4E is unacceptable

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All I can really say is playstyles. I like games where choices are meaningful. If no matter what I choose, there is no sacrifice (as in I will always be good in everything)...what's the point of the choice?

There is a difference between "power" and "theme". Why does there need to be a sacrifice?

Chosing between Astral Fire and Skill Training (Bluff) can be construed as a "power-trade-off", but it's mostly a thematic choice.
Do I define this character more by his power over otherworldly energy, or by this fast-talking attitude? Or would this be a valid example of "trade-off" or sacrifice - I am giving up extra damage for non-combat ability?

In the end, you still have to choose what you are _really_ good at. But you never have to make a sacrifice that means you're gimped in your core abilities. And these core abilities are obviously defined by the class you choice (otherwise, what would be the point of a class-based game?)

I am finding alot of things about D&D 4e lean towards the "no fun to fail ever" spectrum. I mean look at the new skill challenges, super easy. Only time I hear about dangerous combat is when the monsters are 3 to 4 levels higher than the PC's. IMO, 4e is a "paper tiger" game.

These are the types of encounters where the PCs face a potential TPK. We had only equal level challenges last evening (scaled to a four-man party, even), and while we didn't run into any TPK situations, each combat was tense, because my Fighter was consistently beaten down and even dropped below 0 hit points in two out of 6 encounters, and was very close to it in the other encounters...

I never had such a thing occurring in CR = EL typical challenges in 3E, excluding maybe encounters with (real) save or die spells.
There is a wide spectrum between "no one ever dies" and "TPK", and 4E allows us to explore this spectrum (in an entertaining way...)

 

[Mallus]

In D&D 3.X, Warhammmer, Runequest, Reign, Stormbringer, L5R, etc. players are heroes but they aren't all combat capable uber-warriors.

True... in D&D 3.x not all PC's are under-warriors, just the full-progression spell casters are.

 

[Imaro]

True... in D&D 3.x not all PC's are under-warriors, just the full-progression spell casters are.

I am going to assume you meant "uber" instead of "under. Are they really at low level or even part of mid level play? Personally I like this aspect of the game.

It reminds me of...

Pug from the Riftwar saga by Ramond E. Feist. Pug was a total scrub in the first novel, Magician:Apprentice...but by the second novel, Magician:Master he was one of the most powerful beings to walk between the two worlds.

Elric and Yyrkoon(think that's how you spell it) from the Moorcock stories. Because of their mastery of sorcery they were the cream of the crop amongst an already uber race.

Luke Skywalker...who goes from bumbling about in a catina (probably would have had it handed to him by Han in a fight) and getting saved by Obi-wan to the most powerful jedi in the universe.

In the end even a caster runs out of spells eventually, and unless the world pauses for them each time this happens...well they aren't so uber at this point, but a fighter or thief never runs out of their abilities.

 

[Waldorf]

4e ain't all that bad; I haven't had cause to use the A-bomb in years...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It reminds me of...

Pug from the Riftwar saga by Ramond E. Feist. Pug was a total scrub in the first novel, Magician:Apprentice...but by the second novel, Magician:Master he was one of the most powerful beings to walk between the two worlds.

Elric and Yyrkoon(think that's how you spell it) from the Moorcock stories. Because of their mastery of sorcery they were the cream of the crop amongst an already uber race.

Luke Skywalker...who goes from bumbling about in a catina (probably would have had it handed to him by Han in a fight) and getting saved by Obi-wan to the most powerful jedi in the universe.

Also, the only one out of two.

And what happens if you put a "fighter" in the focus of your story? Do they not become the greatest warrior, able to beat all kinds of foe they have to face? (Except in those stories where the heroes fails, of course). That's just what protagonists in these kinds of story do. If I am not mistaken, Conan is going against dangerous spellcasters in his career, too - and he still beats them in the end.

In the end even a caster runs out of spells eventually, and unless the world pauses for them each time this happens...well they aren't so uber at this point, but a fighter or thief never runs out of their abilities.

Except they can run out of hit points, of course. Fighter staying power <= hit points, Wizard staying power <= spells per day. The difference is not that big. (And thanks to Teleport, a Wizard at least has a little more reliable retreat option - which can be a kind of pause button, depending on the nature of the story or threats faced.).

 

[Remathilis]

In the end even a caster runs out of spells eventually, and unless the world pauses for them each time this happens...well they aren't so uber at this point, but a fighter or thief never runs out of their abilities.

I have never, NEVER, played in a game where when 1/2 the team is out of ju-ju (and reduced to sub-par warriors) the fighter and thief say "Ah, we're good. Lets hit another three rooms and call it a day."

Because Vecna knows, the next room is the one your going to want the wizard casting firebal at and the the cleric is going to need all his cure-magic to keep the fighter alive in...

Go back to the real world: how many soldiers in a war zone would venture further into enemy territory out of mortars and first aid kits, even if they have enough bullets to go all day?

 

[Fenes]

If you shouldn't have any weaknesses, why don't have everyone be a caster/fighter/healer/thief?

Why should choices matter in combat, but not in the game as a whole?

 

[Imaro]

I have never, NEVER, played in a game where when 1/2 the team is out of ju-ju (and reduced to sub-par warriors) the fighter and thief say "Ah, we're good. Lets hit another three rooms and call it a day."

Because Vecna knows, the next room is the one your going to want the wizard casting firebal at and the the cleric is going to need all his cure-magic to keep the fighter alive in...

Go back to the real world: how many soldiers in a war zone would venture further into enemy territory out of mortars and first aid kits, even if they have enough bullets to go all day?

In the "real world" you don't always have the choice to approach a situation at full capacity, do you?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In the "real world" you don't always have the choice to approach a situation at full capacity, do you?

Just like in a "real game", after all. Sure, i could tell my players "you know guys, you could rest now, even after all your spells are expended, but remember that the princess will be dead tomorrow. And the ritual of world destruction will obviously completed 2 hours later." Or alternatively, I couldn't tell them, and just say "During your second watch, you notice how the moon lights up greatly, and you suddenly feel the earth shaking violently - on the horizion, you see a bright light, and suddenly, everything gets hot, and as you awake your allies, the light coming closer form all sides, and suddenly you are swept over by a wave of heat and burning atmosphere, taking 20d6 fire damage each round for the next 2 hours, as the suns explosion is burning up the planet... Hey, I warned you, the cultists might be working at a world-destruction ritual. Next week - we run our asian themed campaign, where you'll have to convince the country to stop the losing war against the large extra-continental forces before it is too late. You all begin play in Hirosaki, a large town."
But I don't want to do this regularly. I sometimes just want the players to continue running without such pressure, just running because it still makes sense.

I want more situations in where our fictional real-world soldiers still have enough ammunition, and still have most their first aid kits, and some grenades, and some mortars or anti-tank missiles, _after_ a tense fight. And they'll go on because they know its smarter to stay on the offensive and don't give their enemy time to regroup or otherwise react to their losses. Not because they are certain that the hostages will be killed, or that WMD will be completed before their support arrives.

 

[Krensky]

Go back to the real world: how many soldiers in a war zone would venture further into enemy territory out of mortars and first aid kits, even if they have enough bullets to go all day?

All the time. Because they have timings to make.