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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 3945643" data-attributes="member: 2804">ALL races have always been a "DM's option". I have played in games where half-orcs weren't allowed, where even elves weren't allowed. Just don't use tieflings in your world. I see no problem here. I have played D&D for 20 years. Fighters have always been "tanks". D&D classes have always had roles, they just were more of a behind the scenes thing. WotC has simply moved this concept from behind the scenes and made it more prominent. IMO, this is a good thing since you now can see upfront what a class is designed towards without having to mentally deconstruct it to try to figure out how it might fit into the party. This is of benefit to players, but also to DMs, especially when designing adventures and challenges for the PCs to face.As far as I know, there is no WoW style power tree system in 4e. Multi-classing should work much smoother and feats should be easier to take without getting locked into 3e style feat chains.I'm not sure where you are getting this. Even so, it doesn't matter. The designers have frequently said that you shouldn't view snippets of 4e with a 3e lens (even though that is all we have to go on). Assuming that you are right, and Dex counts towards AC for all classes, I wouldn't presume that change exists in a vacuum and everything else will be as it was in 3e. The whole game is changing. Since we don't know much more about attack bonus progression, feats, powers, spellcasting, etc. It is currently impossible to judge anything we hear about 4e and say it is unbalanced since we don't know what else they changed to adjust for it.No aggro mechanic in 4e. In 4e, fighters get mechanics that emphasize their ability to go toe to toe with monsters and to defend their party members. For example, a monster could still try to get around a fighter and attack the wizard, but now the fighter will likely get AoO's or otherwise be able to do something to the monster. This is a vast improvement over previous incarnations of D&D. Too many TPKs have I seen because monsters blitzed the party, took out the casters, and then mopped up the fighters once the healing, damage dealing, and buff spells were no longer in play.The Warlord class seems pretty new and interesting to me. Sure buffs have always been available through spells, but now that focus is shifting and we have different options. You can still play a buffing cleric for example, but now I can achieve the same effect without being confined to a single class.Since we don't know anything about paragon paths or epic destinies, or even multiclassing at all, I would say this statement is premature. The new system may be far superior to the prestige class system.DMs have always had house rules. I have never thought of it as making them the "bad guy".Why? There has always been two problems with multi-classing. The first, is that it can be a way to gain easy power and abilities by taking a level or two in front loaded classes. The second is that you are heavily penalized for multi-classing when there isn't obvious synergy. A level 5 fighter/level 5 wizard will be a far less effective character than a level 10 character in either class. Some of that is by design. After all, you are trading power for versatility. But you are still considerably handicapped. Some of that is alleviated by taking feats that boost your effective caster level, or by taking a prestige class like the Eldritch Knight. But those feats and that class are clearly designed as a patch to fix a flaw in the current rules. What I have heard about 4e indicates to me they have resolved both those issues.As opposed to what? The mythology where every wizard choose a very D&D-esque school of magic like Evocation, Transmutation, or something? I have read lots of fantasy literature that featured wands (Harry Potter), and Staves and Orbs (LotR). However, outside of D&D specific settings, and the writing of Jack Vance, D&D's magic system is extremely limiting for DM creativity. The new system is much better. Plus since you expressed a fondness for Tolkien, the new system seems to lend itself better to Tolkien than the previous one!Since none of us have played a 4e combat, its impossible to say what it will be like. I will say that 3e combats can take a long time due to the sheer number of attacks everyone has. Getting rid of iterative attacks is a good thing. No long will I see all the enemies move forward and engage in a toe to toe slugfest, with every player waiting around while everyone resolves all of their attacks. With 4e we should now see dynamic battles with enemies that move around and fewer attacks means less rolls and quicker play.Let's be honest here. If a character only has a few precious skill points, are you going to put it in Profession: Tailer, or Spot? And from a game balance perspective, you can't really balance non-combat social skills against skills that can mean the difference between life or death for a PC. If you increase the number of skill points, players will just put more into valuable skills like Tumble. Pretty soon we are all skilled at everything equally. Thats not interesting. Or we could have a dual skill system where we have non-combat skills with their own set of points, and then combat skills with their own points. But that gets clunky and tedious. The bottom line is that background skills should be addressed by PC background, or by a system similar to SW Saga where you have a certain proficiency based on your level for all your skills, with a few chosen ones that you really excel at. That seems best to me, and its easy.</blockquote>

Verification