D&D 4E I'm here 4e and left wondering....

[igniz13]

1: In earlier editions (3.x especially), if you played a character that had little no utility in combat, that was okay. There was still plenty for your character to do. One of my favorite characters was a Master Inquisitive who fired crossbow bolts wide in most combats and one time threatened a kobold prisoner into helping out with a difficult melee, and that was it. Later in that same run I played an eight-year telepath who could certainly do thing in combat, but that wasn't his defining characteristic. Everything that defines your character in 4e is what their combat utility is. Even non-combatants (like the aforementioned princess warlord) is generally defined by how she contributes to combat without actively attacking herself. This was due to game balance and I do appreciate that, but I do miss my "utility" characters. This leads to disappointment number two:

Hold up,

I made a character who was a charlatan psychic, who would fake contacting spirits, communing with the dead etc. That was their character.

The actual build was a Wizard, using the various cantrips to simulate ghostly intervention and activity.

That my character could cast Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, etc was besides the point. The character was a Wizard who had wizardly powers, but their character was a charlatan psychic.

When combat cropped up, they would still lead with their skills and cantrips rather than combat.

I recently made a character who's an acrobatic performer and dancer, yes they're also a Wild mage but that's secondary.

I also had a character who would intimidate people on the battlefield with the threat of aggressive actions.

If you really want to, you could make an inquisitor or a psionic telepath. It's just the mentality you take towards character creation.

The key difference between your inquistior then and now is that you might be able to fit with effect rather than be useless.

 

[ExploderWizard]

1: In earlier editions (3.x especially), if you played a character that had little no utility in combat, that was okay. There was still plenty for your character to do. One of my favorite characters was a Master Inquisitive who fired crossbow bolts wide in most combats and one time threatened a kobold prisoner into helping out with a difficult melee, and that was it. Later in that same run I played an eight-year telepath who could certainly do thing in combat, but that wasn't his defining characteristic. Everything that defines your character in 4e is what their combat utility is. Even non-combatants (like the aforementioned princess warlord) is generally defined by how she contributes to combat without actively attacking herself. This was due to game balance and I do appreciate that, but I do miss my "utility" characters. This leads to disappointment number two:

2: Race/Class combos. With every race gaining two stats and every class's attacks keying off any of the six different stats, there's now an almost key prerogative to use one of the pre-defined race/class combos. Dwarven Rogues are simply outclassed by their Elven and Halfling comrades, and in a game so delicately balanced it makes any such pairing (where the class attack stat doesn't match your racial bonuses) completely undesirable, especially considering how expensive it is to buy a natural 18 in stat buy.

These few nitpicks aside, I will say that 4e produces greater fun with greater ease than any of the previous editions I've played (started at AD&D 2e).

RE:#1

The ability to play a fun character outside of combat depends a lot more on the play group than it does on the rules. If the players seek out non-combat activities to engage in and the DM accomodates them then the mechanics are a distant secondary consideration.

For example, playing Basic D&D in the days prior to the RC the fighter had no mechanical abilities in the rules beyond martial training. The human fighter was here to hit as far as the rules were concerned. This didn't stop us from making interesting and diverse characters who were fighters.

If the group wants to enjoy combat light adventures there is nothing in any edition that prevents them from doing so.

RE #2

This hasn't changed very much. In 3.X you could make a dwarven wizard if you chose but your stat bonuses wouldn't help you much with that choice. At least in 4E a human has the chance to be a decent member of any class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the group wants to enjoy combat light adventures there is nothing in any edition that prevents them from doing so.

Other than high level wizard or cleric spells (notably divination spells) shortcutting the entire adventure. But that's a minor nitpick.

This hasn't changed very much. In 3.X you could make a dwarven wizard if you chose but your stat bonuses wouldn't help you much with that choice. At least in 4E a human has the chance to be a decent member of any class.

And in AD&D you were level-capped if you could enter the class at all as a non-human.

 

[Herschel]

2: Race/Class combos. With every race gaining two stats and every class's attacks keying off any of the six different stats, there's now an almost key prerogative to use one of the pre-defined race/class combos. Dwarven Rogues are simply outclassed by their Elven and Halfling comrades, and in a game so delicately balanced it makes any such pairing (where the class attack stat doesn't match your racial bonuses) completely undesirable, especially considering how expensive it is to buy a natural 18 in stat buy.

GAH! Site ate my post.

In summation, I disagree. Racial powers and feats often make up for stat "deficiencies". Look at a Dwarf Fighter. For ONE feat you get proficiency AND weapon focus in ALL axes and hammers, even the Superior ones. Add in the racial feature of Second Wind as a minor action, and you can build a really nice Dwarven Fighter with a 16/16/16 Str/Con/Wis starting set even without an 18 in your primary attack stat.

 

[igniz13]

As long as you get at least a 16 in your primary stat, any race can work as any class. Even if you make something like a Tiefling Fighter, the Cha and Int boost your Wil and Ref defences and open up MC options.

 

[Rechan]

Because a gnome fighter in previous editions was such a great combo.

 

[Gradine]

Because a gnome fighter in previous editions was such a great combo.

Don't mock small warriors. I had a halfling barbarian in Eberron 3.5 that was both great fun to play and quite effective. Sure, it would have been a bit more effective as a half-orc, but I didn't want to play a half-orc; I wanted to play a halfling.

Having played a character that started with a 16 in his primary stat (this was my first character, mind you) I was continually frustrated by how less often I hit than my peers. Granted, I was playing a taclord who pretty much needs to hit to be effective.

Of course, I have made effective characters beyond the usual race/class combo mold; an incredibly mobile eladrin fighter stands out to me in particular, though he would now obviously be a swordmage (or spearmage, as the case may be), but I do still feel the design of the game does tend to discourage such against-the-grain archetypes.

I do stand corrected on my other points though. I've always kind of be attached the idea that your stats were concrete indicators of personality and character traits; here they merely serve as abstract indicators of a hero's effectiveness.

 

[Rechan]

Don't mock small warriors. I had a halfling barbarian in Eberron 3.5 that was both great fun to play and quite effective. Sure, it would have been a bit more effective as a half-orc, but I didn't want to play a half-orc; I wanted to play a halfling.

I wasn't mocking, just pointing out it wasn't the most efficient combination of race/class, and yet it works - you even say so. Small sized weapon (i.e. lower damage) and no boost to str (and in the case of halflings, -2 str).

 

[Garthanos]

Don't mock small warriors. I had a halfling barbarian in Eberron 3.5 that was both great fun to play and quite effective. Sure, it would have been a bit more effective as a half-orc, but I didn't want to play a half-orc; I wanted to play a halfling.

Having played a character that started with a 16 in his primary stat (this was my first character, mind you) I was continually frustrated by how less often I hit than my peers. Granted, I was playing a taclord who pretty much needs to hit to be effective.

Of course, I have made effective characters beyond the usual race/class combo mold; an incredibly mobile eladrin fighter stands out to me in particular, though he would now obviously be a swordmage (or spearmage, as the case may be), but I do still feel the design of the game does tend to discourage such against-the-grain archetypes.

I do stand corrected on my other points though. I've always kind of be attached the idea that your stats were concrete indicators of personality and character traits; here they merely serve as abstract indicators of a hero's effectiveness.

How much you exploit the abstraction is still largely up to those who play. 95 percent of the time default flavors and textures works pretty darn well. When you need or want the empowerment of the abstraction is there for you too. One of the gripes of HERO games (I saw it in Fantasy Hero form) a very very adaptable system was that it had no real defaults.... D&D once you absorb it well for me it becomes having my cake and eating it too.

Did you notice my flavoring of cleave work very nicely for a halfling fighter? And they have some nice feats to make there small size an advantage exploitable in a fight.

 

[Chzbro]

I too started with Redbox and played many editions up to and including 4E. I enjoyed them all, but am a particular fan of the current system. As some others have said, it feels very much like "old school" D&D to me because simulationism and rules always took a backseat to "cool" in the games I played in when I was a kid imagining that I was a hero who could kill giants and dragons.

This doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy 3.x for its run, but from a story perspective 4E has been very liberating and has brought back a lot of what I found so fun about D&D all those years ago. Ironically, 3.x felt like more of a board game to me in retrospect than 4E does (I say ironically because "feels like a board/video game is a common complaint leveled against 4E) because in OUR 3.x games (not necessarily in anyone else's) everything usually came down to knowing the rules and how to exploit them better than the next guy. We still all try to know all the 4E rules, but since the rules for players aren't necessarily the same as the rules for NPCs and monsters, every combat still has the potential for one of those "WHOA!" moments (like the first time we saw a Deathjump spider shift right past the fighter and land on the wizard).

What's really great (to me) is that in a recent game our party stumbled on two wizards (one of them a major villain) engaged in a sorcerous duel. They were both protected by magic bubbles, and during the fight some party members participated in a skill challenge to help the good wizard overcome the bad guy's shield. And no one at the table said, "What spell is that?" or "What level are they?" or "According to rule y the shield won't protect him from spell z, which I cast now." Instead, it was "I'm going to try Arcana to see if I can help drop that bubble," and "I'll try to lock those zombies down to keep them off of you while you do that," and so on.

For me, that flexibility--this monster/villain can do this because it's cool and fun and it doesn't matter if anyone else in the world can--really defines what I love about playing 4E.

And if you'll all indulge me for just one more point: Some of the players at my table have started renaming their powers to reflect the individual flavor they want it to have, and it's really pretty great. Mechanically, everything stays the same, but maybe the swarm druid calls Locust Swarm (for example) Stinging Hornets (or whatever). While the mechanical impact has been nil, from a story/fun perspective it has made a big difference. "I cast Stinging Hornets," evokes a different feel from "I cast Locust Swarm," or "I cast Faeriefire Storm," even if all three of them do exactly the same thing.

It pains me to say that after so many years of 3.5, making changes like that still feels a bit like cheating. Slowly but surely, though, I'm re-embracing the notion that it's not cheating no matter what system you use; it's just awesome.