Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[malraux]

Now I agree that 3.5E wizards were ridiculous, but now they have been bashed down too much; not in combat, but they just don't have many magical options anymore. They should have included MANY more harmless powers, like presdigitidation, that have roleplaying potential to add flavour. The same is probably true for the other classes actually.

I agree prestidigitation is a bit limited as written, but its easy to just allow whatever minor magical effect you want for RP purposes.

And while needless symmetry is bad, I can see the argument for symmetrical flexibility and power among the classes. If the wizard class should include all the forms of magic, then shouldn't the fighter class include all the fighting styles including barbarian, unarmed attacker, ranged attacker, etc?

 

[sckeener]

I had a friend in High School (some 18 odd years ago) who once said that whatever section of the rules has the most pages is the most important. We were playing boardgames and that was his strategy for mastery.

I filed that philosophy away in my mind....

and it occasionally rear's its head....the latest time was when I read the 4e PHB and saw how many pages were devoted to rituals vs powers.

 

[Grom Stonekin]

My basic point is that iconic material in 4th ed. format is on the shelves or underdevelopment at WotC and that some of the best stuff was intentionally left out so that gamers would be eager to but future PHBs and assorted splat. The Barbarian is a wildly popular class but WotC left it out of the PHB I. Few gamers were clamoring for a "Warlord" type class or Tieflings as a PC race but that's what WotC gave us. Compare that to the number of players who wish they could play a Half-orc Barbarian. There is a lot I like about 4th ed (this is not a bash post). However, I feel like is may take years for 4th ed. to be an comprehensive as 3rd ed was when published.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I can understand the OP's opinion, and a lot of people seem to share it.

However, I am VERY glad that 4E did not slavishly repeat 3.X, and instead is a new game.

 

[malraux]

My basic point is that iconic material in 4th ed. format is on the shelves or underdevelopment at WotC and that some of the best stuff was intentionally left out so that gamers would be eager to but future PHBs and assorted splat. The Barbarian is a wildly popular class but WotC left it out of the PHB I. Few gamers were clamoring for a "Warlord" type class or Tieflings as a PC race but that's what WotC gave us. Compare that to the number of players who wish they could play a Half-orc Barbarian. There is a lot I like about 4th ed (this is not a bash post). However, I feel like is may take years for 4th ed. to be an comprehensive as 3rd ed was when published.

I've got to question how you know that everyone wanted the barbarian and few wanted the warlord or tiefling.

 

[Ydars]

Ironically Malraux, there are things they could have given other classes just to give them flavour; fighters could have had the ability to carry more than other classes for a given strength (but they have tanked encumbrance) and they could have allowed fighters a greater ability to intimidate or to appaise weapons and armour or to march and allow others to travel quickly over rough terrain etc etc.

I am big on flavour I guess; something to make the classes more distinct but that are mechanically quite harmless. I suppose I am just saying that they have knocked the stuffing out of the wizard in the name of game balance but haven't needed to do the same with the other classes because they were more balanced to begin with.

I suppose some people would say that rangers and tracking is a similar problem. I would just have given rangers the ability to get far more detail from tracks (number of monsters, armoured, when they passed ect) than any other class but let the other classes follow spoor if they are trained in Nature).

 

[Ginnel]

My basic point is that iconic material in 4th ed. format is on the shelves or underdevelopment at WotC and that some of the best stuff was intentionally left out so that gamers would be eager to but future PHBs and assorted splat. The Barbarian is a wildly popular class but WotC left it out of the PHB I. Few gamers were clamoring for a "Warlord" type class or Tieflings as a PC race but that's what WotC gave us. Compare that to the number of players who wish they could play a Half-orc Barbarian.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the barbarian was wildly popular, in the 7 campaigns I've played in, not one player character chose to play a barbarian (multiclass or not) I've gamed with one gnome and 1 half-orc during that time.

In our current 4th edition campaign someone is playing a warlord, 2 people are playing dragonborn and 2 people are playing tieflings, a wee bit too early to judge on that though (also 2 people played tieflings in 3rd ed)

 

[AllisterH]

I had a friend in High School (some 18 odd years ago) who once said that whatever section of the rules has the most pages is the most important. We were playing boardgames and that was his strategy for mastery.

I filed that philosophy away in my mind....

and it occasionally rear's its head....the latest time was when I read the 4e PHB and saw how many pages were devoted to rituals vs powers.

Er, that's not a good metric.

Rituals technically can be used by anyone for anyone. True, only cleric and wizard start with them and wizards get them automcally as they level. Whereas each power is only available for THAT class barring multiclass and thats really limited.

I think a proper comparison would be the ritual section with any one class's power list

Wizards, once again, have the most options around.

 

[Grom Stonekin]

I've got to question how you know that everyone wanted the barbarian and few wanted the warlord or tiefling.

Of course I did not conduct an extensive poll. But I have been playing D&D since the "blue box" edition and have gamed with many groups. Gamers like the Barbarian class... a lot. I wager that years from now when WotC does come out with the 4th ed Barbarian, it will be much more popular the mechanically wonky and conceptually muddled Warlord.

 

[malraux]

I'm kinda glad they've separated out in-combat class abilities from out of combat skill usage. It helps to keep everyone relevant in what's going on.