D&D 4E 4e's Equivalent to Pathfinder

[Rechan]

Sadly, I've noticed a lot more open hate from the 3.x/PF crowd since the announcement. It's almost as though the haters feel they've been given license since even the devs are doing it to a lesser degree. That, and they've taken the announcement as "I was right all along." Two wrongs don't make a right, but good luck getting the haters to agree.

Eh? I've always felt ENWorld has been biased against 4e. I've avoided the General forum for that very reason.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's a lot of dancing and spitting on the plot WotC has reserved for 4e's grave, yeah.

 

[Siberys]

My sincere hope is that Wizards releases all non-IP 4e stuff under the OGL once 5e hits officially. That's one thing I do like about Paizo products - if I want to use it, I can!

Then, if I don't like 5e, I can at least continue producing and picking up 4e material, and maybe work what I do like of 5e into my games. Not that I couldn't do it without things being released under the OGL, just that it'd be easier.

 

[pemerton]

I've always felt ENWorld has been biased against 4e. I've avoided the General forum for that very reason.

I think there are a number of prominent posters on General who have that inclination, but it's not all one-way traffic.

 

[pemerton]

4e fans are, by definition, adoptors of the latest ed

But not necessarily just because it's the latest edition. It may just be that the latest edition happens to also be the best for their purposes.

I don't think I'll be moving to D&Dnext, for example, if it ends up being like it seems in the previews to date.

 

[The Halfling]

But not necessarily just because it's the latest edition. It may just be that the latest edition happens to also be the best for their purposes.

I don't think I'll be moving to D&Dnext, for example, if it ends up being like it seems in the previews to date.

I feel the same way. Up until this point, I have adopted/adapted to each edition that has come out, starting the the old Red Box.

But I didn't do so due to some pavlonian response to hearing "D&D". I did so because the new edition was an improvement on previous editions. For awhile I was a lapsed D&Der, having bolted to RoleMaster.

With 4th, D&D finally had a system that hit almost all the right chords with me. Martial classes that emulated mythic heroes like Beowolf and Hercules. No mechanical alignment, and a sense of your character being a hero from the start, not some zero that had to plod his way to mediocrity some 3 levels later. Disposable heroes are great if you are hexcrawling or hack and slashing, but for campaign story arc it sucks for continuity and DM sanity.

And so far...everything I have heard and read is a regression to a time I HAPPILY left behind when I dumped D&D back in 2nd Edition, and to some extent, 3rd edition. At this point, WotC can count me out as a purchaser of D&DN. If I wanted a modular system, I have GURPS and HERO system. Heck, I have M&M available.

Do I think 4e is perfect...no. No system is perfect. But it suited my DM style and play style nearly to a "T". So I will check out 5e, but in the meantime, and for the easily foreseeable future, I will be running and playing 4e. Thank goodness for Hero Lab, C4, and everyone looking a fourthparty.

 

[pemerton]

For awhile I was a lapsed D&Der, having bolted to RoleMaster.

Me too. I GMed Rolemaster almost exclusively from 1990 to 2008.

 

[The Halfling]

So I started work on Martial classes

and I came to the realize that, for the most part, I think I like the Essentials concepts and designs more. Well, except for the fighter classes, they still bore me to tears. But the Ranger, Rogue and Assassin subclasses seem to be more interesting, especially the thief and executioner.

I came to use, more and more, the E-classes as my base. I still kept the AEDU structure though, but added a little flexibility to the D portion of the structure.

I'm not 100% satisfied with my current version...probably more like 65-70% content. But it's a start.

If anyone wants to see what I've done so far, send me a PM and I'll send a pdf. I really am looking for feedback at this point.

 

[The Halfling]

an update

Ok, so far I've gotten the Assassin, Herald, Pathfinder, Scoundrel, and Warrior worked up to Level 2. I want to get it completed to 5th level to allow for a good beginner set.

I've rethought a bit on how to utilize basic attacks in the power structure. I'm also a bit torn on whether I should expand the basic attack to other power sources, or to keep it as the schtick of the Martial power source.

As for the other powers sources, I thought that since Channel Divinity is the one recurring ability between the various divine classes, it should be the the defining property of the Divine power source. I envision allowing divine classes to sacrifice daily powers to enable additional uses of CD. I do something similar already in my new martial power classes.

Here's the wording I'm currently using for the Power Strike feature for my Warrior class to give an example of how it would work:

During an encounter, you may use the power strike attack power once for each daily power you have unexpended. Each time you choose to use power strike, you must select one unexpended daily power that will be unavailable for use during the remainder of the encounter. After a short rest, you regain the use of any unexpended daily powers. Power strike cannot be used if you do not have any unexpended daily powers.

The primary difference would be that a divine class would get on free use of CD, then can sacrifice dailys as needed during an encounter. But this is still in the brainstorming stage. I haven't looked to closely at the CD powers yet to see how unbalancing this ultimately would be.

Arcane and Primal are a bit less cohesive, and may not have an over-arching mechanic.

 

[cavalier973]

and I came to the realize that, for the most part, I think I like the Essentials concepts and designs more. Well, except for the fighter classes, they still bore me to tears. But the Ranger, Rogue and Assassin subclasses seem to be more interesting, especially the thief and executioner.

Interesting...from what I saw, the Essentials fighters freed the player in ways that Core rules didn't.

Suppose one wanted to play a knight that had high charisma (leader in battle, etc.). The player could take the "melee training" feat, and have attacks and damage based on charisma, and make STR a dump stat (well, not really, because the knight still has to wear armor). Rather than marking, the knight has an aura 1 defense feature, which I believe is more easily tracked.

The slayer is everything that a fantasy fighter is supposed to be. He can do both ranged and melee attacks, he's highly mobile, he does lots of damage, he's got cool weapon specializations (although its a shame they didn't do another "Heroes of..." book that added, say, a poleax slayer or a longbow slayer)

I will admit that the focus on the fighter having minor-action-activated stances that grant bonuses to basic attacks (both ranged and melee), rather than a variety of a/e/d powers may, indeed be less interesting. I don't necessarily agree that that makes the knight and slayer "boring" to play. At least it is more interesting than "I swing my sword at the monster."