4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[TwoSix]

You mark the internet until the end of your next turn.

On that note, I will now move away and attack at range.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am certainly biased, but IMO, one of the best arguments in favor of 4e is the quality and class of its proponents.

I sort of agree with that, actually.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, there's a couple extra conversations going on at once, in regards to paladins. The one I'm most interested in is the whole "4e doesn't punish you, it encourages you" thing. I think it's valid in one sense, in that there is a certain "carrot and the stick" thing going on, here. On the other hand, both the 3e and the 4e have mechanics that encourage you to act certain ways. In 4e, you have Valiant Strike, etc., and in 3e, you have the code, the aura (stay close to allies), turn undead (fight undead), and smite evil (fight against evil). There's definitely a theme in 3e, but I'm not sure it's "theme" in the sense that you use the word on these boards.

Well, again, not necessarily. It could be overconfident or arrogant (running into enemies you think you can handle). Or survivalist (I can fight harder when I'm surrounded, even if I don't run into it). Or guard-like (let myself get surrounded to keep things off other people). If it was "+1 to hit per adjacent enemy, but only if you charge" or something, I could see "valiant" or "arrogant" more strongly emphasized.

These might all seem "brave" in a sense, but, the thing is, while the power is encouraging you to take a particular action, it's not commenting on the motivation for that action. For example, take a Paladin with Valiant Strike, who is surrounded by 4 enemies that can move slightly faster than he can. He can move away (provoking attacks), and they can move after him. This might repeat over and over, and is a losing proposition for him. So, fight is smarter than flight, right now. He attacks with Valiant Strike, but it's not because he wants to stay; he simply attacks because running is suicide.

While Valiant Strike can definitely be used to show a form of bravery, I don't think the mechanic encourages anything more than a particular action -fighting multiple enemies. The motivations for engaging in that action are yet to be decided, and thus divorced from an inherent "theme". At least, that's how I see it.

I think he was saying that 3e and 4e were the same in this respect -they both encourage particular actions, giving you mechanical incentives to act in a particular way in-game when playing that class. 4e and Valiant Strike, 3e and fight evil, etc. As always, play what you like

I think my problem is the inflexibility of the older approach. You got exactly one interpretation of holy warrior and if you didn't like it, well you weren't one anymore. Ouch. It was the problem with the whole proscriptive design concept from the start. Everything was defined by what it wasn't. Yes, your 3e paladin has some "fight evil" powers, the most defining characteristic is that he can't do this or that or the other thing. I don't really agree that the 4e classes powers and features don't reinforce the RP either. Sure, you can come up with some fairly stretched logic that "oh, you're not brave, you're just foolish!" etc, but I can as easily play a 3e paladin as some that's stuck with a curse! Neither one really makes a lot of sense. If you carry it too far then someone can always just denigrate ANY mechanics on that sort of basis. What's the point of "Your wizard isn't really a master of magic, he's just a lucky poser!" I mean those could be fun off-label character concepts, but they aren't a reasonable basis for criticism of the mechanics or flavor of a class.

He also has limits on the magic items he can keep, he has to tithe, and he has a noticeably slower XP advancement table, on top of some other behavioral requirements. So it's not like he's really better in every single respect to a fighter. He's better in some ways but pays for it in others. It's not appropriate to try to say, from a game theoretic perspective, that the paladin dominates the fighter in every way because there are ways in which the fighter's lot is better than the paladin's.

Yeah, right, those restrictions mean a lot. Really? First of all the Paladin can have all the magic he NEEDS, and exactly how many PCs have a whole lot more than that? You can have armor (can't use more than one of this), a shield (ditto), FOUR weapons, and 4 other items. Sorry, but I don't recall any character in any of my games approaching that, let alone a paladin being in danger of needing to give away anything non-trivial (and consumables aren't really defined, do potions count?). Given how expensive magic items are (except in 2e where costs aren't well defined) the treasure restrictions never seemed that onerous either. You can always keep most wealth in your items (and most PCs do so anyway in my experience). The other (RP) restrictions are the whole nut of the thing, sure they're a disadvantage if you trigger them, otherwise they don't do anything. The benefits of being a paladin in 1e for instance are VERY cool. The restrictions don't come close to balancing them out. It is just not really a great design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I other (RP) restrictions are the whole nut of the thing, sure they're a disadvantage if you trigger them, otherwise they don't do anything. The benefits of being a paladin in 1e for instance are VERY cool. The restrictions don't come close to balancing them out. It is just not really a great design.

Given how well it worked in so many groups, once again I think pegging it as bad design is applying your own preferences to it. It is good design for a certain kind of game. You may not think it balanced out, but my years of direct observation are that it did for my group and most people I knew. Playing a paladin was not easy. Having to operate within the limits of a code, does limit their options and that is a disadvantage. I always felt the limitations on them balanced out what they got.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Given how well it worked in so many groups, once again I think pegging it as bad design is applying your own preferences to it. It is good design for a certain kind of game. You may not think it balanced out, but my years of direct observation are that it did for my group and most people I knew. Playing a paladin was not easy. Having to operate within the limits of a code, does limit their options and that is a disadvantage. I always felt the limitations on them balanced out what they got.

I think your rhetorical tactic of "your experience must be so atypical that it doesn't count, but mine is entirely mainstream" is weaksauce dude. It is utterly unconvincing and is a horrible debating tactic. Anyway, all I have to do is point to the number of complaints about the pre-4e class restriction mechanics (Paladin as poster-child) to make my point. Clearly MANY MANY people were not happy with the way the old approach worked. Consider all the evidence of this:

1) The complaints themselves
2) The perpetual watering-down of the restrictions over time and efforts to skirt them
3) The very existence of a different design in the form of 4e

Seriously, I have DMed D&D games since like 1975 or 76. I think I'm qualified to state that problems with these sorts of mechanics, workarounds, debates, and alternative proposals have been a staple feature of D&D community discussion the whole time. Like what you want, but can the "I know best what the community likes" nonsense, it doesn't fly.

 

[Remathilis]

Because 4e was not designed from an in-universe perspective; it was designed from an out-of-universe perspective. If you ask yourself about a design limitation in previous editions, you can probably explain something from an in-character perspective. In 4e, the answer to any question about a design decision is "because it's not balanced."

I think its not "balance" per se that drove some of 4e's weapon/armor, it was aesthetic. Simply put, they wanted to make certain classes "look" different and the best way to do that was to artificially limit his weapons and armor (and by limit, we mean have class features and powers not work with non-sactioned gear). It was done to create a clear visual key to artists, miniature makers, etc.

Large weapon and scale mail? Fighter
Leather armor and bow or two blades? Ranger
Simple weapon and chainmail? Cleric
Hide armor and large weapon? Barbarian
Leather armor and crossbow? Rogue
Heavy blade and Plate? Paladin

Granted, some of these began to double up (invokers and clerics share the same wp/armor, IIRC, as do barbarians and wardens) but 4e was very adamant you weren't supposed to wear plate if your a fighter, have a bow if your a rogue, wear metal armor if your a barbarian, or any armor if your an avenger. (If the errata for such things were any indication).

It was just one more place 4e was keen on dictating that a certain class had a certain playstyle and Thou Shall Not derive from it because WotC knows best.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because 4e was not designed from an in-universe perspective; it was designed from an out-of-universe perspective. If you ask yourself about a design limitation in previous editions, you can probably explain something from an in-character perspective. In 4e, the answer to any question about a design decision is "because it's not balanced."

You actually have this precisely backwards in the rogue's case. There is literally no balance reason for a rogue not to be able to use a shortbow (a +2/1d8 weapon) when including rogue weapon talent they have access to ranged weapons that are +4/1d4 (dagger) and +3/1d6 (shuriken). The answer is obvious when you look at the rogue's weapon list, however, and is a pure in-universe choice. The rogue's weapons are the following in the PHB: The dagger, the hand crossbow, the shortsword, the shuriken, and the sling. With the arguable exception of the pistol crossbow, every single one of those weapons is concealable. The short bow on the other hand is normally about the length between the bottom of someone's sternum and the ground - unless you're wearing Highlander-style trenchcoats and have Highlander style plot exemption for carrying katanas, there is no way you are going to be able to carry a bow that is longer than your legs around with you without it being spotted and without affecting your walk. The rogue's weapons list has everything to do with in universe justification - what can you carry without being spotted?

And the fighter not wearing plate - I'd argue that +1 armour class for -2 armour check penalty is balanced. So this can't be a balance issue either. It therefore must be intended to reinforce the thematics somehow. And it does this two ways. The first way is that it makes plate armour special without making plate armour ridiculously expensive. In 3.X plate armour was rare and special because it cost 1650GP (did anyone who could afford plate armour not have masterwork plate?) In 4e they wanted to make first level paladins able to be knights in shining armour, so plate armour is officially cheap enough to be bought by a first level PC. On the other hand they wanted to make plate armour rare and special - and couldn't do it through financial cost (a silly way given the D&D economy in any edition). So they did it through opportunity cost - if it (a) costs a feat to wear plate armour even for a fighter and (b) isn't actually better than scale (remember that -2 armour check penalty) so isn't worth the feat then plate armour will be rare and special. And Paladins will get to be our Knights in Shining Armour.

In neither of these cases is "because it's not balanced" even close to being accurate. Both of [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]' requests are requests for things that are balanced mechanically - but in one case there's a good in-universe reason to not have them (concealment) and in the other it's thematics and worldbuilding.

Of course I'd argue that neither was a good design decision, but for different reasons. The rogue's ability to use a rapier with a feat undermines this theme and both the club and the staff are concealable (or rather the staff can be hidden in plain sight); I'd have had an explicit "Rogue weapon expansion" feat in the PHB if doing all this again, to make this obvious. And the plate armour issue comes under the heading of "Game designers trying to be too clever by half and not explaining why". Something responsible for a lot of problems.

If I were re-writing the rogue weapon proficiencies from the PHB, I'd probably just add the following:

Rogue Weapon Expansion (proposed feat)
Most rogues only carry weapons they can conceal easily, but whether for cultural reasons or through sheer flair you can carry your choice of weapon openly. Gain proficiency with either all simple weapons, or any one one handed martial weapon. You may add this to your rogue's weapon list (and therefore use it with sneak attack and any applicable rogue powers) although a versatile weapon must be wielded in one hand to do sneak attack damage.

Rogue Weapon Master (proposed feat)
Pre-requisite: Rogue Weapon Expansion
Your favoured disguise is that of a warrior, and there's nothing quite like hiding in plain sight. You gain proficiency with all simple and martial weapons and add them to your rogue's weapon list (therefore using them with sneak attack and any applicable rogue powers). When wielding a non-simple weapon in two hands lower your sneak attack damage by 1d6 - this replaces the restriction on versatile weapons for Rogue Weapon Expansion. Further, any weapons the rogue gains proficiency in through superior weapon training feats become rogue weapons.

Shortbow: A rogue may gain proficiency with the shortbow through the Rogue Weapon Expansion feat. Using a shortbow does not lower your sneak attack damage if you also have Rogue Weapon Master.
Whip, Net, Parrying Dagger, Bolas, Talenta Boomerang, Xen'drik Boomerang: The rogue may select the [] as a weapon with the Rogue Weapon Expansion feat
Garrotte: The rogue is automatically proficient with the garrotte.
Kusari-Gama, Spiked Chain: The rogue may select a [] with the Rogue Weapon Expansion feat despite it being a two handed weapon. If they do so, lower sneak attack damage by 1d6.
​

Why yes, at the price of three feats the rogue can wield an executioner's axe. And this is balanced - the rogue weapon restrictions have everything to do with theme.

​

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, is the paladin thing beaten to death? How about a slight diversion? What about rangers? How did AD&D style design work there? Seemed to me like there were some things that were OK, but a lot of puzzlement. Looking at the restrictions:

1) Must be good - What? There are no woodland scout type guys that aren't good? I have no idea why this restriction exists, except as purely a counterweight to the class's better features vs a fighter. It lacks even the logic of reinforcing a specific trope the class is designed for. I mean Paladin by its nature refers to a good guy, 'woodland warrior' has no such connotations.

2) May not hire servants/men-at-arms before 8th level. Again, what is this reinforcing? It certainly seems to be aimed again at balancing the class. It may also force you to be a loner, but I don't understand the whole reason for that, since it doesn't fit the general archetype in any consistent way.

3) No more than 3 rangers may ever associate together. Again, I can't see what this is doing. It is a virtually meaningless restriction anyway, but why if the ranger is supposed to be a lone operator does this only apply to other rangers?

4) The 'travel light' restriction. Why does this need to be a rule?

So, we have one restriction that seems to have no basis in anything, 2 that are aimed at making you a loner, but again this isn't consistently an aspect of the archetype, and a restriction that has little meaningful effect.

The BENEFITS are also a bit of an odd lot. Some of them like the ESP benefit seem to be nothing but nods to Aragorn. Others make sense, but I never understood the magic user spells or the giant class creature bonus. They aren't BAD, and at the level of development of rules systems that AD&D was at (all options hard-coded, sub-classes very rigid on top of broad archetype base classes) its unremarkable.

BUT if we compare this with the 4e ranger there are surely interesting contrasts. The 1e ranger is more flexible in terms of fighting styles. The lack of restrictions is nice though. Where the 1e ranger is only doing one very specific thing the 4e one can handle a lot more of the underlying archetype. As usual a lot of the 1e version's limitations feel to me like they should be choices for the player to make and the advantages plus disadvantages of 1e class design was overly limiting. The 4e ranger is no better than the other classes and thus doesn't have to have some "you're a loner or else!" wedged in, it can be an RP option for the player to explore (or not as the case may be).

The other thing with the 1e ranger was IMHO beyond the "you must RP this way" stuff it didn't capture a lot of useful conceptual space. For instance why can only rangers track? The whole design of 4e lends well to a slew of different character concepts. Comparisons to 3.5 might be more useful here, but basically with 3.5 why take ranger over fighter unless you want the specific class features? You have plenty of feats and PrCs and etc to use to provide your fighter with mechanical color. I was never sure what the point of most of the more specific subclasses was in 3.x. You can graft stuff onto the fighter, like a few druid levels and tracking. This makes the restrictions of the ranger especially odd in 3.x as there seem few reasons to put up with them and they can easily be pretty out of place in many of the characters the system lets you construct. The 1e ranger is thematically cohesive, the 3e one's features seem like they'd be better as selectable options for fighters.

 

[Dragoslav]

It was just one more place 4e was keen on dictating that a certain class had a certain playstyle and Thou Shall Not derive from it because WotC knows best.

That's why there are a plethora of feats that let people give their Fighters plate mail or otherwise deviate from the default playstyle, right?

"A certain class [has] a certain playstyle and Thou Shall Not derive from it because [the designers] know best" can literally be said about every single edition of D&D, most strongly in 1e and with less truth behind it in each successive edition, and it's least true in 4e. You could say, "Why are wizards only proficient in certain weapons in 3e?" or, even better, "Why do all clerics in 3e wear medium armor and wield martial weapons? That's not the kind of cleric I want to play!"*

To the extent that classes in 3e allow for more flexibility in style, it's because they each have one single default theme that "Thou Shalt Not deviate from." If you want to be a wilderness skirmisher, you have to play a ranger, and if you play a ranger then you are a wilderness warrior -- oh, and you also have to focus on two-weapon fighting or ranged weapons or else you're wasting some class features.

In 4e, however, while classes have a default flavor, they -- like every other mechanical element in the game -- are encouraged to be reflavored. If you take away the default flavor, then you just have different builds that provide you the mechanics for different playstyles. Want to be an armored, but mobile warrior who fights best in the middle of the field? Good, pick the fighter class and you're all set. Want to play an archer fighter? Pick the "ranger" class, call yourself a fighter, don't take skill training in the nature skill, and take the most powerful ranged weapon powers. Want to be a heavily armored warrior who sacrifices mobility for defense? Pick the fighter class, specialize in sword & shield, and pick the plate armor proficiency feat; or pick the "paladin" class and reflavor the Divine buffs/debuffs as the effects of your imposing presence.

*(I'm only singling out 3e here because it's the only pre-4e edition with which I have first-hand experience, or else I'd provide examples from 1e and 2e)

 

[billd91]

So, is the paladin thing beaten to death? How about a slight diversion? What about rangers? How did AD&D style design work there? Seemed to me like there were some things that were OK, but a lot of puzzlement. Looking at the restrictions:

1) Must be good - What? There are no woodland scout type guys that aren't good? I have no idea why this restriction exists, except as purely a counterweight to the class's better features vs a fighter. It lacks even the logic of reinforcing a specific trope the class is designed for. I mean Paladin by its nature refers to a good guy, 'woodland warrior' has no such connotations.

2) May not hire servants/men-at-arms before 8th level. Again, what is this reinforcing? It certainly seems to be aimed again at balancing the class. It may also force you to be a loner, but I don't understand the whole reason for that, since it doesn't fit the general archetype in any consistent way.

3) No more than 3 rangers may ever associate together. Again, I can't see what this is doing. It is a virtually meaningless restriction anyway, but why if the ranger is supposed to be a lone operator does this only apply to other rangers?

4) The 'travel light' restriction. Why does this need to be a rule?

So, we have one restriction that seems to have no basis in anything, 2 that are aimed at making you a loner, but again this isn't consistently an aspect of the archetype, and a restriction that has little meaningful effect.

The BENEFITS are also a bit of an odd lot. Some of them like the ESP benefit seem to be nothing but nods to Aragorn. Others make sense, but I never understood the magic user spells or the giant class creature bonus. They aren't BAD, and at the level of development of rules systems that AD&D was at (all options hard-coded, sub-classes very rigid on top of broad archetype base classes) its unremarkable.

BUT if we compare this with the 4e ranger there are surely interesting contrasts. The 1e ranger is more flexible in terms of fighting styles. The lack of restrictions is nice though. Where the 1e ranger is only doing one very specific thing the 4e one can handle a lot more of the underlying archetype. As usual a lot of the 1e version's limitations feel to me like they should be choices for the player to make and the advantages plus disadvantages of 1e class design was overly limiting. The 4e ranger is no better than the other classes and thus doesn't have to have some "you're a loner or else!" wedged in, it can be an RP option for the player to explore (or not as the case may be).

The other thing with the 1e ranger was IMHO beyond the "you must RP this way" stuff it didn't capture a lot of useful conceptual space. For instance why can only rangers track? The whole design of 4e lends well to a slew of different character concepts. Comparisons to 3.5 might be more useful here, but basically with 3.5 why take ranger over fighter unless you want the specific class features? You have plenty of feats and PrCs and etc to use to provide your fighter with mechanical color. I was never sure what the point of most of the more specific subclasses was in 3.x. You can graft stuff onto the fighter, like a few druid levels and tracking. This makes the restrictions of the ranger especially odd in 3.x as there seem few reasons to put up with them and they can easily be pretty out of place in many of the characters the system lets you construct. The 1e ranger is thematically cohesive, the 3e one's features seem like they'd be better as selectable options for fighters.

For my tastes, the 1e ranger is the best version out there, a pretty clear nod to his literary inspirations. Hands down, my favorite class in the edition, restrictions and all. That said, the 3.5 and PF versions are also quite good, from a thematic standpoint with powers that work well together. Both the 3.0 and especially 2e (a serious black mark against an otherwise great edition) fell short.

I will admit that of the 4e stuff I seriously investigated (first 3 core books), I think the ranger is the brightest spot in an otherwise disappointing offering. Most of the combat powers are straightforward, they generally uphold a scope similar to previous editions (while the fighter noticeably narrows, for example), and their utility powers offer a good set of options for well-themed, non-combat, general adventuring. By comparison, the class I actually played most in 4e, the rogue, was a fairly pathetic also-ran. But while a black mark or two wasn't enough to get me to reject 2e or 3.0, a rare bright spot or two wasn't enough to get me to like 4e.