D&D 4E Another Review of 4e

[Sylrae]

there are 8 trees of fighter feats; ok, but you can combine things from those 8.you might only go a couple steps into the power attack tree and then put things elsewhere. you could go 50/50 in 2 trees, while your buddy fighter goes 50/50 in two other trees. there are way more than 12 really. and an archery fighter is pretty different than an archery ranger. he uses a bow, but gets up close and in your face more, and lacks the animal companion and spells. pretty different to me.

sure you could go by specialization schools for a wizard, but I was thinking just via spells. even 2 wizards with the same specialization could be totally different based on what spells they chose. and there are a load of spells to choose from. way more to choose form than in the 4e phb.

ok. i listed barbarian as one of the less versatile. but the fighter probably has like 30 builds or more, the wizard maybe around 100, sorcerer around 100, cleric more than wizard via huge spell selection and domain powers. really, the estimate of 12 each class was way too low. sure, there are a couple of classes which had less than 12, but then the others had VASTLY more.

Bards are great, not so much in 3.0, but after they got upped in 3.5 they became my favorite class out of the phb.they're roguey, but with magic. very viable. They aren't as combat adept, but they can fill in for almost any of the other classes for a round or two. and outside of combat, the only one who could compete was the rogue for what they can do. and monks not keeping up? monks are one of the toughest classes in the game! I've seen DMs house rule the class away because its so good. they dont do as much as a fighter per hit, but they get WAY more hits in. and if you count PRCs (oh yeah, the dmg had prcs, making EVEN MORE OPTIONS.

as for which builds are viable via race, I dont think any of the races are not viable. A halfling barbarian isn't as tough as a halforc barbarian, but he's faster and has better saves. none of the core races have any weaknesses or strengths that make a big enough difference to make the classes not a good option.

even more options, consider multiclass. the new multiclass system gives far less customization than the 3.5 one. the 3.5 one had some issues, but they weren't that hard to fix with a simple house rule (multiclass spellcasters got REALLY weak: sol'n; add up the total levels of your other classes. half of them (round down) add to your casting abilities and spells known as if they were the caster class (or whatever fraction you decide makes the problem solved.) other than that one issue, multiclassing in 3.5 was way better than 4.0.

so. 1056 was a conservative estimate. I didn't actually count anywhere near everything. and its still way more than 256.

and why isnt there ever a swashbuckler in the PHB! they added the warlock! and I've only seen someone make one of those twice. I've seen dozens of swashbucklers.

before the swashbuckler came out (and even after) we used the Dragon article about swashbuckling pcs. it had some nifty feats, but mostly it was just describing how to build swashbucklers with the phb.

 

[ptolemy18]

I was just reading the cleric's full information earlier today. Have you seen the Divine Oracle paragon path? If your friend had built a cleric aiming for that, and picked up some of the divination rituals, he might have been able to develop the character he wanted while still being a force in combat. Sounds like good news to me.

The Divine Oracle is a good example of what I dislike about 4e. The "fluff" (of which there is just a few sentences) is that you are some kind of oracle with powers over fate. The "crunch" is exactly the same as every other 4e class -- it's just a bunch of combat abilities with not even the slightest connection to the idea of being an "oracle." I mean, they could have at least given them some kind of powers based on the Divination Rituals, which still exist in the PHB. But no, it all has to resolve around combat. In short, completely boring.

 

[cdrcjsn]

and why isnt there ever a swashbuckler in the PHB! they added the warlock! and I've only seen someone make one of those twice. I've seen dozens of swashbucklers.

They did.

But he's going by the name of Rogue wielding a Rapier.
Or Ranger with Rapier and Main Gauche.
Or Dextrous Fighter with double rapiers and light armor.

Take your pick.

 

[Xect]

I think it's pretty evident that 4th edition shifts the focus for the 'skill' aspect of the game from character creation to character usage.

In 3rd, the deciding factor behind a characters', and particularly a martial character's, effectiveness was the build. Builds ranged from disproportionately powerful to entirely useless.

In 4th, not so much so. While you could probably create a useless character with a determined effort, doing so by mistake is unlikely. And barring actual holes in the rules, you wont see hugely powerful characters.

On the other hand, party composition and combat tactics take a larger role in 4th. When it comes to the actual fighting, I think even wizards will find that their range of viable options in a particular combat situation has improved.

Given that character optimization was a major (perhaps the main) part of 3rd edition, it stands to reason that vastly diminishing that aspect of the game will not go down well. Personally, I'm looking forward to not having to balance my encounters to allow 4 characters ranging from sucky to munchkined to shine each on their own. Perhaps I'll even find the time to set up exciting encounters rather than spending hours crunshing numbers just to avoid completely failed encounters.

 

[theNater]

The Divine Oracle is a good example of what I dislike about 4e. The "fluff" (of which there is just a few sentences) is that you are some kind of oracle with powers over fate. The "crunch" is exactly the same as every other 4e class -- it's just a bunch of combat abilities with not even the slightest connection to the idea of being an "oracle." I mean, they could have at least given them some kind of powers based on the Divination Rituals, which still exist in the PHB. But no, it all has to resolve around combat. In short, completely boring.

You don't see Foresight(you are never surprised because you can see the future) as being oracular? Nor Prophecy of Doom(you speak a dire prophecy at your foe which almost immediately comes true)?

If you want a character who can go into a trance to get information directly from the gods, you can do that with rituals alone. You don't even need to be a cleric for that. However, if you also want to use your ability to see and shape the future in combat(and skill challenges; Good Omens works just fine there), Divine Oracle does it quickly and easily.

 

[theNater]

so. 1056 was a conservative estimate. I didn't actually count anywhere near everything. and its still way more than 256.

Okay, it seems this line of thought is going to run into an argument of what is or isn't a viable build, which is not what I want to get into.

Let's try a different tack. What do you want characters to be able to do that they can't? What sorts of builds are we missing in 4th edition that are present in 3rd edition?

I will freely grant that you cannot have an assistant creature(animal companion, paladin warhorse, wizard familiar) or unrestrained shapeshifting(polymorph, wild shape). Those abilities were removed for balance reasons, so I'm counting the fact that you can't have a character based around them as being in 4th edition's favor. Also, mounted combat builds have been greatly reduced, presumably because PC's frequently get into situations where being really good at mounted combat won't help, and the designers didn't want to shut anybody out of a large range of situations.

So there's your challenge. Give me the 3rd edition build that 4th edition doesn't have because of sheer unhelpfulness on the part of the designers.

 

[Dracollich]

TheNater had a good point about the number of viable build options available to 4E, but I think he sold the system short.

If you look at a first level PC you have:
1 of 8 races to choose from
1 of 8 classes to choose from
2 of 4 at-wills (not including wizard) for a total of 6 possible combinations
1 of 4 encounter to choose from
1 of 4 daily to choose from

8 * 8 * 6 * 4 * 4 = 6,144 different combinations of starting powers/races/classes.

This does not include: Feat selection or build selection

And, as far as I can tell, each selection would make a character that is interesting and viable to play.

 

[Clavis]

FINAL THOUGHTS ON MINIATURES: In one major way, Wizards has made a big decision which will forever influence the type of people who play D&D and the audience they're aiming at... and that is, to emphasize miniatures and battlegrids to the extent that they do. To emphasize the whole tactical element. Of course, it was like this in 3e, too, but 4e goes a step further. I actually kind of like this tactical element myself, to an extent, BUT... BUT... there are tons of other role-players I know who have no patience for the "moving miniatures around on a mat" aspect and, although they may enjoy the aspect of "role-playing a character" and "rolling dice," seem to NEVER be able to get behind the whole aspect of the miniatures. ("I run up to him and attack him!" "Sorry, he's 7 squares away, and you can only move 6 squares!" "WTF!?? I hate this game! I can't be bothered to remember how many squares it is!" :/ ) These people may be excellent role-players and very fun to play with, but the miniatures are just A Bridge Too Far. Or rather, A Bridge Too Nerdy.

It's certainly the way I feel. Prior to 3rd edition, I never gamed with ANYONE who used miniatures, or even wanted to use them. 3rd Edition's
practical necessity for miniatures seems have become an absolute need for them in 4th Edition, and that's one of the two deal breakers for me (the other is the everybody having magic-like powers). I simply have no desire to play a miniatures game when I want to be playing D&D. For me, D&D has always been a game about adventure, exploration, creative thinking, role-playing, and vicarious glory, not tactical combat set-pieces strung together by a plotline. WOTC has taken the D&D brand places were I simply will not follow them.

 

[Sylrae]

damn double post glitch.

 

[Sylrae]

They did.

But he's going by the name of Rogue wielding a Rapier.
Or Ranger with Rapier and Main Gauche.
Or Dextrous Fighter with double rapiers and light armor.

Take your pick.

How about the unarmored fighter who relies on quickness, and intelligence? all of the ones you describe still need armor. Plus, what about all the acrobatic abilities a swashbuckler had?

The only one of those that sortof fits is the rogue, but theyre sneaky, not flashy and showoffish. Also, they're faster and weaker.

Okay, it seems this line of thought is going to run into an argument of what is or isn't a viable build, which is not what I want to get into.

Let's try a different tack. What do you want characters to be able to do that they can't? What sorts of builds are we missing in 4th edition that are present in 3rd edition?

I will freely grant that you cannot have an assistant creature(animal companion, paladin warhorse, wizard familiar) or unrestrained shapeshifting(polymorph, wild shape). Those abilities were removed for balance reasons, so I'm counting the fact that you can't have a character based around them as being in 4th edition's favor. Also, mounted combat builds have been greatly reduced, presumably because PC's frequently get into situations where being really good at mounted combat won't help, and the designers didn't want to shut anybody out of a large range of situations.

So there's your challenge. Give me the 3rd edition build that 4th edition doesn't have because of sheer unhelpfulness on the part of the designers.

Undead summoning/Controlling Cleric. Planar based cleric.
An Undead summoning wizard. For that matter, any sort of summoner.
Bard (a buffcaster who's quick)
Druid (a nature spellcaster)
Barbarian(Some sort of berserking character.)
A martial artist (unarmored as well)

out of what's there, I'd consider playing a rogue for more than one session; maybe a ranger if I had already played a rogue.

My first choices were in the things that were removed. I love the whole bring your own personal (summoned or unholy) army Idea. - In 3.5 you couldnt have too many creatures at once with just the 3 main books, but you could sitll have a handful of creatures fighting for you.

My order of fun would be:
0. Swashbuckler (it wasnt in the 3.5 core either so we won't count it)
1. A necromancer or summoner
2. A Bard.
3. Rogue
4. Druid
5. Ranger (spellcasting or not doesn't matter)
6. A war cleric (not a healer fighter)
7. Fighter
8. Martial Artist
9. Blaster Mage
10. Berserker
11. A healing cleric - I'm not a party looker afterer.
12. A paladin If I ever am told to play the paladin, and the DM is serious, I just won't play.

and the lack of any noncombat abilities is annoying too. I've played characters with little combat abilities who were almost all social, and they were awesome. I'm not saying they should have such a divide, but presently they have no real abilities for outside combat.