4E is unacceptable

[ProfessorCirno]

My question is twofold: does this power spread disrupt the game, and to what degree does it disrupt the game? Also, is it not bad game design that people need to rewrite characters because of it? Would a game where this isn't necessary be an improvement in this regard?

The only time character rewrites are neccisary are 1) when the player is purposefully trying to break the game, and 2) when the player is completely knew and has no clue how to build the character. In both of those situations, you'd be taking them aside to tell them to knock it off or to give advice anyways. This is no different then it will be in 4e when you tell your new player that his warrior probably shouldn't grab all the axe-related abilities if he's using a sword.

 

[Lanefan]

Now that 4e's been around a few months and there's been a chance to digest it (if not play it yet), I'll give it this much: it's a playable game, in and of itself. If I'd never played D+D before and stumbled into a 4e group, I'd probably dive right in.

My problem is, I have played before.

I agree with those above who suggest the OP's reasons for bailing are mostly on the level of detail rather than root basics (well, except the errata; the perfectionist in me says something designed by professionals should simply not need errata and certainly not this soon). Besides, the art in general rocks compared to 3e and earlier.

As for the question of should it allow one to make bad choices in the name of flavour or characterization, of course it should! That said, with each new edition the design becomes finer-tuned and as a result "bad" choices have a greater negative impact; and that's a shame.

The most fun I had playing 3e was running a character whose "build" would probably make you powergamer types hurl; never mind what would happen in game when her Wisdom 7 showed through, a frequent occurrence! Arguably the best character I've ever had (out of quite a lot, both 1e and 3e), and I wouldn't change a thing about her.

Lanefan

 

[Riposte]

I know I'm late on the topic, but can some agree on:

4e is pretty okay, but the core books are disappointing.


I think I'm going to like 4e a lot more when PHBII comes out.

 

[Mallus]

You're not quite getting the argument.

Is there a power spread between two characters? Yes. That's not the issue. The issue is, does it matter?

Well sure... and Rifts is a blast with the right people... but it doesn't change the fact that some people see value in a set of rules with more inherent mechanical balance between character classes.

 

[Remathilis]

As for the question of should it allow one to make bad choices in the name of flavour or characterization, of course it should! That said, with each new edition the design becomes finer-tuned and as a result "bad" choices have a greater negative impact; and that's a shame.

You call it bug, I call it "feature".

First off, there is a difference between powergaming/min-maxing and optimal builds. An optimal build is a fighter with a greatsword taking power attack and weapon specialization to get the most damage with his weapon. A Powergamer is one who thinks the best starting rogue build is Rog3/Ftr2/Guild Thief3. A character can be built to do his job without stringing out PrCs, using obscure feats, or adding a myriad of templates.

HOWEVER.

There is also sub-optimal builds as well. These are the ones where the build actively hurts YOUR ROLE IN THE TEAM (God, how 4e!). A cleric who channels negative energy is not an effective healer. If you say "we are getting are butts kicked, we need a healer" and another player creates THAT, your no better off a healer than you were before. Similarly, any rogue who doesn't have sufficient ranks in Search/Disable Device is going to fail at the trapfinder role, which is commonly the role given to rogues. IF you have another trapfinder character (or never, EVER, encounter a trap in a dungeon) than its OK to skimp. If your DM likes Goodman Game DCC's however, you've just made a sub-optimal character.

4e "fixes" that. You can't make a cleric that isn't good at healing. Even if you never select a healing power, you still have healing word to fall back on, and its a lot easier to use than channeling positive energy (even if your evil, you can use it too). Likewise, no rogue can be bad at "roguish" techniques, so you can disable traps with the best of them without blowing another skill selection on them. No rogue? Anyone with Skill Training can be a trapfinder!

The most fun I had playing 3e was running a character whose "build" would probably make you powergamer types hurl; never mind what would happen in game when her Wisdom 7 showed through, a frequent occurrence! Arguably the best character I've ever had (out of quite a lot, both 1e and 3e), and I wouldn't change a thing about her.

7 wisdom? I'll wager she wasn't a cleric, druid, paladin, monk or ranger then. Unless she was sorcerer, wizard, or bard, her will save was toilet. (-2 at 1st level, +3 at 20th barring a cloak). I guess she got charmed, held, feared, dominated, dazed, sleepy, and otherwise indisposed alot right?

In 4e, as long as your charisma was decent, you could dump stat wisdom and still not go running everytime a dragon flexed its Awesome Prescence around you, or always seem to trust the pretty girl in the dungeon with the sly look in her eye. (Of course, you could if you wanted, but your not being forced to attack your allies because of it...)

I guess I have a hard time understanding why, "for story purposes" you'd ever really want to gimp your character? Isn't D&D deadly enough without playing one arm tied behind your back? Do you really want a PC who can't do his job (heal, tank, nuke, trapfind) on your team? It just always seemed to me that while munchkin super-optimizers are poor examples of play, sub-optimal PCs are just as bad.

You may disagree, but once you lose a PC or two to someone's "character design", you begin to question how viable 10/10 fighter/wizards REALLY are!

 

[Wicht]

You may disagree, but once you lose a PC or two to someone's "character design", you begin to question how viable 10/10 fighter/wizards REALLY are!

If someone builds a wizard 10/Fighter 10, I assume the game has survived for 20 levels and that the party has managed to work around the problem.



Seriously, if you don't have a perfect healer in a cleric, look for alternatives and try harder not to get hurt.

If you are working through one of the DCCs without a good rogue, take a really long 10 foot pole in with you and set those traps off before you hit them. In a PbP game my dwarven wizard just recently deactivated a whole bunch of kobold traps in a DCC dungeon using a flaming sphere.

'Sub-optimal' character builds call for creative solutions but they are not game breaking.

 

[billd91]

There is also sub-optimal builds as well. These are the ones where the build actively hurts YOUR ROLE IN THE TEAM (God, how 4e!). A cleric who channels negative energy is not an effective healer. If you say "we are getting are butts kicked, we need a healer" and another player creates THAT, your no better off a healer than you were before.

Actually, a cleric who channels negative energy CAN be an effective healer. They still have cure spells on their lists, can take augment healing as a feat, and can still use cure wounds wands and scrolls. They're just not as effective a healer as a cleric who channels positive energy because they lack some flexibility. But, if the question comes down to not being "as effective" then why would any cleric not be a radiant servant of Pelor?

4e "fixes" that. You can't make a cleric that isn't good at healing.

Quite frankly, I didn't need WotC to "fix" that for me.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why, "for story purposes" you'd ever really want to gimp your character? Isn't D&D deadly enough without playing one arm tied behind your back? Do you really want a PC who can't do his job (heal, tank, nuke, trapfind) on your team? It just always seemed to me that while munchkin super-optimizers are poor examples of play, sub-optimal PCs are just as bad.

You may disagree, but once you lose a PC or two to someone's "character design", you begin to question how viable 10/10 fighter/wizards REALLY are!

Maybe the character was *gasp* rolled up that way rather than built on points? There are quite a few of us who still prefer to play that way. And, hey, maybe that fighter 10/wizard 10 has been investing in item creation feats and has come up with some boss buffing gear to support his fighting skills. He could be doing fairly well as a ray or other ranged touch attack specialist or a skirmisher. He'd probably be a bit better as an eldritch knight but may very well be able to hold his own as he is now.

 

[Obryn]

I'm still scratching my head, trying to figure out how making effective characters can get in the way of good roleplaying.

-O

 

[Mallus]

'Sub-optimal' character builds call for creative solutions but they are not game breaking.

It's not that the 'effectiveness spread' which 3.x tends to produce is game breaking --clearly it's not-- but dealing with it represents more (needless) work for the group to do in order for the game to run smoothly.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm still scratching my head, trying to figure out how making effective characters can get in the way of good roleplaying.

I think the argument is that the inability to unintentionally screw yourself gets in the way of roleplaying (because apparently, unintentionally screwing yourself is considered a necessary option by some), because in 4e you have to intentionally go out of your way to screw yourself. Then there's also the claim that because we 4e supporters want all character choices to be equally viable (even if they do fill entirely different roles), that we think everything needs to be min-maxed/optimized/CharOp board builds, despite none of us actually saying that.