Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

LOS works ok. This could lead to some fun maneuvering of bad guys around corners before you " use your stuff" so that you could emerge and use it again on the other bad guys.

That would indeed be fun.
*Fighter pushes enemy behind a corner. BANG, POOF, AAAARGH. Fighter comes back from corner, enemy head on stick* "Come and Get some!"

(Of course, not such a great solution for people that like neither encounters/dailies nor using the board... )

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mustrum_Ridcully,

When WotC comes to consider creating a 5e, I hope you get on the design team.

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum_Ridcully,

When WotC comes to consider creating a 5e, I hope you get on the design team.

RC

Well, I am looking forward to new career option in 2016 or so. I think than my current job might have gone boring enough...

But you know, RC, I think you had a lot of good ideas and insights in the past, too - yet I find that yours and my goals don't seem to match. I am not sure you really should want me on any D&D design teams. Even if I'd somehow managed to help make a kick-ass game, it might not be to your taste.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I am looking forward to new career option in 2016 or so. I think than my current job might have gone boring enough...

But you know, RC, I think you had a lot of good ideas and insights in the past, too - yet I find that yours and my goals don't seem to match. I am not sure you really should want me on any D&D design teams. Even if I'd somehow managed to help make a kick-ass game, it might not be to your taste.

Perhaps not.

But I tend to think that there are elements of your design work that I really like. I remember in the 4e-preview threads, how you'd point out that if X were done as Y it would be really cool, and, while perhaps WotC didn't end up doing it that way, I found myself agreeing that it would be cool.

If I were given my druthers, and could pick the design team, it would be the people I think "get" each past edition the best -- including 4e, and therefore meaning some folks who I would normally be arguing with here -- so as to have an edition that has the best blend of all that has come before.

And, I think, it is more important to occasionally mention that you appreciate the insights of people you don't often say "I agree" to. After all, how else will they know?


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And, I think, it is more important to occasionally mention that you appreciate the insights of people you don't often say "I agree" to. After all, how else will they know?

I appreciate your appreciation and return in kind

But now we'll have to return to our regularly scheduled Edition & Design Death Match! We don't want to break out in tears or anything - there is an Internet to be won

 

[Dausuul]

So where does that leave us? Let's say you played and enjoyed an Eldritch Knight in D&D 3.5. Well, in 4e, you can choose to

A) suck worse than a poorly planned 3.0 fighter/wizard, by taking less than exciting multiclass choices
B) lose your character's basic flavor, by taking somewhat more effective multiclass choices
C) play something else
D) pay money

Or E) make a perfectly viable fighter/wizard multiclass. Play a fighter with a high Intelligence score, take the wizard multiclass feats, and concentrate on close-burst and blast powers like Thunderwave, Burning Hands, Fire Shroud, Color Spray, and so forth. Don't forget to pick up Shield as your utility power.

Presto, you have a guy who can switch easily and smoothly between blasting with magic and swinging a sword. What else do you want from a fighter/mage?

I don't get what you're complaining about here. Fighter/mages in 4E core work infinitely better than fighter/mages in 3E core, even with the eldritch knight PRC. The lack of arcane spell failure alone is huge. The same is true for most complaints I've seen about "untranslateable" concepts... you can usually do them just fine in 4E, unless you insist on them being EXACTLY JUST LIKE THEY WERE IN 3E.

 

[Imaro]

Several two handed builds, particularly ones involving the maul, disagree with you.

Please enlighten me, I will readily admit that I know nothing of these builds...but if you have defender builds that outclass the strikers in damage, how is this balanced? How is this not the whole stepping on toes problem that was supposedly fixed by 4e?

 

[Dausuul]

But we don't have one book that contains bards and barbarians and half orcs and illusionists.

True. But then, a 4E player switching to 3E might complain that "we don't have one book that contains warlocks and warlords and tieflings and dragonborn."

 

[justanobody]

True. But then, a 4E player switching to 3E might complain that "we don't have one book that contains warlocks and warlords and tieflings and dragonborn."

But at least they would be going in the right direction!

 

[Obryn]

Please enlighten me, I will readily admit that I know nothing of these builds...but if you have defender builds that outclass the strikers in damage, how is this balanced? How is this not the whole stepping on toes problem that was supposedly fixed by 4e?

FWIW, I disagree with his assertion.

While you can certainly make a Fighter that deals out impressive damage with a two-handed weapon, they lack any Striker bonus dice. Sure, they can do impressive damage to single targets a few times per battle (see Brute Strike), but they will tend to fall behind over the course of a combat, compared to a Ranger or Rogue. On the other side of the coin, a Fighter is better with groups of enemies than a ranger or rogue would be.

Also, IMHO, two-handed-weapon fighters are kind of a sucker bet. One of a fighter's many jobs is to stand up and take attacks. Their significantly lower AC means they will drop sooner.

-O