D&D 3E/3.5 3e -> 4e: Have we lost options?

[AkaKageWarrior]

Hi,

our long time gaming group is discussing 4e. Should we switch?
I am for the change to 4e, me likes!

The main argument from those against 4e are:
1) no more 100s of spells to choose from
2) not enough character building options!

my thoughts about:
1) yes, true, the spellcasters give up lots of their spells, but all other classes have many more options now.
2) really? sure, multi-classing is restricted now, but you can still build
almost anything you like - and it will be playable.
Example was: you can build a bard/ranger wielding 2 whips in 3e! (yikes!).

So what do you think?

... and play it cool, guys!

AKW

 

[TimeOut]

You have lost:

- All those things described in splatbooks which are not out yet (if you don't want to port them yourself in the meantime)
- the ability to use 100 of spells in combat even if they shoud have only noncombat applications
- free (and imo totally abuseable) multiclassing

You could gain:
- fair distribution of roles and powers across all players at the table
- a clear distinction between combat and "everything else"
- a more streamlined and substancially easier and less complicated ruleset (but it is still highly complex)

Note: I am truly fond of 4e and dislike (and have never truly liked) 3e, so please take this as my influenced and subjective opinion.

I would say your group should try to play KotS as an oneshot or for a few sessions. 4e plays and feels differently from how it reads.

 

[Boarstorm]

My suggestion is to read the first post in this thread

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230509

and then decide which paradigm fits you and your group best -- options in character concept, or options in play.

Edit: I think I'm going to declare you my archenemy, TimeOut, because I'm jealous of your avatar.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Still plenty of options, just not the same options available in 3e.

 

[Felon]

2) really? sure, multi-classing is restricted now, but you can still build
almost anything you like - and it will be playable.

Actually, I can think of a lot of characters I've played in D&D that don't translate into one of the paragon paths or epic destinies.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Classes that aren't there:
Druid, Bard, Barbarian

Classes that lost 100's of spells
Wizard, Cleric

New Classes:
Warlock, Warlord

Classes that got 100 new powers each:
Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger

Personally I think it evens out.

 

[Stalker0]

The battle options in 4e are greater, the character building options are more limited. But the limitation build options argument will fade with the first few splatbooks, where we will have all the feats, powers, and paragon paths we need to customize our characters.

The one thing I do hope they add in to the next few splats are feats that take away away some of the "hard" restrictions on classes. For example, the fact that a rogue cannot use a bow with any of his rogue powers. Even just having a feat give him that benefit would be fine.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Actually, I can think of a lot of characters I've played in D&D that don't translate into one of the paragon paths or epic destinies.

Does that mean it isn't possible, just because they don't translate directly to a paragon path? I'm leaving the destinies out of this because, well, there's a puny amount of them, and I think they're better to be designed specifically for an individual campaign. I think that was the intent with destinies.

And just because there's a handful of concepts you can't translate doesn't mean there isn't breadth in the system, and also doesn't mean that it won't be fun to play. Just think up a different concept

 

[Boarstorm]

For example, the fact that a rogue cannot use a power with any of his rogue powers.

Huh? You lost me.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I'm thinking he means "can't use a heavy blade with any of his rogue powers" or something like that.