Forked Thread: My first 4E game...

[Fifth Element]

And this is where we differ. If my player wants to build a particular character, I don't want to tell him no...

But this is a class-based system. You have to draw lines somewhere. If a 3E player told you he wanted to play a fighter/wizard at 1st level who could cast spells while wearing medium armour, what would you do? And no, he doesn't want to play a duskblade (which isn't core anyway), because the spell selection is way too limited. It's certainly not an unreasonable concept for a fantasy game, but off the top of my head I don't think you can do it per RAW.

 

[Imaro]

@Celtavian: I don't know why but your original post really put me off with the "you don't understand" down talk. However the above post doesn't feel the same, and while I still have to digest it, I wanted to say thanks for dropping that tone with me, it makes me much more likely to examine your points in a neutral manner. And even now I'm starting to see some of them.

I don't want to not like 4e...but our discussion has made me realize that I have more of a problem with the way 4e proponents defend it than I do with the actual game (yet). Anyway, just wanted to say I appreciated it and look forward to further discussion.

P.S. Yeah I'm having a few issues with connectivity as well.

 

[GlaziusF]

Thank you, this paragraph has hit on one of my problems with 4e. Why is this distinction made? Why do they ave the same basic stats but per RAW I cannot choose to use a longsword instead? In Exalted there is an ex-mortician turned assasin (can't remember exactly but I think he's an Abyssal Exalted) who uses a battle axe.

Exalted is what happens in 4E after you hit 30th level.

This is a game where it's not considered unusual to have a guy who can punch the stupid out of people, or dodge every attack by never having been there in the first place, or make his swords become unto things like chainsaws.

You can't choose to use a longsword instead because the developers wanted to make heavy blades unavailable to the rogue. Currently this seals off Heavy Blade Opportunity and the berserker and vorpal weapon qualities, but as the game expands it will no doubt close off more possibilities. The rogue is the only core character with weapon restrictions beyond the simple melee/ranged divide, though it might not be advisable for, say, a fighter to rely on light blades or quarterstaves since very few of the fighter weapon specials even bother to include "light blade" or "staff".

4E builds on the whole, though, emphasize weapon loadout much less than they emphasize power selection, powers basically being most of the old "feat specials" like Manyshot or Trip, amped up for their new role. It's designed to build a character based on what you want to do, not what weapons you want to use.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

@Celtavian: I don't know why but your original post really put me off with the "you don't understand" down talk. However the above post doesn't feel the same, and while I still have to digest it, I wanted to say thanks for dropping that tone with me, it makes me much more likely to examine your points in a neutral manner. And even now I'm starting to see some of them.

I don't want to not like 4e...but our discussion has made me realize that I have more of a problem with the way 4e proponents defend it than I do with the actual game (yet).

The strange thing here is that I remember Celtavian starting out with a more or less negative attitude towards 4E. (And I don't think his position changed towards the "nerfing" of Wizards).
So, what is it in 4E that makes defenders of it come off badly?

I think it's because it is so awesome that we can't really get people not liking it. We can only assume that people that don't like it never gave it a real try, because we did and it worked like a charm. And many (but certainly not all, and I wouldn't even take bets on a majority) will never want to go back. Even if this means I can't yet play a Bard or a Rogue sneak attacking with a Longsword.

How would a 3E defender come off against a AD&D fan? Or against an Earthdawn or Rolemaster fan?

 

[billd91]

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.

<snip>

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.

Maybe you couldn't but I could do all this in 3e.
1) Orc hordes without any leveled characters in it is very much 1e and has been passe since long before 4e. In 3e, you bet some of them would have levels, some quite substantial. After all, there were probably orcs out there who could punch either Legolas's or Gimli's ticket like Azog and Bolg were able to wreak havoc on powerful dwarven heroes of previous generations.

2) I wouldn't mistake the outcome of one attack to be something designed by the creation of a particular monster. I'd be more likely to assume that the fortification power of the mithril shirt negated the orc warrior's critical hit with the spear. Considering we'd be looking at triple damage from an orc with a substantial strength bonus (and possibly weapon specialization) on a lower-leveled halfling aristocrat/rogue, I'd say the attack wasn't exactly insignificant.
But if I wanted some outcome along those lines, I'd be sure to give the orc some levels (at least 8 as a fighter or so) and give him improved critical.

3) A cave troll, the way they seem defined in LotR, seems a bit tougher than a typical D&D troll so that would probably increase his durability. Give him level as a barbarian or fighter would do quite a bit more. It's true that the fight probably wouldn't last as many rounds as a comparable one in 4e, but I'm not sure that 4e's take on things is the best one for D&D in the first place.

 

[VanRichten]

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

Iaijutsu is a good way of thinking. One could also consider the Ninja who in some cases used a Katana which by D&D standards is a bastard sword. And in single attack would kill a target.

 

[VanRichten]

But this is a class-based system. You have to draw lines somewhere. If a 3E player told you he wanted to play a fighter/wizard at 1st level who could cast spells while wearing medium armour, what would you do? And no, he doesn't want to play a duskblade (which isn't core anyway), because the spell selection is way too limited. It's certainly not an unreasonable concept for a fantasy game, but off the top of my head I don't think you can do it per RAW.

Warmage + Battle Caster feat.

 

[Imaro]

But this is a class-based system. You have to draw lines somewhere. If a 3E player told you he wanted to play a fighter/wizard at 1st level who could cast spells while wearing medium armour, what would you do? And no, he doesn't want to play a duskblade (which isn't core anyway), because the spell selection is way too limited. It's certainly not an unreasonable concept for a fantasy game, but off the top of my head I don't think you can do it per RAW.

If I could only use core...I would suggest he play a human sorcerer...for the better weapon selection and hp's then use his 1st level and extra feat to buy Lt and med. Armor proficiency... though actually I would suggest he only take lt. armor prof and use chain. Then he could use the other feat for something else. Otherwise play a Druid...or a Bard.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

If I could only use core...I would suggest he play a human sorcerer...for the better weapon selection and hp's then use his 1st level and extra feat to buy Lt and med. Armor proficiency... though actually I would suggest he only take lt. armor prof and use chain. Then he could use the other feat for something else. Otherwise play a Druid...or a Bard.

That's good advice for this hypothetical character ... but doesn't it sound a little like the advice that's been given with regards to 4e character conversions?

Basically, you're telling this guy to make some compromises, and maybe drop something because it's not optimal. Rogue + longsword: either go with a rapier or shortsword (compromise), or forget the longsword or eat the penalties associated with a rogue using anything other than light blades (dropping/eating the unoptimal). Or go with a fighter. Or a ranger. (These last two sentences are to mirror the end of your post, in case that's not clear.)

Like Fifth Element said, it's a class-based system, just like 3.x is - sometimes you have to compromise, and sometimes the concept you want just doesn't fit the given framework at all.

Edit: Also, I think it's important to note that the character Fifth Element suggested is nearly doable with core 4e, and 4e does a lot better job of it than 3.x does. The only thing really missing would be some actual fighter powers (at least until 4th level, when he could take a power swap feat).

 

[Imaro]

That's good advice for this hypothetical character ... but doesn't it sound a little like the advice that's been given with regards to 4e character conversions?

Basically, you're telling this guy to make some compromises, and maybe drop something because it's not optimal. Rogue + longsword: either go with a rapier or shortsword (compromise), or forget the longsword or eat the penalties associated with a rogue using anything other than light blades (dropping/eating the unoptimal).

Like Fifth Element said, it's a class-based system, just like 3.x is - sometimes you have to compromise, and sometimes the concept you want just doesn't fit the given framework at all.

I think the difference is that with my Rogue in 3e he will eventually be able to use a longsword in anyway he could use a shortsword if he devotes the resources...In 4e he will never be able to do such a thing. That's the difference, there are certain perfectly viable options (from a character concept point of view) that will never be applicable to 4e. Does this kill the game for me? Nope, but that doesn't mean I don't see it as something I don't like.