Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[Particle_Man]

"EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!"

There are the multi-class feats, which mitigate that problem.

 

[hong]

Meh, my only problem with warlord is that I feel most if not all the powers could've just as easily been in any other class. To put it another way, my issue with warlord isn't the warlord itself, it's with the powers system, specifically "EVERY CLASS HAS ONE UND PRECISELY VON SET OF POWERS, THEY CAN NEVER SHARE, IRREGRADLESS OF WHAT SESAME STREET TOLD YOU!"

The problem with RANDOMLY capitalising WORDS in a SENTENCE is that it leaves one with LIMITED OPTIONS for ESCALATING the EFFECT.

Kids, don't let this happen to you.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

There are the multi-class feats, which mitigate that problem.

It doesn't patch up the big problem of "Why can only this class do this?" though. It just gives a badly done work around.

 

[Particle_Man]

It doesn't patch up the big problem of "Why can only this class do this?" though. It just gives a badly done work around.

Between the multi-class feats, the multi- instead of Paragon Path class option, and the Eternal Seeker Epic Destiny, you can get more encounter and daily powers from the secondary class than the primary class. In fact, you can eventually get *all* of your encounter and daily powers from the 2nd class.

I don't understand what more you would want except having all classes have free and full access to all powers, in which case you seem to be arguing that we should get rid of classes entirely.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's completely out of place, but only rangers can do it, and we're never told why.

Maybe it's because D&D is a class-based game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Between the multi-class feats, the multi- instead of Paragon Path class option, and the Eternal Seeker Epic Destiny, you can get more encounter and daily powers from the secondary class than the primary class. In fact, you can eventually get *all* of your encounter and daily powers from the 2nd class.

I don't understand what more you would want except having all classes have free and full access to all powers, in which case you seem to be arguing that we should get rid of classes entirely.

Maybe it's because D&D is a class-based game.

My problem isn't that it's class based, but that so many abilities just seem completely arbitrary and random with what class gets them. Like I said, take that ranger ability. There's nothing about it that has anything to remotely do with the ranger. If anything, the "You help your allies with your wisdom!" would be a cleric ability.

It's not that I want every class to have every power. I just don't like the power system in the first place. For me, the warlord is where it breaks down - when other classes can't use basic tactics because "that belongs to something else." It's given more options in combat, yeah, but it's also taken a lot away. Classes SHOULD have things that make them stand out, yes, but not everything in the game should be a part of this divide.

As for multiclassing, it's been pretty butchered and neutered. It isn't even really an option compared to the paragon classes.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree. The flavour seems to be just there as an afterthought in the case of many of the powers, and seems unconvincing.

I may have been unclear. When I talk about the flavour and theme being integrated into the mechanics, I mean that the actual mechanical results at the table convey flavour - inspiring paladins and warlords, sneaky rogues and rangers, and so on.

In earlier editions of D&D one could narrate that's one's paladin was inspiring, or one's ranger sneaky, or whatever, but in the end they played out in combat just the same as a fighter: roll d20, look up to hit chart/add level in BAB.

In this respect 4e is both different and similar from some other fortune-in-the-middle games like HeroWars. Similar, in that there are a very wide range of mechanical elements (powers in 4e, keywords in HeroWars) that contribute to the flavour of the FiTM narration. Different, in that HeroWars keywords shape the flavour of the narration but not its mechanical resolution (a bit like the difference between using Diplomacy or Intimidate in a 4e skill challenge) whereas 4e powers actually mould the mechanical resolution to be expressive of the flavour.

As someone who enjoys mechanically heavy simulationists systems like RM or RQ, I like this aspect of 4e.

In a way, it is. I think most classes and their powers don't have big problems, but I think it falls apart on martial classes, such as how warriors, despite being masters of the art of war, haven't grasped that their left hand can be used. Or how you have to be specially and specifically trained to shout loudly or tell people what to do. I dislike that choices have become limited.

Edit: To give what I think is a perfect example, rangers get an ability that allow other classes to reroll, the fluff saying "they benefit from your great wisdom" or something along those lines. There's nothing about that ability that has anything to do with rangers or any of the ranger stuff elsewhere in 4e. It's completely out of place, but only rangers can do it, and we're never told why.

This is no different from explaining why only wizards can cast spells, or why only fighters can gain weapon specialisation. In a D&D-style class-based games, only certain classes can do certain things. (And, btw, it's not a martial vs magic thing at all. How come only clerics are sufficiently beloved by the gods to have miraculous powers bestowed upon them? RQ - a non-class-based game - answers this question quite simply: they're not. Anyone can use Divine magic.)

 

[Hussar]

My problem isn't that it's class based, but that so many abilities just seem completely arbitrary and random with what class gets them. Like I said, take that ranger ability. There's nothing about it that has anything to remotely do with the ranger. If anything, the "You help your allies with your wisdom!" would be a cleric ability.

It's not that I want every class to have every power. I just don't like the power system in the first place. For me, the warlord is where it breaks down - when other classes can't use basic tactics because "that belongs to something else." It's given more options in combat, yeah, but it's also taken a lot away. Classes SHOULD have things that make them stand out, yes, but not everything in the game should be a part of this divide.

As for multiclassing, it's been pretty butchered and neutered. It isn't even really an option compared to the paragon classes.

I believe the power you are looking at is Crucial Advice:


You are wise in all things. The sooner your friends realize this, the safer and better off they’ll be.
Encounter Martial
Ranged 5
Trigger: An ally within range that you can see or hear makes a skill check using a skill in which you’re trained
Effect: Grant the ally the ability to reroll the skill check, with a power bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier.


Hrm, seems pretty flavored to me. The ranger as a wise mentor type whose skills can help those around him be better.

Why isn't this a ranger thing? Ranger as skill monkey is pretty much in keeping with the archetype.

((Go Go D&D Compendium))

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This is no different from explaining why only wizards can cast spells, or why only fighters can gain weapon specialisation. In a D&D-style class-based games, only certain classes can do certain things. (And, btw, it's not a martial vs magic thing at all. How come only clerics are sufficiently beloved by the gods to have miraculous powers bestowed upon them? RQ - a non-class-based game - answers this question quite simply: they're not. Anyone can use Divine magic.)

But here's the thing - at level two, a fighter can start using magic if he decides to multiclass. My issue with powers isn't just the powers themselves, it's about how the class system - and very MUCH how the multiclass system - now works. As I stated earlier, multiclassing has been crippled, and just about everyone agrees. For some people, this is a good thing. For others, myself included, it's a bad thing.

I believe the power you are looking at is Crucial Advice:

That's the one!

Hrm, seems pretty flavored to me. The ranger as a wise mentor type whose skills can help those around him be better.

Why isn't this a ranger thing? Ranger as skill monkey is pretty much in keeping with the archetype.

((Go Go D&D Compendium))

Well, then why is it only rangers can use two weapons? That's where my problem comes from - I'm told "Rangers are just martial fighters who use two weapons, they don't need the nature guy fluff," and I'm told after that "No no, this ability follows their wise mentor fluff, they're not just martial fighters."

 

[Gothmog]

I have no problem with that; it's what gets called a core race that I have a problem with. Do you understand that what gets made a core race or core class actually matters in terms of the game's implied setting, theme and flavour? That dragonborn are now "assumed" to exist in every world in a PC context, putting up their feet and incinerating the furniture in taverns everywhere, UNLESS you specifically get rid of the ugly, arbitrary so-and-so's?

Honestly, I fail to see the problem. I'm not crazy about dragonborn either- they have no place in my homebrew world, and I find them rather bland as presented. So you know what? They are not available as PCs, or even NPCs or monsters. Easily solved. Same thing with elves, gnomes, and half-elves. Heck, the only PC races in my homebrew are humans and dwarves, and the humans come in 15 flavors (cultures) which pretty much work like different races. I don't use wizards as written either- I have 8 different magical traditions each with a certain focus on the types of magic they perform- is that bad?

To me, and most of the folks I've gamed with, D&D is about taking a set of rules, and building YOUR world around it based on what you and your group likes, not what is explicitly stated in the core books. YOU decide your game's campaign setting, theme, and flavor, not the core rules, or some game designer you'll probably never meet, let alone game with. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it horrible game design or an affront to the gaming gods. I think the Lolth-worshipping drow are tired and silly, so I don't use them- no drow in my worlds, period. Pick and choose what works for you, and forget the rest.

I'd have no problems if it were a single campaign world. I'd gobble that right down, along with banned halflings, psionic alien lizardmen riding tarrasques, and PC flumph power rangers. What you fail to acknowledge is that the implied setting is much bigger than a single quirky world, and imposes stuff by default on every world, unless you specifically ban it. I can't be bothered banning this stuff, and it doesn't inspire me because there's a bad taste left over if I have to, so there's a whole lot of let's not bother involved.

Why talk about it then? Frustration, incredulity...and habit, I guess. I'm really annoyed with how short-sighted WOTC have been this time around. It'll pass, and D&D will have it's precious dragonborn warlords without me.

I guess what I don't get is why implied setting is so important to you? I know ever since I started playing 1e AD&D, we omitted things we didn't like, and added things we did. Is it a desire to play by D&D canon? Is it righteous indignation that WotC dared to change some of the core classes and races? Why is it too much of a bother to ban or omit stuff that doesn't fit your world? Honestly, I'm at a loss as to why this is a big deal? I'm not trying to pick on you or ridicule you, I'm just not getting where you are coming from. Maybe you can explain this further?