4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Bedrockgames]

Okay. I am glad, but that was just an example and your experiences are not universal.

Sure. I acceot you might have run into this issue. My only point here is mny of us havent had these kinds of problems. So solutions that remove these things from the game have no utility for us. You are fixing a problem, that for us, doesn't exist.

 

[D'karr]

Again, you are taking your preference and your experience to decide this is bad design. Too many people have a different reaction to label it bad design.

I specifically called it "poor" design, not "bad" design. That was on purpose. If it can be done better, then I consider it "poor" if it was not done "better." Of course "good", "better", "bad" and "poor" are all subjective measures. I never said that my opinion is universal, or that it should be. I specifically said that I would prefer if it was done differently. That doesn't mean that everybody else needs to agree.

What 4E fans need to understand when they dismiss things as bad design is: there are different rubrics of good/bad design out there and not everyone shares their's.

I think that all "fans" should take some time to understand this. From what I've seen, 4e fans are not even remotely the ones exclusively applying labels.

I believe I was very clear about my "preferences" as I quote below:

If flavor is to "dictate" in any way, I want it to be broad enough, or unimportant enough that I can eliminate it or change it without having to put a lot of effort into it.

I don't see anywhere in there where I'm stating that universally my preference is more valid than those of anyone else. I stated what I want. Somebody else is completely free to want the same, or something else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I specifically called it "poor" design, not "bad" design. That was on purpose. If it can be done better, then I consider it "poor" if it was not done "better." Of course "good", "better", "bad" and "poor" are all subjective measures. I never said that my opinion is universal, or that it should be. I specifically said that I would prefer if it was done differently. That doesn't mean that everybody else needs to agree.



I think that all "fans" should take some time to understand this. From what I've seen, 4e fans are not even remotely the ones exclusively applying labels.

I believe I was very clear about my "preferences" as I quote below:


I don't see anywhere in there where I'm stating that universally my preference is more valid than those of anyone else. I stated what I want. Somebody else is completely free to want the same, or something else.

I think when you state something is poor design, you are pretty much making a universal claim.

 

[D'karr]

I think when you state something is poor design, you are pretty much making a universal claim.

I would recommend not reading too much into opinions, and preferences on internet forums. I talked about my opinion and specifically framed it as such, not some universal claim.

I guess that I should have a definition table with my posts:

I want - preference.
I'd prefer - preference
My assertion - opinion
I'd rather - preference
It don't want - preference
I think - opinion​

And that is just in a few paragraphs of what I wrote. If you took that to be a universal claim you are putting way more importance in my opinion than yours, and you are reading way more into what I said, than what I plainly said.

When I then go and clearly explain it in another additional post:

I don't see anywhere in there where I'm stating that universally my preference is more valid than those of anyone else. I stated what I want. Somebody else is completely free to want the same, or something else.

It seems pretty clear that at no point was I claiming some "universal" truth. What do I have to do, sign it in blood?

 

[Obryn]

Sure. I acceot you might have run into this issue. My only point here is mny of us havent had these kinds of problems. So solutions that remove these things from the game have no utility for us. You are fixing a problem, that for us, doesn't exist.

I haven't either, personally - but that's mostly because I've tried to work around it for my gaming career. That doesn't mean I think it's a good mechanic, or that D&D's alignments (and the ensuing discussions of them) have a positive effect on the game as a whole. In fact, I think its effect is profoundly negative.

I know you disagree - so my actual hope is that alignment can be fully modular.

I agree it's very hard to remove from pre-4e editions; I've tried, and around every corner I found something else which referenced alignment as a mechanic instead of flavor. It was obvious I was removing a system that has its tendrils in places it (IMO) had no business being in, in the first place. So I don't want it boiled into Next's system - worked into every mechanical nook & cranny like it was in 3.5 (specifically 3.5, not 3.0) where it even spilled into the DR system of all things. I'm not petty; the inclusion of things I don't like won't bother me, so long as they are easily ignored (and the rest of the game has enough to interest me).

-O

 

[D'karr]

I find the alignment restrictions fall into a similar bucket as the level restrictions for demihumans. In campaigns where you never reached those levels the restrictions were not really a restriction - therefore not a problem. In campaigns where the table had no problem with "opinions" of alignment the alignment restrictions pose no problem. But alignment has been one of the most debated, if not the most debated system in D&D since its inception. The fact that table A has never had a problem with the system says nothing about the viability of the system. It just says that table A has no problem with it. As soon as table B reports problems with it, then the system should, at least, be examined in light of the information from table B. If the system cannot be improved based on the information from table B, that's fair enough. It does not mean that it should not be looked at, with at least a critical eye. If it can be done better, then the game designer should try to make it better.

In matters of flavor, I prefer when the system is not mechanically restrictive and mostly stays out of the way. In that manner I can take or leave flavor and it doesn't impact my game (little to no work).

Example:
Race A is chaotic. Their outlook in life is chaotic. Their way of life is chaotic. Their system of government, if you can call it that, is chaotic. Monks can only be lawful.

Based on the flavor for a race, and a restrictive flavor mechanic I've closed up avenues for players to play what they want. The player has an RP flavor that he likes and wants to emulate (chaotic race). It fits well with his idea for the PC. Then he has a restriction that he can't play a monk, his favorite class. Why is the monk lawful? Is it a mechanical balancing issue? No, it's entirely a flavor issue. In this case flavor is dictating for flavor's sake, not because there is a good mechanical reason for it.

If the player wants to play a race A monk he has to be lawful. He likes the flavor of the race and has a good concept for his PC, but he can't play his desired class RAW.

If the DM is willing to work with it and lifts the restriction, no problem. But what if the DM does not like changing the rules? For whatever reason, asshattery to lack of experience? It doesn't matter what the reason, a flavor only restriction has now become a problem.

If on the other hand, the rules are silent on the alignment of a monk. However, there is a "flavor sidebar" that explains that some campaigns may decide to impose alignment restrictions to get certain flavor. This sidebar can show example of a lawful monk, a lawful good paladin, a chaotic rogue, a neutral druid, etc. There can be another sidebar that talks about enmity between certain races for flavor. In this case, the general rule is non-restrictive. The DM can consciously make it more restrictive, and the sidebar shows him some examples. But the player is not automatically prevented from his desired choices.

This is similar to "opting-in" to a particular option rather than being automatically forced to that option, with additional work if you want to opt-out.

 

[Manbearcat]

Backstab: Covered by the one shot sneak attack from multiclassing, a choice of stance: Aspect of the Lurking Spider (+2 Stealth, +5 to climb, +2 damage with combat advantage on a basic attack - shortbow or longsword) or even Aspect of the Dancing Serpent (+1 to hit and damage against isolated foes, a free shift at the end of your turn). This has, however, been nerfed from a L20 2e thief, but is a lot more reliable.

Scroll Use: I wish I could say I have this. Unfortunately it's the only sacrifice you've made other than numbers being slightly lower for being level 10 (there's a Martial Practice allowing you scroll use with your thievery skill but it's higher level).

Thieves' Cant: Secret language of thieves isn't in 4e.

Disguise: Specialty of Bluff - you're trained in bluff.

Ettiquette: Doesn't exist in 4e. Roll bluff to convince people you fit - you're trained in bluff.

Riding, Land: I specifically stayed away from nature abilities - and didn't take the mounted combat feat as I wasn't sure whether you used this as riding proficiency (everyone can ride) or for going above and beyond for riding in combat and trick riding.

Tightrope Walking: You not only have Acrobatics trained, you have the Perfect Balance utility power.
ling for a would be fighter.

Actually, it is, just not by default. There's "Secret language," which can be "Thieves' Cant, Druidic, Drow Sign Language," or other such languages. All you need to learn it is either the Linguist feat or a background that lets you learn an additional language of your choice, and DM's permission. (There may be other ways to acquire it, but I'm not certain)

@Remathilis character was level 20 so I don't see too much of any issue extending it to level 15 (out of 30). Doing that gives access to Martial Practice Use Scroll, 3 more feats (for Skills or Focus, Skill Powers, more combat support), and a Paragon Path that can further support whatever he's looking for.

- Giving him any number of Urban backgrounds (from Gang Leader to Street Urchin to Secret Agent to Urban Elf) gives a Streetwise and/or an extra language (which could be Secret Language; eg Thieves' Cant). Personally, I just use Streetwise for Thieves' Cant. Its not truly another language. Its basically just a cryptolect (encrypted use of standard language or embedded jargon used to mislead or encode messages in standard language). Streetwise should cover that and I've used it within Skill Challenges for such things in my game.

- Martial Practices (which he can take as he has Practiced Study) that cover areas if he would want more support:

Disguise: Alter Ego - Basically Hyper-Disguise or the mundane version of Alter Self.

Handle Steed: - You're assumed to be able to Ride normally (Athletics and Nature can handle the mechanical resolution in a Skill Challenge when needed). However, this martial practice lets you handle a natural beast (such as a wild or unbroken horse) and ride it for hours, up to a full day. He could also boost this with Beast Empathy (Ranger Wilderness Knack).

Tightrope Walking: Reliable Balance - Take 10 on Acrobatics checks for balance.

Scroll Use: Use Scroll (lvl 15) - Use Ritual Scrolls.

- Mercenary Theme would give more nova (Backstab) capacity with an Encounter Power, No Action Rider; Damage Boost + Prone. It would also give + 2 to Streetwise (and Intimidate).

- If he wants more support for Etiquette, there is a Skill Power that specifically lets you use (and reroll) Bluff in limited Diplomacy situations (such as passing yourself off as a higher caste; eg Etiquette).

 

[Remathilis]

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Rem 1, level 10
Elf, Scout
Two-Weapon Style: Flashing Blade Mastery
Ranger Wilderness Knacks: Ambush Expertise
Ranger Wilderness Knacks: Mountain Guide
Level 4 Wilderness Knack: Watchful Rest
Level 8 Wilderness Knack: Wilderness Tracker
Elf Subrace: Wood Elf
Select option: Elven Accuracy
Select option: Wood Elf Reactive Stealth
Background: Birth - Prophecy (History class skill)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 15, Con 15, Dex 20, Int 13, Wis 11, Cha 15.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 15, Con 15, Dex 16, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 14.


AC: 25 Fort: 20 Reflex: 23 Will: 21
HP: 72 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 18

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +10, History +11, Perception +12, Acrobatics +15, Athletics +12, Thievery +15, Stealth +15, Bluff +12

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +6, Diplomacy +7, Endurance +7, Heal +5, Insight +5, Intimidate +7, Nature +7, Religion +6, Streetwise +7

FEATS
Level 1: Master at Arms
Level 2: Sneak of Shadows
Level 4: Twilight Adept
Level 6: Sly Dodge
Level 8: Practiced Study
Level 10: Superior Will

POWERS
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 1: Aspect of the Lurking Spider
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 1: Aspect of the Soaring Hawk
Level 2 Scout Utility Power: Invigorating Stride
Level 6 Scout Utility Power: Perfect Balance
Scout aspect of the wild (scout) 7: Aspect of the Dancing Serpent

ITEMS
Cloak of Displacement +2, Magic Leather Armor +3, Guarding Longsword +2, Magic Short sword +3, Distance Dagger +1, Foe-Seeking Bow Shortbow +1, Adventurer's Kit, Handy Haversack (heroic tier), Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier), Rope of Climbing (heroic tier)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

So I did some playing around myself. I don't have a DDi account, so the charbuilder is off-limits to me. However, using a borrowed copy of HoFL, I did a decent job building him as a level-10 Elf Thief.

As a quick and dirty run (not a lot of time spent on optimizing; heck half the time was spent remembering how I BUILD a 4e PC!) I managed to get him close to his 2e (and later, 3.5) versions. Some points.

I kept the ability score mix you used above (based on his original 4d6 rolls). Elf Bumps to Dex and Int
I ended up trained in Stealth (HS/MS), Thievery (OL/PP/RT), Perception (DN/FT), Acrobatics (Tumble/Tightrope), Althletics (CW) and Bluff (Disguise). I later gained Dungeoneering (Skill Mastery) and History (Ancient Hist). Ettiquiete, Appraise, and Ride lost, but they were minor elements of his backgound.
For Feats, I took Two Weapon Fighting (yes, its terrible compared to actually fighting with dual strike, but it kept a nod to his dual-wielding), Weapon Prof: Rapier (replaces longsword; same stats but finesse), Improved Initiative, Defensive Mobility, Light Blade Expertise, Bow Expertise, and Skill Training: History.
Most of his class powers worked well. I choose Ambush Trick, Acrobatic Trick, Tumbling Trick, and Feinting Trick for at-wills, and Tumble, Hidden Blade, and Shadow Stride for Utility.
Yeah, he still looses thieves cant and Use Scrolls/UMD even under Essentials. I didn't bother to tally up the math or pick items.

Ironically, I find this build truer to Remy than either his 3.5 or your 4e builds. (His Pathfinder version is also very close, mostly due to skill issues) He does nearly everything I want him to do; snipe, hide fight with his blades, and sneak/scout as needed. If THIS Remy had greeted me in 2008 rather than the weird, wonky one made with the PHB1; I might be playing and advocating for 4e today.

PS: There was NO way of knowing this, but... his birth WAS prophetic. Good job on the background. (Though nobility would have worked too.)

 

[Hussar]

Switching from sword & shield to bow is three minor actions - two with master of arms feat. And if you have a bow in hand your opportunity attacks & melee interrupts will be crappy. So this is a 'refluff' that does not work if you're using the rules at all.

Why would you be switching? You're making an archer paladin - no different than any other archer type character. So, just like any other archer type character, you have a bow in hand. And, yup, your OA's suck. Again, just like every other archer based character. Not sure why this doesn't work.

 

[Libramarian]

I would like to take a moment to say that reading through this thread has given me a new appreciation for how D&D 4e is designed. I think that I gave up on it too soon -- the design of the published adventures and my stuck-in-older-editions mindset were working against me. I'm keen to give the game another chance.

A big thank-you to @Neonchameleon , @pemerton , @shidaku , @S'mon , @AbdulAlhazred , @Balesir , @Fox Lee , @Hussar , @D'karr , and of course @Evenglare (for starting this thread in the first place) for sharing their insights into 4e, both in this thread and the "scene-framing" discussion.

There are still three issues that I have with 4e (time to play out an encounter at the table, the number of fiddly bonuses/conditions to track, and the number of out-of-turn actions), but I think that I can reign those in with better adventure design and by encouraging my players to avoid choosing complex or fiddly powers unless they can use them effortlessly.

The way in which character themes play out in the mechanics, the degree of control that a player has over his character's destiny, and the "carrot instead of the stick" approach to encouraging playing to type all go a long way to explain why I've found my recent visits to previous editions of D&D (and playtest of Next) fun yet somewhat unsatisfying.

Now back to arguing about paladins. Some things never actually change.

If the scene-framing/character advocacy style of play is what you're interested in, you may prefer a game that is unequivocally designed for it rather than 4e.

What I'm still fuzzy about is why 4e would be a better choice for this than Burning Wheel (recently revised and released as a 600pg hardcover for $25!). In particular, Burning Wheel has two different combat systems, one simple and one complex, which would solve your issue about combat length (as I understand it being able to choose between quick and detailed resolution is generally considered to be an important feature for scene-frame-y games to have).

(Truthfully, I can think of a few reasons why someone would prefer to do this with D&D, and D&Disms, rather than try to take up a 600pg game that a lot of casual gamers have never heard of, but I'm bringing it up anyway because whenever someone expresses a preference for something simulation-y there's usually a 4e fan acting surprised that they're playing D&D at all instead of Harnmaster or some other ancient, hardcore process-sim game. Looking forward to DDN, I think it'd be awesome if it had focused advice/tools for this style, as long as this can be done alongside focused advice/tools for the more classic D&D sandbox exploration style, which I think could be possible actually.)