Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Thasmodious]

Several pages have rolled by and there is just too much, so I'll sum up.

Seems to me a few of your (rem and exploder) are stuck on the idea that concept = things 3e had names for that 4e doesn't. That's not the case. Generally, and speaking very generally as inspiration comes in many forms, there are two basic paths to character creation -

A. You thumb through the books (or your mental game knowledge), decide what to play, then build a character around that, determining background, personality etc.
B. You come up with a concept without much regard to the ruleset and the options it presents to you and then you make it work.

(A) is the way many of us have worked up most of our characters. "I think a wizard would be fun this time around, haven't played one in ages." New players mostly use this method as well. Using (a) "limitations" are not really a concern. You just pick from whats on the menu. A ranger is a ranger and a cleric is a cleric, with variation existing on that theme.

With (b), you're stretching your creative muscle, coming up with an interesting character and then figuring out how to make him work. When working in this method, you have to be creative throughout the creation process. Sometimes your more detailed concept will work just fine, other times it takes some doing.

The problem is that some of you seem to address (b) and then refuse to allow for creative application, if the rules don't specifically exist for your creative concept, then the system is flawed. This is rather faulty logic. That, and the above mentioned posters just seem obsessed with class names and what classes 3e started with that 4e didn't. 4e went with a couple less classes. Full classes take up a lot of space. Every edition made its own list and there are plenty of concepts you can come up with that you can't do very well in 3e, as well.

As I said initially, that isn't the point of this thread. It WAS an attempt to discuss creative application of concepts growing from method (b) among people who were serious about discussing the limitations of the system and flexing their creative muscles. Instead, some of you want to simply make a list entitled "Things 3e Had in the PHB that 4e Does Not". It's not a very interesting topic. Start your own thread for that.

It's clear you have no interest in exploring the subject at hand, as you simply shoot down every bit of discussion on what can be done to make a concept work. Reflavoring - can't have that. Shuffle some abilities around - nope, no go. Tweak some powers - thats not the way they are written.

Some of us like interesting concepts and, in any edition, you have to be flexible to make them work.

also my comiserations to the OP who seems to have been thwarted in his attempt to create a constructive thread... although I havent read pages 4 or 5... maybe things took a turn.

They didn't, but thanks for the sympathy.

 

[RFisher]

Might as well 4th powers be based on generic
power templates and we customize as we want

Like the Hero system. Wouldn’t be a bad thing, I think. Yet, it would make it even a greater disconnect from previous editions.

Maybe WOTC should make all classes generic and call them DEFENDERS, STRIKERS etc, then provide powers for them and people to reflavour them as they wish.

I kind of felt that way in my AD&D days. When I read 3e, I really was wishing the system had gone more that way. Generic classes and True20 finally did it pretty well.

Thing is, though, I think I prefer the older kinds of roles to the combat-oriented kinds of roles in 4e. I get the idea, but—so far—I just haven’t enjoyed it.

This is why every class ends up feeling the same.

I’ve been a big fan of the idea of a generic mechanic flavored to taste, until I played 4e.

Is it that I haven’t played enough Risus to realize that I don’t like it there as well? Or is it that one of the differences between Risus and 4e means that I like it in Risus but not 4e?

I remember threads going back to Eric Noah's forums on the exact same issue in the early days of 3E. "I can't have my Specialty Priest of Talos that Casts lightning bolts at will!" or "I can't make a real Fighter/Mage, only this silly half-class crap." "I can't make a bladesinger worth a darn with these crappy multiclassing rules!"

And honestly I long ago decided that I don’t necessarily want a game to support any character concept. So far, though, it hasn’t felt like I’ve managed to create a 4e character that I was jazzed to play.

 

[Ahglock]

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.
The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

I agree. 3e maybe dropped the ball on this one with powerful effects like wail of the banshee and a save that got harder to resist as you leveled, but cutting out this kind of game play entirely is a flaw in my eyes.

Give multiple saves like the beholders petrification ray, a little play testing to balance the # of rounds needed of different effects and it would be fine.

require being bloodied for a big effect like how intimidate is in 4e

do a HP comparison like the former editions power word spells so you could only drop these pure condition spells when you had either weakened the target enough or they started off weak enough.

There are plenty of options to add in this style of game play, a total removal was unnecesarry and does give a its all the same but with bigger numbers feel as we level.

 

[Ahglock]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that 4e is perfect.

The main source of frustration we're experiencing here is people who say "I want a Fighter that runs around and shoots people with arrows." And we're saying, "Ok, you use the Ranger class. You don't have to take the Nature skill. You don't have to have an animal companion. You don't even have to like elves or even trees. An archery ranger is just someone who uses the tactics of an archer."

The problem is lots of times when people say fighter its because they want to play a defender style character with a bow, They do not want to play a striker. I am lucking out in that none of my players came to the game wanting to play something, they read the PH and said I will play that. It is not hard for me to visualize though that a lot of problems are cropping up for people whose players came to the game wanting to play some basic fantasy concept and could not.

 

[Cryptos]

The problem is lots of times when people say fighter its because they want to play a defender style character with a bow, They do not want to play a striker. I am lucking out in that none of my players came to the game wanting to play something, they read the PH and said I will play that. It is not hard for me to visualize though that a lot of problems are cropping up for people whose players came to the game wanting to play some basic fantasy concept and could not.

And the issue there is: How exactly does that work? Defending implies getting between an assailant and its target, blocking an attack against something. Archery implies holding a thin piece of wood with a string, and having the freedom of movement to draw it across your chest (as opposed to being restricted in range of motion by heavy armor), drawing the arrow back close to your cheek while aiming at someone, and then releasing it before he gets close enough to hit you with the large pointy metal object you have no defense against, because you're busy using both hands on that thin piece of wood with a string.

Is there a practical historical or even popular fictional example of someone holding a longbow and consistently and effectively getting in between an attacker and someone or something else as their primary tactic?

It seems to be a concept born out of the game mechanics of previous editions of Dungeons and Dragons, rather than any reality or fantasy based concept.

There's a difference between "how do I build this concept?" and "how do I perfectly mimic the mechanical effects of the character I had in the last edition?"

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The problem is lots of times when people say fighter its because they want to play a defender style character with a bow, They do not want to play a striker. I am lucking out in that none of my players came to the game wanting to play something, they read the PH and said I will play that. It is not hard for me to visualize though that a lot of problems are cropping up for people whose players came to the game wanting to play some basic fantasy concept and could not.

The thing is, the Fighter's Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority are probably the most powerful class features in 4E. Using a bow kind of defeats the purpose, and ignores your strengths. You can make a perfectly valid fighter that maxes Str and Dex, and is a crack shot with a bow. You can also throw Javelins/Handaxes/Hammers using Str at no cost in resources.

The thing is, those are things you do when you have to. Basic Ranged attacks cover this necessity. If you want to go further, multiclassing into Ranger is a valid option.

When the Fighter has any choice in the matter, he is stabbing people in the face. The Fighter class already has an excellent ranged attack that takes advantage of being a Fighter. Its called charge.

 

[Remathilis]

Perhaps this is an old way of looking at this...

I think it might be interesting if there were some fighter powers that worked with bows or thrown weapons, but not enough to force a build.

Right now, if a fighter is facing a flying foe, a foe in retreat, or a foe with obstruction between them (fighting on a chasm) he is restricted to basic attacks only. The wizard and warlock still get ranged powers (from at-wills to daily), the cleric still gets his "holy lasers", and even the rogue can use some of his powers with a crossbow (grrr). The fighter, the undisputed "master of combat" gets nothing more than a regular basic attack.

What would be wrong with adding a few "at-wills" that could be used with a ranged attack? Or an encounter power that had a ranged element?

That's what some of us mean by "bow-wielding fighter". I don't want someone who can replicate "longbow and full-plate", but how about fixing "crap, the dragon took wing. All my powers are useless now. Have fun guys."

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps this is an old way of looking at this...

I think it might be interesting if there were some fighter powers that worked with bows or thrown weapons, but not enough to force a build.

Right now, if a fighter is facing a flying foe, a foe in retreat, or a foe with obstruction between them (fighting on a chasm) he is restricted to basic attacks only. The wizard and warlock still get ranged powers (from at-wills to daily), the cleric still gets his "holy lasers", and even the rogue can use some of his powers with a crossbow (grrr). The fighter, the undisputed "master of combat" gets nothing more than a regular basic attack.

What would be wrong with adding a few "at-wills" that could be used with a ranged attack? Or an encounter power that had a ranged element?

That's what some of us mean by "bow-wielding fighter". I don't want someone who can replicate "longbow and full-plate", but how about fixing "crap, the dragon took wing. All my powers are useless now. Have fun guys."

What!!! Not in 4e, I mean if this was the case, we would be right back in the Rogue vs. undead situation of 3e...and everyone knows that's not fun...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Perhaps this is an old way of looking at this...

I think it might be interesting if there were some fighter powers that worked with bows or thrown weapons, but not enough to force a build.

Right now, if a fighter is facing a flying foe, a foe in retreat, or a foe with obstruction between them (fighting on a chasm) he is restricted to basic attacks only. The wizard and warlock still get ranged powers (from at-wills to daily), the cleric still gets his "holy lasers", and even the rogue can use some of his powers with a crossbow (grrr). The fighter, the undisputed "master of combat" gets nothing more than a regular basic attack.

What would be wrong with adding a few "at-wills" that could be used with a ranged attack? Or an encounter power that had a ranged element?

That's what some of us mean by "bow-wielding fighter". I don't want someone who can replicate "longbow and full-plate", but how about fixing "crap, the dragon took wing. All my powers are useless now. Have fun guys."

Maybe my memory is failing me since I couldn't play the past 3 weeks, but doesn't the Fighter mark not just depend on making an attack - even if it's a basic attack? I think that is still better then "just" a basic attack.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem is that some of you seem to address (b) and then refuse to allow for creative application, if the rules don't specifically exist for your creative concept, then the system is flawed. This is rather faulty logic. That, and the above mentioned posters just seem obsessed with class names and what classes 3e started with that 4e didn't. 4e went with a couple less classes. Full classes take up a lot of space. Every edition made its own list and there are plenty of concepts you can come up with that you can't do very well in 3e, as well.

It's clear you have no interest in exploring the subject at hand, as you simply shoot down every bit of discussion on what can be done to make a concept work. Reflavoring - can't have that. Shuffle some abilities around - nope, no go. Tweak some powers - thats not the way they are written.

Some of us like interesting concepts and, in any edition, you have to be flexible to make them work.

I would like to point out that its a lack of imagination that got us all these editions in the first place. There was a time when imagination was king and the action took place in the mind of the participants. At some point imagination became not good enough, more substance and complexity and options were desired. These options and complex systems continued to grow until imagination became subservient to them. Being a fighter and imagining him as a fierce gladiator was suddenly not good enough. We had to have all kinds of special rules and build options to make him a "real" gladiator. Imagination stopped serving a great many roleplayers a long time ago.

If imagination were enough to give us everything we wanted then we could just all play OD&D and call it a day. To often when an inquiry about what is wrong with older editions is brought up, 3E and 4E players are quick to respond that don't want a game of " I hit" " I miss". Ok then, fair enough but if everything you do in 4E deals damage then, in effect, you are right back to " I hit" "I miss". If nothing you do is ultimately going to do anything other than reduce hit points then the added complexity adds nothing but length to combat.

If imagination serves well enough on its own to flavor a character then lets play OD&D. I'm up for it.

On valid choices:

There is so much talk about how edition Y gives fewer choices but they are all valid choices. Edition X gave a whole slew of options but most of them were invalid.

I don't get it. A choice in character options is valid if a DM permits it in the campaign. Is optimized a dirty word? Just come out and say the choice is not optimal rather than invalid. Sub-optimal invariably means not as able the kick as much raw ass as another option. In this case then any option that makes you a less efficient meatgrinder should be abandoned.
Eventually, playtest and communication will reveal the "best" combination of class, build, and power selection for each role. Classes will be irrelavant and there will be a default Defender, Melee Striker, ect. that emerges as the only one worth playing. What then? When the "valid option" for each role is down to one choice where then will one go for choices? The next edition?