I think what allot of people do not seem to understand about people that do not like 4e was that the first 6 months of the game are critical. The stuff that is in the PHB is critical. That book is how you gt hooked to the edition. If the book is severely lacking, to whatever reason, people are going to be turned off. Multiclassing was not real robust and the roles were pretty rigid in the original PHB. You have to acknowledge that alot of people would have been turned off by that and not know (or cared) that 18 months later or 2 yers later there is more stuff introduced to account for the flaws in the original system. Other editions were much better on flexibility out of the gate. This does not mean there were not longer term problems with this, but the 4e initial PHB failed in this regards. If 5e does the same with their PHB, it will ultimately end up int he same boat as 4e.
When did the Fighter become "defender"?
Why can't they? An unarmed naked fighter still has all his feats while the naked casters may not even have spells left. These obnoxious scenarios don't prove anything. We can have butt naked fighters and monks but the butt naked casters have all their spells ready and intact. Do you see how certain situations get dressed up to try and support an argument? Melee people suck because they accept buffs from spellcasters and melee people always seem to be put in these hypothetical situations where people try and make them out to be horrible classes that can't do anything.
Neonchameleon isn't right about his opinion on the matter because myself and a lot of other people don't agree. His view is highly subjective and arguable to the point of a stalemate. No class out there can do it all, there is no class that handle every situation that arises, sometimes a situation will come up that you need help from your other players because, in case some people have forgotten, that it's a team game. 4th edition didn't bring anything new to the table when it comes to teamwork, it only made the game where you essentially don't have a choice.
Now my views on 4th edition are subjective and open to arguments but at least I am man enough to own up to it. I don't keep spouting off about how my subjective views are right while everyone else's is wrong. But what I am right about is the fact that I don't like 4th edition now matter how much someone is telling me I am playing the game wrong. I have played 4th edition since it came out along with 27 years of gaming experience so I know if I like a game or I don't.
Hussar
Legend
I'm not sure how subjective it is. After all, 24 hours later, the naked fighter is still naked, while the caster now has all his spells back. Sure, if you take away the wizzie's spellbook, he's pooched, but, the other casters are fine.
And, the fighter doesn't even have to be butt naked. That's just hyperbole. Give him a full load of mundane equipment and do the same thing for the wizard and the cleric. Now watch how far behind the fighter is.
The point here is that for people who are arguing class parity, two characters with exactly the same level of equipment should be roughly on par with each other. Not exactly the same, that's hyperbole again and no one is arguing that. But, at least in the same ballpark.
But, the mundane equiped fighter is basically pooched. He cannot fly, everything he's going to be facing at high levels has DR and an AC that is high enough that it makes things like Power Attack less useful and his weaknesses (low Will being primary here) are SO pronounced that he's virtually an autofail vs anything that tries to charm him.
Would the mundane equipped caster be weaker? Well certainly. That's a given. But, the mundane equipped caster is still miles ahead of the muggle classes.
Again, though, you're arguing from a position of extreme. Sure, I might need the fighter to bat cleanup after the wizard Stinking Clouds the bad guys. But, what does that say about the fighter? The question in my mind is, how often is the fighter actually needed? How often is it better to have a fighter in the group than, say, a cleric or a druid?
Not very often is the answer I keep coming up with.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with not liking a system. Totally get that. I'm not a fan of 1st edition and that's something I've never made a secret of. But, I will admit, that a number of the criticisms I had of 1e were based on a completely misread of the system. Now, the remaining issues (lack of skills, class balance issues, and a few other things) are enough that I'm still not a fan, but, at least now my criticisms are generally grounded in fact, rather than what I think is fact.
When fans of the system can point to chapter and verse where someone is mistaken about a system, it's better, IMO, to realize that fans likely have a better grasp on the mechanics than I do, rather than try to claim that my misreading of the rules is somehow the right one.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
To expand on Hussar's excellent reply:
They can't do their main job because they rely on items and buffs to perform their primary functions. Example spoilered for space.
[sblock]Take an ancient black dragon, for instance, a fairly standard CR 19 threat right out of the book. A fighter can't get an AC high enough to avoid being hit by the dragon's +31 attack bonus solely from his own abilities, since even if he crafts his own armor he's likely getting at most AC 23 (10 + 3 Dex + 8 mithral full plate + 2 shield). A fighter can't get an attack bonus high enough to reliably (≥50%) hit the dragon's 38 AC solely from his own abilities, since even if he crafts his own weapons he's likely getting at most +24 attack (+19 BAB + 4 Str/Dex + 1 masterwork), and when he does hit it he has to put up with DR 15 without being able to deal all that much damage. A DC 31 Ref save against the breath weapon is out of his league (base Ref +6, plus max +4 Dex) as is the DC 28 Will save against Frightful Presence, and without Con boosters he has at max 266 HP, so he can't take more than a few rounds of full attacks from the dragon (bite/claw/claw/wing/wing for 4d8+6d6+33, average 72 damage or at most 4 rounds survived) and the dragon can strafe him with its breath for an easy victory.
At the same level, a wizard using only his own spells and feats can get an AC of 24 (10 + 6 Dex + 4 armor + 4 shield) plus several miss chances, and has a save DC of up to 29 (10 + 9 spell level + 8 Int + 2 feat(s)), which means a dragon will fail a save against his spell more often than it will be hit by the fighter's attacks. His saves against the dragon's breath weapon and Frightful Presence have a better chance than the fighter's (base Ref +6 + 6 Dex), his effective hit points are better (max of 190 HP, dragon's full-round does average 22 after DR 10, taking ~9 rounds to kill him), and the wizard can attack at range to make strafing less viable.
Feats can boost the fighter's numbers by 1-5, and boosting stats can add another 2 (though note that the above numbers assume 18s across the board for both parties, an advantage for the fighter), but every feat spent on boosting numbers is one fewer feat spent on getting more options, making a fighter a less-than-effective one-trick pony, and every stat boost spent on offense does nothing for defense and vice versa. Meanwhile, those buffs for the wizard are only the kind of stuff he'd have up all day or for multiple minutes at a time; if he casts a buff or two as combat starts, he can easily add +5 or more to relevant numbers (e.g. nightstalker's transformation for +5 AC, +5 Ref, and evasion), start flying, prevent the dragon from flying, become immune to fear and/or acid, add miss chances, hide from the dragon, and much more.
Sure, it's possible for a wizard to not have appropriate spells for the situation, even though by that level his buffs last all day and he has over 42 non-cantrip spells per day. But an itemless, unbuffed monk or fighter can't ever handle that threat on even footing, and that example dragon didn't even have skills, feats, or spells picked that would make the challenge harder.[/sblock]
Now, once again: can individual fighter types handle things, based on optimization levels? Yes; I'm currently running a martial character who walks around with an attack bonus of +46ish, average saves of +37, high damage, and high movement speed at level 11 without any items or buff spells thanks to very high stats and several add-X-stat-to-Y-bonus features, and there are charger builds that can potentially one-shot the above dragon without their items and buffs. Will this ever come up in most games? No; you should have enough items to do your job just fine in most games, and enough party casters to buff you if necessary. Are martial types the only item-dependent class? No, but casters only "need" a key-stat booster and can get by without one if they have to and spend their money on other things, while martial types need weapons, backup weapons, armor and other AC boosters, save boosters, and more.
Is this a good thing? No; I remember the AD&D days when a 10th-level fighter could solo 3 trolls every 2 rounds without any magic items whatsoever and with minimum damage to himself, compared to a 3e 10th-level fighter who can solo 3 trolls every 4 rounds with a high probability of dying in the attempt (my favorite example, since the fighter and troll have the closest numbers between editions at that level), and I'm looking forward to seeing the 5e fighter actually be the combat expert he's supposed to be. But as it stands, yes, the martial classes' base chassis could stand some substantial improvements.
I'm not sure where 4e comes into things; I was only talking 3e, since that's the edition the initial scenario dealt with. And again, I never said anything about handling every situation or refusing buffs when they're available or anything like that. I only pointed out that there's a difference between "fighters are wimps, they can't possibly beat a cleric at anything" (which, as several people pointed out, is patently false) and "fighters cannot generally compete with level-appropriate challenges without relying on items and/or buffs" (which, as is shown with the above dragon example, is true).
They can't do their main job because they rely on items and buffs to perform their primary functions. Example spoilered for space.
[sblock]Take an ancient black dragon, for instance, a fairly standard CR 19 threat right out of the book. A fighter can't get an AC high enough to avoid being hit by the dragon's +31 attack bonus solely from his own abilities, since even if he crafts his own armor he's likely getting at most AC 23 (10 + 3 Dex + 8 mithral full plate + 2 shield). A fighter can't get an attack bonus high enough to reliably (≥50%) hit the dragon's 38 AC solely from his own abilities, since even if he crafts his own weapons he's likely getting at most +24 attack (+19 BAB + 4 Str/Dex + 1 masterwork), and when he does hit it he has to put up with DR 15 without being able to deal all that much damage. A DC 31 Ref save against the breath weapon is out of his league (base Ref +6, plus max +4 Dex) as is the DC 28 Will save against Frightful Presence, and without Con boosters he has at max 266 HP, so he can't take more than a few rounds of full attacks from the dragon (bite/claw/claw/wing/wing for 4d8+6d6+33, average 72 damage or at most 4 rounds survived) and the dragon can strafe him with its breath for an easy victory.
At the same level, a wizard using only his own spells and feats can get an AC of 24 (10 + 6 Dex + 4 armor + 4 shield) plus several miss chances, and has a save DC of up to 29 (10 + 9 spell level + 8 Int + 2 feat(s)), which means a dragon will fail a save against his spell more often than it will be hit by the fighter's attacks. His saves against the dragon's breath weapon and Frightful Presence have a better chance than the fighter's (base Ref +6 + 6 Dex), his effective hit points are better (max of 190 HP, dragon's full-round does average 22 after DR 10, taking ~9 rounds to kill him), and the wizard can attack at range to make strafing less viable.
Feats can boost the fighter's numbers by 1-5, and boosting stats can add another 2 (though note that the above numbers assume 18s across the board for both parties, an advantage for the fighter), but every feat spent on boosting numbers is one fewer feat spent on getting more options, making a fighter a less-than-effective one-trick pony, and every stat boost spent on offense does nothing for defense and vice versa. Meanwhile, those buffs for the wizard are only the kind of stuff he'd have up all day or for multiple minutes at a time; if he casts a buff or two as combat starts, he can easily add +5 or more to relevant numbers (e.g. nightstalker's transformation for +5 AC, +5 Ref, and evasion), start flying, prevent the dragon from flying, become immune to fear and/or acid, add miss chances, hide from the dragon, and much more.
Sure, it's possible for a wizard to not have appropriate spells for the situation, even though by that level his buffs last all day and he has over 42 non-cantrip spells per day. But an itemless, unbuffed monk or fighter can't ever handle that threat on even footing, and that example dragon didn't even have skills, feats, or spells picked that would make the challenge harder.[/sblock]
Now, once again: can individual fighter types handle things, based on optimization levels? Yes; I'm currently running a martial character who walks around with an attack bonus of +46ish, average saves of +37, high damage, and high movement speed at level 11 without any items or buff spells thanks to very high stats and several add-X-stat-to-Y-bonus features, and there are charger builds that can potentially one-shot the above dragon without their items and buffs. Will this ever come up in most games? No; you should have enough items to do your job just fine in most games, and enough party casters to buff you if necessary. Are martial types the only item-dependent class? No, but casters only "need" a key-stat booster and can get by without one if they have to and spend their money on other things, while martial types need weapons, backup weapons, armor and other AC boosters, save boosters, and more.
Is this a good thing? No; I remember the AD&D days when a 10th-level fighter could solo 3 trolls every 2 rounds without any magic items whatsoever and with minimum damage to himself, compared to a 3e 10th-level fighter who can solo 3 trolls every 4 rounds with a high probability of dying in the attempt (my favorite example, since the fighter and troll have the closest numbers between editions at that level), and I'm looking forward to seeing the 5e fighter actually be the combat expert he's supposed to be. But as it stands, yes, the martial classes' base chassis could stand some substantial improvements.
I'm not sure where 4e comes into things; I was only talking 3e, since that's the edition the initial scenario dealt with. And again, I never said anything about handling every situation or refusing buffs when they're available or anything like that. I only pointed out that there's a difference between "fighters are wimps, they can't possibly beat a cleric at anything" (which, as several people pointed out, is patently false) and "fighters cannot generally compete with level-appropriate challenges without relying on items and/or buffs" (which, as is shown with the above dragon example, is true).
Wiseblood
Adventurer
If monster HP's were reigned in in 3e. This problem would take care of itself.
Oh and dump DR it is compost. Inflicting damage in 3e became less desirable. This is because inflicting damage became harder for martial classes (see above about compost) and because casters were able to get more bang for their buck through buffs or Save or Die spells. Don't forget full round actions for a descending attack bonus. If I didn't know better I would have said people involved in 3e hated everyone except Clerics, Wizards and Druids.
This passage seems to equate "rules for a situation" with "process-simulation sytle ules for everything."
4e has fairly robust rules for a wide range of situations, including socia situations. They're called skill challenges. These are one version of a fairly well known style of extended conflict resolution found in games like Burning Wheel ("Duel of Wits"), HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc.
I don't expect D&Dnext to have rules like this, though. I expect it to stick with conflict resolution for combat, but to go back to task resolution for exploration and interaction.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I actually think the argument that 4E doesn't have rules for these things is not true. Like you say they have skill challenges which are an entire procedure for non combat situations. My problem is i just dont like that approach. But i i suspect you are right about next not using skill chsllenges (even many of the 4e fans i know kind of scratch your head at them----people who likegames like burning wheel are usually just fine with them, but i think the band of players who are into that stuff is quite narrow).
Also, any of us who played older editionsof D&D know how lean they could be on non combat elements. 1e didn't get skills till much later and the 2e nwp system (aspresented in the phb) didn't cover everything. But we still role played and interacted with the environment. And they still had classes with non combat abillities like the thief.
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
Not true. HP bloat is a major problem, but other numerical and non-numerical aspects are problematic as well. Looking at just the fighter, going from 2e to 3e he lost the ability to move more than 5 feet and get all of his attacks, his saves dropped dramatically, the effectiveness of iterative attacks was diminished, relative damage for 2H/TWF/S&B changed, his Str and Con advantage relative to other classes was lost, and much more. Listing system-wide changes that screwed martial types would take a lot longer. HP bloat is a problem, but it isn't the problem.
And DR shouldn't be removed. Having a flat reduction of damage instead of AC's percentage reduction is a good mechanic for variety. The problem is that there are two similar mechanics with different properties: DR applies only to physical damage, while resistance applies only to energy damage, and DR is inclusive ("reduce all damage except from X") while resistance is exclusive ("don't reduce any damage except from X"). What I'd personally like to see is blasting spells boosted back up to AD&D relative strengths, then DR made to affect all damage, not just physical damage, the same way DR in SWSE affects energy and physical damage alike. Giving the fighter ways to bypass or mitigate DR to an extent would not only help him not be hindered overmuch by DR but would also solidify his claim to being the best combat guy.
But... but... but... anyone who criticizes 3e must automatically hate it and play 4e. That's true isn't it?
A few months ago, I found myself in a four-way argument with one 1e fan, one 3e fan, and one 4e fan, arguing against all of them at various points (I admit, I was effectively the 2e fan in the argument. Planescape and Dark Sun forever!). It looked like people were going to lose their tempers very shortly until the 3e fan and 4e fan realized that they were actually agreeing on some points, however tenuous, and that basically stopped the argument cold.
Similar Threads
