Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[malraux]

If I take the mechanics, I gotta take all the mechanics of a class, including its underlying assumptions about role, gear, long-term career path, and so on.

Unless you change it. Or make your own. From what I read, you liked the earlier editions because you could create your own stuff and put it into the game. That's a bit harder now, as classes take a bit more work. But certainly there's nothing stopping you.

 

[vagabundo]

Completely disagree, though it's a common perception of 3E. I'm currently playing an elven duskblade 5 / wizard 1 / abjurant champion 2 / ultimate magus 5. He's extremely effective as a striker (he likes to channel empowered combust spells while using wraithstrike and full Power Attack, if you're interested) and has some controller abilities, to use 4E terminology. He's also a complex "build", to use a reviled term, and quite complex to play.

But he developed organically. It was not my intention from the outset for the character to end up like this. He was just going to be a duskblade. But then the needs of the party and the circumstances of the campaign came into play, and made other options more desirable, and fitting to the story.

I dont think anyone is saying that someone, with a bit of d20 experience or with due diligence, cant build
an effective character organically, without the pre-planning.But if you wanted something specific you would have to pre-plan, especially for PrCs.

And woe betide the more casual DnD player - like my poor sis - who was stuck with sucky character after sucky character in 3e, unless she got help from some of the more power gamery players.

Now her 4e character is sub-optimal - Eladrin feylock - and could probably do a lot more damage if someone swapped some of the feats and powers, but I just let her pick what she thought sounded cool and she really likes this character, it is hers and she does contribute to the combat/skill challenge side of my game.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What's missing? Simulationism, verisimilitude (yes that word), maybe even variety of play experience in terms of role/class. And nothing of this is truly missing, just kind of missing... hidden to a point. The right DM can still whip a 4E game together and have it play almost like it used to... but it's getting harder and harder.

I had a nice debate with Mr Ridcully on a different thread and in the end I think we came up with a fair analogy - using hammers and screws.

I sometimes have the impression that we all used D&D either as a hammer or as a screwdriver, and it kinda worked for both, but an actual hammer or screwdriver would be better. Maybe now D&D has turned into a screwdriver, making all those screw-guys incredibly happy, but disappointing all those nail-guys.

And by the way, this is most certainly not to say that 4E is bad or not fun. I've enjoyed playing and DMing what I have. It's just has a different feel to previous editions.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Staffan]

But I'm not sure how 4e will ever get a good summoner whilst constrained by their precious actions.

Summoners, if they ever appear, will likely work like the Figurines of Wondrous Power in AV. The summoner spends minor actions to give his summoned creature any action, subject to the normal limit of one standard, one move, and one minor action. So a summoner could hang back and cast a spell (standard action), and then command his creation to move (minor -> move) and attack (minor -> standard).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Summoners, if they ever appear, will likely work like the Figurines of Wondrous Power in AV. The summoner spends minor actions to give his summoned creature any action, subject to the normal limit of one standard, one move, and one minor action. So a summoner could hang back and cast a spell (standard action), and then command his creation to move (minor -> move) and attack (minor -> standard).

That's what I am hoping of seeing I think when Martial Power comes out we will get our first taste of what a Summoner could be like with the addition of Animal Companions.

 

[Zustiur]

It's missing powers (at every available level) that DON'T deal damage.

I'm fearful for the illusionist... what will we get?
Powers that 'use illusion'... to deal XdY + int damage.
YAWN!

And I'm going to limit myself here and not list all my other complaints, many of which have already been covered up thread.

 

[rounser]

A decent, inspirational implied setting of races, classes, spells, equipment etc. Believable mechanics and class archetypes. "Wahoo" as optional and kept out of the PHB, rather than being the default. Art focused to a large degree on inspiring adventuring environments rather than just plastic prefabricated posing "heroes". Rules, spells, items, classes etc that suggest a fantasy world, and aren't just there to serve a collection of design practicalities and conveniences, or cynical marketing contrivances.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's missing powers (at every available level) that DON'T deal damage.

I'm fearful for the illusionist... what will we get?
Powers that 'use illusion'... to deal XdY + int damage.
YAWN!

And I'm going to limit myself here and not list all my other complaints, many of which have already been covered up thread.

I don't have much hope for illusions either. Considering that former interesting effect spells like confusion and maze do damage now its a good indication that illusions will be less than impressive.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Heroes have always been special, while peasants are not.

Oh, I agree with you, as I do on most points. But - just personal preference - I like the idea of PCs starting darn near peasant-levels of power. They're full of potential, but it's unrealized - at the commencement of the campaign.

Maybe I should have said: When every hero is special, no hero is special.

The lack of differentiation and variability amongst classes and powers bothers me, and I'm doing a poor job of trying to explain that.

At any rate - it's the best system we've got for D&D, no doubt. But it does have some blemishes. IMO.

WP

 

[Mallus]

Right now, it's isn't missing anything that I wasn't going to replace anyway (ie, "fluff" and "flavor"). But honestly, it's a little early to tell conclusively... my group's only played one full session, and we've just begun playing-by-post between games.

And I'd sure like "more". I'm curiously to see whether the designers can keep coming up with interesting classes (well, assuming you find the current lot interesting...) given the more limited palette of (rigidly defined) actions they're working with.