Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[0bsolete]

Ironically Malraux, there are things they could have given other classes just to give them flavour; fighters could have had the ability to carry more than other classes for a given strength (but they have tanked encumbrance) and they could have allowed fighters a greater ability to intimidate or to appaise weapons and armour or to march and allow others to travel quickly over rough terrain etc etc.

I am big on flavour I guess; something to make the classes more distinct but that are mechanically quite harmless. I suppose I am just saying that they have knocked the stuffing out of the wizard in the name of game balance but haven't needed to do the same with the other classes because they were more balanced to begin with.

I suppose some people would say that rangers and tracking is a similar problem. I would just have given rangers the ability to get far more detail from tracks (number of monsters, armoured, when they passed ect) than any other class but let the other classes follow spoor if they are trained in Nature).

Curiously, I actually like that they left those out of the tables. One of the things that frustrated me the most about 3e was that a lot of things that weren't excessively useful, but were flavorful became class abilities. Counter song, while logical and it does make sense, took the place of an ability that might have been more useful. I never saw anybody use countersong. Did fascinate have to take the place of a better ability? I could have houseruled that the entire court was distracted by the bard singing a pub song to the national anthem. I like the fact that the charts are devoted to combat, the text is devoted to flavor, and specific flavorful bits that aren't necessary or game breaking can be created or decided on any time.

 

[lutecius]

What part of the 4th edition PHB do you think could have been cut to make way for what you feel is lacking?

Magic items (30+ pages) They belong in the DMG. At least that would make it a bit more useful.
Epic Powers and Destinies (20 pages) I'd rather have 20 levels of the class I want than 30 levels of classes I don't care for.

That would make room for 4 more classes. But I don't think the page count is really an issue here. It's more a matter of development, playtesting and of course, marketing.

As for races I hope it's just marketing. I hope it didn't take too much time and money to come up with genius concepts like "goofy tail-less dreadlocked boobed dragons" or "ugly infernal goat-alligator-elephant people". Each race is but 2 pages and doesn’t matter as much as promised. They could have easily put all the old races in and then some.

 

[EdPovi]

I would greatly favour more utility powers for wizards that are not usable in combat. Wizards need to be able to do magic and magic, in my book, does not just mean more and more ways to fry things with spells.

Most of the non-combat spells of old are now either Utility Powers or Rituals. They are not numerous as I would like either, but there are some good options. All of the cantrips are nice for minor RP effects.

This list will expand with time, if you check out the class act for illusion powers, you will find a couple of nice Utility powers.

Rituals will be where most of your non-combat stuff is at, and I'm certain this list will be greatly expanded. They have only hinted at the potential of rituals.

 

[The Little Raven]

So I would have had PHB I; Heroic Tier, PHB II; Paragon Tier and PHB III; Epic Tier and the same for the DMGs as well.

If they had done that, then this thread would be about how their marketing decision to rip us off by only giving us 10 levels of play is a travesty and that their new CEO eats babies or something.

 

[Ydars]

Mourn; I agree, but it wouldn't be me saying it.

 

[The Little Raven]

I believe that the essence of the wizard does not lie as arcane artillery and that this cheapens the concept.

This might be an issue if the most iconic spell of the D&D wizard wasn't a combat spell: Magic Missile ("I'm attacking the darkness.").

I would greatly favour more utility powers for wizards that are not usable in combat. Wizards need to be able to do magic and magic, in my book, does not just mean more and more ways to fry things with spells.

Good thing there are plenty of non-combat spells and rituals for the Wizard to use, then.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e has the quality of being designed by marketers, at least in part.

This has some interesting effects on the game, including a strong implied setting, ditching the old Greyhawk material, approaching major media outlets with D&D stuff, and, pertitent to this convo, giving us new hotness.

In the end, 4e does care more about its ability to sell itself than about its ability to update your rules and your characters.

For 3e it seemed like marketing was mostly an afterthought -- they wanted to retain the old D&D audience, and they'd figure out how to grow it after they were sure they could retain them.

For 4e, marketing (and branding and IP) are very central concerns.

Some of this will be for good, some of this will be for ill. Some of this means that your old favorites will wait because they aren't sexy enough.

 

[Nebulous]

True. . . but why not just make a Wizard if you're going to burn a significant number of your character gen options to mimic this single aspect of one? While doing as you suggest is possible, it isn't very practical.

I'm still trying to figure out WHY they gave rituals to everyone. Was it for balance, because at the base level, all classes have an equal amount of powers with an equal amount of usefulness? And by giving clerics/wizards access to additional rituals above and beyond their class power list would suddenly unbalance them? Therefore, everyone gets it, no questions asked.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4e has the quality of being designed by marketers, at least in part.

This has some interesting effects on the game, including a strong implied setting, ditching the old Greyhawk material, approaching major media outlets with D&D stuff, and, pertitent to this convo, giving us new hotness.

In the end, 4e does care more about its ability to sell itself than about its ability to update your rules and your characters.

Hmm, I am not sure I can agree. The system feels pretty upgradeable to me. You might not be able to rip out the power system and implant something new, but you can create new powers and new monsters relatively easy. New classes are harder, but the House Rule forum seems to indicate it is no _that_ difficult to come up with something. (Playtesting is ever the problem )

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm still trying to figure out WHY they gave rituals to everyone. Was it for balance, because at the base level, all classes have an equal amount of powers with an equal amount of usefulness? And by giving clerics/wizards access to additional rituals above and beyond their class power list would suddenly unbalance them? Therefore, everyone gets it, no questions asked.

Not every party will want to have a spellcaster. But the utility magic is the kind of magic a group might need in the long run.
It also adds the option of running a low-magic campaign - powerful magic is limited to complex rituals few have access to.

It is not free access, either - you need at least one skill and one feat to get access to ritual spellcasting, and some rituals will require more then just one skill.

And finally, it fits a lot of fantasy stories to have spells that are not just "fire & forget", but require time and skill and can potentially be botched or interrupted.