give them a try.

Try asking to use endurance to bump your speed for a round, use acrobatics to go up the walls and land behind a guy, etc.

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Krump985

I didn't like being a rogue

Well, knowing what you don't like is a decent way to start thinking about what you might like. Just ask yourself: what exactly didn't you like about being a rogue?
What did you think about the other players' characters?

Originally Posted by Krump985

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me. I loved being able to take any character and have that uniqueness to myself. I had TONS of races and classes to choose from, so I could RP as I saw fit.

I'd suggest you try to think about a character concept without thinking about the ruleset at all.

Character concepts transcend rules. Once you've come up with a character concept discuss it with your DM and with her help try to come up with a race/class/feats/skills combination that most closely resembles your concept. Your DM will (or should) help you to avoid choices that might make your character unsuitable for play. You may also want to ask the other players what kind of characters they intend to play. While not strictly necessary it makes playing the game easier if all of the roles are covered.

While there are fewer classes than in 3E (which isn't surprising considering how long 4E is available) I've found them to be a lot more flexible than 3E classes when it comes to realize a character concept.

[Krump985]

Let's just say this were a 3.5 game. I'll say what I'd like to play this time around, and you can give me advice on what to do.

I'd want to be a very beautiful female paladin of a confused alignment. I am part of a religion/sect that has a particular way of doing things, and while I believe that I am completely just and rightous, following the laws of my sect, and doing things for the good of my religion... my sect is initself a backward and evil body which doesn't realize it. Over the many years we've become tainted and we don't know. I have set off on a journey, now that I have 'come of age' at 21, where I will 'become one with god'. Leaving my town with nothing but my adventuring gear, backpack, and sword... I leave, seeking to spread the word of god and smite his enemies.

I am unsure who my god would be. I am also unsure what my alignment would be. That is the basis though of my character. I would MUCH rather it be a monk, but since monks dont exists, the paladin would be the next closest thing.

also, i know dragonborn make great paladins, but they are ugly as all hell. i couldn't do it. would it be a stretch to be a dragonborn that has a permanent illusion spell on it that makes it look like a human, or some other wild story like that?

[GMforPowergamers]

Originally Posted by Krump985

Let's just say this were a 3.5 game. I'll say what I'd like to play this time around, and you can give me advice on what to do.

I'd want to be a very beautiful female paladin of a confused alignment. I am part of a religion/sect that has a particular way of doing things, and while I believe that I am completely just and rightous, following the laws of my sect, and doing things for the good of my religion... my sect is initself a backward and evil body which doesn't realize it. Over the many years we've become tainted and we don't know. I have set off on a journey, now that I have 'come of age' at 21, where I will 'become one with god'. Leaving my town with nothing but my adventuring gear, backpack, and sword... I leave, seeking to spread the word of god and smite his enemies.

I am unsure who my god would be. I am also unsure what my alignment would be. That is the basis though of my character. I would MUCH rather it be a monk, but since monks dont exists, the paladin would be the next closest thing.

also, i know dragonborn make great paladins, but they are ugly as all hell. i couldn't do it. would it be a stretch to be a dragonborn that has a permanent illusion spell on it that makes it look like a human, or some other wild story like that?

My advice:

1/2 elf paliden
use point buy to get 16 16 12 10 10 10 then +2 con and cha
10 str
14 Con

10 Dex
10 Int

16 Wis
18 Cha

go unaligned worship the Raven queen, and say your sect has turned into little better then a death cult...Bolstering and enfebleing smite are your friends then grab Eldritch blast from Warlock as your dillatant and reflavor to a blast blessing of the ravon queen.

You are now pretty, and a Pally, and go to town...

[Wraith Form]

Originally Posted by Krump985

I: just finished my first game of 4e, well first campaign really. It went until level 5 and ended. I played a rogue, in a party with a wizard, ranger, and cleric. the game was extremely boring to me. I didn't like being a rogue, but I did like the damage I delt.

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me. I loved being able to take any character and have that uniqueness to myself. I had TONS of races and classes to choose from, so I could RP as I saw fit.

We are starting a brand new campaign tonight, and well... I just don't know what I want to be. I don't see myself having fun as any of the classes really. I made this thread hoping for advice from some of you, to tell me what classes and races you had the most fun with, so I can get an idea of what I want to be.

I feel your pain. Not to start a 4th Ed-bash, but I also played a rogue. I came up with a concept LONG before I rolled dice, and there were many parts of it (*coughmulticlassingcough*) that were lackluster in 4th ed.

It was boring....all the other players laying a swath of destruction and doing video-gamey stunts and junk....meanwhile, my socially-inclined rogue just tried to keep up in battle (with minor success) and stole the good treasure.

Beat stuff up, take it's loot. Rinse & repeat. It felt like I was playing a game of Diablo II with my buddies, using pen & paper. I like chillin' with my homies, but sheesh.

I'm trying a uber-muchkin'ed cheesed-out swordmage next, so I can lay my own *yawn* swath of destruction upon my enemies.

[Mercule]

What about an elf or half-elf? They get a bonus to Wisdom and/or diplomacy. Sure, you don't get that +2 to strength, but so what? Decide whether you're playing the numbers or playing the character. Let's say half-elf and pick up a cleric at-will. Beyond that, the concept almost builds itself. Either you're still pure-hearted, despite the church's corruption, so you're good or you've been so totally confused that you're evil. Choose your prayers and go. As your character develops, I totally see her picking up a few cleric prayers, too, since she will be trying to shape the way other people behave.

If you want a monk, go with the above suggestion of modding the ranger or rogue. If you don't want to force a fiat of the open hand damage, offer to spend a feat to get d6 damage. Also, ask your DM if gloves can be enchanted as weapons in the same way cloth armor now exists. That'll give you all you need. If you want the more mystic monk abilities, multiclass into cleric, paladin, or even the warlock or swordmage (if you have that book). When you get to 11th level, you may have to create a custom path (or stop in here), but you might also find that one of your two classes have one that fits.

[Milambus]

Originally Posted by Krump985

I'd want to be a very beautiful female paladin of a confused alignment.

This is a mistake that I see people make quite frequently when comparing 4e with 3.x. "I wanna be X class... but make it do Y thing." Character class and character concept are not the same thing. So I'm going to edit your sentence to remove the class from it.

"I'd want to be a very beautiful female holy warrior of a confused alignment."

When most people think paladin they are usually thinking either a knight in shining armor type character... or a holy warrior dedicated to their god (or ideal). But neither of those concepts have to be restricted to the D&D class of Paladin. Fighters can be the knight in shiny armor, or a ranger could be a holy warrior dedicated nature. Almost any class could fit this concept, depending on exactly how you want to play it.

I'm not telling you to not play a Paladin, but just don't feel like you are pigeon holed into that class because of your character concept.

Originally Posted by Krump985

also, i know dragonborn make great paladins, but they are ugly as all hell. i couldn't do it. would it be a stretch to be a dragonborn that has a permanent illusion spell on it that makes it look like a human, or some other wild story like that?

A dragonborn wouldn't think of herself as ugly. In fact, it could be very interesting to play a dragonborn who was very vain and thought of herself as the best looking person around (because she always has been to her people).

[Bodhiwolff]

I think that we're finding that 4E is suffering a little bit from a presentation style choice, as well as its young age, and as a community in general we're seeing the consequences manifest themselves in combat-heavy, non-unique campaigns.

I am absoluely certain that this will change as soon as we get a few more months under our belts, and a few more examples of how things can run when we're not tapping power cards. Mostly, though, we need reminding that just because the Player's Handbook explains in great detail all of our cool combat-related moves doesn't mean that the DMG doesn't give great advice as to how to adjudicate lots of non-combat, highly-improvised, on-the-fly player-initiated coolness.

I am reminded of the Neverwinter Nights toolset, when it first came out. The first few months had scads of simple, straightforward adventures being posted. Then, the mode was finally broken by a few enterprising and creative individuals who truly raised the bar, showing us that the game could be used to replicate a *much* wider range of adventure types, including quite intricate puzzles, quest-heavy adventures, RP-heavy and decision-heavy storylines, and so forth. From then on, people began to see the toolset in a new light.

We just need to get there, as a community.

It doesn't help that the Dragon magazine examples tend towards the "hack 'em hard" adventures. They're easier to write, easier to explain, and easier to sell in a short space of text.

But for home campaigns, I don't see any reason -- any reason whatsoever -- why a 2E vs. a 3.XE vs. a 4E campaign should be functionally all that different, at least from a player-character option perspective.

So if you're getting that feeling of "I don't feel like I can *do* anything" ... I'd say that you and your DM have some chatting to do, and some pages in the DMG to re-read, and some social contracts to re-visit. Get that bridge between the DM and player built up again, and figure out how, as a team, you two can get the game you both want.

[Fanaelialae]

There was a Converting Your Character article on the D&D site in June (here) that gave rules for playing a (re-skinned) monk. The link doesn't seem to be working, so it works as follows:

-Start with a two-weapon ranger.
-You only get armor proficiency Cloth, but get a +3 AC bonus when wearing cloth or no armor.
-Hunter's Quarry becomes Monastic Battle Focus and you lose Prime Shot. In exchange, you gain +2 Will defense (in addition to the Ranger's defense bonuses).
-Add Arcana, Diplomacy, Insight and Religion to your class skills list, and remove Dungeoneering and Nature. You pick 5 class skills.
-Lose proficiency with martial weapons. Gain +3 proficiency bonus when attacking unarmed, and your unarmed attacks increase to 1d8 damage and gain the off-hand property (you're effectively dual-wielding fists).
-Choose/re-flavor powers and feats to reflect your "monkliness".

Alternatively, Ari Marmell recently put out the Advanced Players Guide with a pretty good Martial Artist class.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by Wraith Form

It was boring....all the other players laying a swath of destruction and doing video-gamey stunts and junk....meanwhile, my socially-inclined rogue just tried to keep up in battle (with minor success) and stole the good treasure.

Beat stuff up, take it's loot. Rinse & repeat. It felt like I was playing a game of Diablo II with my buddies, using pen & paper. I like chillin' with my homies, but sheesh.

This is pretty much a DM issue - and the DMG addresses it, telling the DM to make sure everyone is familiar with the kind of campaign they have in mind so that you don't get someone creating a socially focussed rogue in what is going to be a dungeon crawl!

[Tony Vargas]

Originally Posted by Krump985

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me.

The customizeability of PCs is undeniably lessened in 4e. Even if you compare 4e PH to 3e or 3.5 PH-only, there are just fewer options. Multiclassing accounts for a lot of that, of course, but the relationship between pre-packaged 'builds' and attack-stats is also very limitting. And, the identical progression for all classes also reduces the decision points substantially.

The upside is that powergaming is less critical to creating a viable character, so, while you can't build to concept as tightly, to the extent that you can build to a concept at all, it's /easy/ and somewhat forgiving.

We are starting a brand new campaign tonight, and well... I just don't know what I want to be. I don't see myself having fun as any of the classes really. I made this thread hoping for advice from some of you, to tell me what classes and races you had the most fun with, so I can get an idea of what I want to be.

If this were Hero, or, sure, 3.x, I'd say "what do you want to play?" But, that's probably not the best aproach to 4e. A better question if you're unsure would be "what does the party need?" Each role is important, so, if you're not sure what you want to play, pick last - take up the role that still needs to be covered. If they're all covered, pick a class that no one's else playing, instead of a specific role. Striker is a good option, since there's 3 striker classes. Warlords and Clerics can be pretty different from eachother, too, so leader can be a good option. And a second defender is never bad, just choose the other class and opposite build (avenging paladin v defending fighter; protecting paladin v greatweapon fighter).

Once you've picked a class/build that will help the party, try to come up with a good RP concept. Look at the races that work for that build, and see if you get any ideas.

[James McMurray]

Do you have access to the FRPG? A Genasi Swordmage can be a great defender, a unique roleplaying experience (compared to what 4e has seen so far), and a very different character from what the PHB had to offer.

[habaal]

Originally Posted by Wraith Form

I feel your pain. Not to start a 4th Ed-bash, but I also played a rogue. I came up with a concept LONG before I rolled dice, and there were many parts of it (*coughmulticlassingcough*) that were lackluster in 4th ed.

It was boring....all the other players laying a swath of destruction and doing video-gamey stunts and junk....meanwhile, my socially-inclined rogue just tried to keep up in battle (with minor success) and stole the good treasure.

Beat stuff up, take it's loot. Rinse & repeat. It felt like I was playing a game of Diablo II with my buddies, using pen & paper. I like chillin' with my homies, but sheesh.

I'm trying a uber-muchkin'ed cheesed-out swordmage next, so I can lay my own *yawn* swath of destruction upon my enemies.

Well, I've played a 3.5 game for a couple of years that sounded much like your description- because poor adventure design on the part of the DM is edition proof...
If my DM (and I guess Yours should listen too) were running a fun game that involved more than mere Hack N' Slash, well, it would be a bit more engaging.

On the surface, it looks like 4e rules cover only combat, but that isn't the case. Beside Skills and combat, maybe the the occasional ritual to spice things up and enhance the variety of options players have, there isn't much more the rules need to cover. This is What ANY rules need to cover. The rest, the really fun part of interesting plots and encounters, memorable NPCs and fun puzzles, the mix of world exploration and heroic fantasy- the hard part to come up with- is not in the Player's Handbook, nor should it be or ever was in previous editions.

Are you catching my drift? if your DM treats his table as a battle platform instead of a fun and complete social activity that stimulates the players into imaginning a full story and world, if he lets you feel you have nothing to offer the game table but a set of combat abilities, than he is distorting what DND is all about: fun, story-reliable play.

Your problem is boring advanturs, not a bad system design.

And by the way, even a socialy- oriented PC can and should find his place in the battlefield- it's DND after all and action is to be expected- but the fault is with advanture design not letting your PC's good roleplaying and social prowess shine. There is a reason why about half of the wizard and rogue utility powers (and to a lesser extent everyone else's) are not combat oriented and enhance mostly skills or preform other cool effects- for the game designers believed it's an essential part of the DND experience.

Shabat Shalom

[darkadelphia]

Originally Posted by Krump985

I loved being able to take any character and have that uniqueness to myself. I had TONS of races and classes to choose from, so I could RP as I saw fit.

I've never understood the assertion that 4e limits roleplaying because there aren't enough race/class choices. In most of the best theater, everyone's a human playing one of the lame NPC classes from 3.x--somehow, they're able to have a diverse and interesting selection of characters ;-)

I suppose you've never played a mortal in World of Darkness.

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by darkadelphia

I've never understood the assertion that 4e limits roleplaying because there aren't enough race/class choices. In most of the best theater, everyone's a human playing one of the lame NPC classes from 3.x--somehow, they're able to have a diverse and interesting selection of characters ;-)

I suppose you've never played a mortal in World of Darkness.

Hahah!! Oh yes, so very true. Modern game systems have gotten so bloated with zillions of race and class choices that its easy to forget that those things are entirely independent of creating an independent unique character. [Takes out cane] Back in my day, we just had the fighter as a fighter type and we got one ability called " swing sword" and we liked it!

Seriously though, we didn't let mechanical options spoil making fun and interesting characters. The mechanics just spell out what you are capable of doing ( which sadly is the heightened focus by many these days) The character idea you had was interesting, and as someone else pointed out, workable with a number of classes and races. Concentrate on making your character fun to play and then play it.