A really long honest post (would appreciate if you would also discuss my opinions)

[Arlough]

I'm a 3.5/PF player through and through.

You ain't whistlin' Dixie. :-D

I do agree that the sorcerer needs their own schtick. I may not agree 4e got it right, but I can fully agree they need to be different than wizards. Honestly? I'd rather they never had warlocks and instead made the sorcerer similiar to how Warlocks turned out. A blaster with some general type spell effects (useable more, but less powerful) but a lot of pure magical blasty goodness.

I'm with you there. The Sorcerer in 3.X was too somewhat-wizard. The Sorcerer in 4e was initially too powerful, and depending on what build you chose, too specifically designed for a certain build, or too much random crap to keep track of with no real value-add.

The 4e Warlock (I never played the 3.X version, so I can't comment) has a nice built in premise, but that was all fluff. The Fey Warlock was, initially, a much better controller than the Wizard (who was really just an area striker) and had the blast stuff, but his extra blast mechanic as somewhere between weird and cumbersome. OTOH, that combo of Striker/Controller made him feel, to me, more like a sorcerer than the sorcerer ever really did.

Now, the premise of a Warlock would make a great backdrop for one of those fighter-mages...

I also have no problem with druids being different than clerics. I don't think all of the classes require "power sources" but I would love to see unique spell lists for the different types, Druidic, clerical/divine, arcane, invocations, etc. and rarely (if ever) would they overlap.

I must admit, I liked that 4e pulled the demi-classes out of the extremes and made them viable, not-too-week/not-too-powerful classes. Even if the execution of some hampered their playability.

I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a REAL fighter-mage.

Whenever I think of a good fighter-mage, I always find myself looking a Jedi.
Not Lucas's poorly written ones, but, for example, the Jedi in the book Revenge of the Sith and the Mace Windu found in the Clone Wars on Wartoon Network (animated, not CGI).

6. Solo monsters. REALLY COOL. although it did suffer from flaws if the players stun-locked it. Great DM advices, especially Angry DM's advice on Boss Battles from God of War, really improved Solo battles to higher levels of fun, for the DM.

7. Minions, we just love them. although I houseruled them to be 2-hit KO versions.

I would be content if they dropped solos and replaced them with either the Angry DM's Boss Fights, or At-Will's Worldbreakers, or both.

And as for minions, I liked the concept of the orc that stepped in a gofer hole and went down, or the goblin that zigged when he should have zagged, but I didn't really feel that the minons as written expressed this. And, since if you had a wizard in your party they would just die immediately, they weren't good for adding tension, either.

So, again, conceptually good, executionally not as good.

So I made a rule where I took a regular monster, made it worth 1/3 XP; gave it HP, THP, and vulnerability-to-hits equal to its bloodied value. I called them minionized monster. This way a player could take it down in one hit, if they did its bloodied value in damage, but they would certainly take it down in two. Also, there was no way for the players to go "It's doing flat damage, it must be a minion." and I decided that they registered on Nature-dar (or whichever monster knowledge check was made) the exact same as the monster they were crafted from.

3. Multiclassing sucks. 3.5 had a cleaner way of doing it. Why can my 4e Rogue/Fighter/Wizard not pick powers from each class source every level-up? Why do i have to spend a feat just to swap a fighter power with a rogue power, when I could have used the feat for a better option?
Although, when Hybrid rules was released. I just said, 'at least they have this'.

Again, I liked the concept that you are still your base class, but that you can pick up skills from another class, but I didn't like the execution.
A feat and a power swap is costly, especially since you aren't getting the class features that would make that power good.
Paragon Multiclassing, 4 feats, 4 power swaps, and you sacrifice your Paragon Path, and you swap an at will, and you don't get any lvl 11 or 16 features?!?!? Completely ludicrous. I only ever managed to make one build in which Paragon Multi-Classing was advantageous. (Ultra battlefield controllery Fighter w/ Invoker Multiclass) Not that it was better than other options, even, simply that its benefits were worth the costs.

Finally, I agree on getting rid of all the wannabes. I didn't like that the Druid was a somewhat Cleric, the Bard (3.X) was a somewhat rogue, somewhat fighter, and somewhat mage, and was bad at all three. Either make them their own classes, or do multiclassing well and let us call our rogue-mage a Bard.

 

[Zaphling]

Really appreciated that some also agreed on my opinion. Would love to know from more people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1. Wizard Schools - I'm not sure if 4e really thought of not including them, or they forgot, since that is what they did with Essentials -tried to bring them back. 4e wizard schools are not even complete. They did not include Divination, Transmutation, and others that I forgot. Although I did like the addition of Nethermancy.

Transmutation was an overpowered mess. As, for that matter, was conjuration. And 4e divination is mostly the realm of ritualists. (Abjuration might be interesting in 4e).

2. Cleric domains

I think they tried with the Warpriest but didn't go for any of the interesting ones like trickery. The design space is there but not tapped.

Then comes Essentials with Warpriest, making the pre-Essential cleric obsolete.

The cleric is not obselete. Warpriests are kits on the cleric chassis and clerics will always have far more versatility than

3. Same feeling with Rogue tricks not interchangeable with 4e rogue at-wills.

The rogue and thief are very different implementations of the same concept. And the ability to tactical trick into sand in the eyes makes me wince as a concept.

Thing that DND never perfected, while Pathfinder hit it right in the kisser:

Mage-warriors

3.5 had Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Duskblade (seriously?)

4e had Swordmage, Bladesinger, and Hexblade

All of these boils down to one class concept, a mage-warrior. Why so many classes for a single concept? Why can't they stick to one only, and then use the variants as builds or archetypes for the class.

What on earth gives you the idea that mage-warrior is a single concept? The first question about any mage concept is "what type of magic". The second about any hybrid is where the balance is.

Let's look at Pathfinder's Magus class. Their only mage-warrior concept.

Indeed. Their only mage-warrior concept. In 4e it's pretty much conceptually equivalent to the Bladesinger. A spray of magic as you hit with the steel. The Magus is not a hexblade - and even using their bodygard version of the Magus it's not a swordmage either.

(Yes, there are things that the Magus can do that the 4e Bladesinger can't. Like more powerful magic).

Vancian is ONLY best for Wizards. That's how wizards became famous for.

YMMV

4. With the current playtest, you mean to say Druids will become Divine again. I'm crying right now, not really, but you get my point. 4e nailed the Primal magic source right in the kisser. They made them, their own. Not some cleric-wannabees.

I haven't normally replied when I've agreed - keep things short. But this has been quoted for truth.

Solos:
I think solo's are bad for the game. The idea was good - if you're going to have a solo monster, shouldn't he be capable to engage a whole party? - but the mechanics just don't fit most of the creatures that ended up getting that label. There's been this huge discussion about how to "fix" solos which ended up focusing on the mechanics, but I think the reasons solos had issues are intrinsic to what they are. If you're fighting a big ogre and a flask of acid blinds him, he's in huge trouble. You can come up with lots of mechanics that mechanically mitigate whatever the PC's throw at him, but in the end, it's ludicrous - how is this ogre doing all that, and how can this be an ogre at all? And if he can do it, why can't all the others, or even some of them? Some of the newer 4e solo's have 2 turns; how are they moving so much faster than anyone else like them?

Off the top of my head the solos that have two turns are the Tenbo (which is meant to move like greased lightning), Asmodeus, and the rest of the two headed brigade. (Calystrix, the three headed red dragon has three turns/round). It's not that they are moving faster - it's the split focus.

And most of the MM-published solos do fit the pattern of gaining the distinction of being solos through the fluff. The problem in my experience arises because many 4e modules are, to put things bluntly, poor. And so we get idiocies like goblin solo monsters.

Solos should definitely exist. Dragons should almost all be solos. So should purple wyrms, and quite a lot of other things. But there should be clear water between creatures that are solos and creatures that aren't.

The problem I have with the criticism is that when I read any of the six monster manuals (1-3, Dark Sun, MV, MV:NV), I see this as being almost too obvious to need spelling out. Apparently even WoTC module writers haven't always seen this. Which is a problem.

Edit: I normally use minions for two things. First constructs. They look good but shatter. And second people who probably shouldn't be in combat. The militia. The craftsmen rather than the warriors (the MM1 orc minion was an 'Orc Drudge' for a reason). Or even just warriors way out of their league.

 

[Raith5]

I agreed with most of your points (except missing save or die). I especially agree with your points about Cleric domains, Wizard school and warrior mages. I dont think 4th ed did any of these archetypes justice. When the DDN rules for characters are playtested the first thing I am going to do is see if I can roll up Elric!

 

[Stalker0]

I guess i got the title wrong. I wanted it to be discussed i mean.

Ask and you shall recieve, I changed it for you.

-Stalker0

 

[Arlough]

When the DDN rules for characters are playtested the first thing I am going to do is see if I can roll up Elric!

As in Elric Melinbone, the Kinslayer?! Or do you mean the Elric brothers, Edward and Alphonse?
[sblock=Rant]
There is a very good reason why it should be outside the normal rules to make characters like Elric, Gandalf, Gawain, Drizzt, Harry Dresden, Goku (DBZ), Ed (the emo guy from Twilight), James Bond, Hercules, Superman, or God.
These are all overpowered. They are like playing a game in Godmode. Sure, it can be fun not having to worry about the swarm chewing on your face, but with all the challenges gone, what is really the point? There are a great many stories about overcoming insurmountable odds, but not many about achieving easy things.
Hercules had 7 impossible tasks, that he accomplished! Batman takes on ninja armies, as a guy. Frodo defied a demi-god as a half-sized man who's lifetime accomplishments up till then were learning a foreign language and enjoying food. And Taran was an assistant pig keeper who overthrew a dread-lord king of the dead. Difficulty and impending failure is where the story lies, not in victory.[/sblock]
Rather than roll him up, just assign numbers and abilities, and go from there. Or, as a more interesting exercise, reverse engineer him and see what is the minimum you would need to do what he does in the books.

 

[Zaphling]

ask and you shall recieve, i changed it for you.

-stalker0

thanks. :d

 

[Zaphling]

I also added my thoughts on Two-weapon fighting in the main post.

 

[eamon]

[...] most of the MM-published solos do fit the pattern of gaining the distinction of being solos through the fluff. The problem in my experience arises because many 4e modules are, to put things bluntly, poor. And so we get idiocies like goblin solo monsters.

Solos should definitely exist. Dragons should almost all be solos. So should purple wyrms, and quite a lot of other things. But there should be clear water between creatures that are solos and creatures that aren't.

The idea of a solo is a good metagame concept. And I agree that the monsters in the MM's aren't as bad as those in the modules. But even in the MMs, there are just too many. Apparently their use is seductive - if a critter is terrifying, it must be a solo? For example, I'm not convinced a purple worm should be a solo. A terrifying overlevel monster, but not necessarily chock full of immunities required to make it interesting in a long, tactical battle. An elite, and one that's very dangerous if the adventures are unprepared or surprised - sure. But not necessarily a solo. I'd be much more inclined to use them as a random encounter if they weren't, for instance.

Even creatures that fight solo don't necessarily need built-in solo mechanics. Perhaps a demon lord summons lots of minions. Perhaps a dragon's lair is full of nasty surprises. Perhaps the lich has a bunch of contingency dweomers to avoid nasty PCs. I'd much rather that such a monster gains some of its power from the environment and encourages the module writer (or DM) to give it that, rather than giving the creature oddly standout abilities that scream "solo!" and let it carry the day on its own.

As you say, most creatures in the MM gained the distinction of being a solo via the fluff - and that's true - that doesn't avoid the problem that the resulting creatures are mostly recognizable as a solo and only secondarily recognizable as whatever their fluff represents. Put a new creature in front of a party and omit the fluff and they're likely to almost immediately notice it's a solo, but have much more trouble guessing what it's supposed to represent. The mechanics are too transparently metagame.

But the way the 5e playtest seems to have removed or strongly limited attack bonus scaling leads me to believe the distinction may be moot. I mean, if a solo is mostly just a creature that's more damaging and has more hitpoints, then the boundary between a standard, and elite and a solo is perhaps not so clearcut anymore. Which would greatly please me .

 

[Zaphling]

I also added these other points that I forgot.

7. I also missed the Two-weapon fighting mechanic in 3.5. 4e only gave the Ranger, Barbarian, and the Fighter this mechanic. Other classes doesn't have it. What if I want to become a dual katar Rogue like in the video games, or a hammer-and-axe paladin? Why can't I do this in 4e? It's a very viable class concept.

9. The Avenger. All they can do is wield a big weapon. Why can't I wield a great bow instead and focus on long ranged accurate attacks instead?
Why can't I also wield two-weapons, like dual scimitars? This is really a nice concept too, like a religious arabic zealot dervish.

10. Fighters are proficient with military ranged weapons (bows), BUT WHY CAN'T I FIND A SINGLE POWER THAT USES A BOW OR CROSSBOW???? Is it because the 'defender' role must be locked into melee? I thought the game allows us to soar with our imaginations, but this doesn't do that.
In lieu, with the fighter bow concept, why can't my Paladin, or should I say, the other defenders, have long ranged option?
They pretty much did this and it was awesome for the Warlord. although it is a Leader class, but using Strength for bows was possible for this class, why not with Fighters or Paladins as well?
This is a pretty strong advantage with Pathfinder against 4e. Fighters, Paladins, and the melee oriented classes have viable and strong options to become archers or crossbowmen. Their class abilities can also be interchangeable to work with long range weapons (try to read how they did this with the Paladin's smite. It was a solid rule).
So I hope WotC will put down their pride, assuming they won't ever borrow from Pathfinder, and adapt this concept.