D&D 4E The Dispensible 4E

[LostSoul]

First level 3e fighter can bull rush, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, power attack, cleave.

I don't see why any character can't do the first five options listed there.

 

[eamon]

Are you objecting to a "power up for pushing on" mechanic in general, or the details of milestone implementation? My group quite likes milestones, but I would agree that there could be other ways of doing something like it, including perhaps ways that were slightly more integrated into the way encounters are built and adjudicated (HeroQuest revised is a good example of this).

A little of both: I don't think it's really necessary (pushing on is usually advantageous in the story anyhow), and it's not well explained hence not very believable. Why are people getting stronger as they grow more tired? It's a little weird. Having said that, it's a pretty minor issue, I don't object to a power-up-for-pushing-on mechanic in the game if it makes others happy, it's just not really my thing.

As to the implementation, I find the milestone's dependence on encounters unfortunate. Particularly the once-every-two-encounters bit seems forced. I'd rather just have exclusive narrative control or just have one every encounter. Then again, I wouldn't mind removing actions points (at least optionally), at which point the most important part of a milestone is gone.

I'm hedging a bit here because I like a good gamist mechanic, but I don't like this kind of pure gamism without integration into the world and the storytelling. Instinctually, I'm thinking: keep it simple, and out of the base game (but in an optional module for those that like it - I really hope the modular aspect of 5e makes it ), but if well explained maybe they're OK after all.

 

[pemerton]

First level 3e fighter can bull rush, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, power attack, cleave.

I wasn't really responding to your claim about "more". I think that's extremely dependent on so many factors around encounter design and GM adjudication, as well as disputes about what counts as a distinct option, that I'm not sure it's measurable.

Power attack, for example, is a mechanical option but I'm not at all sure what it corresponds to in the fiction. It only has meaning within the constraints of D&D's attack roll/damage roll mechanics. A rational player would be able to solve the maths problem on any given occasion, meaning that in fact there is only one option - which except in some desperate circumstances, where you need to maximise your chances of delivering some minimally necessary damage (eg "If I don't kill it this round we will[ TPK/I]"), would be the option that maximises expected damage.

I was responding to your claim that "all the options are "I hit them harder" or "I upgrade a power from another level"". And I pointed to a range of fighter powers that are neither "I hit them harder" nor "I upgrade a power from another level".

As for skill challenges, I believe even the devs admitted their implementation was terrible. And I don't know how many times those things have been revised.

The revisions have been purely mathematical, and there have been two - the initial revision correcting the obviously stupid numbers in the DMG, and then the Essentials revision which tweaked the numbers back up a bit. But the bigger change in Essentials (but one which got much less fanfare) was to change the XP rules so that taking part in a failed skill challenge still earns XP. That is the first time I'm aware of that D&D has given XP for failing in an encounter.

Anyway I'm a bit surprised it took so much effort for them to get the maths right - it's only upper high school combinatorics - but in my view that's not where the real action is for skill challenges. The real questions, as I see them, are (i) will D&Dnext permit failures to earn XP, or will it go back to tje traditional D&D approach of "failure is not an option", (ii) whether or not D&Dnext will have scene-based conflict resolution mechanics, and if so (iii) how they are to work (in particular, should they be "players roll all the dice").

 

[erleni]

First level 3e fighter can bull rush, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, power attack, cleave. But people will inevitably bring up the difficulty using those untrained, so let's check out some other stuff.

But let's take an actual usuable build, shall we?
Human Fighter 6:
1ower Attack, Cleave, Improved Bull Rush
2:Combat Expertise
3:Improved Trip
4:Another feat
6:Shock Trooper

So this build gives us plenty of options. We can use power attack. We can use combat expertise. We can trip dudes. We can bull rush dudes forward or sideways if that's important for some weird reason. We can domino charge, tripping two dudes at once. We can hit guys super hard with our greatsword. We can charge and apply power attack penalties to our AC. If we're using more dumpster diving, we could tack on silly intimidate tricks. And we still have a feat to add more options. That's quite easily the equal of a 4e fighter, and if we start multiclassing we get even more options.

As for skill challenges, I believe even the devs admitted their implementation was terrible. And I don't know how many times those things have been revised.

Compare it with a 4e fighter that has 2 at-wills, two encounter powers, two dailies and two utility powers before we start looking into actions like charging and into feats. There's no question about the 4e fighter having more flexibility. Look at Come and Get It. Many people hate that power but it surely gives an interesting opportunity to a 4e fighter that a 3e one will never have (unless it is actually a Warblade, the only interesting fighter in 3e).

 

[talok55]

Well I'd like to have tactically meaningful games, when you just reduce the defenses to me at least it starts to screw with the assumed balance of how long things should last. So in my experience I usually have to increase HP just to get a meaningful fight if I lower defenses.

Quite frankly, the last thing you need to worry about in 4E combat is it being too short. What you do have to worry about is the boredom that comes with the "Is this ever going to end" feeling that is rampant in 4E. I would think lowering defenses would make combat length about right instead of too short.

 

[herrozerro]

Quite frankly, the last thing you need to worry about in 4E combat is it being too short. What you do have to worry about is the boredom that comes with the "Is this ever going to end" feeling that is rampant in 4E. I would think lowering defenses would make combat length about right instead of too short.

I think I said it above, I have a larger group, so lowering defenses to let everyone hit more is dangerous, the last time I had an interesting solo the party just focus fired it in 2 rounds. Didnt even get to do anything cool.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because dimension door is totally a nonmagical fighter power...oh, no, wait.

Try the slow fall, the running up walls, etc. The problem here is that 2e and 3e were both hamfisted enough to make everything itneresting into spells.

PHB1 warlock would like a talk with you - half it's powers were unusable

So you didn't pick them if you were the other types of warlock.

and it didn't deal striker level damage. As would PHB1 cleric, although it did get some good stuff.

Infernal warlocks actually could for most of heroic tier - Hellish Rebuke rocks. And feylocks were controllers more than strikers (although PHB1 controllers were a bit weak). I'm not going to attempt to defend the Starlock

The system didn't really support much on release, unlike 3.5.

I can argue that 3.5 didn't support the fighter or rogue on release (or indeed ever) because magic even when restricted to the PHB was just that much better.

The image line of spells are gone, making illusionist kinda blah.

Images took too long to show up - indeed it took until Essentials

Fighter has less options than 3.5, as all the options are "I hit them harder" or "I upgrade a power from another level".

You're simply wrong. We'll show this below.

Also the executioner is pretty damn bad conceptually, because chemical reactions only occur once per day. You know, it makes sense.

You go for pure simulationism? And no improvements for safety?

What? Are you serious? The warlord's entire schtick is that he inspires his allies to fight better.

The Warlord's schtick is that he inspires his allies to fight better without being a spellcaster.

Ok, so we're playing Oblivion with that stupid level scaling mechanic now.

No we aren't. We're assuming that you aren't daft enough to walk through the same kobold villiage four times. We're assuming that picking the lock in an orc-infested dungeon or in a villiage is what you expect a second level character to do - but either Mezzobaranan or the Royal Treasury is a fitting target for mid-paragon characters, and the locks there will be tougher.

The "level scaling mechanic" would make all doors at level 16 the door to the royal treasury. This would be bad DMing.

Especially when the monsters use the same fireball animation for more damage and a similar effect. Cool.

But they don't. That goblin over there remains a second level goblin whether you're first or tenth level (although a DM might turn him into a 10th level minion to keep the XP and challenge of the monster the same while allowing him to work as a challenge.

If the PCs at level 16 want to go beating up the same kobolds that drove them off at first level, the kobolds may be a little older but the numbers won't have changed.

Wait - the lack of skills is what doomed the 3e fighter? When the hell did anyone care about skills in 3e (besides UMD, knowledge,diplomacy, and a few others))?

And there's another way the 3.X skill system sucked. It was fiddly, confining, and irrelevant. The 4E skill system is none of the above.

But I meant doomed the fighter outside combat as being more than a porter. He was also doomed inside combat.

After about level 6-9 you can seriously fly all the time and don't care about climbing or jumping unless you're leap attack charging people.

After about level 6-9, if the wizard is feeling nice or you have the right items you can fly most of the time. For a character to get a fly at will is normally level 16 in 4e. The magic isn't so overwhelming as to render the skill system irrelevant. I see this as a plus.

By contrast, 4e is seriously "you don't get comparatively better, because we don't allow for real advancement."

And once more you're repeating a refuted point. You get quite a lot better. It's just you're assumed to go on to better things rather than keep playing in the kiddie pool.

First level 3e fighter can bull rush, trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, power attack, cleave. But people will inevitably bring up the difficulty using those untrained, so let's check out some other stuff.

But let's take an actual usuable build, shall we?
Human Fighter 6:
1ower Attack, Cleave, Improved Bull Rush
2:Combat Expertise
3:Improved Trip
4:Another feat
6:Shock Trooper

OK. And now let's take an actual usable 4e build. PHB only as a restriction just to make things interesting. And unlike you I'm sticking to level 1.

Human Fighter 1:
Grab, Bull Rush (both free).
At Will: Tide of Iron (There's your Improved Bull Rush - mine actually does damage)
At Will: Cleave (There's your cleave)
At Will (Human Bonus): Reaping Strike (And now for high accuracy)
Encounter 1: Spinning Sweep (And we can now trip)
Daily 1: Comeback Strike (self-protection - Combat Expertise equivalent).
Human Feat: Power Attack.
L1 Feat: Initiate of the Faith (because we've got it spare)

Trained skills: Athletics, Heal, Streetwise, Religion, Endurance.

So. We have a L1 PHB only build here. Yours isn't - you need Complete Warrior for Shock Trooper.

What can your build do that this can't?

1: Disarm
2: Sunder
3: Spam trips.
4: Domino Rush. Possibly also Heedless Charge.

What can mine do that yours can't?

1: Mark people
2: Combat Challenge
3: Bring people back into the fight from below 0HP (heal skill trained and healing word 1/day)
4: Force attacks through the enemy defences (Reaping Strike)
5: Skills.
6: Second Wind

So this build gives us plenty of options.... That's quite easily the equal of a 4e fighter, and if we start multiclassing we get even more options.[/quote]Sure. If you want a 1st level 4e fighter. If we're going up to 6th level and including Complete Warrior, I should probably take it to 7th level - giving me two utility powers (Unstoppable and defensive training), Rain of Steel, and Come and Get It - none of which you can match. And I'm still on the PHB and haven't selected feats.

You've gone all out for options with your fighter right down to a tactical feat as soon as you could. And I'm still more than matching you at level 1 in combat. Out of combat I have the equivalent to the following skills

Climb, Jump, Swim, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Heal, Endurance, Knowledge (Religion). 40 skill points.

 

[Hussar]

Quite frankly, the last thing you need to worry about in 4E combat is it being too short. What you do have to worry about is the boredom that comes with the "Is this ever going to end" feeling that is rampant in 4E. I would think lowering defenses would make combat length about right instead of too short.

"Rampant" is perhaps a tad strong.

One of the major issues here is that people ignored the DMG when designing encounters. Yup, if you use 5 Level=Par soldiers as an encounter, it's going to take bloody forever. But, if you look at the 4e DMG encounter design guidelines, the first thing you'll see is that that encounter is a poorly designed encounter.

That encounter should be 1xLevel +1 or +2 soldier with 5 or 6 Level -2 skirmishers/artillery. That makes for a pretty quick encounter with virtually no grind. Maybe even trade out one of the smaller critters for a handful of minions to make it interesting.

Grind is sometimes the fault of the system. Totally agree. Solos, particularly pre-MM3 are brutal for that. Takes frigging FOREVER to get through the encounter. But, DM's have to wear some of the blame here too for not actually bothering to read the DMG and look at the encounter design guidelines.

And, unfortunately, I'd place some of the blame here on WOTC as well because there's more than a few Dungeon adventures, particularly in the early running, where the guidelines were ignored. But, you'll get no argument from me if you want to criticise early digital Dungeon adventures.

 

[WarlockLord]

Try the slow fall, the running up walls, etc. The problem here is that 2e and 3e were both hamfisted enough to make everything itneresting into spells.

So you didn't pick them if you were the other types of warlock.



Infernal warlocks actually could for most of heroic tier - Hellish Rebuke rocks. And feylocks were controllers more than strikers (although PHB1 controllers were a bit weak). I'm not going to attempt to defend the Starlock

I can argue that 3.5 didn't support the fighter or rogue on release (or indeed ever) because magic even when restricted to the PHB was just that much better.

Images took too long to show up - indeed it took until Essentials

You're simply wrong. We'll show this below.

You go for pure simulationism? And no improvements for safety?

The Warlord's schtick is that he inspires his allies to fight better without being a spellcaster.

No we aren't. We're assuming that you aren't daft enough to walk through the same kobold villiage four times. We're assuming that picking the lock in an orc-infested dungeon or in a villiage is what you expect a second level character to do - but either Mezzobaranan or the Royal Treasury is a fitting target for mid-paragon characters, and the locks there will be tougher.

The "level scaling mechanic" would make all doors at level 16 the door to the royal treasury. This would be bad DMing.

But they don't. That goblin over there remains a second level goblin whether you're first or tenth level (although a DM might turn him into a 10th level minion to keep the XP and challenge of the monster the same while allowing him to work as a challenge.

If the PCs at level 16 want to go beating up the same kobolds that drove them off at first level, the kobolds may be a little older but the numbers won't have changed.

And there's another way the 3.X skill system sucked. It was fiddly, confining, and irrelevant. The 4E skill system is none of the above.

But I meant doomed the fighter outside combat as being more than a porter. He was also doomed inside combat.

After about level 6-9, if the wizard is feeling nice or you have the right items you can fly most of the time. For a character to get a fly at will is normally level 16 in 4e. The magic isn't so overwhelming as to render the skill system irrelevant. I see this as a plus.

And once more you're repeating a refuted point. You get quite a lot better. It's just you're assumed to go on to better things rather than keep playing in the kiddie pool.



OK. And now let's take an actual usable 4e build. PHB only as a restriction just to make things interesting. And unlike you I'm sticking to level 1.

Human Fighter 1:
Grab, Bull Rush (both free).
At Will: Tide of Iron (There's your Improved Bull Rush - mine actually does damage)
At Will: Cleave (There's your cleave)
At Will (Human Bonus): Reaping Strike (And now for high accuracy)
Encounter 1: Spinning Sweep (And we can now trip)
Daily 1: Comeback Strike (self-protection - Combat Expertise equivalent).
Human Feat: Power Attack.
L1 Feat: Initiate of the Faith (because we've got it spare)

Trained skills: Athletics, Heal, Streetwise, Religion, Endurance.

So. We have a L1 PHB only build here. Yours isn't - you need Complete Warrior for Shock Trooper.

What can your build do that this can't?

1: Disarm
2: Sunder
3: Spam trips.
4: Domino Rush. Possibly also Heedless Charge.

What can mine do that yours can't?

1: Mark people
2: Combat Challenge
3: Bring people back into the fight from below 0HP (heal skill trained and healing word 1/day)
4: Force attacks through the enemy defences (Reaping Strike)
5: Skills.
6: Second Wind

So this build gives us plenty of options.... That's quite easily the equal of a 4e fighter, and if we start multiclassing we get even more options.

Sure. If you want a 1st level 4e fighter. If we're going up to 6th level and including Complete Warrior, I should probably take it to 7th level - giving me two utility powers (Unstoppable and defensive training), Rain of Steel, and Come and Get It - none of which you can match. And I'm still on the PHB and haven't selected feats.

You've gone all out for options with your fighter right down to a tactical feat as soon as you could. And I'm still more than matching you at level 1 in combat. Out of combat I have the equivalent to the following skills

Climb, Jump, Swim, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Heal, Endurance, Knowledge (Religion). 40 skill points.[/QUOTE]

There's so much wrong with the fighter rebuttal I don't know where to begin. Rain of Blows: BAB 6. I can make two attacks too. You just argued that that's an option I can't match, and it's hardcoded into the system. Throw Goad in for the 4th level feat and we've got marking covered.

As for skills, I can take Use Magic Device cross-class and it gives me more options than 4e's entire system. Mimics all your powers quite nicely, and then some. I can use my other 12 skill points and buy qute a bit. Sure Strike is inverse power attack. You can't bull rush multiple squares.

And I note you felt you had to multiclass for more options. Don't go there, I can seriously throw rogue, cleric, barbarian, and ranger on this guy for even more options and if we abandon core warblade and crusader multiclasses blow you out of the water. Don't go there. You will lose.

And lastly, I can do all this until I run out of hit points (sans UMD of course). You're limited by encounter and daily limits.

As for warlord not being a spellcaster, I fail to see how nonmagical powers make people mysteriously move faster and hit harder. You could make an argument for that being magic or non-magic. Magic is modeled with spells. These spells give a morale bonus. Warlords inspire morale. The spells are mechanics which can be overridden with fluff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There's so much wrong with the fighter rebuttal I don't know where to begin. Rain of Blows: BAB 6. I can make two attacks too. You just argued that that's an option I can't match, and it's hardcoded into the system. Throw Goad in for the 4th level feat and we've got marking covered.

As for skills, I can take Use Magic Device cross-class and it gives me more options than 4e's entire system. Mimics all your powers quite nicely, and then some. I can use my other 12 skill points and buy qute a bit. Sure Strike is inverse power attack. You can't bull rush multiple squares.

And I note you felt you had to multiclass for more options. Don't go there, I can seriously throw rogue, cleric, barbarian, and ranger on this guy for even more options and if we abandon core warblade and crusader multiclasses blow you out of the water. Don't go there. You will lose.

And lastly, I can do all this until I run out of hit points (sans UMD of course). You're limited by encounter and daily limits.

As for warlord not being a spellcaster, I fail to see how nonmagical powers make people mysteriously move faster and hit harder. You could make an argument for that being magic or non-magic. Magic is modeled with spells. These spells give a morale bonus. Warlords inspire morale. The spells are mechanics which can be overridden with fluff.

Where to begin is by showing that you grock 3.X about as well as you grock 4e.

First, and most trivially, Rain of Steel is not Rain of Blows. Rain of Blows does multiple attacks and yes, you were right that Rain of Blows is nothing serious conceptually. Rain of Steel on the other hand is a fifth level daily stance that does [1W] damage to anyone who starts their turn adjacent to the fighter - a 4e fighter intent on mayhem is dangerous to be near. You're not getting close just by doing an extra attack.

Second, you equate multiclassing in 4e with multiclasing in 3.X. The two are fundamentally different. In 3.X when you multiclass you spend a level not advancing as a fighter. In 4e you gain a few tricks from the other class but are still all you started with.

And yes, multiclassing away from fighter makes for a better fighter. This is a damning indictment on the fighter class that the best way to be a fighter is ... not be a fighter. (Change your fighter 6 to a Ranger 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 and you've spent the two feats you weren't using, one hit point, and two points of will save (the only important part) to gain one hell of a lot - 24 skill points (!), uncanny dodge, rage, and more. Or you can just be a cleric to be a tougher and better fighter than the 3.X fighter would ever be. I wouldn't presume to challenge this assertion. 4e has no class as strong and versatile as the 3.X cleric. Thank goodness. Once again this shows how weak the 3.X fighter is.

As for UMD, you can buy four ranks in it at level 6. The lowest target number is 20 and you can't take 10. Unless your DM has been incredibly generous and allowed you a ring to boost your UMD, a UMD of +5 or so isn't going to be that useful.

But this brings us on to the elephant in the room. The overwhelming nature of 3.X magic. At level 7 you can't do much more than you could at level 6 or even at level 1. On the other hand the cleric and wizard each get three 4th level spells (assuming the wizard specialised). They've been ignoring spell resistance to turn the enemy into chumps since level 3 (glitterdust) and been flying since level 5. And you are still a guy waving around a sharpened piece of metal.

Even at simple melee the druid's got a Brown Bear for an animal companion who's attacking at +11 (pretty close to you) to both do damage and start a grapple using his large size and strength 27 plus a large size bonus. With 51hp he can take a pretty serious pounding (even if his AC sucks) - your hp aren't vastly different.

The 3.X fighter is tier 5 in a game with tier 1 classes. Magic in 4e is much less overwhelming (although definitely there and flexible), meaning that every single class in 4e is either tier 3 or tier 4. The option for the fighter to grapple at around +15 (assuming Improved Grapple and Str 18) might be there - but isn't that great an option when put along side the druid's animal companion grappling at +16 while the Druid himself does something else - or the wizard using Evard's Black Tentacles at +19 across a wide area.

As for " I fail to see how nonmagical powers make people mysteriously move faster and hit harder" - have you ever heard of morale? The problem with faking a warlord with a cleric (and why I told you you'd be doing much better to use a bard) is that clerics prepare spells. That's where the break happens. That and channelling energy. Bards, as spontaneous casters, don't. Which means that with the right spell selection it's entirely possible to just have things that the bard thinks are tricks.

That said, I think that 3.X becomes a much better game when restricted so that the most powerful casting class in the game is the bard - and then opened up to the Book of 9 Swords. And the rogue being replaced by the PF equivalent (or preferably a back-conversion of the 4e essentials thief but that would actually take work). Hmm... maybe that should be my next class design project...