D&D 4E What archetypes does 4E do better?

[outsider]

Martial characters. For some reason, D&D was convinced for decades that pretty much any type of martial effect should be fluff only and not mechanically supported. Make your attack roll and describe it. Can you imagine if the only magic spell was Magic Missile, and you were expected to just reflavor it via description into fireball, lightning bolt, or power word: kill?

3rd edition did change that, but there was flaws in how they did it. To make most manuevers worth your while, you had to invest a bucketload of feats into them. Once you did that, there was nothing really preventing you from using those manuevers in every single round of combat. The feats weren't martial character specific, there was nothing preventing a spellcaster like a paladin from becoming just as good as the fighter at any mundane melee manuever, in addition to his spellcasting. Fighters(and other martial characters) should be the undisputed masters of mundane combat techniques.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm reading the Malazan series right now. The take on magic is different from 4e, but mechanically, the mages fit better with a primarily non-vancian mechanic. Certainly if I were to attempt to model it, I'd go with 4e over 3e.

I agree, and was thinking the same thing.

Of course, an awful lot of Malazan magic seems to be ritual based. But, there is some direct damage, illusion, and shadow magic stuff that isn't Vancian in nature but does seem to need a short time to recharge.

 

[fafhrd]

I agree, and was thinking the same thing.

Of course, an awful lot of Malazan magic seems to be ritual based. But, there is some direct damage, illusion, and shadow magic stuff that isn't Vancian in nature but does seem to need a short time to recharge.

I'd think that the Malazan stuff is one of the few series that's actually modeled better by the Vancian system. Quick Ben spends half of every battle 'spent'.

 

[ascendance]

I'm reading the Malazan series right now. The take on magic is different from 4e, but mechanically, the mages fit better with a primarily non-vancian mechanic. Certainly if I were to attempt to model it, I'd go with 4e over 3e.

Since I heard Steven Erikson used to play GURPS, I always imagined that Malazan would be powered by GURPS. The different schools in GURPS would essentially be the different Warrens.

 

[CaptainChaos]

Munchkin.

 

[Kzach]

Actually, Dragonlance wizards definitely DO need to memorize spells daily. It's built into the setting pretty specifically, at least for whatever age the early Weis/Hickman books took place in. (Multiclass wizards were also a no-go.)t.

Wizards were allowed to multi-class and dual-class. There were roleplaying restrictions based on the control over magic-users that the Towers of High Sorcery had, but I'm fairly certain the rules allowed it.

And I also don't recall anything that would demand pre-4e style memorization in the fluff either. Considering a wizard still has to memorize their daily spell selection, I see no real conflict between the story and the 4e rules (Wies/Hickman era).

 

[Darth Cyric]

Military scout or guerilla trooper that doesn't have to act like a hippie for power.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Any number of "magical superheroes" (Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch, etc.) via the warlock.

Truly sidhe-like elves (the eladrin).

The tactical genius or great captain of men (the warlord).

The tank who actually stands there and defends his buddies rather than going strong on offense (the 4e fighter).

The non-LG (un)holy warrior.

The non-magical woodsman/archer (4e ranger).

The brawny rogue.

The revised magic system may give rise to some traditional fantasy archetypes, but I haven't really considered them carefully.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Superman.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

In all honesty I can see 4E filling almost all archetypes, some may require some houseruling but given that they are trying to make this system more open it should be easier to do.