4E is unacceptable

[billd91]

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

-O

It doesn't. But having a character who isn't particularly effective at a few things or has some notable drawbacks provides even more options to role play in fun ways.

 

[The Highway Man]

It doesn't. But having a character who isn't particularly effective at a few things or has some notable drawbacks provides even more options to role play in fun ways.

Truly memorable characters are mostly remembered because of their failings, flaws and oddities, not particularly because of their achievements. Building flaws and oddities into a character that work with the group instead of challenging its efficiency is what great character generation is all about.

Many players -and DMs!- are misguided in that regard.

 

[Awakened]

I think it's pretty hard to argue that 4e isn't nearly as "complete" as the 3rd edition core. In a way, this is alright. It's part of the design to gloss over (or not even address) the parts of the game we tended to gloss over anyway. Most seem to have had mixed reactions to this, wondering where their favorite charts have gone, and such. 4e is a complete structural and aesthetic change. I think a lot of people are mistakingly trying to judge it as something that it's not rather than what it is: it's own game, stripped of the romantic arcana that imbued previous editions with complex flavor- a streamlined, imperfect beast.
Also, the OP is dead on about the art. VERY spotty. Some of it is adventurous and exciting, others (like that dreadful piece with the armies and the violet skeletons) actually detract from the presentation, making it look cheap and rushed.

 

[Obryn]

It doesn't. But having a character who isn't particularly effective at a few things or has some notable drawbacks provides even more options to role play in fun ways.

Right, and these are great. They can be handled mechanically, or through role-play.

I don't think anything is keeping me from making an arachnophobic character in 4e, or one who's hunch-backed. Heck, I could make a color-blind one-eyed midget with one leg and a Code of Honor (basically a min-maxed GURPS mutant), and nothing's keeping me from that.

There's a wide spectrum between "I made a wizard with 8 Intelligence because my inner angsty method-actor needs an outlet" and "What do you mean I need a backstory for my cleric 4/fighter 2/blackguard 3/radiant servant of pelor 8?!"

-O

 

[Turbiales]

A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is only a bad choice from a certain perspective. It all depends on what a person wants out of the game. It will also depend a lot on the sort of games the DM wants to run.

To a certain sort of individual a Bard 10/Monk 10 might be the perfect choice.

Exactly W10/F10 is a very bad choice for dungeoncrawling for some reasons (Not enough BAB, unable to defeat SR, etc...). BUT if you don't do dungeoncrawling, the DM tailor-made the encounters or if the campaing is RP-heavy is very suitable.

 

[Obryn]

Exactly W10/F10 is a very bad choice for dungeoncrawling for some reasons (Not enough BAB, unable to defeat SR, etc...). BUT if you don't do dungeoncrawling, the DM tailor-made the encounters or if the campaing is RP-heavy is very suitable.

I'd disagree. Even (heck, especially) in a low-combat, RP-heavy campaign, Wiz 20 would be far preferable. If there's very little combat, Fighter is in fact the very worst class to pick, and dipping into it for half your career is pretty senseless.

-O

 

[Vocenoctum]

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

-O

Because some of the builds that may be suboptimal fit the character concept the player is working towards better than the optimized, but regimented, nature of 4e's "flattening the power curve". It narrowed the breadth of what types of character were there, by defining roles more stringently.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of character concepts didn't work in 3e, I just find 4e to be more restrictive in that sense. (If you want to use two weapons for example.)

 

[Wicht]

I'd disagree. Even (heck, especially) in a low-combat, RP-heavy campaign, Wiz 20 would be far preferable.

Why?

If it is a role-playing heavy campaign, why is one role better than another role?

If there's very little combat, Fighter is in fact the very worst class to pick, and dipping into it for half your career is pretty senseless.

Again, why? If the role I want to play is a character who has dabbled in magic and has some skill with a sword, why would it be a bad choice?

In my mind, admittedly, speaking primarily as a DM, there are no bad choices in character creation provided the player makes the choices that fit what he wants from a character.

If the player wants a heavy hitter, then a gnome bard is a bad choice. But if the player wants a small but talented individual then gnome bard might be the very best choice.

A gnome bard will never be as strong in a fight as a half-orc barbarian, but it doesn't need to be for the game to end up being fun and it might force all the players to be more creative in their problem solving. Which is a good thing.

 

[Fenes]

It might be interesting if many of the players who prefer 4E's focus on game balance played mainly bought adventures (which usually had many many combat encounters).

 

[Imaro]

Well one area I feel 4e is more limited in, than 3.5 is, would be customization of a character (outside of combat). In 3.5 there are many feats, such as Negotiator, Investigator, Persuasive, etc. that allowed you to customize a character on a finer scale than in 4e. These feats in 3.5 were like personality traits that actually mattered in the game, and could be used to represent inborn talents that a character had...outside of skill focus. In 4e there are a few, but it's breadth is much smaller, and deals almost exclusively with physical skills. Now the only problem 3.5 might have had in this respect was the number of feats one had to spend, but you still had the option of being slightly less effective in combat but more adept at something outside of combat. The thing is, IMO, 4e gives you more feats but less breadth to distribute them in creating the character you want.