D&D 4E How would 4E improve my game?

[Knightlord]

Which has absolutely 0 influence in game. Mechanically exploits and spells are exactly the same. Likewise stances and utility spells are also rather similar. Fact is, fighters in 4E get limited powers which work in exactly the same way as spells for the wizard.

Yes, "mechanically". And may I add that thinking in terms of "mechanics" is Metagame thinking. D&D is a "roleplaying" game, where the descriptions of Martial Powers are "non-magical manuevers". In terms of Roleplaying (what D&D is centered around), Fighters are simply doing what they do best...fighting, not casting spells or producing magical effects. Yes, a Stance is similar to a Utility Power, "MECHANICALLY", but in the game, no one is discussing "mechanics". Put simply, in the game, Fighters fight, and that fighting is based around practiced, skill achieved, and/or trained "Exploits".

Mechanics=What characters can do in the game. Is commenly balanced to ensure fun gameplay for everyone.
Roleplaying=How you describe what characters are doing in the game and how they are doing what they do. Casters cast spells. Fighters fight.

I don't know how to make my point any more clear im afraid, Derren.

And my apologies to the OP. I do not mean to detract from your question. I just felt the need to debate the issue with Derren.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which has absolutely 0 influence in game. Mechanically exploits and spells are exactly the same. Likewise stances and utility spells are also rather similar. Fact is, fighters in 4E get limited powers which work in exactly the same way as spells for the wizard.

But by your logic (so to speak), any 3.X class with daily-use powers are also using spells. Barbarians using their rage, for example.

I agree that mechanically, some exploits and spells will be similar, but that's a result of 4E's streamlining of mechanics, not of any "warriors now cast spells" jazz. Unless you think there will be exploits that allow fighters to fly, for instance.

 

[Derren]

But by your logic (so to speak), any 3.X class with daily-use powers are also using spells. Barbarians using their rage, for example.

No because in 3E spells were much more than just "You can do X once a day". But in 4E the mechanics for spells and exploits are the same and as the lich shows there isn't a difference between two.

So yes, fighters in 4E do indeed get spells, just with a different name.

 

[Knightlord]

So yes, fighters in 4E do indeed get spells, just with a different name.

Mechanically, yes, perhaps. In terms of Roleplaying, no, they do not.

 

[Fifth Element]

So yes, fighters in 4E do indeed get spells, just with a different name.

No, if you're going to use that broad of a definition, my barbarian rage example certainly applies. It's "just like" a spell with a range of personal. Limited duration, specific effects on the "caster", etc.

 

[vagabundo]

No because in 3E spells were much more than just "You can do X once a day". But in 4E the mechanics for spells and exploits are the same and as the lich shows there isn't a difference between two.

So yes, fighters in 4E do indeed get spells, just with a different name.

There are differences, but they are more similar than in 3e, as fighters didnt not have any encounter/daily resources in 3e, just at wills attacks.

And fighters do not get spells they get Powers (exploits). Only classes part of the arcane power source get Spells.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fighter dailies are Reliable and the wizards dailies are not.

One mechanical different from the top of my head.

Most wizard powers (attacks):
- Work at range
- Deal energy or other magical damage
- target multiple foes (at range).

Sure, there is no hard rule that says I couldn't give a wizard a power that requires a melee attack and pushes and opponent back one square. The only thing that stands against this are the design guidelines. Not so different from not creating 1st level spells that deal 1d10 points of damage per caster level, or feats that add +2 to attack and damage (oh, wait)...

The basic building blocks of the powers are simple, but the end result is not.
Don't get baited by attempts to oversimplify 4E design elements to "prove" its inferiority.

---

Otherwise, I can only recommend that you pick whatever game you prefer. For me, 4E shapes up to be vastly superior to 3E in many areas. There might also be weaknesses, but all evidence so far suggest that it will be fun to play and easy to DM.
But if that is already true for you and 3E, there is no urgency to switch - At least as long as WotC doesn't figure out your address and sends its men from team Kelvin 506 to burn your 3E books. (That might be the last step in their 4E marketing campaign, as far as I have made up heard)

Picking up the first adventure might be a good idea to get a feeling for the game. (Let's hope the adventure's story and plot doesn't suck Mearls, don't fail me now! ).
It will cost less money then the 3 core rulebooks, and it's not like you wouldn't need an adventure if you'd decide to go with 4E. (Assuming you at least occasionally use published modules and adventure paths)

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

No because in 3E spells were much more than just "You can do X once a day". But in 4E the mechanics for spells and exploits are the same and as the lich shows there isn't a difference between two.

So yes, fighters in 4E do indeed get spells, just with a different name.

Exactly what lich martial exploit are you referring to? As far as I can see he can recharge an encounter power - but none of his encounter powers are martial based.

Would you also say that in 3e Barbarians can perform Bard Song, just only centered on themselves and with a different name? After all, it has a very similar mechanical effect - bonus to hit, resistance to enemies, etc...

 

[vagabundo]

Exactly what lich martial exploit are you referring to? As far as I can see he can recharge an encounter power - but none of his encounter powers are martial based.

Would you also say that in 3e Barbarians can perform Bard Song, just only centered on themselves and with a different name? After all, it has a very similar mechanical effect - bonus to hit, resistance to enemies, etc...

I believe he is talking about the Lich template, one of the power descriptions does not specify Arcane powers, so it could be applied to a fighters Exploits...

 

[ve4grm]

I don't quite agree with you there. Searing light didn't do much damage except vs undead.

Neither does Lance of Faith. It's a half-decent ranged radiant attack. Being radiant damage, though, it's best used on undead.

It's a very similar power, really.