4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[AbdulAlhazred]

The "magic items as fancy gear" element I had no issues with at all - it fits right into the "magic isn't some sort of outside presence that is separate from the world, it's a natural part of the world that impinges on how the world works" that I've posted about hereabouts. I do think it should have been made clearer in the published materials, though. The split of "magic items" into gear that characters could buy or make ("magic items", in 4e) and DM plot elements intended to let the DM give players world elements to play with for a bit while remaining - as world elements - within the DM's control (Artifacts, in 4e) I thought was genius. It resolved a dichotomy that had been growing in D&D for years - with calls for "magic item creation" systems countered by "magic (items) aren't special any more" complaints that started with 3.X, not 4e.

Such a simple answer - give a category for each. The only problem was that they didn't make this crystal clear in the published books and they didn't give anywhere near enough examples of Artifacts.

Take a look at the original rules for Artifacts and you will find that they are almost identical to the Essentials "Rare Items". Some of them have Concordance and all that guff, but even early on it was clear that this was not a mandatory part of an Artifact. They can't be made, they can't be bought or (without specific DM permission) sold; they don't generally take "slots", they don't have daily power use limits, and they certainly aren't constrained by balance or fairness considerations. And many of them are darned cool!

Had WotC explained this properly and published a load of the "Rare" items as Artifacts I really don't think the whole mess of "item rarity" would have been necessary.

Sounds a lot like Artifacts, to me - why not just label them that?

I don't really use "Emporiums" or "Magic Shoppes" - I have more of a concept of a market in rare items. The PCs can usually get what is appropriate for their level, but they do it through a network of contacts and friends. This explains, in part, why what they can get is (generally) appropriate to their level - it's because their array of friends and contacts are generally appropriate to their level!

If you don't like magic items as player-controlled, party-shared character building elements then I recommend using inherent bonuses, removing magic items (apart from consumables, perhaps) altogether and using Artifacts (including converted magic items - especially rares - and modified or made up ones of your own) wherever you want a "magic item". If WotC had made this approach clear to DMs early on I think much hassle would have been saved; all the rules are there, but the advice/guidance was missing.

I think there is a meaningful point between artifact and common item or consumable. I know we don't agree on this, but I think there's room for rare items that are not world changing artifacts. The Rod of 7 parts or The Book of Khel's Doom, are artifacts. They are items that are not just powerful items but forces in the world, characters of their own in essence. Rare items are different. They may be ancient, may even have personalities, but they don't have their own agendas. They are just tools, but still unique or very very close to it and not something a PC will create except with special circumstance.

I don't know why they made "uncommon" items. I thought 'common', 'rare', and 'artifact' were plenty of categories.

In general I think the 4e items aren't actually that bland, but they made LOADS of very similar items for some reason. It seemed like they ended up not feeling that unique, and on top of that there were the different tiers of each item. It seemed a bit like there were a billion similar items. AV1/2 didn't really do a LOT to fix that, though they had a few cool things in them they also added a lot more similar repeat stuff. I think MME does have it about right, it would have been great if we'd just gotten MME in 2008.

 

[timASW]

Well, in 2e AD&D I'd take Riding, Etiquette and Hunting NWPs, lance, sword, bow, and quarterstaff WPs. He rides, like a knight should, he knows how to behave in polite company, and he can hunt. 1e didn't have NWPs until later, but if they're included take the same ones. BECM has a different set of Skills, but I'd still pick up Hunting and Riding, probably Leadership, and Acrobatics if I wanted an Errol-style Hood. Seems easy enough to model him.

In pathfinder fighters also get survival and profession as class skills. Given that I'd consider nobility a profession ( they learn how to manage lands, taxes, and political obligations. Sounds like work stuff to me) so you could also easily craft Robin Hood as a PF fighter. Especially if you made his abilities more balanced rather then just maxing out STR and CON.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because of this precision and flexibility on the GM side, combined with the resilience on the player/PC side, I find that 4e really rewards a "gung ho" style from the players. I'm not talking about being irrationally rash or foolhardy. I'm talking about giving it all you've got - throwing your PC into the thick of things and letting the monsters have it, and - if things start to go bad - relying on clever play by you and your friends to turn the tide. Whereas I can see how a very cautious, overly-anticipatory approach ('But what if what if what if . . .) would slow the game down.

In 4e the DM should be asking "could this scene work in an Indiana Jones movie?" and if Steven Spielberg would cut it, then so should you.

For your paladin sorcerer I might try a STR/INT swordmage with paladin multi-class (requires 13 WIS - not too expensive) - you can build this as a dual-wielder, not necessarily tripping but other forms of control coming from your swordmagery, and you can be weapons first with your magic providing utility (though not via explicit buffing, but rather by giving you weapon attacks extra effects via your swordmage powers). Your armour would be leather by default, but Unarmoured Agility can give you the same AC in cloth for a feat. Your CHA won't be that high, so you won't have much in the way of Bluff; and your archery will suck. (You'll have to pick up Acro from a feat or a background; likewise Bluff.)

Avenger. Clearly this guy is an avenger more than a paladin. He can use some minor magic, which Avengers DO have (they are not all totally weapon attack stuff), and his weapon stuff on top. He can have something like Wizard's Apprentice Theme to represent "knows a little bit of arcane magic", and maybe ritual casting.

For your priestess of love I'd try the lazy warlord route with cleric multi-class; or a hybrid pacifist cleric/lazy warlord, perhaps. The idea is that your cleric powers don't do damage, and your warlord powers buff and/or activate allies rather than involve you doing stuff yourself. The lasso is hard to build in, unless you go for powers that involve forced movement and reflavour them as lasso called shots - which might be a bit of a stretch (boom boom!). The archery you can get via Archer Warlord and STR, or if your lazy warlord can be built around the WIS you're using as a cleric (I don't know all the warlord options well enough), then you can just pump DEX as your second stat.

You can get a lot of warlord 'rope them in' powers. Bards could do that too. I think the hybrid cleric/warlord might work pretty well. There is also the Grasping Weapon enchantment, which begs to be a lasso.

Remember, certain things are just more mechanics than concept, you will never perfectly reproduce 3e characters, though you can come pretty close with 2e ones.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I've had the essentials is/isn't 4E argument so many times it isn't funny, entertaining, or even interesting anymore, so I am not going to rehash it yet again. In my opinion, it isn't. If in your opinion it is, fine. We disagree. Neither of us are likely to change the other's mind. Let's move on.
3 races introduce. So far as I can tell, only one (the revenant) ever got any feat support.
vampire class works ok at heroic, but flubs higher up. Again, no support beyond what first came out.
Blackguard can at least borrow from regular paladin.
Binders eventually got a fey-pact option, but wasn't much.
"You have combat advantage in dim light or less," "You get +1 to saving throws in dim light or less," etc mechanics aren't that impressive unless you are in a campaign with a lot of dim lighting.
Assassin class had one prelim development in Dragon, which was interesting, and then a total rewrite in HoS that was kinda bland and uninspiring (to me). So the result is two completely different assassin classes: the O-ssassing and the E-ssassin.
There was a lot of potential for HoS, but the product was very disappointing.

I found 2nd Ed, when it first came out, to be fairly satisfying. (remember, this was in the days before wide-spread internet use--1989.) And there wasn't a lot of call for corrections. It had a lot of improvements from 1st ed, and played well. And it didn't normally have massive, blatant, inexcusable typos. Even basic text in 4e has some things that, heck, just running a spell-checker would have found. Then you have things like "Close Blurst"--what the heck was that supposed to be? A blast or a burst? How did this make it to press? PH1, Radiant Servant has a great power called Solar Wrath, close burst 8 encounter power. Seriously, no one noticed how massively powerful that was? This is PH1, which had the most development and play-testing time. It didn't occur to anyone that a power with that big and area and that much damage was way out of line with the other paragon path powers that other classes had? It has since been nerfed in errata to close burst 3, but as much as I loved playing with it as a player, it was obviously way too powerful. And that's just one example. I don't think any other edition had anything so egregious in the way of being totally out of step.
The only thing I can think of that is maybe in the same line is some of the SpellJammer source books which were written by the world experts who obviously had not read the SpellJammer rules.
2nd ed books poorly worked? Never got it right the first time? Under powered? Are we talking about the same game?
Monsters never statted or supported? Have you checked the back of MM1?
DSG?
I love the 4th Ed game, and mechanically it is superior to 2nd Ed. But, I am willing to point out the flaws in 4th Ed, and the sloppy work that should never have reached our eyes. The lack of editing in 4th ed is embarrassing. If we had released such badly edited material when I was working at McGraw-Hill, we would have been FIRED With Cause.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok basic details on this human paladin/sorcerer

I gave you a pathway for your cleric on the other thread so I attempted to tackle this one.

Here is what I was thinking but can you clarify how the polearm comes into it? It isn't a double weapon so its not supported by two weapon fighting. Depending on if the character just used a polearm sometimes (perhaps for paladin attacks?) and two swords (preferably 2 light ones - a pair of short swords...or it screws up the build), the character would either have light blade expertise or the general weapon expertise feat that gives + 1/tier to weapon attacks.

I'll post the power setup/exact feats tonight but I've got pretty much all of the bases covered with:



level 10
- Human Ranger/Paladin Hybrid
- Dex and Cha 18, Str 13, Int 12 (or 13, can't recall), Con 10, Wis 8
- Multiclass Sorceror (flat resistance buff and ability to poach an Armor Buff Spell)
- Blackstaff Apprentice Theme (gives you Magic Missle as Minor Action Encounter Power and 3 Cantrips)
- a Background with Bluff
- Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, Insight, Nature (that with bluff covers all of those skills you have)
- Feat support for two weapon fighting/style and lets you use Dex with Ranger two-weapon fighting powers. Light Blade Expertise to further augment or general weapon expertise if you want to use a halberd for Paladin attacks.
- An assemblage of Paladin Smite powers (off of Cha) + Smite itself.
- Paladin Healing
- Mobility (Natural from Ranger powers + level 10 Utility Power that augments it)
- Tanking (Defender marking/control + stoutness)
- A bag of (whatever its called) dust that lets you Detect Magic 3 times per day (therefore no Arcana)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok basic details on this human paladin/sorcerer:

Str 12
Dex 15 <- highest stat
Con 10
Int 13
Wis 8 <- designated dump stat, this pc wouldn't be the same without a wis penalty
Cha 14 <- second highest stat

Trained skills
Appraise +4
Bluff +6
Concentration +6
Diplomacy +4
Handle animal +4
Ride +4
tumble +4
UMD +3
(notice k:arcana and spellcraft aren't trained at all, this is a major aspect of the character)

Feats
1- Two Weapon fighting
Human- Martial Weapon proficiency [Halberd] (didn't know this pc was going to eventually multiclass, this chracter evolved organically)
3- Weapon Finesse

Spells
0 level :
Detect Magic (I know this is a part of arcana in 4e, but this character shouldn't get training on it)
Ray of Frost (hasn't actually come up at all wouldn't be an actual loss)
Dancing Lights < Favorite spell
Light < Used very often
1st
Mage Armor
Magic Missile (not seen too much use, only a couple of times at all)

Basically on 4e terms, this guy fights like a ranger, sees evil, lays on hands and smashes like a paladin, uses inborn uility magic and some small self buffing, while also having the ocassional MM, And is very social and switches between tanking and battlefield mobility.

Bard, this screams Bard. Obviously you aren't ACTUALLY a bard, but 4e's bard heals, uses a bow, a sword, and casts spells. CHA/DEX is pretty much exactly right for this type of character. Obviously you can refluff your power as being divine inspiration. You can take Wizard's Apprentice too if you want specifically certain spells, or one of the Wizard MC feats to get MM to use once/encounter if you wanted, etc. OTOH Bard has rather similar powers. I think for instance Vicious Mockery would reskin quite well as a divine blast.

The point is, never before I felt this character concept was disruptive, 2e's "I will help you to get there, in combat I'm not very useful so I will limit to keep you on fighting condition and out of problems acting more in self defense" or "I will keep you patched, in combat I will help you defeat enemies but not to kill them, in return I will provide as much as four times the regular healing which even accounting being a little more hurt by me not being that combat effective will allow you to fight twice as many fights as you'd normally be, and In a pinch I can hurt mysself to heal you even more, not to mention I'm not taking away your spotlight as a combatant", in my experience those were very enabling roles. In 4e that becomes disrupting because you have very limited healing resources every fight and you only prolong what are very long fights to begin with, and you aren't that effective at healing if you don't contribute to the slaughter, and there is no way to change that, even the pacifist healer feels like a copt out, it only punishes you for not being pacifist, instead of giving you the ability to act like one. Temp damage was good, it gave you the ability to spare your enemies regardless of who did the final attack, but I guess there are too many things to track already

Well, you know, we had this healing god in my 2e campaign that was a pacifist, so his priests were pacifists. I found that it was just not logically possible to have a character that claimed not to cause harm and yet supported and tended to a bunch of murder hobos. It simply isn't a coherent set of actions. Would Ghandi go around with a bunch of thugs helping them rob people and then using the excuse that "Well at least I'm stopping some of their killing". Sure, parties can be doing "good" but even then from ANY sort of violence-avoiding perspective they're dripping in blood. I don't see how such a character could be RPed except maybe as a complete nut case. My suggestion for a 4e game is that you would have to just narrate everything in the context of non-lethal conflict, so whatever 'damage' the PC does will be demoralization, curses, etc. You can then narrate defeat of enemies as something other than death, which we do in 4e regularly anyway (IE 0 hit points means the evil rogue is disarmed and cornered, he gives up). The game can deal FINE with that, though again I just can't personally believe in actual pacifist PC adventurers.

 

[Dragoslav]

IThen you have things like "Close Blurst"--what the heck was that supposed to be?

I don't know either, but I think this may shed some light into why such a typo was in the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSUWP0QNeY[video=youtube;JcSUWP0QNeY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSUWP0QNeY[/video]

 

[Obryn]

[MENTION=89838]sabrinathecat[/MENTION] - yeah, you'd be hard pressed to find a 4e fan who thinks the PHB shouldn't have gone through a lot more testing and fixing. A lot of the bugs are explainable by the contracted development time, but not excusable. Monster math is a biggie - it was obviously, clearly flawed from mid-heroic and up.

The only saving grace was the vigorous errata process; it was needed and actually made the game better.

 

[Balesir]

I think there is a meaningful point between artifact and common item or consumable. I know we don't agree on this, but I think there's room for rare items that are not world changing artifacts. The Rod of 7 parts or The Book of Khel's Doom, are artifacts. They are items that are not just powerful items but forces in the world, characters of their own in essence. Rare items are different. They may be ancient, may even have personalities, but they don't have their own agendas. They are just tools, but still unique or very very close to it and not something a PC will create except with special circumstance.

Yes, I know we disagree somewhat on this, but we may be getting closer with this:

I don't know why they made "uncommon" items. I thought 'common', 'rare', and 'artifact' were plenty of categories.

Although I would still say the principal division is between "heroic/paragon/epic tools" that are in the players' hands and "DM's doodads" that are under the DM's control, I can see some desire for a division in the latter category. On the one hand there are the "bits of the game world that players are given to play with for a while", and on the other are "items that are really NPCs for the DM to use to stir things up". The first category includes what the "new world order" called "Rares" and Artifacts like The Book of Infinite Spells, The Codex of Infinite Planes, The Hammer of Thunderbolts and The Shield of Prator. The second includes all the Artifacts that get a Concordance score and goals. I would call these classes "Simple Artifacts" and "Personality Artifacts" to add to the plain "Magic Items" that are the things characters can make and (thus) players get (rules limited) control over, subject to party resources.

So, we're probably not that far apart, really.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

vampire class works ok at heroic, but flubs higher up. Again, no support beyond what first came out.

Worked fine for us. Vampire is more designed for the guy that wants to play a Vampire, not min/maxers. It goes for flavor. I'm not saying more support for it wouldn't be nice, but clearly WoTC is cutting back. It IS an AEDU class, so it should be pretty easy to expand.

Blackguard can at least borrow from regular paladin.

True, its actually a perfectly good class. Would be interesting to get some more support, but BoVD has a bunch of interesting options that work well with it thematically.

Binders eventually got a fey-pact option, but wasn't much.
"You have combat advantage in dim light or less," "You get +1 to saving throws in dim light or less," etc mechanics aren't that impressive unless you are in a campaign with a lot of dim lighting.
Assassin class had one prelim development in Dragon, which was interesting, and then a total rewrite in HoS that was kinda bland and uninspiring (to me). So the result is two completely different assassin classes: the O-ssassing and the E-ssassin.
There was a lot of potential for HoS, but the product was very disappointing.

Binders are crud. The problem is CONCEPT though, the mechanics could be OK except the concept is too close to existing warlock subclasses. There just wasn't room for it to work well and be distinct. Frankly it feels like it didn't pan out and they just kept it in because they needed page count. The E-ssassin is actually pretty decent, and they've done some stuff for it in Dragon. Remember, the O-ssassin was actually a DDI-only 'test' class. WotC never released it as a finished thing and basically it wasn't a great design, BUT it wasn't taking up page count in any book either. In any case its playable, if not great.

I found 2nd Ed, when it first came out, to be fairly satisfying. (remember, this was in the days before wide-spread internet use--1989.) And there wasn't a lot of call for corrections. It had a lot of improvements from 1st ed, and played well. And it didn't normally have massive, blatant, inexcusable typos. Even basic text in 4e has some things that, heck, just running a spell-checker would have found. Then you have things like "Close Blurst"--what the heck was that supposed to be? A blast or a burst? How did this make it to press?

Yeah, you have some rose-colored glasses in terms of typos and etc in earlier editions. While I don't have some sort of statistics I read a lot of stuff and play plenty of games. I am pretty sure 4e doesn't have any unusual number of typos or other similar defects. If you have been involved in the production chain for things like books you'll also know that it isn't a matter of "just use a spell checker", that's silly.