Disappointed in 4e

[Zustiur]

Sure, level 10 sorta does that, but not the same as level 30.

If any of my characters ever reaches level 30 outside of computer games like Neverwinter Nights, I'll...
No, not eat my hat.
I'll ...

Admit that 4E must be good after-all.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.

What wilderness flavor behind a ranger?
The only flavour a ranger has by the book is they have 1 skill from Nature and The underground knowledge one.

If the underground knowledge one doesn't move you far enough from a wilderness focus then ask the GM to let you swap it out for something else.

The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.

Yes, and from the PHB you can create a two handed weapon fighter, a sword and board a polearm specialist.
With the next splatbook you'll get an option for a two weapon fighter
If you want an archer then you make a ranger and play him the way you want

There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.

Except that the idea is more 'what do I want to do' I'll play that class rather than
"I'll play a fighter, which way do I want to go with it?"

 

[Jasperak]

Jasperak, I think the analogy you used was a good analogy -- TV programming and RPGs are similar in some important ways -- but the proper conclusion is the opposite of the one you expected.

It takes WotC just as much effort (i.e. money) to develop a bard class or frost giant monster manual entry for one gamer or one million gamers. (Yes, printing those pages isn't free, but printing costs aren't WotC's primary costs.)

But we gamers each value the different classes, monsters, spells, etc. wildly differently. If they sold the bard entry only to people who wanted to play a bard, they'd have to sell it for a shockingly high price.

By bundling different classes, monsters, spells, etc. together -- ones that any one gamer might love or hate -- they can charge one fairly low price.

Cutting out eladrin and dragonborn wouldn't reduce the cost of a Players Handbook meaningfully, but putting them in might make a few more sales or increase the price some customers are willing to pay.

To continue with the cable analogy, I feel that their putting in levels that I would not reach until the next book is released (in March?) is like ordering the sports package in April so I can watch baseball but getting the NFL package bundled in. Sure it will be useful in five months but kind of pointless until then.

So by putting in eladrin and dragonborn they may make more sales? Would the next logical conclusion be that the more options they include, the more likely they are to sell more books? If it takes a year to get to use a third of the options, they are better left out until needed. Give me options I can use, not ones I have to wait to use.

Another poster mentioned being able to see the direction their character is going to take. Fair enough, but I wonder if that would be better served by using previews in Dragon.

 

[RFisher]

Another poster mentioned being able to see the direction their character is going to take. Fair enough, but I wonder if that would be better served by using previews in Dragon.

I’d rather my not be able to plan ahead for my first few PCs and feel like the upper tiers got as thorough a playtesting as the lower tier.

 

[Imp]

In truth, it might have been a better idea to parse out the core by level rather than by variety of content. Anticipation for the Next Tier builds organically, as your characters advance. Given the two-plus-year length of time it takes a reasonably paced party to get through 30 or so levels, they could've milked this all the way up to level 30, and then could have gone back to level 1 and started again!

This is all quite clever, but (putting on the company's shoes) you'd probably want to do a bit of both. Like, add 10 levels and two classes per installment. Because people want to try new things, too. Basically, it's the model CRPGS use for their expansions... because it works.

I dunno exactly how I'd feel about it, as a consumer, but leaving the big dragons for last is a pretty effective carrot.

 

[pemerton]

I think another poster put it best when they said that if HPs are more than physical resilience, why is the only thing that takes HPs away physical damage?

I don't follow this - there are a lot of powers that take away hit points and do not do physical damage (eg Warlock powers like Eyebite, Curse of the Dark Dream, etc; Wizard powers like Maze; the Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage, etc).

 

[dm4hire]

I believe he's referring to the lack of ability score damage spells. It seems that ability damage or non-physical damage has been reserved primarily for monsters. Eye Bite does psychic damage which one would think, since it is a mental attack, it would actually go against your Int or Wis. In past editions players and mobs both pulled from the same non-physical damage pool, per se, for spells causing damage to opponents (with exceptions of coarse). Primarily though both sides could take a stab at causing ability damage. HPs tend to be a blank stat for life points now; just about every form of damage actually going toward it if you look at it compared to previous editions.

And even in your example you mention Deathlock Wight, which is a monster, not a PC power.

 

[bagger245]

I think what 3e or 4e lacks are those adventures that become classic. 3e had maybe a few
including adventure paths, but not so memorable unlike B2 or T-14...

 

[dm4hire]

I'll agree with you on that. There were a few good ones, but nothing major that stand out to the point where if you mention them heads bow in memory, or players wince from mental flashbacks, or even respond with awe in wishing they could have played it with you. That's part of the market problem I see with WotC and their persistent Hollywood trend of doing sequels to the great ones. Even a lot of non-module products tend to pay homage to them, i.e. Against the Giants, Demonweb, etc. I think some of the big ones from 3.x will be Worlds Largest Dungeon, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, and the Undermountain adventure just to name a few.

 

[mmadsen]

I think another poster put it best when they said that if HPs are more than physical resilience, why is the only thing that takes HPs away physical damage?

Heisenberg Points represent too much to effectively model anything. They're just a way of keeping score in 4e.

I believe you're referring to something I said -- most recently in Did 4E go far enough or too far?:

I think 4E's hit points are a good example of something that went either too far or not far enough. "Healing" now has no connection to physical wounds -- but the only things that do "damage" are "hits" with things that should cause physical wounds.

If hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?​

I suppose I should have been clearer that some exceptions now exist:

I don't follow this - there are a lot of powers that take away hit points and do not do physical damage (eg Warlock powers like Eyebite, Curse of the Dark Dream, etc; Wizard powers like Maze; the Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage, etc).

Again though, if hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?

And if a morale-boosting rallying cry from your inspiring leader can "heal" hit points, why doesn't anything and everything that's scary or demoralizing do "damage" to hit points?