The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[el-remmen]

A class is just a bundle of stuff - proficiencies, class skills, hit points, and powers. The name is descriptive, but it's kind of window dressing. For the ranger, this seems to be especially true.

In 4e, Rangers are no longer expert trackers. They don't get druidy-type spells. They don't get animal buddies. If you saw one in 3e, you'd guess they were a Fighter specializing in archery.

-O

But I want rangers to be the expert tracker nature guy, that is what should (in my opinion) separate him or her from other classes, how he or she fights is secondary to that - why else have a class called ranger? Why else play one?

Why not just get rid of class names as they have existed altogether then and just have the four roles with different builds that represent the different power sources if the game went in that direction? In other words have a the class be "Striker" with three option, archer striker (ranger), magic striker (warlock) and sneaky striker (rogue)? Or something like that?

I want to play a tough fighter guy who is an expert at ranged combat who doesn't care about the woods and nature and tracking - but I can't do that because a fighter is only a melee fighter now, and while I can be a ranger and call myself whatever, that just means when I do feel like playing a ranger, it is not going to feel like one to me because the things that should make him rangery are no longer essential to the class.

I am just having a hard time making the new game paradigm fit with my view of what D&D should be like.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

So if I had 4 competent characters, and a farm equipment repairmen, I'd make sure they fought encounters balanced for four PCs.

Whereas I would make certain that the occasional monster would possess farm equipment in need of repair...

 

[LostSoul]

They do, however seem to inhibit people who want to play characters who triumph by ingenuity, wit and cunning

I'm interested - what sorts of mechanics would allow people to play characters "who triumph by ingenuity, wit and cunning"?

 

[jonrog1]

Too bad that Skill Challenges are broken (see math thread) and that they imo are more restricting than helping.

I'm not completely buying that math thread -- and regardless, that argument leaves out a hell of a lot of mitigating factors and bonuses. But that aside -- how more restricting? "Okay guys, we've got a problem, everybody toss in whatever they think they can do!"

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If I might pitch in, I'd have to say that the OP (who happens to be my DM) makes a lot of points that I agree with, but doesn't seem to make the points that are at the top of my head as I burrow into 4E... or if he does make them, they seem to have missed most of the responders to the thread.

I hadn't even made it halfway through my first trip into the 4E PHB before I heard a quote from The Incredibles in the back of my mind - "When everyone is super... no one will be."

This version of D&D feels like it's out to achieve that end, I fear. It's taking away things that maybe too many players have already given up, and so they don't notice. But the character whose shining moment in a session is a well-delivered one liner instead of a timely critical hit or perfectly orchistrated use of a daily power is just as important in my fantasy genre as those other guys are, and it seems like 4E's kicked him to the curb.

So how does 4e stop you from delivering a one liner?

One or more people have asked what mechanics 3.x had to make social or policital encounters better than 4th, and my jaw gapes. You must be joking, right? How about the most maligned class by the power-gamers, the virtually unlamented absence from 4E - the Bard? A class that wasn't so combat useful and so was derided and ignored by hundreds of action-junkie players because he was designed to shine in social and political encounters ?!? And that's just for starters.

As for the bard, I accept your point, but the bard will come, and I see no reason why you could not reskin the warlord to stand in for a bard at the moment.

snip

My club-footed dwarven sorcerer with the Scarlet Adder familiar that lived in his beard would never have been played if we had been playing 4E. Neither will my ideas for characters like a wizard who can only cast one spell but believes he can still become a mighty Magus by mastering that spell like no one's business, a cleric who devoutly worships the (possibly imaginary) Goddess of Forgetfulness and strives to strengthen her worship in the world by earning a reputation as a hero, or a runaway gnome who joins a party of adventurers in the hopes of convincing them to escort him on a journey around the world, since all he knows how to do well is build and fix agricultural equipment. They may not be characters you would want to see in your games... but then again, maybe if you'd played a few games with me and my DM you'd find yourself looking forward to them, too.

Well I see no problem with the cleric of Forgetfullness. A lot really depends on how you want to play him/her. Same with the gnome mechanic. In fact the only character I would see as probmatical is the one spell wizard.

I am not sure whither you want these characters to be competent in combat. If there is no combat then it does not really matter since the combat mechanics do not come into play. If the characters are comptenent in their role then I do not see a problem.

In 3e it was fairly easy to get the characters not competent in combat but the DM has to put the work in to ensure the monsters do not tpk the party. In 4e the DM would have to house rule the character powers and adjust the encounter levels to the new party effective level.

When you come down to it, I guess that whether character or player, people are mostly the results of their experiences. So I can't say if my opinion is going to have any significance to anyone else out there... but 4E is going to have to become a little less straight and narrow before it can accomodate the type of fantasy that I'm used to.

Yes no, maybe. I do not see any system able to accomadate that playstyle out of the box (assuming combat penalised builds) that does not require DM twealing. It does strike me as a "the glass is half empty" kind of thing. You have evolved a playstyle in 3e that does not correspond with the baseline design assumptions but you have adapted and are used to it and now you are faced with a different system. It also need tweaking to make that kind of game work and it is not obvious how to go about it right now.

 

[The Little Raven]

Too bad that Skill Challenges are broken (see math thread) and that they imo are more restricting than helping.

Just like 3e monks were overpowered, according to theorycraft, but anything but overpowered, according to actual play.

 

[Dark Eternal]

Some actual evidence of this would be nice. Whenever I hear anyone say "This game prevents me from roleplaying," it usually comes down to "I'm having a failure of imagination."

What in 4th Edition prevents you from being cunning, witty, or ingenuous?

Nothing at all. What in 4th Edition allows me to play a character who is required to be cunning, witty or ingenuous? Maybe it's too fine a distinction, but I happen to like sometimes playing a character who has those qualities in lieu of kick ass combat ablities, rather than in addition to them.

 

[The Little Raven]

I am just having a hard time making the new game paradigm fit with my view of what D&D should be like.

I think you're too latched onto the previous edition's metagame constructs as the way to define your character, rather than the concept you are trying to achieve and using the appropriate metagame construct to achieve that concept.

In effect, you're saying "I want to play a fighter, because I want to be an archer." when you should be asking "I want to be an archer, so which class would be best for that?"

 

[The Little Raven]

Maybe it's too fine a distinction, but I happen to like sometimes playing a character who has those qualities in lieu of kick ass combat ablities, rather than in addition to them.

That's easy. Make your witty, clever, dude (high Wisdom, high Intelligence, skills, and all that), then when it comes to picking combat powers, don't write anything down. When it comes to fighting, show your lack of prowess by not rolling.

There you are, a 4th Edition character who needs to figure out some other way to survive than kick ass combat ability.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why not just get rid of class names as they have existed altogether then and just have the four roles with different builds that represent the different power sources if the game went in that direction? In other words have a the class be "Striker" with three option, archer striker (ranger), magic striker (warlock) and sneaky striker (rogue)? Or something like that?

One of the first comments my brother made about 4E was that it was verging on the point where you had a "3d6 RKA", rather than an actual attack, Champions-style.

I think there's a lot of validity in that. 4E, in the process of creating "class balance", comes extremely close to revealing a Champions-style framework underneath the 4E rules. I wonder if WotC do powers by eye, or have some kind of system like that. Certainly I was surprised not to see such a system for creating new powers and classes in the DMG. I'm pretty sure you could fairly precisely cost all the abilities in PHB, if you put your mind to it.

I suspect I'd actually like 4E more if they'd reveal the skeleton fully, instead of partially obscuring it. I'm big enough to make my own breakfast now, WotC!