D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Obryn]

The placing of magic items in the PHB just seems at odds with the premise that one of the 4E design goals was to get rid of the dependence on magical items. It just seems a bit strange that magic items appear in the PHB as if they were standard equipment for the first time in an edition that claims to reduce the need for them.

I definitely think they're less central than they were in 3e, but it seems to me that magic items have been vital for most of the life of the game...

In 1e/2e, you had the all-powerful Girdles of Giant Strength and Gauntlets of Ogre Power. No self-respecting Fighter or Barbarian went without one. You also definitely needed magic weapons, since so many monsters were completely immune to weapons below a certain +. Everyone wanted Rings of Protection, and it was rare to see a character without one by higher levels. Are you a Thief? Well, you'd be advised to find these Elven Cloak and Boots so you never need to worry about hiding again.

There certainly wasn't a magic item shop, but in my memory (at least), magic items were quite important under 1e/2e - in fact, they provided a lot of the mechanical differentiation between characters. They were hugely vital in 3e - particularly for non-casters. They're much less vital in 4e than they were in 3e, but I still don't think they're down to the 1e/2e level.

As for what book they're in... For a 3e or 4e style game, I like having them in the PHB. By the time you're making higher-level characters, you need to have access to magic items. Also, in any game which lets you make magic items (both 3e and 4e), the players need to know basically what they can make. Putting them in the PHB means players don't need to buy, beg, borrow, or steal a DMG.

For 1e or 2e, where PCs didn't ever make magic items, and where magic items were seen more as "loot to find" instead of "stuff to buy/make," having them in the DMG was great.

-O

 

[Jorunkun]

No, it isn't and this really frustrates me.

Over the last 30 years, our group has migrated up through all versions of D&D and found that, on the whole, every new edition was an improvement over the preceding one. We were ready to like 4e. We were fed up with 3.5's bloat, broken bits and inconsistencies and wanted a new system. We agreed with 4e's design goals. We weren't shy about seeing some holy cows butchered.

However, it took just us just one thumb-through of our (pre-ordered) PHBs to know that this wasn't what we'd hoped for at all. Yes, the game has been refocused in it's content and rebalanced in it's mechanics. Unfortunately for us, it has been refocused on glitzy high-fantasy and rebalanced around powergaming combat as the core of gameplay. When I think of 4e, I see a toys-r-us shelf lined with dozens of shrink-wrapped plastic fantasy action figures.

Of course DnD has always had this element in its DNA, and as 15 year olds, that was what we liked about it. But over the decades, we have stuck with the game in spite, not because of this. For all its flaws, 3rd edition catered to a breadth of playstyles, from powergaming to sandbox-simulationism. You could take out or tweak the parts you didn't like. I try that with 4e, and I'm not left with enough to constitute a game.

I was hoping 4e would streamline the mechanics to open up the game. Instead, it has immensely limited the scope of play, and in the process locked out a huge chunk of its player base; our group along with it.

 

[Mallus]

One thing I remember specifically about the previous editions of D&D was that you let the Players make the characters they want, regardless of party balance.

This hasn't changed.

Why would a villain NPC tailor and deploy his monsters just on the basis of what the PCs had in the party?

The same reason you don't run a 5th level party through a module written for characters level 10-14.

 

[Mallus]

You see, if I have to play a different class to get to the character concept that I'm looking for, then once again this game has ceased to be a role-playing game and is something different.

Why not just choose the class that best maps to your concept and just role-play from there?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The more I examine various editions, the more I begin to suspect that diaglo is right......

 

[Darkthorne]

Mallus,
One of things I noticed when building a character to match a concept is to choose the class that best fits what they do in combat, not outside of it. If I want to build a swashbuckler (good guy, three musketeers, princess bride) for in combat rogue does this hands down then I should pick that. However I now have stealth which I can live with, but theivery & backstabbing goes completely against the concept of the character and I could see people having issue with that. Yes you could say backstabbing is something else, but there are still things that don't fit and for some of it I don't think simple tweaks will make it work well w/o possible further issue down the road. Also some people may not want to go through that or they may have a dm that only allows classes as printed (which may be few but still a valid concern for some)

 

[Mallus]

If I want to build a swashbuckler (good guy, three musketeers, princess bride) for in combat rogue does this hands down then I should pick that. However I now have stealth which I can live with, but theivery & backstabbing goes completely against the concept of the character and I could see people having issue with that.

Unwanted baggage is an unavoidable consequence of using a class-based system.

Also, I think you're getting your editions mixed up. A 4e rogue does start with Thievery, but Stealth is optional, and backstabbing hasn't really existed since 2e.

...but there are still things that don't fit and for some of it I don't think simple tweaks will make it work well w/o possible further issue down the road.

Here's how to make a swashbuckler in 4e:

1) Play a rogue.
2) Ask the DM if you can replace Thievery with Acrobatics as your default Trained skill.
3) Refrain from taking Thievery as one of your Trained skills. You may want to avoid taking Stealth as well (though I don't see a problem with it, swashbuckler flavor-wise).
4) Spend a Feat to use a rapier.
5) Done!

4e can't do every archetypal character quite so easily... then again, look how long it took before 3e had a good fighter/mage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The more I examine various editions, the more I begin to suspect that diaglo is right......

I suspected this some time ago I am at work on my own project which takes the best of what I like from OD&D through 4E, and cobble it together salad bar style for the system that I want. I plan on posting the beta version in the downloads section when complete.

If I can work out mechanically what I envision then I will get:

Stats that have meaning without bonus bloat

Only 3 basic classes with lots of room for customization

Fast paced combat that offers lots of action options without getting bogged down with movement and temp bonus minutae.

Spellcasting that isn't as limiting as a Vancian system yet still uses recognizable spells

Super Easy and brief monster and NPC statblocks.

 

[Qualidar]

Also, by allowing any deity to employ Paladins in this manner basically flies in the face of what Paladins are supposed to be, and the nature of the universe in general.

SenseiMike,

I understand where you're coming from, and sympathize with most of it, but I'm puzzled by what you meant by that. Could you explain?

 

[Greg K]

4e can't do every archetypal character quite so easily... then again, look how long it took before 3e had a good fighter/mage.

2 years. In 2002, AEG released Mercenaries with the Myrmidon.