D&D 4E 4e With No Casters?

Actually only if you have spells will you HAVE spells.

What he means by that is that having a all martial groups won't mean you'll get your ass-kicked in higher levels without magic-users and all arcane groups can survive low-level without martial characters to protect them.

Also means you can have defenders, strikers, controllers, leaders without them having to be from certain power sources.

mmu1 said:

That, more than ever, just makes it sound like everyone has spells - they're just called something else.

If you can play the game with just those classes without having to modify much of anything, then it logically follows that they're able to replicate the abilities / fill in the niches of other classes, which sounds... boring.

...God, why can't there be any good 4E news? So far, the only thing I liked was the death\dying mechanic.

Click to expand...

Wow, that is some serious puddleglummery!

Who cares if they are called something else? It seems to me that the difference between a high-magic and low-magic game is the special effects, not the mechanics. If the martial leader can rally his troops to a second wind in the same way that the divine priest can ask his god for healing mechanically, while still maintaining a believable low magic special effect, then I think that solves that problem.

Maybe you could explain where you see the problem?

mmu1 said:

That, more than ever, just makes it sound like everyone has spells - they're just called something else.

If you can play the game with just those classes without having to modify much of anything, then it logically follows that they're able to replicate the abilities / fill in the niches of other classes, which sounds... boring.

...God, why can't there be any good 4E news? So far, the only thing I liked was the death\dying mechanic.

Click to expand...

And this is a shining example of why, no matter what WotC does, someone will complain.

Cadfan said:

Personally, I'm not sure that a rogue fits what I want with a swashbuckler. We'll find out when we see the class, of course, but what I want is a dedicated combatant that fights head on. I do not want a character who sneaks around behind people and stabs them in the back. I guess we'll see whether that's a mandatory party of 4e rogue-ing, or whether there's enough choosable rogue powers to create a rogue who matches my vision of the swashbuckler. I'll be happy to play a rogue if the rogue swashbuckles the way I like, but I don't want to be shoehorned into sneaking and treachery when what I really want is to charge across the deck of a ship and make short work of a bunch of pirates.

But lets not derail the thread. Its already been established in other threads that no one agrees with me.

Click to expand...

Hey, I will agree with you here.

While I would like to see that a 4E rogue actually has stolen the good ideas of a swashbuckler and can fulfill that role perfectly (after all, most swashbucklers fit under the general idea of a roguish figure, even if they don't under the classic D&D definition), if that is not the case I really would like to see a dedicated swashbuckler as an alternate Martial Defender. I would hate it if rogues were the only lightly armored Martial melee class ever made.

Also, Cadfan, I apologize if I was too rude or confrontational in the whole Martial Controller debate...

zephen18 said:

And this is a shining example of why, no matter what WotC anyone does, someone will complain.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try.

interwyrm said:

Wow, that is some serious puddleglummery!

Who cares if they are called something else? It seems to me that the difference between a high-magic and low-magic game is the special effects, not the mechanics. If the martial leader can rally his troops to a second wind in the same way that the divine priest can ask his god for healing mechanically, while still maintaining a believable low magic special effect, then I think that solves that problem.

Maybe you could explain where you see the problem?

Click to expand...

The problem is that, to me, the difference between a high-magic and a low-magic game are the mechanics.

Certain "effects" just don't work as anything other than magic, no matter what you decide to call them - especially if, in the move to the per day / per encounter / at will ability model you end up making all the class powers feel more similar than ever.

I like my mundane characters to be able to use their special abilities at will, as long as the circumstances are appropriate. 4E is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction, which clearly, as you can see in this thread, works for many people. Just not me.

mmu1 said:

The problem is that, to me, the difference between a high-magic and a low-magic game are the mechanics.

Certain "effects" just don't work as anything other than magic, no matter what you decide to call them - especially if, in the move to the per day / per encounter / at will ability model you end up making all the class powers feel more similar than ever.

I like my mundane characters to be able to use their special abilities at will, as long as the circumstances are appropriate. 4E is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction, which clearly, as you can see in this thread, works for many people. Just not me.

Click to expand...

Well, this is interesting for me. I'm about 50% Simulationist, and 25% each gamist and narrativist. The thing for me is -- what am I simulating?

Sometimes, I want a "realistic" game (even with magic elves), where artificial conventions like "Per encounter" powers grate me no end. Other times, still simulationist, I wish to simulate the way adventure books/movies/comics work, and in those, "per encounter" powers make sense -- not because the world magically recognizes the structure of "encounters", but because, dramatically, characters do not use the same abilities over and over and over again. To accurately simulate the action genre, the game mechanics must make it inefficient or impossible to just keep using one optimal attack multiple times, or place limits on when an optimal attack can be used. Call it the Voltron Problem -- Voltron can't form the Blazing Sword until he's used a half-dozen other attacks which, we know, never work.

The problem with this structure is that it conflicts with the other half of DMing -- worldbuilding. Per-encounter powers make dramatic sense, but blow worldbuilding to hell, because they mean nearly unlimited use of powers (depending on how an 'encounter' is designed). Arguing that "Well, no NPCs choose to do that!" smashes any kind of verisimiltude in the face (as well as allowing PCs to ignore adventuring and set themselves up as millionaires by using their low level powers to greatly profitable effect. Avoiding this requires the players ignore the full extent of what they can do and its impact on the world, and that's hard to force down their throats.)

Lord Zack said:

I do as well. I hope it's not just "Rogues are Melee and Rangers are Ranged" but I think that's been shown to be wrong by the comment on Rangers using two weapons from the Magic Item article. On a related note I hope there's more choices than archery and two weapon fighting for the Ranger in the PHB. I guess I could make due with those for now, though.

Click to expand...

Also, all of the Biggie Smalls playtest reports feature him for the most part wading into melee, dual-wielding like a diminutive madman -- and he's a Ranger. To date he's busted out the Ranged Pain only twice (at least as noted in the reports).

Also, all of the Biggie Smalls playtest reports feature him for the most part wading into melee, dual-wielding like a diminutive madman -- and he's a Ranger. To date he's busted out the Ranged Pain only twice (at least as noted in the reports).

Click to expand...

According to Races and Classes, there was a 4th edition Swashbuckler class in development, but it was eventually scrapped and it's abilities given to the Rogue and Ranger. We're probably underestimating what a melee Ranger is capable of.

Lizard said:

See, this is one of the things I disliked about SWSE and got me started on the path of 4e-uncertainty. I don't like "everyone does everything at least marginally well". I like "You lummoxes stay here while I scout ahead" or "No one can swim down to that sunken wreck but me".

Click to expand...

This isn't really a good thing. It's called the specialization problem. A character who is specialized finds no challenge in something that a non-specialized character can't even do.

This isn't balance. It's the opposite.

When a group contains only a single specialist in a particular area, any hazard in that area that is challenging to the specialist is utterly impossible for the other characters, leaving their players with nothing to do but sit and grow bored. Any hazard that would be challenging but possible for the other characters is trivially solved by the specialist, again leaving the non-specialist players with nothing to do.

"Let me scout ahead" is fine and all, and will remain, because you'll have a +10 to Stealth and they won't. But do you really want to be the only one who can swim down there? You have a battle, and suddenly you're all alone facing a bunch of sharks, and that's no good for you and no good for the party (who are still waiting for you to come back).

the SWSE system allows everyone to participate, while the really skilled guy still does much better than the others.