Give me choices!

[MerricB]

I think a new edition is exactly the right time for underperforming game elements to be removed from core, so I approve of Wizards' changes. Why they seem to have put the half-elf back in though...

Beats me.

I think the thing that may have saved the half-elf is the identification of the Leader role in the classes, and that allows the half-elf to have abilities that tie into that. I think you'll find that the half-elf is much better defined in 4e than before.

Cheers!

 

[Grog]

Be careful not to confuse your personal experience with combat in D&D3.5 with everyone's experience. For example, I never in 7 years of heavy play ever observed a single combat that went the way you described. Characters loaded up on healing potions and healed themselves in combat when they needed it and let the cleric blast away along with the wizard.

You must never have played at very high levels, then. Once you hit maybe 12th-13th level or so, healing potions simply didn't cut it anymore. They were fine for after-battle healing, but during combat, you usually needed a lot more than they could give.

 

[MerricB]

I'd love to see the party with a warlock, wizard, sorcerer and rogue.

So would I!

I'm not sure what missing two roles from a group would do. I know they're trying to make it so you can be missing one, but two? Interesting.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

You must never have played at very high levels, then. Once you hit maybe 12th-13th level or so, healing potions simply didn't cut it anymore. They were fine for after-battle healing, but during combat, you usually needed a lot more than they could give.

I played a 14th level Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor at one point. Fun character - though I was mostly the diplomat and healer. (I can play the cleric of the group, incidentally). However, my insane healing abilities just meant that the Barbarian could take 100+ damage a round and know that I could get him back up to full each round. Forget about doing anything like Flame Strike...

And, in high-level 3e, that amount of damage is very difficult to prevent.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

The biggest thing you needed a cleric for in 3e was ability drain and level loss, btw. I once had a high-level group on the Isle of Dread... but they didn't have a cleric. The 10th-level Eldritch Knight spent two sessions with 15 maximum hp due to Con drain.

I've used a lot of nasty monsters over the years in 3e, and, especially when I was trying to run a cleric-light game, I really noticed how much trouble I had keeping characters alive and the campaign ongoing.

Cheers!

 

[Patlin]

If we're going to keep with the anectdotal evidence here, every player in my group has had a gmomish PC at one point. We love them.

My favorite was Gillas Touchstone, a foppish dandy of a bard. Sigh. The good ol' days.

Yeah, I know... anecdotal evidence isn't the best argument. I just thought it was funny, so I shared it.

So, as a Gnome fan, what makes a gnome a gnome?

If I visit a Dwarven town, I expect some of the inhabitants to be gruff-but-loyal earthy types who enjoy gems, beer, and probably build their cities down into the ground.

An elven town would have aloof environmentalists living in an enchanted wood and enjoying all sorts of fine arts.

These are stereotypes, sure, but its where I start from when I sit down to think of a dwarven or elvish character. I may wind up far afield of the stereotype by the time the character is fully realized, but at least I have a clear picture of the norm from which I'm deviating.

I can pick up any of half a dozen fantasy books and recognize dwarves or elves as the same critters I play in D&D. Not Gnomes, though.

Does your group have a clear common understanding of what a typical Gnome is? I'm interested to hear it, because I can't even picture a gnomish town. The images of gnomes are so inconsistent nothing seems to stand out.

 

[Henry]

The way 4E is being described, an adventuring party is like the Harlem Globetrotters: Everybody is a superstar and larger than life. In 2E and earlier, it was more like a traditional sports team: You had your passers, your blockers, your showboats, and your assisters. Each has its appeal (lots of prime-time vs. learning teamwork) but hopefully the teamwork aspects will still be present - otherwise, what's a class for?

One thing I am optimistic about is the seeming stronger definition of classes themselves in 4E; they seem to be saying that classes won't step on one another's toes as much as what happens in 3E now. However, I'm getting mixed messages on this point, because of the flap about clerics having no fun performing a major class function (buffing and healing!) or thieves who can't sneak attack certain creatures.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As for half-orc, the "child of rape" thing was always a bother to me (though why that's rarely mentioned with half-elves I don't know), and the race didn't have much going for it otherwise.

A PC in my game was the product of an ogre raping a dragon.

 

[KingCrab]

In 3.5E, Gnomes were good bards.

That always really disturbed me. I certainly don't see their race as being entertainment specialists. Maybe if you put one in a jester costume and threw fruit at it.

 

[KingCrab]

One thing I am optimistic about is the seeming stronger definition of classes themselves in 4E; they seem to be saying that classes won't step on one another's toes as much as what happens in 3E now.

This sort of thing is only possible in the beginning of an edition. If you keep coming out with more and more classes with the additional books, there tends to be less space for each of the classes to have their own thing. It's probably good that they're starting out with this intention, but it can't last.