Alright already!!!

[Storminator]

But all I have seen is a 1st level fighter for fourth ed....

But the OP wasn't talking about the 1st level Fighter we have seen, he was making a more generalized point.

You can tell this because he made a distinction between "move and attack" and "full attack."

:shrug:

PS

 

[Wiman]

High marks for mentioning Glen Cook, one of my favorite series is the Black Company - Green Ronin did a nice stat book for 3.X on it (but HP is right it's a better fit in 4e.)

 

[Gimby]

Playing a trip/disarm focused fighter a couple of years back I got quite familiar with the ins and outs of it. It became very clear that the effectiveness of the abilities depended very strongly on the enemies you were facing.

Against medium sized weapon using humanoids (large if you go enlarged) you have the ability to swiftly disable your enemies. Especially when you consider that the follow-up attack from improved trip can be used to disarm them. Against anything other that that class of monster you have severe problems applying those tactics.

It's similar in a way to the Rogue and Ranger whose effectiveness depends massively on the type of enemy they face.

This may well be where some of the disconnect is coming from between those who think that the fighter has lots of good options and those who think those options suck - it depends very much on the type of campaigns you are used to.

On trip as an encounter power - it may be something similar to the BoNS disarm manoeuvre - it's an attack plus a disarm rather than the only way to disarm. It's possible that there are standard attack options in the same way that 3e had them.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

I'm mostly a lurker, but I'll add my toss of the copper.

First and foremost I'm noticing one rather glaring error in some arguments stating that having a character who can do 'x' power at will all the time during an encounter. They forget that players can actually be *quite* clever if given the basic rules of any editions combat.

I don't know if its simply that I've been blessed with some incredibly clever players, or that perhaps 'I'm doing it wrong' in some sense but I rarely run into the "Oh, I just cast whatever again." problem.

For example I'll use the 4e fighter to illustrate something one of my players actually DID do in game (though on a 3.5 character). you are given the general powers and basic rules of the fighter. He likes to hit things, he likes to do damage, he can do 'x' power at-will.

Now, said fighter is standing on the deck of an airship, Cleaving this and Tide of Ironing that, when he suddenly spies a smaller pirate craft that's been making strafing runs at the group and the ship the whole battle. So he decides that if that blighter gets close enough.. Well, he's going to jump on the craft and toss the pilot right overboard so he can give a whirl at piloting this contraption.

I'd happily rule on the fly that he could do so if he wished, and take it from there. See? He didn't use cleave, or wasn't confined to any of his x-powers a day/encounter/at-will, and the results could be pretty spectacular (They certainly were for the encounter where this did actually take place).

Mages casting magic missile over and over. Well, considering its at least more cinematic than a character resorting to a hideously ineffective attack such as a crossbow, or dagger just to feel like they're doing something in the group, I don't really understand the problem here. In a purely cinematic sense when was the last time you saw Harry Potter suddenly take out a crossbow when he had a perfectly good wand in his hand?

And nowhere in the rules does it state that a mage couldn't suddenly cast a magic missile at the large chandelier hanging over a mob of minions below and have it fall on them. Or say, blast a bridge plank out from under some poor sod trying to cross a bridge towards him.

Any edition is only as good as the players and the DM I find. Yes, every encounter might not be some whirlwind Raiders of the Lost Ark style explosion-fest, but it sure would be boring as Hades if every encounter was just another room, with just another pack of things waiting to die attacking the party.

My suggestion is look beyond all of this. If you enjoy 3.5's way of combat, fantastic! You've found something that works! If (like myself, admittedly) you can see some insane potential for 4e's rules then.. Well, I'm going with it. Fiddly points like 'realistic HP's' or 'At-will' powers don't mean a damnable thing to me to be quite honest. The biggest selling point for me will be the fact that they don't have to worry about powers but can resort to them if they need to. (Plus anything that lessens book keeping and DM-prep time is a godsend to me).

I've already run two sessions with the 4e preview materials, and am already making more encounters up in my head knowing that I won't have to worry about the 'oh.. I just cast magic missile again' trap with this lot.

 

[bramadan]

... If 4e has a problem, it's 4e's problem. No amount of decrying 3e is going to change that, justify that, or make it go away.

I think that you are arguing from a false premise here. Obviously 4e will have problems. Every game or every other thing people make has some. It will not be perfect. Argument ten becomes whether it will be "good enough" where "good enough" is a fairly subjective matter.
In order to bring "good enough" from the realm of utterly subjective and thus make it possible to discuss people compare 4e to something that has been around a while and was clearly "good enough" for a lot of people - to whit, DnD 3e.

If we are discussing a new model of a car we will compare it with Volvo or Lexus or even a Ferrari but we shan't say "This car can not fly and that is obviously its problem - one that the fact that no other car can fly has no bearing on".

 

[Zinegata]

<crying from laughing so hard> Yup, this one is very funny! You think people would be happy their mage of choice isn't pulling out a crossbow and hoping their god of choice was watching at that moment to let them roll a 20!

The real problem with the "Magic Missile" every round thing is that it's just a cosmetic change. In 3.X, if you run out of spells, you roll an attack dice, hope you hit, and roll damage. In 4.0, you do the exact same thing. Except now, it's called "Magic Missile" instead of "Crossbow shot".

Of course, one may argue that it's not big deal. Personally speaking however, that's 20 years of tradition swept aside in favor of giving the crossbow attack a more arcaney flavor. Magic Missile is one of the defining elements of D&D. You know it's D&D because people can cast an auto-hit spell known as Magic Missile. I'd have made it a powerful (hence memorable) per-day ability at the very least.

 

[Zinegata]

I think that you are arguing from a false premise here. Obviously 4e will have problems. Every game or every other thing people make has some. It will not be perfect. Argument ten becomes whether it will be "good enough" where "good enough" is a fairly subjective matter.

But that's not his argument. His argument is that 4E has its flaws and it should be judged based on its flaws. Complaining about a past product is merely an attempt to muddle the issue.

Products can be judged on their own. That's why there are independent, measurable variables that can objectively measure the performance of a product. Roleplaying games, despite their highly subjective nature, are no exception to this universal rule.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

But that's not his argument. His argument is that 4E has its flaws and it should be judged based on its flaws. Complaining about a past product is merely an attempt to muddle the issue.

Products can be judged on their own. That's why there are independent, measurable variables that can objectively measure the performance of a product. Roleplaying games, despite their highly subjective nature, are no exception to this universal rule.

But when people are trying to decide whether to switch or not, it makes sense to compare and contrast the two products that the person is trying to decide between.

That's what his argument keeps missing and he seems incapable of grasping. The discussions on this forum are oriented around, "Should I play 3.x or should I play 4E" They are not oriented around "Should I play 4E, or should I do something else with my time altogether."

 

[Zinegata]

But when people are trying to decide whether to switch or not, it makes sense to compare and contrast the two products that the person is trying to decide between.

That's what his argument keeps missing and he seems incapable of grasping. The discussions on this forum are oriented around, "Should I play 3.x or should I play 4E" They are not oriented around "Should I play 4E, or should I do something else with my time altogether."

I'm tempted to say that people here are arguing about two different things then .

 

[I'm A Banana]

If we are discussing a new model of a car we will compare it with Volvo or Lexus or even a Ferrari but we shan't say "This car can not fly and that is obviously its problem - one that the fact that no other car can fly has no bearing on".

It's fair to make comparisons. It's useless to defend 4e flaws using 3e's flaws. To use your analogy, it's useless to excuse the new model for not doing something that it could be doing based on the fact that older models don't do it.

It might be a more apt analogy to use something that other cars do. Say, get 30 miles to the gallon. There are cars out there that do that, just as there are game systems out there that give melee combatants a lot to do. This new model does not appear to, in some people's opinions. It is an entirely relevant criticism that this model does not appear to do something that some other cars/game systems do.

And bringing up the fact that a 10 year old car also doesn't get 30 miles to the gallon is useless. So what? We're not talking about this 10 year old model, we're talking about this new model, which appears to be not doing something that is probably well within its capacity to do.

That's what his argument keeps missing and he seems incapable of grasping. The discussions on this forum are oriented around, "Should I play 3.x or should I play 4E" They are not oriented around "Should I play 4E, or should I do something else with my time altogether."

The question in both cases is "Should I Play 4e?"

What 3e does or doesn't do isn't going to answer that question for anyone.

What else the other person does (and I garuantee that continuing 3e is only one of the multitude of options here) is irrelevant. Obviously, that thing is more enjoyable for them than 4e. By criticising that thing, you're not going to make it less enjoyable for them, or give them a reason to play 4e, you're just going to be offering empty, irrelevant criticism of something that doesn't even matter, and isn't about 4e.

If someone things that 4e doesn't give fighters enough options, saying "3e didn't, either!" isn't going to tell them why they should play 4e. It might tell them why they shouldn't play 3e, but that isn't the only alternative, by far, and it creates then a discussion about how right or wrong you are about 3e, which is completely useless, because this forum is mostly for discussion about 4e.