11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[DM-Rocco]

I kind of agree. Repurposing a class is actually pretty easy. Even doing some power swapping from several classes is doable to conform to a given concept. I think the best way to approach this is to get a clear picture of what the concept for the class will be. Then look for existing powers that fit that concept. Then supplement with new powers as you see fit.

Once the concept for the class is clear it makes it a lot easier to do. But creating one from scratch can seem truly daunting, if you are trying to create each power from scratch.

I would not necessarily like a generic class build up but I'd like to see some sample concepts and how they would implement them. I think that would be more useful for the scratch builder.

I like it when people agree with me, even if kind of

I think they should have still included the classes they did, but they should have also included a break down of target numbers to reach for each power at each level and things like that.

I interviewed WOTC personal for an interview in our next issue and they do have target numbers, based on controllers, strikers, defenders and leaders. I think it increases the playability of the game to release those numbers so people can kick around ideas and not get too crazy with creation. As it is, I made a chart for a break down of target numbers based on what I saw in the PHB so I could create new classes and I think I got it pretty close. Now making a new class from the ground up goes a bit smoother.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Woah woah woah! That was completely NOT the intention of my post. I was in NO way saying you were doing this. In fact, I was SUPPORTING your arguments as being civil and reasonable. My original post was directed at no one in particular, and everyone in general. I was merely stating, and responding to an earlier post suggesting people were getting rude, out of hand, and off topic in the thread. My point was that if you take the time to post your views, regardless of the subject and your opninon on them, on a message board such as this, you have to expect responses and that not all of them will agree with you. If you just want to post your thoughts without dealing with responses, your best off Blogging. I further responded by saying that I didnt think anyone in this thread was being rude, yourself included. Sorry if I came of sounding like I was attacking you, because I most certainly wasn't. Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstandings!

See, a good example of why it is hard to know the intent of a post if you can't hear the voice behind it. I think that if everyone in this thread sat down and had a cup of coffee, not one person would think the other is attacking them. It is just the lack of a voice to give it feeling and intent that makes us jump to conclusion.

I could tell by your follow up post that I miss read your first post and did my own follow up post. I don’t think you are here to cause trouble so no worries and sorry for a false assumption on my part

 

[D'karr]

I like it when people agree with me, even if kind of

I think they should have still included the classes they did, but they should have also included a break down of target numbers to reach for each power at each level and things like that.

I interviewed WOTC personal for an interview in our next issue and they do have target numbers, based on controllers, strikers, defenders and leaders. I think it increases the playability of the game to release those numbers so people can kick around ideas and not get too crazy with creation. As it is, I made a chart for a break down of target numbers based on what I saw in the PHB so I could create new classes and I think I got it pretty close. Now making a new class from the ground up goes a bit smoother.

I think that is where the Damage by Level table in the DMG comes in handy. It gives you a low, medium and high number that you can use as an average depending on what the power "feels" like. And like you said there are a lot of core classes so looking at what they have as an average, based on their role is a good starting point.

If anything an article in Dragon that detailed some of the design ideas for each role would be nice. Something like what they did for the original concepts of Prestige Classes when 3e came out.

 

[Wonka]

See, a good example of why it is hard to know the intent of a post if you can't hear the voice behind it. I think that if everyone in this thread sat down and had a cup of coffee, not one person would think the other is attacking them. It is just the lack of a voice to give it feeling and intent that makes us jump to conclusion.

I could tell by your follow up post that I miss read your first post and did my own follow up post. I don’t think you are here to cause trouble so no worries and sorry for a false assumption on my part

No worries, just glad we've got this cleared up. I found your follow up after I had posted my thirdup (is that a real word? Who cares im using it anyway! ) post. And I agree, it is very hard to know where someone is coming from without hearing a voice. It makes me sad that my absolute favorite form of humor, sarcasm, sadly doesn't work to well on internet message boards

I don't have coffee, so have a d6 instead!

 

[DM-Rocco]

I think that is where the Damage by Level table in the DMG comes in handy. It gives you a low, medium and high number that you can use as an average depending on what the power "feels" like. And like you said there are a lot of core classes so looking at what they have as an average, based on their role is a good starting point.

If anything an article in Dragon that detailed some of the design ideas for each role would be nice. Something like what they did for the original concepts of Prestige Classes when 3e came out.

Are you referring to the chart on page 42 of the 4e DMG? Just so I know what you are referring to.

If so, it is helpful, but I have seen some people already make a mistake and begin to use that as a bible for creating when you can't use that alone. The for PC roles of controller, defender, leader and striker each do different types of damage based on what role they have. Sure, the base chart on page 42 is a good starting point, controllers do less damage and effect more creatures (one of my grips for why i think wizards are weaker IMO) and strikers do more damage but usually target one creature like the Warlock.

Here is another things I am on the fence about for 4e. I like that they have roles, but I dislike them at the same time. I think, as a DM, it rocks because it gives the DM a good idea of what they should be doing in combat under normal conditions. As a player though, I think they made the roles too rigid. A wizard shouldn't have to be forced into a controller role, he should have an option to be a striker without having to be a warlock. I also don't really see the leader role or the defender role as being middle ground either. In this regard, I feel 4e made too many restrictions on the PCs.

 

[DM-Rocco]

No worries, just glad we've got this cleared up. I found your follow up after I had posted my thirdup (is that a real word? Who cares im using it anyway! ) post. And I agree, it is very hard to know where someone is coming from without hearing a voice. It makes me sad that my absolute favorite form of humor, sarcasm, sadly doesn't work to well on internet message boards

I don't have coffee, so have a d6 instead!

In person I am, so I have been told , just a wee bit sarcastic too. Sadly, I agree, I have to tame myself on the boards so I don't come off wrong. Also sadly, this gives others the misunderstanding that I am either mocking them or that I am somehow making a personal attack. Sometimes I feel like it is a lose/lose battle. But I like to chat it up, so here I am.

d6 right back at ya , and one for everyone else, d6's for all , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

[DM-Rocco]

In person I am, so I have been told , just a wee bit sarcastic too. Sadly, I agree, I have to tame myself on the boards so I don't come off wrong. Also sadly, this gives others the misunderstanding that I am either mocking them or that I am somehow making a personal attack. Sometimes I feel like it is a lose/lose battle. But I like to chat it up, so here I am.

d6 right back at ya , and one for everyone else, d6's for all , , , , , , , , , , , ,

That is kind of cool, I learn something new everyday. Does that work for a d20 :20:?

Boo, that would have been cool though. Anyway, carry on. I was just testing.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Are my players just gods of combat or something? Fights seem pretty fast for us. Solos are a little boring once we all run out of encounter powers, but otherwise, were good.

Mine too... and my players stop and talk about tactics every single round. WHen I sit and think about how my 3.x Combats went, I NEVER want to go back.

As far as running out of encounter/daily powers... there WEREN'T any in 3.x at all, so it makes a HUGE difference especially when there's no more "I swing, ... , I swing, ... , I swing, ... "

 

[D'karr]

Are you referring to the chart on page 42 of the 4e DMG? Just so I know what you are referring to.

Yep, that's the one.

If so, it is helpful, but I have seen some people already make a mistake and begin to use that as a bible for creating when you can't use that alone.

Correct, which is why I said earlier that it was a good starting point in combination with the damages that each of the classes have per power.

Here is another things I am on the fence about for 4e. I like that they have roles, but I dislike them at the same time. I think, as a DM, it rocks because it gives the DM a good idea of what they should be doing in combat under normal conditions. As a player though, I think they made the roles too rigid. A wizard shouldn't have to be forced into a controller role, he should have an option to be a striker without having to be a warlock. I also don't really see the leader role or the defender role as being middle ground either. In this regard, I feel 4e made too many restrictions on the PCs.

I see it in a slightly different way. Before, I would choose a class and then tried to shoehorn it into what I really wanted for a character concept. A lot of times that character concept had a specific way that I saw it performing in combat sometimes that class would fit and sometimes it was a very difficult fit.

Now I decide what my character role is in combat (the purpose for the role). Based on that I have a few options of which way to go. Then I choose the class that best fits how I see that concept. That is why we've been able to repurpose classes based mostly on changing the flavor, with hardly any mechanical changes.

As for the Wizard, I've kind of always seen them as the controller role in combat anyway so I didn't have much problem with that. In addition, rituals allow for so much more flexibility that I don't feel there is a limitation placed on them. The only complaint is that I would've liked to have seen more rituals in the core. But guess what, with very little work we are already using some of the other "utility" spells from previous editions and converting them to rituals.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I dont like anything about 4e.
I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.