Forked Thread: My first 4E game...

[Imaro]

Forked from: My first 4E game...

That's because you don't understand the new paradigm. If you did, you would see they don't feel like 3E at all. 3E is very limited comparatively. You can still build a two weapon fighter or an effective sword and board player. That is the focus of the fighter in this game.

But, that is not the paradigm...

You mistakenly think I don't understand the paradigm...that's wrong, I don't share your opinion of it. Those are two very different things. Your argument here is "if only I understood 4e", but that's not the problem, the problem is I don't agree with your view.

Classes no longer hold true in 4th edition in the same sense as they did in 3rd edition that is the part you don't seem to understand that takes a bit of play to pick up on. When you play a fighter, you are no longer just a fighter. You are in essence the heavy armored guy at the front of the battle trained to hold the line and be that guy that focuses attacks on you.

Again with what I don't understand...really it's a little tiresome, how about evidence that I am looking at it wrong. I'm not claiming you don't understand 3e so really what does this add to the discussion?

So in 3e a fighter could be numerous things...that included but were not limited to... "the heavy armored guy at the front of the battle trained to hold the line and be that guy that focuses attacks on you"...yet 4e is more diverse...uhm ok.

Yes it is. It is called a ranger now. A light, highly mobile warrior that uses a bow and is more like a light special operations fighter. This is the new paradigm.

When you think 3rd edition terms, you believe what you believe. But this is not 3rd edition. This is fourth edition where roles are very clearly defined and specialized according to what you want to do.

If you want to play an "archery fighter" you play a ranger specialized in archery. The ranger is not a woodsman anymore, he is a more a light and mobile fighter with a couple of unique fighting styles and abilities.

Yet there are still alot of assumptions that go along with this archery fighter ranger that have nothing to do with me being a warrior that is a good archer. My armor is limited, I cannot "hold a line by tossing my bow aside and fighting hand to hand" (don't have the HP's/AC/ to do this),

In taking the Ranger class I make the decision to be a striker which means I dart around, strike and move away. I can do some damage but I can't go toe to toe with a bruiser. However in 3e I could make a warrior who was good in archery and could hold a line in melee. In 4e it's either or.

No it isn't. If you want to use a longsword, you make a ranger and you get Thievery as a bonus skill with a feat. That is the kind of customization you get with 4E.

No longer is a rogue the only person able to search for traps. You can build all kinds of different characters that do different things in 4E.

You can make a fighter good at searching for traps and fighting with a sword and shield. You can make a two weapon ranger with two longsowords who searches for traps and is basically a rogue who fights with two longswords. You can make a wizard that fights with a sword and is effective and combines with spells.

Again with the Ranger (what is this class...the cure all). Seriously though, With the above Ranger Thief ...Where is my sneak attack? My Streetwise skill? My Thievery skill? My Insight skill so I don't get conned, and my Bluff for lying? Yeah with alot of wrangling and feats...you could get something similar to a pseudo-Rogue who uses a longsword effectively...but really is this easier than building a Rogue who uses a longsword effectively in 3e?

Another question I wonder...is if it's so easy to sustitute these things, how can you claim the game doesn't feel homogeneous? If I can just substitute a Ranger for Rogue...or Ranger for a Fighter then there has to be a large amount of homogeneousness between classes...either that or you are misrepresenting how "easy" it is to create the character you want through substituting another class to gain a particular ability. I mean how is it that both of these things can be true (no snark, I'm genuinely curious)?

If you include multi-classing, you can further customize a character.

That's why I say character differentiation is even greater in 4E because in 3.5 E you were forced to be a rogue if you wanted to search for traps. You were forced to be a cleric if you wanted to heal. You were forced to be a ranger if you wanted to track.

None of that is required in 4E. You can customize a character using the core classes and feats in a way that was much more difficult and forced multiclassing 3E.

Yet multi-classing in 3e gave you access to any powers or skills another class had. Feats allowed you to customize on a smaller level...such as the Rogue who just wants to use a longsword effectively.

If you full understood the extent to which you can customize in 4E, you would see that it isn't arguable that you can make more unique 4E characters at earlier levels than you could in 3E.

I know 3E as good as anyone having played from 1st to 18th or so level in several campaigns. I can't claim to know the epic rules, but I know what you can do with a variety of characters. I know with certanty the customization options for differentiating your characters are far greater in 4E than they ever were in 3E.

Yeah I guess I'm not understanding...or maybe I feel you are misrepresenting either

a.) The fact that almost any class can be substituted for another if you want a particular ability in 4e.

or

b.) The classes are not homogeneous in feel or operation (Yet a Ranger is just a Rogue who can use longswords... )

You want to play a game like that, you play GURPs. Nobody starts the game and plays until 3rd or 4th level and starts over. So that's not much a point. You start off so weak you can die with one hit from an orc, and end up where a thousand orcs couldn't touch you. That's a real gritty simulation there. Yeah, i'm buying that.

In 4E orcs can be a serious threat at all levels. That feels more like say a Lord of the Rings movies where the main characters feared a horde of orcs. In 3E a horde of orcs was a joke to high level characters. It is much more gritty and feels more like a book than 3E which turned absurd past level 10 unless you were willing to load that orc horde down with magic items they would not have.

I like that 4E starts you at a certain level of power and maintains that level of power much like GURPS. You almost always have about the same chance of dying in 4E to monsters of equivalent skill and level. More like GURPS or other more advanced systems.

The whole game scales better from the early levels on up.

It allows for a great deal of customimization right from the beginning. I like that.

If you accept the new class paradigm as I have done, you see that it is more differentiated and customizable than 3E. You sound like a person that hasn't delved too deeply into the 4E rules.

Who claimed 3e as a whole was a "gritty simulation", where did I say this?

All I'm going to say on the Orc thing is, there was never a single Orc who could kill Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas in a one on oen fight, so neither 4e or 3e models LotR well. But then it's D&D and there is already a LotR rpg out there.

I love how people who have not possibly played 4e from 1st to 30th level claim it scales better. Sounds like you're just repeating marketing blurbs to me. I'm not claiming it doesn't but really have you experienced this yet?

Again with the statements about what I seem to know or not know because I don't agree with you. Ok then...

I'm glad you feel that way about 4e but you just don't understand 3e as well as I do... If you would just accept a paradigm where wanting a minor tweak to a character doesn't necessitate changing all the abilities I like in that class to those of another, then you would realize just how flexible 3e is and how inflexible 4e is. I mean honestly you sound like a person who never had a good grasp of the intricacies of 3rd edition.

See how easy that was...but it doesn't really prove anything does it?

 

[GlaziusF]

Again with the Ranger (what is this class...the cure all).

No, the Ranger is damage with a side of even more damage, which is about all the fighter and rogue were good for in 3E. Aside from the rogue's giant skill repertoire, most of which has been compressed worse than MIT students in a phone booth.

Rangers get hide armor, base +3. Fighters get scale armor, base +7. Hide armor lets you add your dex bonus, scale does not. The dex bonus of a bow-focused ranger at 1st level is left as an exercise for the reader. The dex bonus of a bow-focused ranger at 30th level, when enchanted hide starts at +5 and enchanted scale at +13, is also left as an exercise for the reader.

Rangers are designed to wade into melee in a way that rogues and warlocks are not. Rogues and warlocks have close blasts - attacks that work best when they're on the periphery. Rangers have close bursts - attacks that work best when they're surrounded.

This isn't to say that a ranger isn't distinct from a fighter or rogue. Fighters play with targeting control. They can actually hold the line and stop people from moving past them. Rogues play with position control, sliding targets all around the battlefield and twice on Sundays. Rangers just rack damage up one side and down the other.

I'm unsure where "homogeneity" comes from, though. There's a lot of overlap between classes, certainly - at least in the sense that every class can be built to do multiple things. There's the basic melee/ranged damage divide, which rangers, rogues, and clerics get to play on both sides of. Position control, terrain control, area damage, enemy badstats, ally buffs - multiple classes can all do these things. But if you want an exact combination there's probably one specific class that's "best" at it. For the melee classes of 3E, whose guiding principle was "hit things and then hit them some more", that's the ranger.

Also, you're really going to have to clarify this whole "rogue with a longsword" thing. If you want a rogue with an outsized blade, play a rogue from a race that wields outsized blades. If you want a rogue with a +3 proficiency weapon that does 1d8 damage, spend the weapon proficiency feat on a rapier instead of a longsword. What's the specific benefit of longsword over shortsword that you're trying to capture?

 

[BeauNiddle]

You say you want to be an archery fighter. What do you feel is missing from the a 4th ed fighter picking up a bow. You can shoot into melee no problem, you can take feats to boost damage and range. In short the only thing you can't do is use any powers with your bow but then again neither could your 3rd ed archery fighter.

If you want some archery powers then multiclass with ranger and get some. If you want lots of archery powers then take ranger and multiclass with fighter
If you want all archery powers and heavy armour than take ranger.


What do you consider an archery fighter to be that isn't covered by the above options?

 

[Jhaelen]

However in 3e I could make a warrior who was good in archery and could hold a line in melee. In 4e it's either or.

I think that assumption isn't correct.

How would you build a fighter who was good in archery while being able to hold a line in 3E?
I'd love to see an example, preferably one that only involves the PHB.

I'd bet you achieved that using almost the same means you'd use to achieve it in 4E with a similar degree of success.

 

[Imaro]

I think that assumption isn't correct.

How would you build a fighter who was good in archery while being able to hold a line in 3E?
I'd love to see an example, preferably one that only involves the PHB.

I'd bet you achieved that using almost the same means you'd use to achieve it in 4E with a similar degree of success.

First let me say, I think it's telling that no one in this thread addressed the Rogue w/longsword question...but on to the Archery Fighter... This is done mostly from memory and it was rushed but...

1st level Human (Standard Point Buy; 25)...
Str: 16 (8pts) Dex: 16 (8pts) Con: 14 (6pts) Wis: 10 (2pts) Int:9 (1pt) Cha:8 (0pts)
HP's: 12
AC: (scale mail) +4/ Dex Bonus +3= 17

1st Feat : Point Blank Shot: +1 to hit/dmg rngd within 30ft
Racial Feat recise Shot: No -4 when firing into melee
Ftr Bonus Feat: Combat Reflexes: xtra AoO= to Dex bonus

Longbow:+5 (+1(BAB) +3 (Dex/Str) +1 (Point Blank Shot))
DMG: 1d8+1 (Avg 5pnts dmg)

or if he can afford it

Composite Longbow: +5; DMG: 1d8+4 (Avg 8 pnts dmg)

Greatsword: +4; DMG 2d6+3 (Avg 9 pnts dmg)

With Combat Reflexes this fighter gets 4 AoO per round thus he is able to hold a line against numerous foes. His average damage is enough to kill most monsters faced at 1st level with one hit and if he has the composite longbow, he only does 1pnt less on average. With the regular longbow he does less damage but has a better chance to hit than with the Greatsword.

 

[charlesatan]

It's also kinda hard to play the "Defender" role when you're far off in the distance...

 

[Imaro]

Also, you're really going to have to clarify this whole "rogue with a longsword" thing. If you want a rogue with an outsized blade, play a rogue from a race that wields outsized blades. If you want a rogue with a +3 proficiency weapon that does 1d8 damage, spend the weapon proficiency feat on a rapier instead of a longsword. What's the specific benefit of longsword over shortsword that you're trying to capture?

Thank you, this paragraph has hit on one of my problems with 4e. Why is this distinction made? Why do they ave the same basic stats but per RAW I cannot choose to use a longsword instead? In Exalted there is an ex-mortician turned assasin (can't remember exactly but I think he's an Abyssal Exalted) who uses a battle axe.

I always thought this was one of the coolest characters I had seen, yet I can't make a competent character like this in D&D...and yes the character is represented more by the Rogue's powers than the Rangers. I know this isn't an insurmountable problem, but it irritates me to a certain extent. It's a limitation that I assume serves balance, but limits (or at least makes me jump through hoops) to create the character I want. The thing is that I'm sure once familiarity with the rules it will become easier to maneuver and manipulate things, but it just feels harder in 4e than in 3e.

It's also kinda hard to play the "Defender" role when you're far off in the distance...

Not really, You stand about 10 ft from a caster and fire arrows at the approaching enemy, once they get close enough you toss the bow to the ground and engage in melee. In both instances you're defending the caster. Personally it conjures a pretty cool image in my mind...unless you suck at using the bow, because then it's just pointless.

 

[AllisterH]

Game balance for one.

If there is no reason NOT to use the heaviest/biggest weapon, people will use the heaviest biggest weapon.

 

[Imaro]

Game balance for one.

If there is no reason NOT to use the heaviest/biggest weapon, people will use the heaviest biggest weapon.

Yes, I've thought about this and I agree...I think perhaps the problem might be feats...perhaps there should have been a "number of feats" cost for certain abilities or something like that. As it stands now in 4e, I often wonder if they nerfed feats too much, to the point that they are really minor abilities that have to be kept in check. So you get a bunch of feats...but they aren't really worth that much and you also end up with things like the Rogue who could take a feat to become proficient in an odd weapon...but probably will never use it and thus it almost becomes a non-choice. I don't know just rambling here...

 

[BeauNiddle]

First let me say, I think it's telling that no one in this thread addressed the Rogue w/longsword question...but on to the Archery Fighter... This is done mostly from memory and it was rushed but...

1st level Human (Standard Point Buy; 25)...
Str: 16 (8pts) Dex: 16 (8pts) Con: 14 (6pts) Wis: 10 (2pts) Int:9 (1pt) Cha:8 (0pts)
HP's: 12
AC: (scale mail) +4/ Dex Bonus +3= 17

1st Feat : Point Blank Shot: +1 to hit/dmg rngd within 30ft
Racial Feat recise Shot: No -4 when firing into melee
Ftr Bonus Feat: Combat Reflexes: xtra AoO= to Dex bonus

Longbow:+5 (+1(BAB) +3 (Dex/Str) +1 (Point Blank Shot))
DMG: 1d8+1 (Avg 5pnts dmg)

or if he can afford it

Composite Longbow: +5; DMG: 1d8+4 (Avg 8 pnts dmg)

Greatsword: +4; DMG 2d6+3 (Avg 9 pnts dmg)

With Combat Reflexes this fighter gets 4 AoO per round thus he is able to hold a line against numerous foes. His average damage is enough to kill most monsters faced at 1st level with one hit and if he has the composite longbow, he only does 1pnt less on average. With the regular longbow he does less damage but has a better chance to hit than with the Greatsword.

Lets compare a 4th ed fighter to that base then shall we:

Ability to take multiple AoO - CHECK (one per opponent which is an improvement)
Ability to fire into melee with no penalty - CHECK


With your spare feats you can take proficiency: bastard sword and quickdraw. This allows you to use the bow until the enemy get close and then draw your sword as the opponent tries to pass you (double check the ruling with the DM but by standard you threaten the area around you with unarmed attacks and can quickdraw as part of the AoO)

So by all ways I can think of the 4th ed fighter is actually better at what you want to do than your 3rd ed fighter. So I ask you again 'What do you want to acheive with your archery fighter?'

The only thing I can see in your comments is the ability to kill 1st level opponents in a single blow - which you still can vs minions and which nobody can vs normal/elite/solo foes so there is no change there. (or at least if there is it's nothing to do with character generation rules.