4E is unacceptable

[Mallus]

I am going to assume you meant "uber" instead of "under.

Sure did... I don't proofread too good before me morning coffee. Actually, I don't proofread very well after, either...

Are they really at low level or even part of mid level play? Personally I like this aspect of the game.

No, lower level play is fine. The game balance doesn't begin to break down until mid-to-high level.

In the end even a caster runs out of spells eventually, and unless the world pauses for them each time this happens...well they aren't so uber at this point, but a fighter or thief never runs out of their abilities.

In every 1e/2e/3e campaign I've seen, when the caster run out of spells, the party stops adventuring, and all those limitless uses of the fighter/thief's skills become a moot point. Surely you've noticed this? Be honest...

 

[Mallus]

If you shouldn't have any weaknesses, why don't have everyone be a caster/fighter/healer/thief?

Fenes, you're framing the question the wrong way. The question isn't "should a class have weaknesses?". Of course they should -- and note that 4e classes do all have inherent weaknesses that seem harder to circumvent than in the previous edition.

The question should be "should character have weaknesses that limit their participation/contribution to the game's core activity?" Which in D&D's case is combat.

I think that question is harder to answer in the affirmative.

Look, if you want to play a 4e character that's a poor combatant, nothing stops you. Use bad tactics. Repeatedly. Lord knows it's not that hard. Players do it all the time, albeit usually unintentionally.

I'd rather my PC's inability to make meaningful contribution in combat be the result of conscious choices I make during play, rather have it baked into the mechanics.

Why should choices matter in combat, but not in the game as a whole?

Choices matter in both. What do you mean?

 

[Andor]

In every 1e/2e/3e campaign I've seen, when the caster run out of spells, the party stops adventuring, and all those limitless uses of the fighter/thief's skills become a moot point. Surely you've noticed this? Be honest...

The only time I've really seen the "15 min" adventureing day was when we were playing a module that was way over the parties head. We would clear one room, retreat to the previous room and rest for a day. Mind you this was in Nightfang Spire which is chock full of incorporeal undead. We should have all woken up as wights but the GM was deliberately and admittedly going easy on us during our rests. Frankly I found the whole mess to be quite painfully disruptive to any attempt at pretending we roleplaying instead of board gaming. Eventually our cleric killed my PC through pure bone-headed manuvering. *sigh*

But in my experience that sort of 'in your face' intrusion of the game system into tactical considerations is the exception rather than the rule. Frankly when I played 4e I kept wanting there to be more than one fight a day, but the module had spaced out all the fights with significant travel time between them. *facepalm*

 

[Mallus]

The only time I've really seen the "15 min" adventureing day was when we were playing a module that was way over the parties head.

Obviously our experiences differ.

Frankly I found the whole mess to be quite painfully disruptive to any attempt at pretending we roleplaying instead of board gaming.

I've played D&D since 1e. I've gotten used to it. Perhaps now I can get un-used to it...

 

[Ginnel]

I gotta agree with Mustrum here, though it is all a matter of preference and there is no point in arguing about whether blue or red is better

What I feel 4th edition does well is to set characters abilities at an even chance to succeed whether in combat or out, and the feats just keep adding to this baseline, this is great everyone can play an effective role in combat if they want whatever class they choose.

Q: Ah but what if I don't want my character to be effective in combat?

A: Easy enough choose a bad primary attack stat if you just want him to suck because of unsuitibility to combat or have him be a really bad tactitian by playing him as less competent in combat maybe running away, targeting non threats or not using encounter/daily powers.
Have all your stats at around 14 and the jack of all trades feat, take some more training feats and skill focus' take those extra languages take ritual casting be more effective out of combat while being less competent in combat.

No one has to be effective you aren't forced to choose good stats, you aren't forced to use the powers you still have those choices.
But for the majority of games D&D is intended to be used for, combat is the main focus (not saying there can't be other focuses) so the equally effective combat characters are a big plus in the design.

 

[Lanefan]

There is also sub-optimal builds as well. These are the ones where the build actively hurts YOUR ROLE IN THE TEAM (God, how 4e!). A cleric who channels negative energy is not an effective healer. If you say "we are getting are butts kicked, we need a healer" and another player creates THAT, your no better off a healer than you were before. Similarly, any rogue who doesn't have sufficient ranks in Search/Disable Device is going to fail at the trapfinder role, which is commonly the role given to rogues. IF you have another trapfinder character (or never, EVER, encounter a trap in a dungeon) than its OK to skimp. If your DM likes Goodman Game DCC's however, you've just made a sub-optimal character.

4e "fixes" that. You can't make a cleric that isn't good at healing. Even if you never select a healing power, you still have healing word to fall back on, and its a lot easier to use than channeling positive energy (even if your evil, you can use it too). Likewise, no rogue can be bad at "roguish" techniques, so you can disable traps with the best of them without blowing another skill selection on them. No rogue? Anyone with Skill Training can be a trapfinder!

What ever happened to the idea that if the party has a hole in its lineup once the players have rolled up what they want to play, they just go to town and recruit an NPC for the job? Need a Thief? Go recruit one! Or, better yet, roll up a second character of your own and run both.....

7 wisdom? I'll wager she wasn't a cleric, druid, paladin, monk or ranger then. Unless she was sorcerer, wizard, or bard, her will save was toilet. (-2 at 1st level, +3 at 20th barring a cloak). I guess she got charmed, held, feared, dominated, dazed, sleepy, and otherwise indisposed alot right?

She was my attempt to build a 1e Illusionist using 3e rules, only with bad enough stats she wouldn't have been allowed to be an Illusionist in 1e! Went from raw 1st level well into 11th in a slow-advancing game before getting perma-killed by her own party after her Rod of Wonder (which she built herself) produced a fireball where it shouldn't have...

I guess I have a hard time understanding why, "for story purposes" you'd ever really want to gimp your character?

In her case, it was because I could have her be perfectly in character doing unwise things...in other words, I could play like an idiot and get away with it!

As for the other discussion, about DMs tailoring adventures to the characters in the party, I say poppycock. The DM drops the adventure hooks, the characters bite, and if the hook they bite on leads to an adventure that doesn't suit them they always (well, almost always) have the option of turning around and going home, or looking for another hook to bite. But that's the players' choice...they also have the option of plowing ahead and trying to complete an "unsuitable" adventure, if they so decide.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I noticed something, and I wonder if others agree with me.
I am not sure how to put it down precisely, but let me try it this way:
3E gives you more choices at character build time. This also gives the option to intentionally or unintentionally weaken your character in one critical area (be bad at combat, be bad against undead, be bad in social encounters)

4E gives you less choices at the character build level, so that it's harder to unintentionally create this weaknesses. If you want to be useless in combat, you have to intentionally ignore the advice to pick good ability scores for your primary statistics. If you want to be bad in social encounters, you have to decide not to pick up any skills that are important in that area (and every class has some skills for that area).

If all your character build choices were optimal, you can still screw up during actual gameplay, simply by intentionally or unintentionally missing how to use your abilities effectively. I think 4E is upping up here compared to 3E, since there is a lot of more synergistic benefits in combat, and also outside of combat to some extent - skill challenges require you to identify the useful skills, and use the ones that you are a good at...

I believe some people are of the mind set that only the decisions made at character creation tell us something about the options inherent to the system, ignoring the emergent aspects of gameplay...

What ever happened to the idea that if the party has a hole in its lineup once the players have rolled up what they want to play, they just go to town and recruit an NPC for the job? Need a Thief? Go recruit one! Or, better yet, roll up a second character of your own and run both.....

Oh, we did that a lot in 3E, thanks to Leadership. Of course, it also often lead to brain overload at high levels...

And sometimes, I just want to play my character. Not two...

 

[Fenes]

In my campaign, I run a lot of NPCs covering "holes" or just providing additional flavor. Works well.

 

[Shabe]

In my campaign, I run a lot of NPCs covering "holes" or just providing additional flavor. Works well.

Hmm our DM does that in one of his campaigns, I (and i think the other players) hate it, I've asked him to stop doing it, I and one or two other players make "jokes" every session about getting them killed, we also have a good 4-5 feats spare between the party and god knows how many tens of skill points as we can't learn feats or skills without tutoring by someone more skilled than us, makes us really feel like heroes .

 

[Fenes]

Hmm our DM does that in one of his campaigns, I (and i think the other players) hate it, I've asked him to stop doing it, I and one or two other players make "jokes" every session about getting them killed, we also have a good 4-5 feats spare between the party and god knows how many tens of skill points as we can't learn feats or skills without tutoring by someone more skilled than us, makes us really feel like heroes .

If you don't have fun then your DM probably runs the NPCs wrong. IMC, the NPCs don't hog the spotlight, or outshine anyone, they are here to provide more roleplay opportunities, and provide some services (healing, f.e.) no one of the players wants to cover. The NPCs fade into the background when the PCs act. I don't roll their actions in combat unless it's a special situation - like when a PC orders them to do something.

The "You need tutoring but I won't let you" problem also points to your DM missing the mark on offering a fun gaming experience for his group.