Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Plane Sailing]

It certainly is fun to have wide open tactical movement and abundant viable choices in and out of combat. There's no reason, given the incredible modularity inherent in the power system and the uniform advancement for all classes, that we couldn't have been given both the fun play options for all characters and the ability for endless customization. So, in the end, this is a weird, straw man, compare and contrast argument. The designers decided they didn't like it and didn't want to do it and thought it was bad fun for the players to have. The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.

What makes you think you are allowed to try to turn a discussion into an argument?

No more posting in this thread.

 

[Stilvan]

Well this edition changes so much it can't really borrow much from the previous editions. This is why I think the potential of the system is fantastic but the implementation is by necessity (read: page count in core books) broad but not so deep. It does suck having to wait for
'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like - but the payoff is having an easy to run system that is extraordinarily ripe for expansion.

I think the story will be very different a year from now once the initial wave of first and third party expansion materials has been released.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Excellent, well thought out essay. And i agree

 

[Felon]

I like the original post's point-of-view, but I do wish that posts critical or skeptical of the new edition were treated with equal consideration by the community. I also can't say that I see why play options and build options can't co-exist.

 

[Teydyn]

Great OP, actually great threat.

It does suck having to wait for 'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like

Just take a step back and divorce the name your concept has from the name the class has. A ranger is an archer fighter, a ranger is a 2-w-rogue, heck, even the rogue can be a 2-w-rogue with just 1 feat...

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I hate to say "me too", but this one had bits where I said "Hey, I was trying to say this, and failed", so I'm definately bookmarking it.

I think there's a definate element of "system mastery" in 3.x, which is very different in 4e. You can still create optimized builds, but the different results you get will go "good to very good" rather than "useless to incredibly good". I can see why some people liked the multiplicity of options, even though I found them overwhelming.

 

[JDillard]

It does suck having to wait for 'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like...

Cutting you a bit out of context here, but I bring up this point because it seems to come up *so* often, and I don't really understand it exactly, so maybe we can discuss it a bit?

People complain about the lack of Druids and Bards. I'm totally on board with that one. I don't worry too much, though, we're all pretty sure WotC is working on them, and there's a lot of fun left to have with the classes we've got.

However, everyone seems to grab onto the "archer fighter" concept. What is it you are missing when you say you want that?

Someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit them) made a post a few weeks back that really, it's not the archery-based fighter that the system is lacking. It's the 3e Ranger. The 4e Ranger has the majority of the 3e Archery Fighter's abilities and none of the 3e Ranger's nature magic, animal companion or favored enemy.

If you want to make him armored, take a couple feats and you're good to go. Ta-da! Archer fighter! The only difference is that where it says class on his character sheet it says "Ranger" instead of "Fighter".

Same thing with a "two-weapon rogue". What is it you're looking for there? Take a Rogue, give him two weapons. He won't have any two-weapon specific exploits, but he can still Rogue it up with the best of them. That, or give a Two-weapon Ranger the Rogue multiclass feat. Two weapons, Thievery, and sneak attack 1/encounter, sounds like a two-weapon Rogue to me.

People seem to want to avoid playing a Ranger. For some reason, they'd rather play another class with all his abilities. I guess I don't really get why.

 

[Regicide]

So to conclude this part: 4e reduces the number of character creation options in the name of game balance, but vastly makes up for it in the amount of "in play" options available.

This is flat out false. Even the simplest class, the fighter, had far more effective combat options in 3E than they do in 4E. Bullrush, grapple, trip. power attack, expertise, cleave, tumble, spring attack, whirlwind attack are all PHB available options, and unlike 4E you can use them multiple times, none of them are once per day or oncer per encounter. A fighter can also pick up a bow or other ranged weapon and use it effectively, opening up even more combat options, something the 4E fighter has somehow forgotten how to do. The more powerful magic items and potions of 3E also gave even more options.

Thats for the simplest class of all. Any other class just goes up, rangers, factotums, warblades, you name it.

4E combat is different. It has less options, but WotC wants to sell miniatures so now everything gets marked and everything shifts around constantly so you have to play with a map. It's not more options, it's just more information and more mechanics to keep track of.

 

[hong]

This is flat out false. Even the simplest class, the fighter, had far more effective combat options in 3E than they do in 4E.

No. They had far more bad combat options in 3E. Unless, that is, they took a bunch of feats to specialise in one or more of these options, in which case they did become good combat options. Much like what happens in 4E.

 

[Wormwood]

edit: cheerfully withdrawn. Let's not derail this any further.