I don't get what you'all are saying

[Old Gumphrey]

I never said 3e was "all about noncombat". I said it allowed you to make character with a variety of abilities, not all of which are focused on ensuring that everyone is a combat specialist. This is different than 4e, because in 4e, no matter what, you are a combat specialist. 4e protects you from making the "wrong" choice where "wrong" is defined as "anything that makes you less effective at bonking monsters over the head". That's a step backwards to me.

That's not really accurate. Like I said, that level 12 rogue is packing 8 BAB, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and 6d6 sneak attack. He can decide not to use them, just as a 4e rogue can decide not to use his.

4e has more feats than 3.x--you can make ALL of your feats serve noncombat functions. You can work with the DM and change your combat powers to noncombat functions. This can be done independent of edition.

I already said all of this. I think your main beef is what you said about the designers saying that this was "unfun". In their defense, I think what they actually meant by that was accidentally sucking is VERY "unfun". If your goal is to be helpful outside of a fight while also contributing to a combat, it's possible to utterly hamstring that concept without even knowing it (in 3e).

This phenomenon also allows transference between gaming groups. It ensures that when playing with new people you can't possibly screw yourself over (such as making a fully noncombat character, only to wade sword first into the most brutal war campaign you've ever been a part of, and the DM handwaves all out of combat happenings).

I'm all for characters that suck at fighting, yet lord over other avenues in life. But the fact is D&D has always had combat, and I don't really see anything inherently wrong with heroic adventure characters being good at it by default.

Plus all that tasty DM fiat goodness is back in the rules. Just work with your friends to create the characters you want for the games you want to play, edition be damned.

 

[wedgeski]

This is a good discussion. It's early days with 4e for me at the moment, and I've enjoyed every minute I've played. This doesn't mean I'm not open-minded about its potential flaws, though. I just fail to see how "It's really hard to make characters that suck in 4e" could possibly be seen as a flaw, and it seems to be the basis of many of the posts here.

 

[DeusExMachina]

This is a good discussion. It's early days with 4e for me at the moment, and I've enjoyed every minute I've played. This doesn't mean I'm not open-minded about its potential flaws, though. I just fail to see how "It's really hard to make characters that suck in 4e" could possibly be seen as a flaw, and it seems to be the basis of many of the posts here.

Because rules mastery is cool when you are a rules master. I consider fairly good with making strong 3e characters after playing it for 7 years or so and I must admit I am a tiny bit proud of that.
Seeing how in 4e rules mastery is much less of an issue, it sometimes feels like you can never get really good at it or something like that. I can imagine people feeling like they have lost the use of a skill they learned over the past years...

 

[Storm Raven]

That's not really accurate. Like I said, that level 12 rogue is packing 8 BAB, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and 6d6 sneak attack. He can decide not to use them, just as a 4e rogue can decide not to use his.

Except that we aren't talking about characters with a single core class who has made "standard' choices in his development. I don't think anyone has said that this sort of character is generally "sub-par" (as was asserted that someone who was something like a bard/monk would be).

4e has more feats than 3.x--you can make ALL of your feats serve noncombat functions. You can work with the DM and change your combat powers to noncombat functions. This can be done independent of edition.

Sure. But the difference is that in 3e, there are more base options without DM fiat that provide for noncombat types. And the point I was making, if you would actually go back and read my post, was that characters who were "sub-par" at combat (i.e. the chain-shirted rapier wielding fighter and the wizard without evocation or conjuration) were not only welcome in groups I have been associated with, but very popular characters. Which sort of explodes the whole "must be good at combat for other players to tolerate your character" fallacy that has been bandied about here.

This phenomenon also allows transference between gaming groups. It ensures that when playing with new people you can't possibly screw yourself over (such as making a fully noncombat character, only to wade sword first into the most brutal war campaign you've ever been a part of, and the DM handwaves all out of combat happenings).

Yes, it simplifies the game so you can't make the "wrong" choices. I could have had that for the last eight years just by breaking out the 1e books and using that. I opted, consciously, for a more flexible game system. Why would I now opt for a less flexible one?

Given that I have chosen to play 3e rather than 1e for the last eight years, explain why I should play 4e. 1e already gives me everything that is being extolled as the virtues of 4e.

 

[wedgeski]

Because rules mastery is cool when you are a rules master. I consider fairly good with making strong 3e characters after playing it for 7 years or so and I must admit I am a tiny bit proud of that.
Seeing how in 4e rules mastery is much less of an issue, it sometimes feels like you can never get really good at it or something like that. I can imagine people feeling like they have lost the use of a skill they learned over the past years...

All it means is that the gap between rules-master and rules-newb is somewhat smaller than in 3ed. You can still show your quality by generating outrageous multi-class synergistic monsters derived from splat books 5 years apart, if you want.

 

[DeusExMachina]

All it means is that the gap between rules-master and rules-newb is somewhat smaller than in 3ed. You can still show your quality by generating outrageous multi-class synergistic monsters derived from splat books 5 years apart, if you want.

Oh yeah perfectly possible... but not for another 5 years...
I think a large part is because 30 levels of D&D were put into books that normally held only 20 levels plus the fact that there are no splat books yet, that now things feel a bit limited...

In the meantime I'll have great fun with my Eladrin who is not very suited to be a warlock, but is actually cool to play anyway...

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is a good discussion. It's early days with 4e for me at the moment, and I've enjoyed every minute I've played. This doesn't mean I'm not open-minded about its potential flaws, though. I just fail to see how "It's really hard to make characters that suck in 4e" could possibly be seen as a flaw, and it seems to be the basis of many of the posts here.

i enjoyed my experience playing 4E as well, as well as any other tabletop combat game. The problem is not making characters that suck, its making characters that are actually different from each other. Every class feels mostly the same, just change the color/flavor/power souce of the power and you have a new class.

 

[Storm Raven]

I just fail to see how "It's really hard to make characters that suck in 4e" could possibly be seen as a flaw, and it seems to be the basis of many of the posts here.

The issue isn't "it is hard to make a ahcracter that sucks". The issue is that everything else appears to have been subordinated to the goal of ensuring that choices are limited so that characters don't "suck" in one specific area, and that one area is now the only thing that matters to the game system. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the characters that supposedly "suck" in 3e were actually good at a lot of things other than bashing monster heads the quickest and with the most plusses.

In point of fact, I'd say that the posited bard/monk would be a lot more fun to play over the course of a campaign than the posited fighter/barbarian. Unfortunately, the 4e rules don't agree with me, because, apparently, the bard/monk isn't good at bashing monster heads, so playing that type of character must be "unfun".

 

[Lackhand]

i enjoyed my experience playing 4E as well, as well as any other tabletop combat game. The problem is not making characters that suck, its making characters that are actually different from each other. Every class feels mostly the same, just change the color/flavor/power souce of the power and you have a new class.

No they don't.

Or, at more length: Each role feels very different from each other role (I haven't played more than one class in each role, so I can't comment on that; I suspect very highly that they feel different too, but can't subjectively prove it ). Fighters soak up a lot of damage (especially over time) and think nothing of getting healed, while it's a moment of dread for the wizard I'm currently playing.
Warlords get to grin like a maniac at the DM while the entire party moves around.
Wizards start flicking minions off the board left & right, which nobody-but-nobody else gets to do.

They don't feel the same to me.
Sure, they all have powers. That really doesn't mean much; in 3e, they all had feats, and that didn't make them feel the same, did it?


That said, yes, changing power sources creates new classes. This seems quite reasonable to me, though YMMV. That's a good thing, as far as I can see.
It's not the best way to make new classes, though -- our paladin is pretty different from our fighter, and ditto the warlock and rogue.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

In point of fact, I'd say that the posited bard/monk would be a lot more fun to play over the course of a campaign than the posited fighter/barbarian. Unfortunately, the 4e rules don't agree with me, because, apparently, the bard/monk isn't good at bashing monster heads, so playing that type of character must be "unfun".

I'd completely disagree. What is it about the fighter/barbarian specifically that makes it suck "over the course of a campaign?" It's certainly not skill points, because one of your posited characters was a chain shirt & rapier fighter who would not only suck in combat, but also have among the lowest number and least varied skills in the entire game.

I will say this, though: you can be a good roleplayer and have massive fun over the course of a campaign with any character, not just the ones who suck at combat, or who suck at everything.

Except that we aren't talking about characters with a single core class who has made "standard' choices in his development. I don't think anyone has said that this sort of character is generally "sub-par" (as was asserted that someone who was something like a bard/monk would be).

You claimed that a character could be a noncombat specialist, but without house rules you can't be any less focused on combat in 3e than in 4e. My point was that a so-called "noncombat" rogue would still have the BAB of a level 8 fighter, and tons of combat-only special abilities.

Sure. But the difference is that in 3e, there are more base options without DM fiat that provide for noncombat types. And the point I was making, if you would actually go back and read my post, was that characters who were "sub-par" at combat (i.e. the chain-shirted rapier wielding fighter and the wizard without evocation or conjuration) were not only welcome in groups I have been associated with, but very popular characters. Which sort of explodes the whole "must be good at combat for other players to tolerate your character" fallacy that has been bandied about here.

My position is that a chain-shirt & rapier fighter and a chain-shirt & rapier fighter2/rogueX can be played with the same character personality and it won't make a lick of difference (other than upgrading to a character with a lot more skill points and a lot more combat effectiveness). Just because you suck in combat doesn't make you a good roleplayer. Good characters are welcome at my table, too, whether they suck in combat or not.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I don't really appreciate your accusing me of ignoring a post just because I completely disagree with it. I understand your point, I just believe it to be invalid.

Yes, it simplifies the game so you can't make the "wrong" choices. I could have had that for the last eight years just by breaking out the 1e books and using that. I opted, consciously, for a more flexible game system. Why would I now opt for a less flexible one?

If you're seriously arguing that 1e and 4e have similar flexibility I think you need to re-read your 1e books. I'll wait.

Given that I have chosen to play 3e rather than 1e for the last eight years, explain why I should play 4e. 1e already gives me everything that is being extolled as the virtues of 4e.

Man, I personally couldn't care less which edition you want to play, but if you really want my opinion, I think you should play 4e because it's a damn fun game system that lends itself to creative DMing, exciting & cinematic combats, and the ability to tell a memorable adventure story.