Okay people, a little wake up call.

[Negflar2099]

Keep in mind that while I do agree and will state that the game is less complex, I by no means claim that 4th edition is somehow factually wrong. Definitely wrong for me, which is why I'm unimpressed and uninspired, but I'm not giving it a general, "This game is wrong for everyone."

I just wanted to take a second to applaud this attitude. I wish there were more people like you on the boards I frequent, and that's from both the pro and anti 4e sides. We have to remember that however we feel about the game other people will feel differently.

 

[Halivar]

there's a difference between having to make something up to fill in the gaps, and making something up to REPLACE whole systems that don't work for you.

I think you're absolutely right; but that is why I think 4E does best by NOT providing everything under the sun. It's easier to houserule a blank spot than to have to excise bad rules first (EDIT: Yes, grapple... I'm looking at you).

 

[DSRilk]

So, please, could everyone STOP blaming a rule set for any problems you've all had with min-maxing and realize where the blame really lies: with the table's style of play decision.

Any rule set that makes you choose between the two ("RP" and combat) or that allows your success to be based entirely on whether or not the DM picks to apply scenarios that play to your character's specific skills is in part to blame.

If you played a game with mostly combat, spending skill points and feats on "flavor" abilities could be crippling. If you spent them all on combat and no "flavor" abilities and your DM ran virtually no combat and required cooking skills in order to impress people, you were in trouble.

"make it up"... an argument that has long been meaningless.

The argument is not only valid, it's essential. There are simply some things that you need to make up in this type of game. In 3e, you had to make stuff up in order to make all those profession and crafting skills seem useful in an RP setting. It's not like NPCs had a "hunger" attribute against which the profession (cooking) skill would be used and 3e lacked the "no tastebud" feat that would give someone +5 to their save versus profession (cooking) when used in an attempt to sway their opinion of you.

The difference is that in 4e the designers seem to have decided that because there was no system fully supporting a librarian skill or cooking skill, and no system supporting the "12 hours a day of WoW" feat, that those subsystems were outside the scope of the rule book. It's not like they WERE in the scope of 3e -- that system simply provided you the ability to spend your skill points in ways that made it so that you were sub-optimal in all the systems 3e DID have rules for.

As a hard core RPer myself whose weekly games rarely see more than 3 combats a year - you know, the type of player that loves making up stories, plots, character personalities, and doing the whole closet-actor thing - I am truly baffled by the claim that others of my ilk need or even desire a massive suite of rules that require rolls, stats, and systems for character interactions like that. In my group of RPers, at least, the idea of rolling dice in these kinds of scenarios is an interruption of RP and in no way helps it. Even in 3e we never spent skill points on those kinds of skills - we developed character backgrounds and the DM applied responses based on what we said, how we said it, the backgrounds of our characters, and how we presented our characters to the world. It had nothing to do with dice. If someone wanted to impress the king with his cooking, it would happen if that PC had a background in cooking, often made references in game to making savory dishes and other stuff like that around the campfires, and if their background was that they came from an orphanage and ate rats, well... the king would respond... in an interesting fashion to the gourmet rat soup.

 

[Agamon]

The useless 3e skills that were killed died for good reason. They weren't worth implimentation, they made what should have been easy hand waving and/or roleplay situations into overly complex and ultimately unsatisfactory rules.

Rules for roleplay just don't sit well with me. I can understand if people aren't great rp'ers or don't want to rp and want some sort of simulation for it, but having integrated rules for it makes for more of a pain in the arse for those of us that like to roleplay in this roleplaying game. So even looking at it objectively, I believe it's better this way. If one doesn't like to roleplay, one is better off sticking to doing what the dice rolling is better suited to.

 

[Andor]

In 3E, the wizard cleric didn't have thousands options unique to the wizard cleric class alone. It had thousands of options that allowed it to do everything any other class could do, but better and with prettier window dressings. Sooner or later, you come to the point where the multitude of unique options aren't unique anymore.

Fixed it for you.

For all the whining about wizards in 3e (that has suddenly appeared in the mouths of the defenders of 4e) there wasn't a damm thing the wizard could do that the cleric couldn't, but the cleric could heal and the wizard could not. Oh, and take a hit. And wear armour. And fight. And make a fort save. Yeah the wizards was the broken class in 3e. *rolls eyes*

In point of fact I'm having trouble recalling the last time I saw a straight wizard played in 3e. 3e had so many option, so many cool classes, so many possibilities that there was none of the 1st/2nd ed arguing about who had to play the fighter to keep the bad guys off the rest of the party while the spellcaster anihilated everything.

 

[Harshax]

It's not that it doesn't work, but that it can't work.

I agree with the OP that 4E seems a little limited. Considering the page count increased greatly for non-spell casters, something had to give. At 320 pages, the PH is still a hefty volume.

However, I wouldn't worry too much that the wizard's capabilities were limited, or that the list of rituals isn't very long. (ie. Not a single summoning spell)

That's what the PHx will give you. Every year until D&D4.5 or 5.0, we'll see a steady increase of powers, feats, spells until your quintupled you investment and are once again in possession of everything you use to get in a PH, DMG, MM, MM2, and FF. Name one edition after 1E that is different in that respect to 4E.

 

[Dausuul]

For all the whining about wizards in 3e (that has suddenly appeared in the mouths of the defenders of 4e)...

People have been complaining about wizards AND clerics since long before 4E was announced.

...there wasn't a damm thing the wizard could do that the cleric couldn't...

Except teleport to anywhere in the freakin' universe. And throw metamagicked enervation. And cast charm, dominate, et cetera. And cast haste. And the ever-popular rope trick and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. And polymorph/shapechange cheese. And the vast array of defensive spells that make high-level wizards almost impossible to pin down. And so on, and on, and on.

A cleric could get access to a couple of these spells, by way of domains, but a wizard could learn all of them.

 

[Byronic]

It is emphatically not the job of the system to accommodate people who want to play "a rogue class who knows zero about finding traps." It might be the job of the system to accommodate people who want to play "a sneaky guy who knows zero about finding traps."

The system should be able to represent most reasonable character concepts, but "rogue class" is not a character concept, it's a game mechanic. If part of the definition of the rogue class mechanic is that it includes finding traps, then it's silly to expect to be able to make a rogue who can't find traps. It's equivalent to saying, "I want a guy with the Trapfinding skill who doesn't know how to find traps."

Now, since being a sneaky guy in 4E amounts to taking one skill (Stealth), having a decent Dexterity, and not wearing heavy armor, making a sneaky guy who doesn't know how to deal with traps is really not too hard. Play a ranger, for instance.

It seems I phrased it wrong, ok let me try again then. Instead of Rogue let me say, renaissance man. I want the third son of a Baron who's quite learned in different things (Rogue gives enough skill points for this) and fights with a light blade style. Rogue in third edition fits this perfectly and it's not an uncommon concept. Yet while you can get the fighting style right in 4.0 (perhaps even better) the mental part of doesn't quite fit. Sure you can simply say that it's part of his background. But that doesn't mean it's supported by the system. And yes you can house rule it, but that's not part of the system either.

And that's what a lot of people are saying really. Not that they can't change it, but that it's a pity that it's like that in the first place.

2) Take a page from Shadowrun: Each character gets (INT bonus) trained "knowledge" skills. These are skills that have little to no mechanical impact, but grant flavor and potential role-playing opportunities. Skills like Historical Plays, Sport:Stickball or Current Royal Gossip for the Kingdom of Blue Cards.

The second part of your statement just comes across as saying those who want to play their character with the skills as written are having BadWrongFun™. You assume that they aren't having as much fun as you by not playing your way.

About skills, I already made a house rule about that.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=228227

I don't know if I'll use it. But I like the idea that I *can* use it

As for the second part, I'm not saying that they have BadWrongFun. I'm saying that some simply don't have as much fun. I'm sure that there are lots of people who find min-maxing lovely and have lots of fun doing it like that. But I wasn't talking about them.

I just never understood why "hobbies" and such needed actual skills to represent them.

Well this is the cruz of the matter. It's not really that 4.0 is right or wrong. It's simply a system for people to play in. It just depends what kind of game you want. The rogue character I mentioned earlier is a good example.

Some people consider it the most fun if the game from one battle to another. Perhaps loosely connected with a story and a goal or two. 4.0 is perfect for these people. It's build for tactics, balanced fighting etc. If they made the renaissance character I mentioned earlier they would love the 4.0 version.

Another extreme might be people who want to deal with other aspects of the world. Let's say the renaissance character managed to win a keep and wanted to deal with the administration, hold a ball and talk to some people about art and woo the girls there so he could marry her and add more land to his own (a more political social based game) then 3.x seems a lot better then 4.0.

Mind you, they are somewhat extremes but I did that for simplification.

Me, I plan on finishing this popcorn and later on look forward to tactics in 4.0. And making more social etc games with other systems.

 

[DSRilk]

I want the third son of a Baron who's quite learned in different things (Rogue gives enough skill points for this) and fights with a light blade style. Rogue in third edition fits this perfectly and it's not an uncommon concept. Yet while you can get the fighting style right in 4.0 (perhaps even better) the mental part of doesn't quite fit. Sure you can simply say that it's part of his background. But that doesn't mean it's supported by the system. And yes you can house rule it, but that's not part of the system either.

Jack of All Trades: +2 to all untrained skill checks.

Skill Training: Trained in one skill.

Skill Focus: +3 to one skill.

All classes: 3 to 5 trained skills at 1st level.

Humans and several other races: +1 skill.

17 total skills: 7 skills at first level (5 + 1 racial + 1 at first level) = 35% of all skills trained and +2 to all other skills -- at first level. Pretty "renaissance man" to me. And you can basically do this with ANY class. So the question isn't, "can I make a renaissance man," it's "how do I see my character doing combat? sneaky? ranged attacks? melee hound? caster?" or in your case, "light blade guy?" Then you just pick a bunch of skills that match your definition of renaissance man. No longer do all "renaissance" men have to be back stabbers. Personally, I find 4e much more freeing for these kinds of characters.

And making more social etc games with other systems.

Hopefully you don't mean 3e which has virtually no social system. Perhaps you mean 4e, which has an easy to use non-combat challenge system that looks to work very well and is quite flexible when it comes to systematized social games.

 

[Blackeagle]

In point of fact I'm having trouble recalling the last time I saw a straight wizard played in 3e.

That's just because there are so many prestige classes that give the wizard's full spell progression plus a bunch of other cool stuff. Why play a merely overpowered class when you could be playing an equally overpowered class that gets a bunch of extra cool stuff?