Anyone else out there with rule overload?

[Jhaelen]

To be honest I would probably be overwhelmed by the number of options by now if I wouldn't check the class guides at WotC CharOp. If you want to play a class you have never played before it's the best/fastest way to get a good overview, IMHO.

I disagree completely. The CharOp boards are the reason why 95% of the rules updates have been released. If you never bother to visit them, you can safely ignore most of the rules updates since all they really do is to fix exploits.

About the only required updates I can think of are the revised Stealth rules and Skill challenges.

 

[Jhaelen]

Errata for 3e was fairly minimal because the designers for most part couldn't be bothered to create any.

This. Lots of supplements desperately needed errata and didn't get them. However, this was probably because 4e was already in the making.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I disagree completely. The CharOp boards are the reason why 95% of the rules updates have been released. If you never bother to visit them, you can safely ignore most of the rules updates since all they really do is to fix exploits.

About the only required updates I can think of are the revised Stealth rules and Skill challenges.

Nothing that you have said makes my statement less useful/true. You question the over the top broken builds that can do infinite damage theoretically and the pre-errata fey-chargers and whatever they have cooked up so far. But that has nothing to with the class guides. Have you ever read one(*1)? Or are you just against the WotC CharOp board in general w/o knowing what's going on.



(*1):If you want to read really good ones I suggest lorduskblade's guides.

 

[MrMyth]

To be fair, this has been happening to me since second edition with a certain subset of players, but I've seen it pop up quite a few times sine 4e has come out, due to the new options coming out all the time - and with them, new possibilities. I've had two players who drop their character mid game and come in with a new character (my biggest pet peeve). Another one loves his character, but is always thinking and talking about new builds.

Yeah, even in 3rd edition, I ran a campaign specifically designed for each player to have a 'roster' of PCs they could pick for the mission of the week.

Rapid character change can undermine the consistent narrative of a campaign, it is true.

On the other hand, if the players are having fun, and getting to play something new is what they enjoy, then sometimes the DM just needs to accept that is their approach to the game, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Runestar]

I disagree completely. The CharOp boards are the reason why 95% of the rules updates have been released. If you never bother to visit them, you can safely ignore most of the rules updates since all they really do is to fix exploits.

About the only required updates I can think of are the revised Stealth rules and Skill challenges.

I disagree. Yes, there are some fixes to remedy broken combos, but the majority seems aimed at re-balancing broken abilities which don't work as expected. These are the stuff which are already broken or too weak on their own, you don't need optimization to prove that hide expertise or rain of blows is too good. They already violate fundamental design tenets in 4e (such as no multiple attacks).

A number of monsters in the MM also had their damage and hp values revised. Again, this has little to do with optimization.

 

[TerraDave]

Some issues with the more and more so far

-Sure, you only use a fraction of options at your table, but all that stuff out there (or potential variety at said table) does take a little more mindshare for the DM or someone making a new character, or other players wanting to know what their companion can do.

-For all the options out there, the game remains oddly narrow. One implication is heavy overlap in some areas: if you want to make a “warrior” that uses a big two-handed weapon or a “magic-user” that can hit multiple targets, boy have you got some options. Many of which do seem similar and bleed into each other and seem to have hit massive diminishing returns.

-But on the other hand, key archetypes or past characters are not really supported. “Longbowmen” type ranged defenders or “swashbuckler” type defenders are not really there (though there are kind a sort a builds for the later) and I am sure there are (many) other examples. And while there are some nice rules on companion NPCs, no real henchmen/cohort rules or builds beyond the beast friend ranger, and no rules or guidelines on strongholds, mass battles, running domains, etc.

-It is true that later books have good stuff, but early books have not so good and forgettable stuff and part of this is the very intentional strategy of spreading “core” material over more books.

 

[Aulirophile]

I disagree completely. The CharOp boards are the reason why 95% of the rules updates have been released. If you never bother to visit them, you can safely ignore most of the rules updates since all they really do is to fix exploits.

About the only required updates I can think of are the revised Stealth rules and Skill challenges.

Um, no. Most of the errata is clarifications (this is how things worked, and how we always intended them to work, but they were phrased poorly).

I take offense to your comments on CharOp however. Some stuff is plain overpowered, broken, or exploitable and that is the designer's fault. CharOp goes out of their way to find such things and get them errata'd, up to an including spending their own time to maintain a wiki page of what is currently broken. I guarantee you Bloodclaw/Reckless would not have seen errata without CharOp. Ditto the Feycharger. If you genuinely don't like brokenly powerful combinations, you have CharOp to thank for getting them errata'd, and they did it on purpose.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't feel 4E has what I would call 'rule overload.' The rules are pretty simple, and there really haven't been (m)any expansions of the rules of the game.



However, I do agree that there are too many rules and options which blur the line between options. This is one of the things I hated about later 3rd Edition which seems to be creeping into 4E very early in the life of 4E; there are too many feats, options, and etc which allow someone to mimic class features and race features without being the class or race that has those features. There are also a multitude of feats and options which allow pretty much any ability attribute to be used for just about anything. In small doses this can be ok, but it's done far too much and it starts to take meaning away from those classes, races, and attributes. I agree that there is quite a bit of overlap.

I thought the point of there being different options is for those options to be... well... different.

 

[Garthanos]

-But on the other hand, key archetypes or past characters are not really supported. “Longbowmen” type ranged defenders or “swashbuckler” type defenders are not really there (though there are kind a sort a builds for the later) and I am sure there are (many) other examples.

You will have to explain how you are going to fullfill defender battle role from range? I think you are just suffering "class name envy".

You might explain while you are at it exactly why you think a ranger class or warlord class cant either be great Longbowman (note a ranger is in fact a picture perfect English Yeoman (heavily trained country bumpkin whose main activity when not fighting was probably hunting) - Longbowman but that is historical perspective - so you must be referring to a fantasy archetype but I just cant find it in fiction either.
I suggest that Robinhood would be great as a hybrid ranger warlord and would have worked fine as just a ranger ...as would William Tell and other archer named heros like Ullyses is a full stop Archer Warlord. Aragorn the archetypal ranger feels great as Half-Elf Warlord Multiclassed Ranger in 4e.

Here is an example of a passing fair fighter with a long bow at level 1 he is actually a generalist fighter quite competent close and competent ranged
[sblock=Elven Longbowmen classname envy included]
level 1
Elf, Fighter
Fighter: Combat Superiority
Fighter Talents: Tempest Technique

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 12, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.


AC: 18 Fort: 15 Reflex: 15 Will: 12
HP: 27 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Endurance +5, Heal +7, Athletics +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +5, Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Dungeoneering +2, History, Insight +2, Intimidate -1, Nature +4, Perception +4, Religion, Stealth +3, Streetwise -1, Thievery +3

FEATS
Level 1: Midnight Blade Student

POWERS
Fighter at-will 1: Footwork Lure
Fighter at-will 1: Dual Strike
Fighter encounter 1: Surprising Stab
Fighter daily 1: Lasting Threat

ITEMS
Hide Armor, Short sword (2), Adventurer's Kit, Longbow, Arrows (60)
[/sblock]

This character in a fight is more of a specialist Longbowman and will skip out of reach by preference... This adventurers son spent the better part of his childhood without direct adult supervision but was never even tempted to go the bad side too many dreams of being a hero but still got tough savvy and a bit obnoxious on the streets (though when dad was around did get to hear many many stories of Dungeon runs). The town guard rather adopted him after they realized he was a crackshot with a bow, thinking it would be fun to lord him over the yeomanry.
The towns guardsman outfitted him with the same armor and bow that they provide the country bumpkins (hunters).- A nice thick boiled leather with studs. Note he would make a poor scout and only knows the difference between a deer and horse because somebody ran him over with a horse once and the yeomen frequently hang the others up to drain he might well confuse a doe with a horse though as he was more interested in tavern tales than huntsmans tales about the buck that got away.

[sblock= Longbowman built without class name envy ]
level 1
Human, Ranger
Build: Archer Ranger
Fighting Style: Archer Fighting Style
Ranger: Prime Shot
Background: Street Urchin, Adventurer's Scion (Street Urchin Benefit)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 13, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 11, Con 13, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8.


AC: 16 Fort: 13 Reflex: 15 Will: 14
HP: 30 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Perception +10, Dungeoneering +8, Streetwise +5, Intimidate +5, Athletics +5, Endurance +5

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Heal +3, History, Insight +3, Nature +3, Religion, Stealth +2, Thievery +2

FEATS
Human: Toughness
Level 1: Adamant Arrow Student

POWERS
Bonus At-Will Power: Fading Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Nimble Strike
Ranger encounter 1: Evasive Strike
Ranger daily 1: Guardian Arrow

ITEMS
Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Longbow, Longsword
[/sblock]
He is one feat away from chain if he wants... maybe they even wanted to provide him with chain but he always found it uncomfortable and stripped it down to the underlying leather.

How many dozens of ways of building a swashbuckler do you need. Here is a near perfect Zorro.

 

[Jhaelen]

But that has nothing to with the class guides. Have you ever read one(*1)? Or are you just against the WotC CharOp board in general w/o knowing what's going on.

I don't visit the CO boards but I've been looking at guides when someone links to them here.

While guides may indeed be helpful, they can also have a detrimental effect: Many players treat them as gospel and stop thinking for themselves. Anything that isn't an option recommended by a guide is considered a non-choice.

See, optimizing characters is fun. Heck, I'm doing it myself! However, for me the enjoyment comes from discovering good options myself. Using 'Build X' someone else has come up with isn't satisfying for me.

Also, if you're overdoing it, the game suffers. If the pcs are *too* optimized, the DM will adjust his encounters until the optimized party is 'properly' challenged again. It's an arms' race the players cannot ever win.

And what if one of the players is not interested in optimizing? If everyone else is optimizing, the player's enjoyment will be diminished if the encounters are too tough for his pc.

So, in conclusion: Yes, I am very skeptical of the CO boards. That doesn't mean that everything they're doing is necessarily bad. It's similar to my opinion of the church... (but that's a topic better not discussed here).