D&D 4E 4e With No Casters?

[Lizard]

Pondering this further, in terms of 'replacing' magic items, perhaps the 'neck' slot can be replaced by alchemical symbiotes, which have a nice Vance/Shea feel to them. They might not actually fit on the neck, but occupy the same game mechanic roll, providing adrenaline boosts (Reflex), toxin filters (Fortitude), or psionic buffering (Will). To make them different from pure flavor text, perhaps failed saves against area-effect powers damage or weaken them.

 

[AZRogue]

I've been pondering making the neck slot items into Runes, as it fits with my setting. They can be worn like a broach. Each rune could be recognized and certain ones "belong" to different magical families. It might serve as an informal badge that lets me polarize my warring magical families further, since they are few and jealous of their knowledge.

 

[Cbas_10]

The truth is, historically and generally, that every soldier wore the best armor he or she could afford. Gunpowder obviated the need for plate and similar scale armors, opening the way for lightly armored swordsmen to become the norm—until guns became really reliabele and fast. Then sword fighting became a hobby. Plate-wearing tanks and lightly armored pro soldiers only really coexisted because the lightly armored guys couldn’t afford all the steel the knight was wearing.

D&D mixes the two concepts (knights and swashbucklers) only to allow people to play characters they imagine rather than enforcing some artificial “tools of the time” limitation. In 4e D&D, a swashbuckler type is a rogue (sneaky) or a ranger (focused on efficient killing), emulating the "swashbuckly" style very, very well. This is without house rules or thwarting design-by-concept characters. A person who wants to play a swashbuckler is going to find a lot more interesting options in the ranger and rogue classes. Those who gravitate to fighters will want armor.

Regarding "what 4E characters are"....we really don't know yet. Sure, we have hints and some overall ideas, but I really don't think we have enough of an idea of what each class encompasses to make such definitive statements. Thus, I still have to "think" in somewhat 3.5 terms. That being said, I'll elaborate on my lightly armored fighter idea and how it applies to Mearls' statement.

First of all....I'm not at all an optimizer, min-maxer, or whatever you'd like to call a player that mixes numbers and abilities primarily for maximum power. Yes, I know that is part of the game...but there are varying degrees and different playing styles. Second; I'm not saying 3E is better - nor am I even doing anything that compares the two editions. It's just the only frame of reference to draw from so far.

Fighters are extremely versatile. They are all based upon a few common traits: they can take a hit (good hit points), they can land a hit more often than many others (BAB +1/level), and they know of a boatload of ways to land that hit (all of the weapon & armor proficiencies). Beyond that....nobody was there to tell you, "The game expects [something]" or "The rules will have to be modified if you want to [do something]". With the number of feats at a fighter's disposal...we were free to play the maul-swinging tank, the classic sword & board knight, the agile swashbuckler, or even the elven storm-of-arrows. No rules implied a certain way to play the class. Feats allowed for a player to use his common sense and compensate for his choice of lighter armor or his choice of inferior weapons that make sense in a given setting or concept.

Hearing things like, "play a rogue if you want to do this" or "play a ranger if you want to do that" or "you will have to wait for a future book to play the other idea" makes it seem like character concepts are specifically nailed into specific classes.

Seems a bit more like Pre-gen characters with a few blanks for filling out the character's name, chosen weapon, and magic item slots. However, if Mearls' comment about classless D&D being possible by picking and choosing abilities is actually in the book.....WOW. We would again have the options to get creative, allowing the stats to follow the concept instead of cramming a concept into a couple of possible stats.

Not complaining because I love to complain about 4E....just skeptical and playing a bit heavier of devil's advocate to see if someone says something that gets me to think of something I haven't let my mind open up to yet.

 

[JohnSnow]

Regarding "what 4E characters are"....we really don't know yet. Sure, we have hints and some overall ideas, but I really don't think we have enough of an idea of what each class encompasses to make such definitive statements.

As I mentioned above, Khur is (Fourth Edition Designer and WotC employee) Chris Sims. So he, at least, does have a pretty good idea "what 4E characters are."

We may not have a good basis for comparison, but Chris certainly does.

No rules implied a certain way to play the class. Feats allowed for a player to use his common sense and compensate for his choice of lighter armor or his choice of inferior weapons that make sense in a given setting or concept.

Hearing things like, "play a rogue if you want to do this" or "play a ranger if you want to do that" or "you will have to wait for a future book to play the other idea" makes it seem like character concepts are specifically nailed into specific classes.

Emphasis mine. Just because you could do it in Third Edition doesn't mean you should have.

By requiring the character to spend feats in order to "compensate" for his choice of lighter armor and inferior weapons, you're essentially saying "this is a bad choice for the fighter class." The character would be more effective without picking those weapons, or that armor. That's because if they make different choices, they can spend those feats on getting "better" rather than on "catching up" to where they're supposed to be.

Fourth Edition makes this explicit, rather than hoping people figure it out. If you want to play an effective skirmish character, fighter just isn't the class to pick, and it never has been. From what we've been told, in Fourth Edition, if you want to be the most effective at filling that role, you're better off with a rogue or ranger. Now, it's been suggested that if you want to do it with a fighter, the answer is to multiclass or take the appropriate class training feats. In other words, a multiclassed fighter/rogue, or a rogue with fighter training feats (or a fighter with rogue training) will be a better "swashbuckler" than a straight fighter could ever be. And from what we've heard, ranger will be a good choice for achieving that goal as well.

 

[hong]

Seems a bit more like Pre-gen characters with a few blanks for filling out the character's name, chosen weapon, and magic item slots. However, if Mearls' comment about classless D&D being possible by picking and choosing abilities is actually in the book.....WOW. We would again have the options to get creative, allowing the stats to follow the concept instead of cramming a concept into a couple of possible stats.

Of course the stats follow the concept. Said stats being "rogue" and "ranger".

 

[AZRogue]

Regarding "what 4E characters are"....we really don't know yet. Sure, we have hints and some overall ideas, but I really don't think we have enough of an idea of what each class encompasses to make such definitive statements. Thus, I still have to "think" in somewhat 3.5 terms. That being said, I'll elaborate on my lightly armored fighter idea and how it applies to Mearls' statement.

Just so you know, Khur is Chris Sims, a designer for WotC. He actually does know what 4E characters are like, which makes his posts very informative.

 

[Khur]

*sigh* I presume wallabies killed the wombats and took their stuff?

Yay! Someone found the Easter egg. (I decided to have fun with a misspelling.) Yes, it was the wallabies. Sorry.

[/self-indulgence]

Okay . . . I see some interesting stuff here.

It's true that 3e assumed a fighter in great armor. It's true that the system didn't really come right out and tell you that. It's also true that you could use the 3e system to make a light-armor/high-Dex fighter. Was that efficient? Probably not as effecient as other choices. But the 3e fighter is indeed versatile.

I don’t think 4e changes that radically, to be honest. You can make a light-armor/high-Dex fighter. Is it effecient? Probably not as effecient as other choices. 4e classes are stil pretty versatile, though.

I will stick by the idea that those who want to play a rapier and off-hand dagger type will see more appealing powers among the rogue and ranger arrays. (I'm of the opinion that this was somewhat true in 3e, too. A ranger level went a long way toward helping out a two-weapon fighter in 3e; harder in 3.5.) My feeling is that the only reason someone would choose a fighter to make this kind of character is for the fighter’s defender role features. That’s valid.

My hope is that multiclassing will help some there—that you'll be able to use a striker class and pick up a little defender to taste.

 

[pukunui]

It's true that 3e assumed a fighter in great armor. It's true that the system didn't really come right out and tell you that. It's also true that you could use the 3e system to make a light-armor/high-Dex fighter. Was that efficient? Probably not as effecient as other choices. But the 3e fighter is indeed versatile.

One of my players had a light-armor/high-Dex fighter PC. He was always running away and trying to shoot stuff with arrows. The others were always badgering him to get up there in the front and defend them but he always said he couldn't take the hits. He became something of a laughing stock in the party ... always running away ... *shakes head*

He even had the overpowered legacy weapon from Barrow of the Forgotten King. The base weapon is a +1 adamantine longsword ... but he only ever used it to hack through walls ... *shakes head even more*

 

[SSquirrel]

You're right. A 4E rogue would probably serve perfectly.

It's just not easy to snap out of "But, I need a fighter to fight". Old habits.

Convert the Unfettered from Arcana Evolved? Warmains maximized the contributions from their heavy armor and Unfettered gained extra bonuses while being lightly armored.

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.

I always find it interesting how 2 people can hear the same thing and come away thinking completely different things. I've seen many people agreeing with mmu1 here and thinking that this blands the system out. I read things like this and I get excited thinking about making more oddball parties that in prior editions of D&D would have been atrocious that just plain work in 4E. Then again, I was a fan of a thread here that made every ability in the game purchasable w/various requisites etc. A character that is primarily a wizard but has a few ranks of Sneak Attack is a weird idea, but hey if it works enjoy. That guy would probably be really nasty w/rays and other spells requiring attack rolls tho

Only time will tell how distinct each class in the game feels, but it isn't like there aren't classes w/severe overlap already in the game. I'm looking at you Rangers. Bards are the ultimate mish-mash that has never been done very well. Barbarians and Paladins are both easily Prestige Classes. Barbarian should be a description of your life growing up and the fighter class should be more flexible so as to allow the production of something similar. If the various talent paths or whatever they're going to have in 4E allow you to produce archery specialist ranged fighters, rage filled barbarians, lightly armored swashbucklers and pit fighting gladiators all based on how you choose to focus yourself and still feel distinctly different, I will be totally satisfied. Heck, if they're approaching that even, I can houserule the rest

 

[SSquirrel]

I consider the following scenario to be about the worst possible sort of teamwork available in the entire game:

*SNIP story of Rogue rolling poorly*

I would look at that cliff as the DM and ask myself if there is any significance to this obstacle. Are there guards posted nearby who might hear them screwing up or they have to climb quickly before the next patrol comes past? Is there a a small mob following closely on their heels ready to lynch them all due to lies spread by an enemy? Or is this just random wall in their way?

The first examples all have elements of risk inherent to them. There should probably be rolls involved. If the characters were bored or didn't scout around for a better way up or there's no real big thing about this wall besides a chance to have them climb a wall, I just say, "You come to a (describe the wall). The Rogue of the group practically dances up the wall, the Wizard w/the 7 Dex cuts his knees a couple of times and the Warrior ponders dieting before he comes across another wall when there are actual dangers around"

If it advances the plot, involves character risk ("throw me the whip!"), etc pull out the dice. Otherwise it just slows down a game that can already get bogged down in minutae as it is.