D&D 4E Another Review of 4e

[MadMaligor]

DerNater and other people who claim that 4e has just as many builds as 3e -- dudes, irregardless of which game is better, you are just totally wrong.

A quick question about this statement. Are you saying you prefer to have 30 choices, of which 4 are really playably efficient options that require a hard choice, or 10 choices, of which 6-8 are playably efficient options that require hard choices? Im not using specific numbers for a reason, this is just an illustrative question regarding your view on options but goes to the 3.5 vs 4 edition argument.

It's arguable that non-spellcasting classes have more builds, I'd have to really count it out. They DO have a lot more interesting powers. But clerics and wizards have about 1/10th of the builds they used to have. (And yes, I know that the typical 4e-fan response to this is "They had it coming." Sigh... ~_~ But it's not just the wizards who lose, it's the whole game world because the spell list is gone and now even bad guys don't have interesting spells to choose from unless you make 'em up from scratch! It would have been interesting if the 4e DMG had an expanded power list to fill these gaps, but I guess we're forced to wait for splatbooks.)

The spell list is not gone, its undergone a transformation and split into two groups, powers and rituals. I would agree its certainly been reduced significantly though. This to me is what your agrument seems to revolve around and I get that. Its a distinct change in play vs the old school caster memory/book requirement. People can argue that you can just about build either a ritual or power to accomodate almost every spell you would want. I would bet we see just about every spell 3.5 has to offer (with some noted "gamebreaker" exceptions) eventually in some formalized splat. Oh and splats have always been there, will always be there, and even the ol red box had em, hell the OD&D white box had em (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, etc...). Gygax, TSR, WoTC all love the splat books. Every time someone says "I guess I will have to wait for the splat books *sigh*" I cringe and want to revoke their "I am a D&D enthusiast" card.

However, the other classes have also been "narrowed" in significant ways. As a general design principle, I far prefer 3e's basic idea that "your class is something that gives you a bunch of stuff, and you can mix and match classes to get different combinations of stuff" rather than 4e's basic, simpler idea that "your class is Your Class, and these core abilities will always be your Core Abilities." 3e is vastly more flexible. You could start out as a 1st level fighter, change your mind, take the next 6 levels in rogue, and presto -- you're more rogue than fighter. In 4e, if you start out as a fighter, you are pretty much gonna be a fighter for the whole game, doing your duty in the Defender role, whether you get tired of it or not.

At some point I half expected 3.5 to become 3.75 and remove the class sytem altogether, because it became so convoluted and there were distinct class grabs that were obvious min/max tools. Nothing short of DM intervention stopped or penalized this, and if a DM did houserule against or penalize certain combinations...it went against the whole point of 3.5 multiclassing. The only reasons for not taking certain options became roleplay decisions. So in a wierd way at times, roleplay became a self nerf. Which in turn led to some heated discusions at the gaming table. I guess that is fine if your DM wants to deal with strife at the table and have to negotiate party unity or handle solo side adventures all the time (more on this later).

I'm also not interested in hearing people complain about how animal companions and familiars and henchmen and animated undead and summoned monsters slowed down the game, and so forth. Sorry guys. I've heard this about a zillion times on forums. Yeah, they kinda did slow things down, to be honest. But, they were still FUN. Just like disarming, sundering, tripping and all the other stuff that you COULD do in 3e (of course, 4e has the hand-waving rule, I acknowledge, and yes, grapple in 3e was confusing). The potential imbalances of these rules are all the kinds of things that an experienced DM can work around. That's what gaming is about: the DM knows in advance what the party's abilities are (unless you're playing a tournament game or something), so if they're a good DM, they *don't* force your 3e rogue to encounter tons and tons of Plants and Undead and Constructs. ~_~ It works both ways, though; the DM also tries to challenge the characters knowing just what will challenge them the most; she sets up a scenario, an adventure; the players try to compete in it and/or break it.

First, Gaming is not about requiring an experienced DM, and one that is willing to deal with rule imbalances. Gaming is about getting together with friends of all experience levels, enjoying each others company, and playing a system that is fun for the group, whatever edition that may be. If you dont mind rule imbalance and you can work around things, great, more power to ya. Me, I prefer that tripping, sundering, and disarming are not the holy trinity of combat but rather the odd occurance or attempt made for a specific reason (we wont even get into grapple). I much prefer either a tame but balanced version, or no version at all that I can houserule myself instead of arguing with my player who just built his rogue around the RAW.

(Yes, breaking it should always be an option. If the players find some hole in your adventure, if they kill the big bad guy with a Finger of Death, or use Discern Lies and discover some clue they weren't supposed to discover, or whatever.... then the DM's gotta roll with the punches and make the next challenge more challenging. No campaign is, or should be, airtight... that is called railroading.)

Bending it, hell ya! Breaking it, hell no! I dont mind inventive/creative ways of finding a solution that is outside the path, provided that the end result is the same or similair. suprising me by taking out the evil priest I had planned on escaping and using as a continuing plot threat is fine. Turning on the party and joining forces with the priest to befriend him and later assasinate him, thus reaping all the rewards for yourself...not fine. It sounds great on paper and for sure, it makes great storytelling. Its also a good way to end up with a punch in the face at the game table. The reason I use this example is because just that happened at a session I ran. The guy who turncoated was a rogue and it was "in character" for him to roleplay the situation the way he did. I couldnt disagree that his arguments were logical and that it was "realistic". I also couldnt disagree with the guy playing the mage who said that it was pretty realistic to expect that if you betray people, inside or out of the game, one should expect to avoid the consequences...and duck and run. But hey, if your DM allows this kind of "realistic" option and is willing to accept the consequences that can, and will happen...to each his own.

Does 3e have a lot of BAD potential builds? Well, yeah, of course, this is part of the fun of tinkering with the system (more for non-newbie players, admittedly). I've played several optimized characters, but also several non-optimized characters -- hell, I created all my 3e characters with die-rolling in the oldschool 3e fashion, so of course I was *forced* to play non-optimal characters when my stats were bad. And That Was Just Fine. D&D isn't really a game about winning combats, after all. It's a game about wasting time with your friends and making believe you're in some fantasy world. (AND winning combats.) If I want to spend 8 skill points on "Profession (Cook)" instead of "Concentration" then why the heck not? ~_~

I have no problems with players who want non-combat skills. Hell I have a nice little system in place I have been using for over 20 years. Thats what D&D is all about, taking the RAW, and making it your own. But I have yet to see, 3.5 included, a system built around exploring dungeons and slaying dragons, that does a good job of incorporating a logical, workable non-combat skills system. Those kinds of things should be roleplayed, not RULEplayed. Please take your rules for non combat skills and leave them out of my PHB and DMG, thank you very much.

And if one of the other players later says "What the hell, Jason! Why didn't you maximize your Concentration, now our whole party is going to die because you got hit while combat-casting!" then... THAT'S NONE OF HIS BUSINESS. ~_~ The individual player's desire for their individual character trumps concerns of team unity and character roles, IMHO. Like I said, D&D is not all about winning combats. If this makes you think "Wow, you must be a bad player to play with," then think what you want. (Let's see, what's the most un-team-oriented thing I ever did... I once attacked another PC in mid-combat because I was Neutral Good and he, a Neutral barbarian, was going to spend his action to coup-de-grace a person who'd surrendered. Hey, I warned him first.)

In my campaigns this is called "railroading in reverse". Otherwise known as one player using the system to force other players to accomodate their personal desire to run their PC as they see fit, campaign be damned. I have one hard and fast rule in my campaings, only one. We all came here to play and have fun together and enjoy being wizards and clerics, warriors and thieves...all while eating pizza and drinking a beer, dont screw that up with your delusions of grandeur.

I dont mind arguing, teasing, joking, even some well roleplayed party strife involving a showdown over killing a prisoner (our Barbarian would have argued to no end about keeping whatever it was alive, but at the end would have said something to the effect of "If you like it so much you can keep it chained to your hip, but let me be clear, the moment it looks the wrong way at any one of us its dead.". At the end of the day though, we are all on the same team with regards to the goal/quest/outcome of the adventure.

Likewise, I think the de-emphasis on alignment is something which is aimed at making the game simpler for newbies. Now the default assumption is "The game is heroic, so you'd better be Good, Lawful Good or Unaligned. Otherwise, you will make the other players angry with you." This is very sensible advice for a bunch of newbie players in elementary school or junior high, in which there's always one guy who plays Chaotic Evil so he can derail the plot and screw with the other characters. It's NOT necessary advice for more experienced role-players who can actually roleplay these alignment differences in the spirit of fun, without getting mad at one another. (And yes, of course, in the grand scheme of things there's no need for an alignment system at all... but hey, this is D&D we're talking about! So I'm talking about the things that, to me, make D&D D&D.)

Just the opposite for me actually. The idea that alignment dictated what a PC could and could not do, or better put, would and would not do, always gave me fits. It inhibited roleplay and also created great roleplay elements at the same time. The idea behind the 9's were good. The implementation sucked hard and put a stress on the DM that was unneccessary. The new system broadens the scope and still allows for roleplay in any of the 9's. I just dont have to decide whether or not PC's go to far beyond their chosen alignments and have to penalize or rule in some form or fashion. I also detested the whole notion of the LG paladin (or any alignment restricted class for that matter). Paladins should be defined by a code or belief system, not by an alignment.

Okay, now I've really been rambling. So what do I like about 4e?

* Well, it's a good-looking set of books. The art is good.
* On a "personal bias" level, I like dragonborn (sort of) and tieflings.
* It's a good intro RPG for newbies because, frankly, it's a lot simpler and easier to start playing than 3e. Also, the fact that 1st-level characters are stronger is a boon for appealing to newbies.
* The new miniatures-oriented rules frankly look AWESOME. If you're going to play with a miniatures mat, then it makes the game a lot more fun to move the miniatures around more liberally and push people into walls and pits whenever possible.
* They wisely made the math a lot simpler. It seems a lot easier to figure out, on the fly, effects of range and movement and what-effect-does-what. (Because there's no Ability Score damage or buffs, because movement penalties and bonuses are in the form of flat positives and negatives rather than "half" or "quarter"... etc.)
* After some consideration, it was a good idea to remove Skill Points and just go with straight trained/untrained. Much simpler. Skills always took a lot of time in chargen for relatively little result, I have to admit.

And here's what I don't like, not counting the wizard-and-cleric-nerfing, which obviously is just me being a whiner about my favorite classes: ~_~

* Significantly less variety in character builds. Class is much more of a straightjacket to characters, lacking the mix-and-matchability of 3e's multiclassing and prestige classes. (Admittedly, of course, this was just something in 3e, not in any previous editions. I guess I was spoiled by it.) Emphasis on character roles is a tradeoff, making it easier for new players to understand what D&D is all about, but reducing the core charm of the classes in some ways.
* Characters' abilities, and monsters' abilities, are significantly more combat-oriented and lack flavor as a result. Extreme, extreme emphasis on ritualized encounters and combat.
* While the increased simplicity of the basic rules (simpler math, etc.) is a good thing, I am disappointed that the 4e DMG is missing a lot of the "simulationist" (there, I said it) world info such as the climate-based encounter tables, hardness for dungeon walls & formations, wind speed, this, that and the other thing.

On the whole, I'm forced to concede that (unless you're one of the people who likes roleplaying but doesn't like miniatures) 4e is a more appealing game for newbies. As for myself, though? 3e, definitely 3e.

There are so many players here on this board who like 4th and are certainly not "newbies". I respect your opinion, and think you certainly have some good points, but I tend to disagree on most. I think D&D has always been a "what you make of it" type of game. Its my opinion that the core mechanic went too far into the realm of trying to be a simulation and now the pendulum is swinging back.

Oh and for those who think the roleplay has changed, no offense but that has been said by a grognard or three since day 2 when Blackmoor was released (I exaggerate, but you get the point, its always been about change, and roleplay is roleplay no matter what the edition). Miniatures are also a part of the heart of the game since day 1. Just look at the top of your old woodies or white boxes "Playable with paper and pencil and miniatures. Hmmm, Im not quite positive...but that smacks of Gygax telling us his system is meant to utilize, paper, pencils, and miniatures. My eyes could be decieving me though. (I know I know, it was never forced miniature use...I mean you could always tell if your rogue was close enough to the fireball blast.)

 

[Sylrae]

A quick question about this statement. Are you saying you prefer to have 30 choices, of which 4 are really playably efficient options that require a hard choice, or 10 choices, of which 6-8 are playably efficient options that require hard choices? Im not using specific numbers for a reason, this is just an illustrative question regarding your view on options but goes to the 3.5 vs 4 edition argument.

if the 30 was 3.5 and the 10 4e, I'd go for the 30, because the 4 you mention aren't going to be the only viable options, they will just be the most powerful. there will probably only be 4 that are *NOT* viable options.

The spell list is not gone, its undergone a transformation and split into two groups, powers and rituals. I would agree its certainly been reduced significantly though. This to me is what your agrument seems to revolve around and I get that. Its a distinct change in play vs the old school caster memory/book requirement. People can argue that you can just about build either a ritual or power to accomodate almost every spell you would want. I would bet we see just about every spell 3.5 has to offer (with some noted "gamebreaker" exceptions) eventually in some formalized splat. Oh and splats have always been there, will always be there, and even the ol red box had em, hell the OD&D white box had em (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, etc...). Gygax, TSR, WoTC all love the splat books. Every time someone says "I guess I will have to wait for the splat books *sigh*" I cringe and want to revoke their "I am a D&D enthusiast" card.

Hopefully, then I won't have to convert so many up myself.

At some point I half expected 3.5 to become 3.75 and remove the class sytem altogether, because it became so convoluted and there were distinct class grabs that were obvious min/max tools. Nothing short of DM intervention stopped or penalized this, and if a DM did houserule against or penalize certain combinations...it went against the whole point of 3.5 multiclassing. The only reasons for not taking certain options became roleplay decisions. So in a wierd way at times, roleplay became a self nerf. Which in turn led to some heated discusions at the gaming table. I guess that is fine if your DM wants to deal with strife at the table and have to negotiate party unity or handle solo side adventures all the time (more on this later).

The point of 3.5 was a massive number of options, and only a handful of them were overpowered and needed houseruling (monk duelist for example got 3 stats to AC). and you didn't usually have to ban the combo, just make a slight change, like "Only one stat besides Dex can add to AC at a time, but the player can switch which one as a free action if they have multiple other stats which *Could* add to it."

First, Gaming is not about requiring an experienced DM, and one that is willing to deal with rule imbalances. Gaming is about getting together with friends of all experience levels, enjoying each others company, and playing a system that is fun for the group, whatever edition that may be. If you dont mind rule imbalance and you can work around things, great, more power to ya. Me, I prefer that tripping, sundering, and disarming are not the holy trinity of combat but rather the odd occurance or attempt made for a specific reason (we wont even get into grapple). I much prefer either a tame but balanced version, or no version at all that I can houserule myself instead of arguing with my player who just built his rogue around the RAW.

If the players are building their characters off on their own then bringing them into your game, you're going to have issues regardless. not much else to say there. If you want to run with all of RAW, that's fine, but if your players are just ASSUMING anything in RAW is ok, you should put them in their place and tell them RAW!=AVAILABLE.

Bending it, hell ya! Breaking it, hell no! I dont mind inventive/creative ways of finding a solution that is outside the path, provided that the end result is the same or similair. suprising me by taking out the evil priest I had planned on escaping and using as a continuing plot threat is fine. Turning on the party and joining forces with the priest to befriend him and later assasinate him, thus reaping all the rewards for yourself...not fine. It sounds great on paper and for sure, it makes great storytelling. Its also a good way to end up with a punch in the face at the game table. The reason I use this example is because just that happened at a session I ran. The guy who turncoated was a rogue and it was "in character" for him to roleplay the situation the way he did. I couldnt disagree that his arguments were logical and that it was "realistic". I also couldnt disagree with the guy playing the mage who said that it was pretty realistic to expect that if you betray people, inside or out of the game, one should expect to avoid the consequences...and duck and run. But hey, if your DM allows this kind of "realistic" option and is willing to accept the consequences that can, and will happen...to each his own.

The mage was in game, and he clearly doesn't understand that it IS in fact a game, a ROLEplaying game, and the characters do not owe the same allegience to eachother that the people may have in real life. If the player spazzed out and punched the rogue's player in the face over the player acting in character, he'd definitely be out of the game, and all future games, and there's a good chance he'd never step foot in my house again. If he reacted negatively towards the rogue IN game (sneaking up on him while he's sleeping and "coup de grace"'ing him for the betrayal, that would be completely reasonable. There really was no betrayal between the people, just their fictional characters, in a fictional setting, for the sake of plot and character development and personality, where that is part of the game. Your players wouldn't attack eachother in real life when their character gets betrayed in a Vampire:The Masquerade would they? If so you'd have no players by the end of the 4th session. D&D is similar, but the players are not quite as likely to have ulterior motives.

I have no problems with players who want non-combat skills. Hell I have a nice little system in place I have been using for over 20 years. Thats what D&D is all about, taking the RAW, and making it your own. But I have yet to see, 3.5 included, a system built around exploring dungeons and slaying dragons, that does a good job of incorporating a logical, workable non-combat skills system. Those kinds of things should be roleplayed, not RULEplayed. Please take your rules for non combat skills and leave them out of my PHB and DMG, thank you very much.

Many people used those rules, and appreciated them being there. There's no reason to just NOT use them if they don't fit in your game. If one player tries to manipulate another, of COURSE mechanics are needed, because the players both know what's going on! Otherwise it's hard to be sneaky, cause if you're passing notes to the DM, everyone knows something is up.

In my campaigns this is called "railroading in reverse". Otherwise known as one player using the system to force other players to accomodate their personal desire to run their PC as they see fit, campaign be damned. I have one hard and fast rule in my campaings, only one. We all came here to play and have fun together and enjoy being wizards and clerics, warriors and thieves...all while eating pizza and drinking a beer, don't screw that up with your delusions of grandeur.

I dont mind arguing, teasing, joking, even some well roleplayed party strife involving a showdown over killing a prisoner (our Barbarian would have argued to no end about keeping whatever it was alive, but at the end would have said something to the effect of "If you like it so much you can keep it chained to your hip, but let me be clear, the moment it looks the wrong way at any one of us its dead.". At the end of the day though, we are all on the same team with regards to the goal/quest/outcome of the adventure.

WOW. So if you make the rogue, you have to make the build everyone ELSE wants you to make. Thay's just awesome. The group basically has to follow a set path don't they. Like in crash bandicoot. you get the illusion of playing a 3 dimensional game, but really you just follow along the one available path with no control over your options.

Just the opposite for me actually. The idea that alignment dictated what a PC could and could not do, or better put, would and would not do, always gave me fits. It inhibited roleplay and also created great roleplay elements at the same time. The idea behind the 9's were good. The implementation sucked hard and put a stress on the DM that was unneccessary. The new system broadens the scope and still allows for roleplay in any of the 9's. I just dont have to decide whether or not PC's go to far beyond their chosen alignments and have to penalize or rule in some form or fashion. I also detested the whole notion of the LG paladin (or any alignment restricted class for that matter). Paladins should be defined by a code or belief system, not by an alignment.

Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, your actions dictate your alignment. When you choose your alignment at the beginning, you're basically saying how you intend to play the character. If you stray from that too much and are playing another alignment, then the dm will tell you to change the alignment on your sheet to match your character's personality/actions. Alignment is important for spells and abilities that act based on alignments, and qualifying for classes. That's about the only mechanical effect it has. If you act against your alignment consistently, your alignment changes.

There are so many players here on this board who like 4th and are certainly not "newbies". I respect your opinion, and think you certainly have some good points, but I tend to disagree on most. I think D&D has always been a "what you make of it" type of game. Its my opinion that the core mechanic went too far into the realm of trying to be a simulation and now the pendulum is swinging back.

Well you're entitled to your opinion as well, but I'd prefer to have mechanics I can discard than lack mechanics and have to houserule them, especially because that means all the DMs will houserule the nonexisting mechanics differently. Which means you're more limited to how many different games you can play in, because nobody wants to remember 4 sets of house rules depending on which day of the week it is, for something where they could have easily added a discardable mechanic to the book.

Oh and for those who think the roleplay has changed, no offense but that has been said by a grognard or three since day 2 when Blackmoor was released (I exaggerate, but you get the point, its always been about change, and roleplay is roleplay no matter what the edition). Miniatures are also a part of the heart of the game since day 1. Just look at the top of your old woodies or white boxes "Playable with paper and pencil and miniatures. Hmmm, Im not quite positive...but that smacks of Gygax telling us his system is meant to utilize, paper, pencils, and miniatures. My eyes could be decieving me though. (I know I know, it was never forced miniature use...I mean you could always tell if your rogue was close enough to the fireball blast.)

Roleplay hasn't really changed no, it's just the mechanics for D&D have changed, and not everyone sees all the changes as improvements. Some things can be seen as decidedly downgraded by many people. Minis aren't new, but they're rather expensive and can have drawbacks. as for knowing where the players are, you can use something simpler (graph paper, a white board) to mark player locations when its important.

~Sylrae out.

 

[SuperGnome]

One of the things that's getting my goat is how they've split classes into various paths with path specific powers (a Warlock's Eldritch Pact for example). The idea is fine, but splitting the powers up into paths limits variation to the extreme. Sure it's easier to balance, but what about variation?

I'm all for simplifying RUNNING the game, but why boil the meat off and leave just the bones of character creation? People have argued having 8 choices with just a few viable ones is wasting some space. This might be true, but what they've done is give a number of choices (say 6 for a random number), then make 3 paths so in each path you can only choose from 2.

Feats have the same issue because so many are restricted to race or class. You end up with just a handful of choices (if you're lucky).

What if i'd rather spread my skills knowledge out over my skills instead of specializing in just a few? How complicated would an actual skill point system be? Drop synergies to simplify, but this seems overkill.

I was excited to make up a character to see how the new rules handled it. In almost every part (skills, powers, feats) I thought, "That's it?".

If the most of the feats weren't so specific, and they hadn't split up a reasonable number of powers into rediculously narrow sub-class paths it'd be alright. But they did.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

All or nearly all of the various "missing builds" for 3E are still going to be available in 4E. The first PH drastically pared down options compared to the 3E PH, but as some have pointed out, many of those 3E options were worthless.

4E will release the "good" options in future supplments. They've already set up the system to support a long string of follow-up releases and supplements. Now, instead of increasingly esoteric and off the wall supplements because all the major variations have already been played out. . . there will be a solid core of class concepts and powers that will fill the pages of the supplements for years to come.

We will probably see a swashbucker type class at some point. We will definitely see a Necromancer, Barbarian, Druid, and Bard. They're coming. But it takes time to build them, and WotC has to have something they can sell you down the line.

The old classes were such generalists that the later classes and prestige classes were just slicing the same onion thinner and thinner and thinner. Now those class concepts will get good solid classes of their own. But that means that the original classes must give up some of their overly-broad flexibility, in order to leave room for those that follow.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Builds in 4E

All or nearly all of the various "missing builds" for 3E are still going to be available in 4E. The first PH drastically pared down options compared to the 3E PH, but as some have pointed out, many of those 3E options were worthless.

4E will release the "good" options in future supplments. They've already set up the system to support a long string of follow-up releases and supplements. Now, instead of increasingly esoteric and off the wall supplements because all the major variations have already been played out. . . there will be a solid core of class concepts and powers that will fill the pages of the supplements for years to come.

We will probably see a swashbucker type class at some point. We will definitely see a Necromancer, Barbarian, Druid, and Bard. They're coming. But it takes time to build them, and WotC has to have something they can sell you down the line.

The old classes were such generalists that the later classes and prestige classes were just slicing the same onion thinner and thinner and thinner. Now those class concepts will get good solid classes of their own. But that means that the original classes must give up some of their overly-broad flexibility, in order to leave room for those that follow.

 

[IanArgent]

What if i'd rather spread my skills knowledge out over my skills instead of specializing in just a few? How complicated would an actual skill point system be? Drop synergies to simplify, but this seems overkill.

I tried this once in 3.5 - you end up deliberately gimping your character by not focusing on a handful of skills. If you had a skill-point system; the DC by level table on p42, DMG wouldn't work, at least not reliably.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Anyone who thinks 1st level PCs are overpowered clearly hasn't seen 1st level monsters.


4e classes each offer two or three 'builds' (with some, like the warlord, where the build varies your secondary rather than primary stat, a 'little of both' build works, and the Sky Warlock forces the issue). But that's really it, the choices you make after picking your class, though more numerous for some classes than in 3e really don't make a lot of difference. Customizing won't much affect your role or tactics.

The impression I get is that in 4e, books with new classes will sell well, because they'll open up new options, while in 3e it was new feats, spells, and PrCs that players really liked to get thier hands on.

 

[theNater]

One of the things that's getting my goat is how they've split classes into various paths with path specific powers (a Warlock's Eldritch Pact for example). The idea is fine, but splitting the powers up into paths limits variation to the extreme. Sure it's easier to balance, but what about variation?

The Warlock's Eldritch Pact does not limit your options at all. You are free to take powers from any pact. Some powers gain a bonus if you have the appropriate pact, but none of them require a particular pact. Choosing your warlock's pact is no more limiting than choosing your cleric's at-will powers.

Feats have the same issue because so many are restricted to race or class. You end up with just a handful of choices (if you're lucky).

There are 10 heroic feats that have no requirements. Some of those(skill training, for example) can be taken multiple times. Every race has at least 1 racial feat. There are also a number of feats which require only skill training in some skill as a prerequisite. There is no way a heroic tier character can have fewer than 5 feat choices at any time.

What if i'd rather spread my skills knowledge out over my skills instead of specializing in just a few? How complicated would an actual skill point system be? Drop synergies to simplify, but this seems overkill.

You mean you want to be a Jack of all Trades(PHB page 198)? Alternately, a human rogue or ranger who spends all of his feats on skill training can be trained in every skill by level 16.

If the most of the feats weren't so specific, and they hadn't split up a reasonable number of powers into rediculously narrow sub-class paths it'd be alright. But they did.

The fact that more feats have requirements than do not does not mean there are not enough feats without requirements. The class paths are recommendations, not restrictions.

 

[Sylrae]

The impression I get is that in 4e, books with new classes will sell well, because they'll open up new options, while in 3e it was new feats, spells, and PrCs that players really liked to get thier hands on.

Me too. with the new multiclass system, you won't multiclass into a fighter/rogue/ranger, there will be a fighter/rogue/ranger class. and a fighter/ranger class, and a fighter/rogue class, and a rogue/ranger class.

I see 132 combinations of 50/50 mixes necessary, and 1452 3 way combinations. That's 1584 classes they can make huge amounts of money off of people rom without even making all the classes have new features! (for the purpose of the math I included the classes that are definitely coming out. listed below.

cleric
fighter
paladin
ranger
rogue
warlock
warlord
wizard
necromancer
bard
barbarian
druid

in all seriousness though, the new system means we're going to have more base classes now than the obscure PrCs that existed in 3e. nobody knew all the PrCs even if you didnt look at the 3rd party stuff. now nobody will know (or have seen) most of the base classes. yippee.

 

[Guimo]

I'm still waiting for my 4e books and have tried to keep away from prereleases and any compiled stuff so excuse any barbarism I can mention.

I've been playing roleplaying games since 1990 and have been DM in enough adventures to understand that any book in any RPG are just a set of rules ready to be broken. If anything takes longer than 5 minutes to understand, discard it and make a house rule. If you tell me 4e is easier to understand for everyone then it is a plus and not a hindrance. If you say its not as complex but it can manage almost everything then its a plus and not a hindrance. And if you think something is a hindrance then take a pen and start making house rules.

One of the best games we had with my party was when a friend found 10 pages from one of the first TSR attempts on a space RPG (Star Frontiers was the name?). Those pages barely had some information for some races, some combat, some weapons and some skill descriptions. The rest was pure imagination. It was one of the best adventures we played ever. Starships, drug dealing, large corporations. It was pure teamwork and loads of fun. I remember playing this awesome strange blob like race called Dralasith, able to take strange amorphous shapes but gaining no real combat advantage from any form. I used some PlayDoh to represent myself. Fun, fun, fun.

At the same time one of the most boring games I ever played was with a party where the cleric only wanted to heal himself first and always saved a heal spell for himself because he was more important (yes... he was Lawful Good go figure) because the DM had ruled that only people who survived the combat received XP, so players tried to stretch the rules at any length in order to make their characters survive. Things like: My character wont get hit by this lightning bolt I fired against the wall because I fired it with a 37.5 degrees of inclination and when it rebounds again on the ceiling it will pass over my head hitting the rogue behind me (I was the rogue)... Discussions and more discussions... lost time... Boring boring boring.

I have played with parties who didnt liked miniatures at all, parties who used them on a minimum level and parties who brought bucketloads of miniatures (literally... all the trunk of the car of their DM was full of minis).

I have played in parties where you were able to play many sessions without a single combat being fought and parties where having a session without a good fight was considered a wasted session.

So, at the end, it all depends on your party and what each party considers funny. Lots of different people in this small world.

I really dont understand how skills work in this new system as I havent read the rules yet but I liked the 3e method. I think it wasn't a waste of time at all. It all depends on how you want to consider skills. For us, each skill had its benefits.

In order to create a set of magic armor or weapon +5, you had to succeed a check of at least 60 (50 for +4, 40 for +3, 30 for +2, 20 for +1) and take the appropiate time (you have to craft a masterwork weapon to imbue powerful magic). Of course you can do some math and understand that being a level 20 character with 23 in your weaponsmith skill and +5 for your ability bonuses and rolling a 20 in your dice will just bring you to 48... how to get the remaining points? Quest for an item or artifact, quest for a tutor, quest to build the best forge so that you can get more bonuses, adventure, roleplaying... being recognized as the best weaponsmith in the world... priceless...

Same with Diplomacy, stealth, heal (nice rule, healers were able to bring you back even if you were past -10 depending on your skill level), perform (able to charm creatures depending on levels and your skill). We had this Kender once who had such good Gem Cutting skills that increased all the party treasure value just by giving him any gem and enough time. Loads of money... if you were able to find the kender and make him return the gem he found in your pocket of course...

So, never follow the rules. Bend them, break them, ignore them, import rules from other games and adapt them to your game. If anyone wants to play a swashbucker go on and help him make the best character and create moments he can use the character (like the Samurai someone mentioned, it sucked, but depends on the DM to make it memorable).

On the end the objective is that all the players in your party have a good time and keep coming each session.

Play by the rules... die by the rules.

Luck!
Guimo