Anyone else wonder why they didn't combine the 3.5 spell system and the 4th edition..

[hong]

That's giving sente to the party. That's what random and unexpected encounters and putting PC on the clock is for.

Why are you subverting the 4 encounters/day paradigm?

 

[Fifth Element]

Look - up until 4e, everyone knew that the fighter was infantry, the wizard was artillery, the cleric was a medic, and the rogue was a cavalry scout. Each was expected to be very good in his primary role and maybe have some collateral duties. Now, with 4e, there is this misguided notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things.

Wait, what? In 4E, they explicitly define the role that each class fits in. How does this tie in with the "notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things"?

Are you suggesting that the 4E fighter is designed to be as good a healer/buffer/leader as a 4E cleric? That a 4E ranger is designed to be as good at crowd control/area effects as a 4E wizard. I'm not seeing that.

It seems to me that explicitly defining class roles, and designing classes with the roles in mind, should lead to less overlap of abilities, not more.

 

[hong]

Look - up until 4e, everyone knew that the fighter was infantry, the wizard was artillery, the cleric was a medic, and the rogue was a cavalry scout. Each was expected to be very good in his primary role and maybe have some collateral duties. Now, with 4e, there is this misguided notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things.

You have got your whinges about 4E mixed up. While this makes for some interesting cross-breeding experiments, the results are not always viable.

For edumacative purposes, I enumerate the affected whinges below.

1. The roles are a Bad Thing because they constrain everyone into doing one thing only on the battlefield.

2. The homogenised class progressions are a Bad Thing because they force everyone into the same cookie-cutter framework.

1 + 2 != 3.

 

[LostSoul]

You declare this is a bad thing all you want. But the fact remains that when the wizard taps out, he's a warrior-back up. Considering he's often relegated to errand-boy, that might be before the fight even occurs.

Playing errand-boy doesn't sound like much fun.

 

[hong]

Playing errand-boy doesn't sound like much fun.

Did anyone ever say that 3E was about fun?

 

[Psion]

Playing errand-boy doesn't sound like much fun.

No, it doesn't. But for some folks, it's to be envied.

(Insert shrug icon here...)

 

[3catcircus]

Wait, what? In 4E, they explicitly define the role that each class fits in. How does this tie in with the "notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things"?

Are you suggesting that the 4E fighter is designed to be as good a healer/buffer/leader as a 4E cleric? That a 4E ranger is designed to be as good at crowd control/area effects as a 4E wizard. I'm not seeing that.

It seems to me that explicitly defining class roles, and designing classes with the roles in mind, should lead to less overlap of abilities, not more.

In 3.x, how many people could heal? Clerics and people who threw a ton of points into the Heal skill. In 4e, *everyone* can heal themselves, so, yes, the fighter is equally effective as a healer as the cleric.

In 3.x, everyone used Str as the basis for melee attacks and everyone used Dex as t he basis for ranged attacks. Most of the time, the wizard had a crappy Str and probably a marginal Dex. The rogue generally was better at ranged attacks while the fighter types dished out the pain up close. In 4e, everyone gets to pick their favored attribute to attack "Wis vs. Ref, Cha vs. Will." Now - everyone is equally effective at attacking because they can all use their best atttributes as the basis of their attacks.

The point is - in 4e, it seems that all of the parts are interchangeable. I don't particularly like the idea that a party consisting of halfling rogues should have an equal experience as a mixed party of different classes.

In my first 4e game (sample) ever on Tuesday night, we had an eladrin paladin, a human wizard, a rogue (run by the DM), and a halfling cleric (me). There was no distinction between them. In an example fight from keep on the shadowfell, it was "attack, be attacked, heal self, be attacked, attack." The only difference between us was the name of the power and whether it was d4, d6, or d8 depending upon at-will, encounter, or daily.

What I *did* get out of it was houserules for my 3.x game - 1-1 diagonals, simplified cover and concealment, etc.

Again - if you prefer 4e, have at it. I just prefer my D&D to feel more distinctive and not so cookie-cutter in its approach. Granted, the unified mechanics in 4e lend themselves quite easily to porting to a MMORPG...

 

[3catcircus]

You have got your whinges about 4E mixed up. While this makes for some interesting cross-breeding experiments, the results are not always viable.

For edumacative purposes, I enumerate the affected whinges below.

1. The roles are a Bad Thing because they constrain everyone into doing one thing only on the battlefield.

2. The homogenised class progressions are a Bad Thing because they force everyone into the same cookie-cutter framework.

1 + 2 != 3.

I would argue that the roles are there in 4e in order to try and force some distinction between the homogenous classes - to try and force the players to maybe all not use the same power (albeit with different names for different classes.)

I don't necessarily mind the unified class progression in and of itself when it comes to experience progression, just the fact that everyone gets x amount of powers that have different names but the same effects. Just the fact that everyone can heal themselves - If you want to simulate the effects of healing surges *not* actually being healing, then something should have been implemented to change the mechanics of how hit points work.

I just think that the changes in 4e that *are* good have nothing to do with races and classes. Simplified skills - check. Simplified combat (cover, concealment, Opportunity Attacks, reach, etc.) - check.

 

[Mort]

You seem to have some big misconceptions about 4e design

In 3.x, how many people could heal? Clerics and people who threw a ton of points into the Heal skill. In 4e, *everyone* can heal themselves, so, yes, the fighter is equally effective as a healer as the cleric.

Everyone has healing surges but that does not make everyone an effective healer. The fighter has a few tricks that can get himself a few HP's he can't affect the healing of others. Saying this makes him as good a healer as the cleric is ludicrous.

In 3.x, everyone used Str as the basis for melee attacks and everyone used Dex as t he basis for ranged attacks. Most of the time, the wizard had a crappy Str and probably a marginal Dex. The rogue generally was better at ranged attacks while the fighter types dished out the pain up close. In 4e, everyone gets to pick their favored attribute to attack "Wis vs. Ref, Cha vs. Will." Now - everyone is equally effective at attacking because they can all use their best atttributes as the basis of their attacks.

Again a misconception. Everyone has a role to play in combat - but some are much better at dealing damage, some are better at soaking and preventing others from taking damage and some are better at controlling the terrain and the area. Saying everyone does everything equally well is totally inaccurate.

The 4e designers decided the old "balance tool" of having some classes good in combat and some out of combat led to a lot of thumb twittling (and of course the problem that some were good in and out of combat and some good at neither).

The point is - in 4e, it seems that all of the parts are interchangeable. I don't particularly like the idea that a party consisting of halfling rogues should have an equal experience as a mixed party of different classes.

This is completely wrong. a party of halfling rogues (a party of strikers in 4e parlance) is going to do some things quite well - such as hit and run. But is going to have some glaring weaknesses such as no staying power, no ability to control the field, and most importantly no ability to heal others when they are in trouble except with outside help.

In my first 4e game (sample) ever on Tuesday night, we had an eladrin paladin, a human wizard, a rogue (run by the DM), and a halfling cleric (me). There was no distinction between them. In an example fight from keep on the shadowfell, it was "attack, be attacked, heal self, be attacked, attack." The only difference between us was the name of the power and whether it was d4, d6, or d8 depending upon at-will, encounter, or daily.

Funny I played the same sample and the classes played completely differently. That said, one sample (for you or me) does not a play experience make.

Again - if you prefer 4e, have at it. I just prefer my D&D to feel more distinctive and not so cookie-cutter in its approach. Granted, the unified mechanics in 4e lend themselves quite easily to porting to a MMORPG...

There are a lot of valid criticisms of 4e - I don't think saying that the classes all have the same focus, the same strenghts and weaknesses is one of them however.

 

[Toras]

Now I think I'm starting to understand why we had a slightly different experience when I think about the sorts of things that can happen with spells like Rope Trick and the other rest spells is either there were hazards in those other planes (those spaces existed somewhere, and things live in somewhere) or where we are in may not be available (no co-termenous etheral/astral).

And that was assuming that rest was an option. I should probably mention we tend to start between 8-10.