Forked Thread: My first 4E game...

[Doug McCrae]

Yes, you can't sneak attack with a greataxe any more. I regard that as a feature, not a bug. It's not so much game balance as a question of style. The rogue is supposed to be the subtle, clever class. In combat, he favours precision over power. Gray Mouser rather than Fafhrd. Cugel rather than Conan.

But I want a character that cuts peoples' heads off with an axe using subtlety and precision! D&D is a class based game. That means you don't always get what you want.

 

[Mallus]

First let me say, I think it's telling that no one in this thread addressed the Rogue w/longsword question...

Step 1) create a 4e Rogue.

Step 2) take the Feat that allows you to use heavy blades.

Step 3) accept the fact that most of your rogue powers don't work with said heavy blade.

It's remarkably similar to the process of creating a halberd-wielding Ranger in 3e ie, there's a way to do it, but it's not particularly effective ("hey, its was viable in 1e"). This sort of thing happens in class-based systems. You're simply choosing to ignore when it does in 3e.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, you can't sneak attack with a greataxe any more. I regard that as a feature, not a bug. It's not so much game balance as a question of style. The rogue is supposed to be the subtle, clever class. In combat, he favours precision over power. Gray Mouser rather than Fafhrd. Cugel rather than Conan.

But I want a character that cuts peoples' heads off with an axe using subtlety and precision! D&D is a class based game. That means you don't always get what you want.

And this is where we differ. If my player wants to build a particular character, I don't want to tell him no...and for the record, when necessary, Conan was pretty good at subtlety and precision with a big weapon...Elric could summon demons and was one of the best swordsmen in his nation... so it's arguable, depending on your sources, when you bring in particular archetypes to justify things.

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, I always wondered how you could Sneak Attack with a longsword/greataxe.

 

[Imaro]

Personally, I always wondered how you could Sneak Attack with a longsword/greataxe.

I've seen someone get snuck up on from behind and get hit with a baseball bat...so it's not impossible. Besides I always thought sneak attack was also about hitting critical locations on the body, why is this weapon dependent?

 

[Celtavian]

reply

Forked from: My first 4E game...
You mistakenly think I don't understand the paradigm...that's wrong, I don't share your opinion of it. Those are two very different things. Your argument here is "if only I understood 4e", but that's not the problem, the problem is I don't agree with your view.

When I say you don't understand, I'm not insulting you. I just feel you haven't delved very deeply into the ruleset. Give multiclassing a thorough read and look at Paragon paths at the same time. It gives you a real feel for some of the character customization you can pull off.

Here are some 4E examples of how to do certain things:

1. Archer: Bow specialist ranger. Choose powers and feats that improve your bow ability. If you want to do this with the fighter class, you would start off as a fighter, use a regular bow for a while, and use your feats to multiclass into ranger mixing your powers between archery powers and melee powers so you have a good mix of both.

If you want to stay straight ranger and wear heavy armor. You get feats to improve your armor proficiency up to the the level that you want it. Since your powers give you the equivalent of combat feats, it is unnecessary to take feats like Point Blank shot or Many Shot. So you can use the 11 feats you get by 20th level to customize being a heavy armor fighter-type that uses a bow.

You can even mix and match powers to make a hybrid two weapon or archery fighter.

You can also get a feat to tack on Thievery so you can search for traps.

The classes are heavily customizable and allow access to many more options that were not available in 3E such as creating a very bad to the bone archer that wears heavy armor without losing a single feat due to wearing heavy armor.

How come every ranger in 3E loses his archery feats if he wears heavy armor, yet a 4E archery ranger can wear heavy armor and be just as good a bowman as a lighter fighter if he chooses to customize that way if 4E is more homogenous and limited?

Again with what I don't understand...really it's a little tiresome, how about evidence that I am looking at it wrong. I'm not claiming you don't understand 3e so really what does this add to the discussion?

So in 3e a fighter could be numerous things...that included but were not limited to... "the heavy armored guy at the front of the battle trained to hold the line and be that guy that focuses attacks on you"...yet 4e is more diverse...uhm ok.

Second example to show that you have only touched on the surface of 4E.

You can multiclass in 4E. That means you can say build a fighter that worships a god with some holy power without being a paladin. In essence, a fighter cleric.

They have multiclass feats that allow you to obtain some clerics powers and shift some of your fighter powers for cleric powers at various levels. This allows you to customize a fighter to say make him a worshipper of Tempus with a few abilities that are divinely inspired.

So you should explore the 4E system a bit more. I don't feel you can adequately speak on the options for each class until you've done so.

I've done a lot of reading. I went into the game thinking like you are thinking. And I found I was very wrong because I was thinking about the entire way the game is structured in a 3E frame of mind and missed the fact that the entire paradigm has changed in a way that requires an entirely different mindset when designing a character concept.

It sounds like you are doing exactly the same thing I was. To say the classes in 4E are homogenous leads me to think that you skimmed them over without checking out how the feats and multiclassing can change things.

It's a different paradigm for 4E. Just like encounter design is a different paradigm.

As I stated earlier to think of a ranger as a woodland fighter doesn't work in 4E. That's not what he is designed for. He is now designed as a light fighter somewhere between the rogue and fighter. Similiar to 3E, but not exactly the same.

When you make a character you no longer go "I want to make a fighter" and then think about feats to customize the fighter.

You have to think about what you want to make. And then take a look at which class best allows you to execute your concept. You did the same thing in 3E and it is extended even further in 4E.

Classes are customizable and interchangeable and there is a wider range of unique concepts because little things like the armor you wear or the skills you have don't limit your abilities. So you can quite literally make a heavy armored rogue that can find traps and fights with a short sword and shield if you so choose and desire to spend your feats in that manner.

That heavy armored rogue will play in a completely different manner than a fighter, while at the same time being highly effective. I don't see how that makes for homogenous classes. As far as I can tell it makes for a high level of customization that allows you to make just about any concept you can think of for fantasy.

Yet there are still alot of assumptions that go along with this archery fighter ranger that have nothing to do with me being a warrior that is a good archer. My armor is limited

Feats can change this. Since you get more feats and don't have to buy two weapon fighting and the like because it is now part of your power chain, you can easily expend a few feats to upgrade armor.

I cannot "hold a line by tossing my bow aside and fighting hand to hand" (don't have the HP's/AC/ to do this), [/quote

Yes you can. You're a high dex class in light armor. At the end of the day you will have a high AC and can go toe to toe. You won't be as proficient as the fighter because you can't combat challenge, but you won't be a weakling like the 3E rogue. You have only a handful less hit points and are very agile and good in battle.

In taking the Ranger class I make the decision to be a striker which means I dart around, strike and move away. I can do some damage but I can't go toe to toe with a bruiser. However in 3e I could make a warrior who was good in archery and could hold a line in melee. In 4e it's either or.

And you can make a fighter that can fire a bow very well as well. It will take some multiclassing, levels, and feats, but didn't it take the same in 3E? Yes, it did.

You get even more feats in 4E. You can multiclass and get a ranger at will attack eventually that will make you a very good archer.

I thought just like you going in. Then I figured out how multiclassing worked, how many feats you get, how combat powers have replaced the need to buy combat style feats, and how you can truly customize your character.

I imagine this customization will only increase once more splatbooks come out.

Seriously, if you have access to a 4E book, read multiclassing. It will open your eyes to the possibilities for 4E classes.

You can honestly make a great archer/fighter that can hold the line and drop his bow and fight. It will take some levels to get good, but it was the same in 3E. In the mean time you can just buy a bow like you used to do.

Again with the Ranger (what is this class...the cure all). Seriously though, With the above Ranger Thief ...Where is my sneak attack? My Streetwise skill? My Thievery skill? My Insight skill so I don't get conned, and my Bluff for lying? Yeah with alot of wrangling and feats...you could get something similar to a pseudo-Rogue who uses a longsword effectively...but really is this easier than building a Rogue who uses a longsword effectively in 3e?

Given what the ranger is now, he is a good base class for simulating any kind of agile lighter fighter that can easily switch between a bow and a hand to hand weapon.

One thing I found surprising is that the most powerful melee damage class in the game is a rogue/ranger multiclass. That's right a rogue base class/ranger multiclass melee is the strongest damage dealer in the game.

Pretty amazing considering there were so many contingencies on a 3E rogue dealing damage equal to say a two-hander fighter or a two-weapon ranger. But in 4E the rogue is truly a fearsome damage dealer all of the time. It's very cool.

And he has some nifty tricks. Just the other day I pulled out a handful of shuriken and blinded three enemies we were fighting and really did my part in the combat. It was very, very cool.

I imagined my guy pulling those shuriken out and unfolding them like a pack of cards and then winging them at the enemies eyes. The blood blinding them from my precision throw.

I could never do that in 3E. It felt great to be able to do such a nifty trick with my throwing blades.

I'm telling you. This 4E is amazingly customizable. I'm pretty shocked myself as I had very little hope that it would compare to 3E. I don't usually care for Andy Collin's game design as he tends to do things I don't like. But I have to give him and the 4E designers their props. I'm amazing at what they did as far as customizing classes.

Once you get used to the new 4E paradigm and really grasp how multiclassing gives you further options to make an interesting and unique character, the game starts to become very interesting as you think about how to build a character.

Another question I wonder...is if it's so easy to sustitute these things, how can you claim the game doesn't feel homogeneous?

Because there are so many options. Even two two-weapon rangers will not be the same. This is just in the PHB. I can't imagine how many more options you'll have once the splatbooks come out.

A rogue feels like a rogue. No one else can do that Aoe blinding attack I mentioned earlier with thrown weapons but a rogue unless they multiclass. No other class has an AoE at will attack like a wizard. No one else can fight with two weapons like a ranger. No one else can shield push like a sword and board fighter.

The classes play very different. In 3E if you made a sword and shield fighter, he wasn't much different than the two-hander fighter except he did less damage which sucked.

Now you can make a very effective sword and shield figher, two-weapon fighter, two-hander fighter, or light blade fighter and each class feels very unique and gives alternate options within each class.

For example, you can play a rogue, a light blade fighter, and go either brutal scoundrel or artful dodger. Both use light blades, but play very differently.

A brutal scoundrel comes right at you. He is a thug that comes straight for the kill with brutal attacks aimed at your vitals to annihilate you quickly.

An artful dodger uses a light blade but he moves like a ballerina. He is so quick and nimble that he can shift you all around the battlefield and you won't be able to lay a hand on him as he moves about the battlefield. He sets you up for attacks with his teammates gracefully moving into slice you up and gracefully moving out.

Both rogues with light blades, but they play very differently in practice.

If I can just substitute a Ranger for Rogue...or Ranger for a Fighter then there has to be a large amount of homogeneousness between classes...either that or you are misrepresenting how "easy" it is to create the character you want through substituting another class to gain a particular ability. I mean how is it that both of these things can be true (no snark, I'm genuinely curious)?

It's because skills are more homogenous, not fighting abilities. So if you want to say that character skills are more homogenous, then you would be right. It's much easier to make a class that can execute a skill that used to be limited to say the rogue.

Now any class can pick up a skill and do it effectively if they build that way.

But the combat is not at all homogenous. Just because you can find traps like the rogue, doesn't mean you fight or are as skilled at the same things as the rogue. It just means you can find traps as well which means you don't have to have a rogue.

Now you play a rogue because you like the class and how it plays in battle, not because you have to have one.

Yet multi-classing in 3e gave you access to any powers or skills another class had. Feats allowed you to customize on a smaller level...such as the Rogue who just wants to use a longsword effectively.

Feats allow even more customization in 4E. You get more feats. And now that you get combat powers, you no longer have to buy feats like Point Blank Shot or Manyshot. Those now come from combat powers.

So not only do you get more feats to further customize your character, but you also get powers that simulate feats from 3E and thus get to spend your feats to customize say your armor or your weapon proficiences and not feel like you wasted a feat to do it.

Yeah I guess I'm not understanding...or maybe I feel you are misrepresenting either

a.) The fact that almost any class can be substituted for another if you want a particular ability in 4e.

or

b.) The classes are not homogeneous in feel or operation (Yet a Ranger is just a Rogue who can use longswords... )

Classes are substitutible.

Think about it. In 3E you had to have the following:
1. Cleric for healing.
2. Wizard for spell utility.
3. Fighter-type for taking damage.
4. Rogue for finding traps.

That paradigm still exists, but there is more customization to it:
1. Warlord/Cleric/Paladin for healing: That's right, you can now build a healing paladin that does a pretty good job.

2. Utility spells: Wizard/Cleric. The cleric can sub in for the wizard if you buy the right feats and powers.

3. Trapfinding/Damage dealing/Scouting: Ranger/Rogue/Warlock. You have three classes to choose from that all play very differently to fill a particular party role.

4. Fighting: Paladin/Fighter/Sword Mage/Cleric/Ranger (from new edition): You have five classes for defender. You can also customize a ranger or cleric to play the group defender.

So you have the same kind of group structure as 3E, but you have more latitude in how you construct that group. And each class will handle their role differently.

For example, a warlock may be able to find traps, but he won't be as good at stealth and scouting as a rogue. He will bring a completely different dynamic to the battle field.

This is how 4E is. The classes are still very different, but they can fill similar roles. I for one applaud that being able to choose other classes to fill needed roles. That is what I refer to as class differentiation.

Parties were pigeon-holed into needing to have someone be a rogue or a multi-class rogue if you didn't have the Complete Rogue book. You needed a wizard or sorceror for magical support. You needed a cleric for healing or you couldn't survive high level battles or heal fast enough to get back on your feet in a reasonable amount of time.

In 4E that is not the case because multiple classes can filll each role. That doesn't mean every class can fill each roll, it just means that more than one class can feel each role. Each class fills that role differently and feels very different on the battlefield in play.

The warlord and cleric may both be leader-types that can heal and buff, but they do it in a very different manner.

Who claimed 3e as a whole was a "gritty simulation", where did I say this?

All I'm going to say on the Orc thing is, there was never a single Orc who could kill Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas in a one on oen fight, so neither 4e or 3e models LotR well. But then it's D&D and there is already a LotR rpg out there.

I love how people who have not possibly played 4e from 1st to 30th level claim it scales better. Sounds like you're just repeating marketing blurbs to me. I'm not claiming it doesn't but really have you experienced this yet?

Again with the statements about what I seem to know or not know because I don't agree with you. Ok then...

I'm glad you feel that way about 4e but you just don't understand 3e as well as I do... If you would just accept a paradigm where wanting a minor tweak to a character doesn't necessitate changing all the abilities I like in that class to those of another, then you would realize just how flexible 3e is and how inflexible 4e is. I mean honestly you sound like a person who never had a good grasp of the intricacies of 3rd edition.

See how easy that was...but it doesn't really prove anything does it?

Considering I've sat down and looked over the 4E Monsters and magic items, I would say I have a pretty good understanding of how it scales.

I have experience with high and low level 3rd edition. I know it doesn't scale well at high level. I know this for a fact unless you implement a ton of house rules which I did. Just so 3E would scale past ten without the need to give every single creature the PCs fought a truckload of magic items. In the end, I still had to stack the magic items on NPCs just to allow them to survive a few rounds of hopefully no crit battles against the PCs.

It took hours to design encounters, prepare spell lists, write magic item lists, and write up NPCs at high level because they had to compete against PCs who were selling magic items they collected in bundles off dead high level NPCs that needed magic items to survive and buying even more powerful magic items.

They greatly lessened magic item inflation in 4E. That alone allows the game to scale better. The 4E designers knew very well how magic item inflation was ruining the scaling of high level DnD, and they were very careful about designing magic item abilities and scaling them to ensure that they didn't get out of hand giving the PCs immunities to multiple different types of attacks and tons of stackable ability and stat bonuses that made high level scaling nearly impossible for an average DM.

That is how come I know it scales better. I've played tons of 3E at high level. I looked over the ruleset for 4E. And you know what I found? Nothing makes you immune permanently to anything. There are not permanent, on all the time stat enhancing items for key stats. That alone will help the scaling of the game immensely.

I'm done replying with long replies until this site gets more stable. I have lost way too many responses due to the instability of the site.

 

[Creeping Death]

Personally, I always wondered how you could Sneak Attack with a longsword/greataxe.

Executioner class from Iron Heroes can sneak attack with a long sword. Descriptions says they focus on light fast weapons but are trained in all simple and martial weapons. Their description of sneak attack does not disallow any weapon from being used. Here is the first paragraph:

Sneak Attack: Executioners study anatomy and learn to hit
opponents where it hurts. You gain the ability to inflict additional
damage when you hit an opponent you flank or one
who has lost his active bonus to defense. This bonus damage
appears on the Executioner Class Features and Mastery table.
You inflict +1d6 points of damage at 1st level and an additional
1d6 points at every odd executioner level after that.

Executioners are fighters that are just that good that they get extra damage when they flank.

Baseball example up above is a good one too; as is the question. Being flanked puts you in a bad position, some classes train more to take advantage of it than others.

Totally unrelated: Woo-hoo 200 posts!! 6.5 years but I finally did it.

 

[Celtavian]

re

All I'm going to say on the Orc thing is, there was never a single Orc who could kill Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas in a one on oen fight, so neither 4e or 3e models LotR well. But then it's D&D and there is already a LotR rpg out there.

I couldn't do the Lord of the Rings encounter in 3E.

But you could in 4E. The entire way of making an encounter has changed.

If you wanted to make a 4E orc horde that was dangerous, yet could be withstood by a group of characters you would do the following:

1. Make a horde of appropriate level orc minions. They die quick, but if they surround you and get a chance to keep you pressed, you will die even if you are 20th level. They will make you run, just like they made the Fellowship run.

2. The spear throw: You would make a tough orc chieftan with a special attack with a spear that did a ton of damage. In 3E a thrown spear was a joke, in 4E a thrown spear can be dangerous depending on who is throwing it.

3. The Cave Troll: In 4E you can make an elite solo cave troll tha could stand up to the attacks of an entire party of adventurers for quite some time. The fighter alone wouldn't be able to fight him and it would take a group effort with the entire group helping to set each other up.

4. The Balrog Fight: Well, you can't do everything. Gandalf wasn't really a "wizard". Only he could fight the Balrog in solo combat.

But you can make encounters much more interesting in 4E without having to do nonsensical things like pile magic items onto the troll fighter just to make him a tough enough challenge for your high level party with a stack of magic items.

The monsters scale better. Even a high level fighter feels endangered going against a Hill Giant with just a club and some skin armor even when he has a nice magic sword and armor. I like the feel of that type of fight. No more having to give monsters magic items they have no business having.

 

[AllisterH]

I've seen someone get snuck up on from behind and get hit with a baseball bat...so it's not impossible. Besides I always thought sneak attack was also about hitting critical locations on the body, why is this weapon dependent?

That's why I always found it hard to believe you could sneak attack with a longsword. As you yourself pointed out, your example required that the target was unaware of you totally.

This worked in 1e/2e, but in 3e/4e? Er, no.

Then there's the issue of how DOES one sneak attack with a greataxe against a moving/defending foe. Seriously, it's almost impossible to hit a specific point on a body that actually moving with as large a weapon as a longsword.

A rapier, yeah, that works. A longsword? Unless said target had been restrained? Not a chance.

 

[LostSoul]

1st level Human (Standard Point Buy; 25)...
Str: 16 (8pts) Dex: 16 (8pts) Con: 14 (6pts) Wis: 10 (2pts) Int:9 (1pt) Cha:8 (0pts)

Your point-buy is off; 16 is 10 points, not 8. You'd have Str & Dex 15.

This guy will get killed early on and replaced with someone who can do the archery thing (i.e. a Ranger, who can outdamage this guy by a lot) or someone who can hold the line (i.e. a Fighter with a spiked chain, who can outdamage this guy by a lot and trip guys so they can't move past him).

This guy is like a 4e Fighter with decent Dex who picks up a bow and does basic melee attacks with it. Except that the Fighter is still good at his job.

If the 4e Fighter wants to get fancy, he can multiclass into Ranger and pick up a couple ranged feats. It will take him some time, but his basic ranged attacks should cover him until then (unless he wants to play a half-elf; he can grab a ranged attack right away).