I'd rather not get into the very vigorous discussion about mechanics v storytelling - it was just a casual observation on my part. But I can respond to Jay. So I will.
For me, this is a feature. Wizards have been brought in line with the rest of the classes, and there's a lot less opportunity for the wizard to outclass everyone at the mid- to higher levels. And wizards are still more versatile than any of the other classes in terms of Daily and Utility choices.
I still dispute that wizards outclassing everybody, or anybody, was ever a problem. Someone suggested this is because they 'weren't being played right', which I take exception to. In my experience, wizards simply weren't that powerful under 3.5. There was a wizard is almost every game I ever played in 3.5, and in not one of them did the wizard outclass the other PCs or unduly dominate the game (well, once, but only because of the player). It was possible to min-max
every character to make them exceptional. Maybe, perhaps, with wizards it was a little easier because of their versatility, but I repeat that I never found this happening.
As regards to wizards still being versatile, I'll pay that, but that's because I feel every other class has been made even less versatile than they were before.
Are you referring to the builds at the beginning of the class sections? That's simple advice, much the same way 3rd edition offered sample characters for each class. You are free to use it or ignore it.
On re-examining that section, you are correct and I'm wrong. Enjoy me admitting that, because it doesn't happen often. The 'paragon paths' and 'epic paths' are also optional - however, to me they seem far inferior to prestige classes, which provided much more variety and colour.
Did anyone in your group play a Warlord? Did you read the Warlord chapter closely. If you think that Fighters can do what Warlords can, I suggest going back and taking a closer look. They are quite different.
I don't see it. Both characters focus on killing things quickly. The only difference is in how they do it - fighters by hitting hard, warlords by hitting slightly less hard but making all their allies hit slightly harder. I really don't see the need for the warlord. Why can't fighters be battlefield leaders? And why would you play a fighter if warlords can do pretty much the same things?
This is more of a taste thing. I've never liked gnomes, nor have I ever seen one played, but I didn't knock older editions for having them.
I agree, and of all my gripes this is the one I'm least fussy about. And there's no reason someone can't create 4E gnomes. I'm sure someone has already.
Again, this is a feature. 1st level monsters are not meant to be splattered in one hit, but are actually meant to be a challenge. Also, because the time it takes for a player to take his turn has been reduced, fights overall have been lengthened by increasing monster and PC hp. This is simply a different design feature. If you don't like it, you don't like it, but I don't get what's so wrong with having interesting and challenging experiences starting at level 1.
Well, I can see your point but I think it's poorly executed. It would have been better to give the creatures different or better combat skills and AC rather than larger amounts of HP.
Can you highlight which aspects you thought "played like a video game"? I ask because the MMO comparisons are thrown about very readily by detractors. I played DAoC, Guild Wars, and WoW for years, and aside from the Points of Light setting and the new cosmology, I just don't see it.
It's just a feeling. I guess it would be the 'powers', which, to me (and remember, this is my
opinion, seem designed to make a character more "kick-arse" than they are to making the character a
person. I know people are going to say the same was true in 3.5 but I disagree. Some class abilities added little to combat but they did add to the player's character.
I partially agree with this. I really would've liked to see more feats, and Magic Items relegated back to the DMG. In terms of the classes, I think we have tons of options, far more than individual classes in previous editions, with the exception of the wizard, who was not what I consider to be a model of quality class design. For a core book, there are a lot of choices; the designers had to strike a balance between lots of options and the important rules of the game. I think they did a pretty good job.
Again, it comes down to the powers. I think they're ill-thought-out. Feats are a much better way of distinguishing between two character, in my view.
Sounds like you have a pretty specific idea of the kind of game you'd like to play. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the game so much, but it seems more of a preferential thing than anything else. 4th edition has lots of options and strong rules. Those that I have played with have been impressed by the ease of character building, the dynamic combats, and the less rules-oriented take on roleplaying. It's been a good experience for me so far. Perhaps you will feel the same eventually, but if you don't that's ok too.
I found character building easy enough, but there's more to a character than their combat abilities, which I feel the game is too focussed on. I think probably it is just that we were perfectly happy with 3.5 and felt that 4E a) didn't fix anything that needed fixing and b) was mostly about selling more rulebooks to everybody and making more money. Yes, we had these preconceptions but if we'd been totally closed-minded we wouldn't have started playing in the first place.
The kind of games we like to play value strength of character, group dynamic, interplay between the characters and good storytelling.
I'm sorry, but I just don't feel the new rules make that easier.
