Dice4Hire
First Post
That sums up my main dilemma. I do not like the psionic classes at all, but Dark Sun is psionic. I'll have to allow them, and it might force me to get the book.
Anyone else out there with rule overload?
- Thread starter BobTheNob
- Start date
That sums up my main dilemma. I do not like the psionic classes at all, but Dark Sun is psionic. I'll have to allow them, and it might force me to get the book.
Zaran
Adventurer
I totally agree with Bob. I'm hoping they will leave the classes and races alone and start working on more stuff for the GM.
Every power is starting to look like stereo instructions too. That's a tracking nightmare. There are people that say 4e is simplified. My 5 pages of character sheet beg to differ. Hehe.
Don't get me wrong. I like 4th edition. I think it's better than the older editions. But let's stop before we start getting races that are made out of twigs and rocks... oh wait...
Every power is starting to look like stereo instructions too. That's a tracking nightmare. There are people that say 4e is simplified. My 5 pages of character sheet beg to differ. Hehe.
Don't get me wrong. I like 4th edition. I think it's better than the older editions. But let's stop before we start getting races that are made out of twigs and rocks... oh wait...
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
For me PHB3 and MP2 are a necessary amount (love my hybrids - they took the lid off) and PHB3 introduced some new ones that are going to need support (Psionic Power book at minimum - are rune priests needing a divine power book of ther own ala Runic Power ?).... I find myself still wanting more powers for some archetypes I have been building.
Creative Character Build Compilations
Although encouraging players to use strong flavor control will get you a very long ways.
Creative Character Build Compilations
Although encouraging players to use strong flavor control will get you a very long ways.
I don't have a problem with the number of books that are coming out, or the options in them. I really like some of the new material (hybrids for one), though I don't know when I'm ever going to get to use it; my group is currently level 20, and it has taken a long time to get there.
This is my biggest problem. The amount of errata just seems to be ridiculous to me, and it doesn't look like the stream is ever going to end.
I'm not trying to make this an edition war or anything. I have no idea how much errata there was in previous editions as the groups I played with in earlier edition games had their version of the edition (I.E. which rules they followed, which they didn't, plus all their house rules) and we never really bothered with any errata. However, I am now the DM for our 4e games, and I'm still the only person in our group that has DMd 4e. So I try to keep up with the errata, but it's just too much work to bother with.
This is my biggest problem. The amount of errata just seems to be ridiculous to me, and it doesn't look like the stream is ever going to end.
I'm not trying to make this an edition war or anything. I have no idea how much errata there was in previous editions as the groups I played with in earlier edition games had their version of the edition (I.E. which rules they followed, which they didn't, plus all their house rules) and we never really bothered with any errata. However, I am now the DM for our 4e games, and I'm still the only person in our group that has DMd 4e. So I try to keep up with the errata, but it's just too much work to bother with.
Errata for 3e was fairly minimal because the designers for most part couldn't be bothered to create any. A few players tried emailing wotc, offering to produce errata free of charge and were rebuffed. And when they did, they screwed up big time (such as tome of battle errata containing complete mage errata).
I guess this trend of new races/classes is inevitable. 4e classes are for most part, 1-trick ponies which can only perform the role they were created for. You want a new character concept or build centered around a certain attack style, the only way is to wait for wotc to create a new custom race and/or class which matches.
I don't know. I like more races and options. Deva in PHB2 was brilliant. I love the Seeker and the Runepriest in PHB3.
Not everyone will - and that's the point! Have enough options that everyone has a choice of their favorite classes.
I think there is some truth, though. I occasionally see feats and powers that seem to do the exact same thing, and wonder if they were really necessary. Some paragon paths have a strong flavor, others seem somewhat illdefined.
But those seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I mean, look at Martial Power 2 - one of its big things are the weapon feats, which really were something that was missing; a way to help define a character around a specific weapon fighting style, so that different weapons can feel more unique in actual play. I think that's a good thing.
I like feats that can make individual concepts easier to flesh out. I think some of the weakness of the system, right now, is having a few too many generically good feats (especially big offenders like Expertise), combined with not always being easy to hunt through feats for precisely what you want.
Still... if the options are useless or overwhelming, just don't use them. Don't buy the books, maybe turn them off as a resource in the CB if there is a way to do so. The game remains playable even with just the core three books, since everything since then has largely just added new "options" rather than new "rules".
Not everyone will - and that's the point! Have enough options that everyone has a choice of their favorite classes.
I think there is some truth, though. I occasionally see feats and powers that seem to do the exact same thing, and wonder if they were really necessary. Some paragon paths have a strong flavor, others seem somewhat illdefined.
But those seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I mean, look at Martial Power 2 - one of its big things are the weapon feats, which really were something that was missing; a way to help define a character around a specific weapon fighting style, so that different weapons can feel more unique in actual play. I think that's a good thing.
I like feats that can make individual concepts easier to flesh out. I think some of the weakness of the system, right now, is having a few too many generically good feats (especially big offenders like Expertise), combined with not always being easy to hunt through feats for precisely what you want.
Still... if the options are useless or overwhelming, just don't use them. Don't buy the books, maybe turn them off as a resource in the CB if there is a way to do so. The game remains playable even with just the core three books, since everything since then has largely just added new "options" rather than new "rules".
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I guess this trend of new races/classes is inevitable. 4e classes are for most part, 1-trick ponies which can only perform the role they were created for. You want a new character concept or build centered around a certain attack style, the only way is to wait for wotc to create a new custom race and/or class which matches.
Some of my favorite builds (and characters) come from power and feat selections and re-flavoring of powers too like the Duelist Build Rogue or the Princess Build Warlord or my Master of Faeries and Incompetent Fighter ;-p
A recent character I did is a pacifist thief (quite authentic feeling)
Perhaps I am talking about the part that isnt "the most part"
Last edited:
Honestly, it doesn't change all that much to go ahead and do so. For all the claims about errata rendering the books useless, most changes are minor - or even just fixes of typos - and there are very few changes to the fundamental rules themselves. A small percent of feats and powers in the PHB have had real changes - but 3% of the book being altered really doesn't make it useless. And if you don't want to use the errata, I imagine most issues that the errata was designed to fix either won't come up in your game - or, if it does, the DM can probably figure out a fix on their own!
Except for the DCs for everything, which were 5 too high originally, and then were made 5 too low. That's one piece of errata that I still can't forgive.
Can't argue there! In fact, it slipped my mind specifically because it is one piece of errata I've ignored myself. (Or rather, only partially listened to - I've kept the original DCs, removed the footnote about adding 5 for skill checks, and found that they work just fine as a result.)
Which in many ways is exactly my point - they had a few issues, and tried to patch them. You can use the patch, or ignore it entirely - and either it doesn't become a problem in your game, or it does and the DM can fix it on their own.
