Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5358684" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm perfectly happy with class based systems, but there is no real reason to make them less capable than they can be. 4e has a decent middle ground. Using different stat allocations, feats, build choices, weapons, and power selection, plus MCing if you need to, you can do a LOT. Power swap features are easy to integrate because the classes all have interchangeable powers, etc. It is a LOT more flexible than AD&D/OD&D/BECMI was because of that. As soon as you take that away you are right back to 2e level flexibility. But the 4e fighter isn't actually crap with a bow. He's also no less crap with a bow than an AD&D fighter was. He can make a perfectly reasonable bow attack modified by DEX. His basic attack still works. The AD&D fighter had the same setup. Either one, sans a high dex, had a basic vanilla bow attack. Either one of them COULD in theory have a magic bow and it will do exactly as much for either one of them. Notice that at low levels both versions of fighter will do reasonably well with bow attacks. In either system at high levels making bow attacks becomes rather pointless unless you have a monster good magic bow. Fighters were NEVER envisaged as primarily ranged attackers. The differences are small and really almost insignificant there. Whatever level of limitations may or may not exist in 4e they are LESS than the limitations that exist in Essentials. In fact Essentials by itself is exceedingly limited. Characters do have utility powers and feats, which is a bit better than base level AD&D at least, but there are a LOT less character concepts you can cover, even on a class-by-class comparison basis with 4e. That is a step backwards.  I think we can also question what the DM is doing in terms of presentation. I know from my experience as a DM that how I present the options provided by the system to the players makes a huge difference. My players now ALWAYS look for ways to use terrain powers for instance. They also simply go right ahead and describe stunts they want to do. Sure, in the beginning they were figuring things out, and I was also figuring out the system, so there was a tendency to stick with the simplest approach. After a couple months though I introduced a bunch of added things into each encounter and encouraged the players to mess around. "You can see that the ballista is aimed in the general direction of the enemy and you could probably fire it." or "It looks like you could swing across the chasm on those vines."There are other things that you have to consider too. MANY DMs in my experience with 4e set DCs FAR too high. They go on some theory that something would be insanely difficult for people in the real world and crank up the DC to the stratosphere. Then they justify it by saying "it should be risky to do dangerous things". Bunk. No sane player will stunt when the chance of success is 50/50 at best and the results of success are not much different from what they can attain without taking that risk. Failure consequences are also usually pretty dire for really cool stunts. Make sure that when the players use stunts they get a reward and not a mechanical punishment. Notice how the DCs were quickly errated way down in the DMG? I think that was the reason. They are a bit higher now and the range of DCs is better with the newest chart, but it still preserves the idea of heroes doing crazy stuff and usually pulling it off. Well, I've played D&D since 1975, so I figure I must be enjoying something. IMHO the D&D feel is there in 4e. Honestly, for me at least, it didn't come from magic missile automagically hitting, nor any other single specific feature of any class. It comes from the meme, a party of sturdy adventurers striking into the unknown depths of the earth to seek treasure, glory, and death! I think 4e has a lot more focus on doing that well than 3.x ever did. I feel like 4e gives me the ability to run pretty much the type of adventures that we ran way back in the dim dark early days of OD&D. Sure, you roll a different die here and there and add things up a bit different, but it wasn't THAT which made it D&D.RQ, Earthdawn, DA, and Stormbringer as examples ALL are designed with a specific world and mode of play in mind. You don't play Stormbringer in order to run kitchen sink fantasy. You run it to be the companion of the Eternal Champion, fight for the balance, and quest for Tanelorn. It isn't a very good system for doing other things really, as the mechanics are suited to recreating Moorcock's fiction specifically. RQ is a fun game but only really works in the context of Glorantha. You could extend and adapt those games to other settings and styles of fantasy, but D&D already does most of the other stuff fairly well for the most part. Heck, 4e will do a pretty decent job of being Stormbringer or RQ, but it also does a pretty darn good job of being itself. Pretty flexible really.</blockquote>

Verification