D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Darkthorne]

Mallus,
As for class implementation 4E fighter now is purely a tank (first and foremost) nothing beyond that. I could take a 3.5 fighter make dex & con my main stats (guys is to be rather durable & agile) takes weapon finesse to make use of his dex, combat reflexes and combat expertise and I have a swashbuckler who is as durable as I want due to the fighter hp and agile & accurate and my str stat for this build is moot. Does this character become less effective? Only in regards to damage output, not accuracy or the ability to survive.

In regards to optimization there is a big difference with not as optimized (having a 14 or 15 in your main class stat) as you can be vs suboptimal (having a 10 in your suggestion). 4E you need a 16 in your main stat for your class otherwise it will noticeably affect both your ability to hit and damage. Previous editions allowed non optimized (or non mini/maxed) characters to be built w/o being useless.

I will agree that past editions didn't get every character design right but it is being presented that 4E is more flexible (WotC convert your character columns) when it's much more fixed in design.

 

[Felon]

Also, I think you're getting your editions mixed up. A 4e rogue does start with Thievery, but Stealth is optional, and backstabbing hasn't really existed since 2e.

Backstabbing may not have been expressly mentioned, but I don't think it's that hard to intuit what the rogue is doing to get entitled to sneak attack damage when flanking. And of course, we have an aptly-named feat in 4e.

 

[Mallus]

Mallus,As for class implementation 4E fighter now is purely a tank (first and foremost) nothing beyond that.

Combat-wise, yes.

I could take a 3.5 fighter make dex & con my main stats (guys is to be rather durable & agile) takes weapon finesse to make use of his dex, combat reflexes and combat expertise and I have a swashbuckler who is as durable as I want due to the fighter hp and agile & accurate and my str stat for this build is moot. Does this character become less effective? Only in regards to damage output, not accuracy or the ability to survive.

What's accuracy without damage output to a melee fighter? And even with a high DEX, this character is going to have a low AC, so his survivability is questionable. I agree that you certainly can build this character in 3.5. I don't agree that it's any good. And not in terms of being optimized, either. It's a bad representation of a dashing swordsman period, because in use he'll play like a weak-hitting pincushion.

You've built a bad fighter. It's not your fault though, 3.5 doesn't support the concept 'lightly armed and armored fighter' well at all, at least until Bo9S comes out and a Shadow Hand Swordsage becomes available. I mean, you could mix fighter and rogue (and even a little monk) to get something like a swashbuckler, but it's still not what I'd call strong mechanical support for a common action fantasy archetype.

When you consider viable options, 3.5 can start to look fairly restrictive.

 

[Mallus]

Backstabbing may not have been expressly mentioned, but I don't think it's that hard to intuit what the rogue is doing to get entitled to sneak attack damage when flanking. And of course, we have an aptly-named feat in 4e.

The point is that precision damage like Sneak Attack isn't backstabbing, and it suits the swashbuckling flavor fine.

 

[Darkthorne]

Mallus,
If you consider an 18 Ac at level 1 low then I would have to agree with you, but I don't. I also don't agree that damage output should be the primary concern of any character. If you want to build a brute/tank/warmage type then fine but to me having damage output being the primary concern for all character types is more like playing a computer game and not an RPG. A fighter w/ an 18 str is neither original or unique and rather predictable. I take more note when a character is not built out to be totally more optimized, but that is my style and you have every right to disagree with it.

I strongly believe 4E was designed that 90% of the player character design was done taking the mini/maxing into account for thier balance guide to the point that if you don't your odds of hitting actually go down as you increase in level. 4E is balanced so that someone can start a character w/ a 20 in a stat, put every increase they can into that stat with whatever allowable magic items at their disposal. If I tried building a fighter with a 15 str and only 5 of the stat improvements I'm behind 20% on my chance to hit and much more on my damage output prior to any magic items. This does affect how you want to design your character and it's career.

 

[qstor]

The previous editions did not require such interdependency among the party members. I'm sorry, I used the word "require." I should say "suggest." But the previous editions were truly more about role-playing than they were about min-maxing for competence. That's what's missing in 4E.

I've heard people that play Living Forgotten Realms say that party balance is now very required more so than in 3.5.

Has anyone played 4e without a battlemat?

Mike

 

[MerricB]

My goal with this project is not assign roles, that will be left to the player. Fighters will have abilities that help them protect others without marking or mysteriously compelling anyone to attack them. They can also stealth out, wear lighter armor and go the road of the assassin if they so choose. The classes are there to provide the player with a range of options, not to tell them what thier "job" is. At least not in my world.

Just wishing you luck with your project. It sounds fun.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not 100% sure that's entirely rational.

I am 100% sure that human preferences are not rational.

 

[Raven Crowking]

NPCs will be a snap. Need a blackmith? Just note that Joe-Bob is a NM Blacksmith (P7) and you know that he has the skills of a 7th level character with blacksmithing as a primary skill. Done

I'll be interested in giving it a look when you're done.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I am 100% sure that human preferences are not rational.

Disliking the system is one thing. Not wanting to be in the vicinity of the physical books (harmless inanimate objects) is rather silly.