I don't get what you'all are saying

[Gentlegamer]

Also, pure combat effectiveness is not the only thing that is important about a character. Having a game system try to "protect" me from this type of "undesirable" character is simply not a welcome change. Like I said before, if I wanted that sort of game play experience, I could have been playing 1e for the last eight years.

How can someone be so right and so wrong in the same breath?

 

[Graybeard]

Okay, having played a couple of sessions of 4e, let me state my thoughts.

1st, I like playing spellcasters in 3.5e. In 4e, it doesn't feel right. Magic missile is no longer an auto hit. area effect spells (powers) require attack rolls against every opponent in the area. The choices are too limiting as far as spells and powers go.

2nd, The races. I don't think they needed to put Eladrin in the PHB. They included Tieflings but not Aasimars?

3rd, Rituals. They made all the utility spells into rituals. maybe not all but most of them. Want to open a door? It's a ritual that takes 10 minutes (open/close). I do like that raise dead is a ritual. That makes sense. Raising someone from the dead should take time. I also like that raise dead costs more as you go up in level.

Despite all that I said above, it was a fun game to play. However, it felt more like a war game than D&D to me.

 

[MerricB]

Okay, having played a couple of sessions of 4e, let me state my thoughts.

1st, I like playing spellcasters in 3.5e. In 4e, it doesn't feel right. Magic missile is no longer an auto hit. area effect spells (powers) require attack rolls against every opponent in the area. The choices are too limiting as far as spells and powers go.

Funnily, Area Affect spells haven't actually changed much. It's just, in earlier editions, it was the DM who made the rolls (saving throws) for each affected monster!

I've also discovered, as I've gone through the books more, a lot of cool abilities that used to be with the Wizard or Cleric are now actually with the other classes. There are some really good Rogue utility powers that basically take the place of Spider Climb and Invisibility.

You should be just able to "open" a door with Mage Hand or Prestidigitation. However, if you want to use Knock, consider that it takes Gandalf ages (more than 10 minutes) to open the gates to the Mines of Moria...

I'm wondering how much of the war/board game feel will wear off as we get better at the new system.

Cheers!

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Once again, you haven't bothered to read what I actually wrote, but instead decided I said something I didn't. I didn't say the fighrter/barbarian would "suck". I said I thought it would be less fun to play than the bard/monk. For someone who gets "offended" that I don't think you read the posts you are responding to, it sure seems like you aren't reading the posts you are responding to.

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.

And I didn't say that you couldn't. Once again, you should read what I actually said. Not what you assume I actually said in order to make your argument work.

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.

I never said "noncombat specialist". I did say you could have fun with a character who was less than combat optimized and whose primary focus wasn't combat. Like I said, go back and actually read what I wrote: I said that a character who was supposedly "sub-par" at combat - like a rapier wielding chain-shirted fighter, which was not my example, but one brought up by someone who thought that "sub-par" characters wouldn't be tolerated by a gaming group - was not only fun to have in a group, but, in my experience, well-accepted by players of other characters.

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.

And that's not the point. You have latched on to this issue and assumed that the argument being made was entirely different from the actual argument being made. It was posited that some character choices in 3e: the rapier wielding fighter, the wizard without conjuration or evocation, the rogue without open lock/diable device, the aofrementioned bard/monk and so on - that these choices were not actual choices because they produced characters that were (not my term) "sub-par" and thus other people in the group would not tolerate a player making those sorts of choices for his character. My argument is that not only were those sorts of characters welcomed at the gaming table, but they were fun, memorable, and valued characters, which invalidates the original claim. And I further pointed out that 4e eliminating the sorts of choices that lead to this sort of character in the name of "fun" is a loss of flexibility, and a step backwards.

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.

No, you don't really seem to understand my point, because you keep misstating it, and simply ignoring what I actually wrote.

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.

The virtues that 4e is being extolled for in this thread are that it provides clear combat roles for every character, and prevents players from making "bad" choices by restricting the available options to a few ones that "work" for creating combat capable characters. These are the exact same virtues that 1e has.

There is no real way to argue that 4e isn't less flexible than 3e, for the simple fact that "unfun" choices have been edited out of the system. Now, before you go around arguing that I said 4e is complete inflexible, I didn't. I said it was less flexible than 3e. In the areas extolled here as virtues of the system, 4e is just as flexible as 1e. Which makes me wonder why I shouldn't just play 1e instead if I want to switch away from 3e - I have dozens of books and adventures for 1e and know that system.

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.

If you stay within a very narrowly defined range of what is "fun", "creative", and "exciting" and keep the things you care about concerning the system restricted to combat situations. You can keep 4e, I don't need to be protected from player choices or kept away from sharp tools so I don't cut my little hands on them.

 

[Nellisir]

Funnily, Area Affect spells haven't actually changed much. It's just, in earlier editions, it was the DM who made the rolls (saving throws) for each affected monster!

I switched to a "players roll all the dice" policy for my last campaign, and it was great. 4e is a step in that direction, though not a full step (if it were, players would also roll defenses against a monster's static attack score).

I've also discovered, as I've gone through the books more, a lot of cool abilities that used to be with the Wizard or Cleric are now actually with the other classes. There are some really good Rogue utility powers that basically take the place of Spider Climb and Invisibility.

There are alot of spells in 3e that, upon reflection, I don't recall every seeing in fantasy literature, and maybe that's one area where earlier editions went wrong. Magic shouldn't be for the mundane, or nearly mundane. No more ability boosts, no more spider climb, no more detect traps - or bump them up 3 levels.

 

[TerraDave]

4E is not perfect. There are issues...but...

4E has more mechanical support for non-combat stuff then any past edition. It is easy to customize your charecter for role-playing or non-combat purposes, both from a fluff point of view and mechanically. The DMG is basically an advice book on putting the "role" into roleplaying. It says more on this then has ever been said in previous edition core rules. And it really advocates for the PCs being allowed to use their imagination. You can run combats faster (at least compared to 3E)...and fewer (especially compared to 1E or 2E)...to allow more time for roleplaying....

And I could go on. But, and this isn't meant to be a shot in an edition war, I cannot figure out or recall what the past editions of D&D that did in their core books to somehow encourage role-playing, non-combat adventure, etc, beyond what is in 4E or most other rpgs.

Past D&D core rules are focused on mechanics, and the great majority of those mechanics are for combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I will clarify a little bit. Yes the roles each have different jobs to perform in 4E. A different combat role doesn't exactly make the class much different though. I am talking about end results rather than what type of source or power those results are channeled through. Some examples:

Confusion does damage(?) and allows extreme short duration mind control. Where is the confused part of confusion?

Maze does damage............enough on that.

A natural 20 with a vorpal damage does.........a little more damage.

Everything that made the game exciting has been removed and replaced with................DAMAGE.

The feeling that SOMETHING...............ANYTHING, could happen without the mindless ablation of hit points was one thing that made older editions exciting. (3E started to squish it a little)

So, all classes are the same in that they are all just various means to beat the pinatas of hit points that all monsters have become.

I must be an outdated relic because everything I liked about the game has now been labeled "unfun" and removed.

 

[DylanCB]

I'm actually reconsidering some combat feats for skill focus and training, especially for a rogue. Rogues at-will skill use powers make it seem like a good idea. Also, since everybody is, per the rules, powerful enough to deal with fighting, I can take training in nearly every skill, without worrying about my effectiveness. The act of not having to drag anybody down in combat, frees me up to do anything I want outside of combat. I think that roleplaying will be just fine. Now, I'm betting many people are upset that they have to wait for some classes, and dont like the new classes, thats probably the biggest problem. I kinda agree with them on that, we need more classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm actually reconsidering some combat feats for skill focus and training, especially for a rogue. Rogues at-will skill use powers make it seem like a good idea. Also, since everybody is, per the rules, powerful enough to deal with fighting, I can take training in nearly every skill, without worrying about my effectiveness. The act of not having to drag anybody down in combat, frees me up to do anything I want outside of combat. I think that roleplaying will be just fine. Now, I'm betting many people are upset that they have to wait for some classes, and dont like the new classes, thats probably the biggest problem. I kinda agree with them on that, we need more classes.

Exactly, this is a great boon.

In 3E, to get a combat effective Rogue, you had to invest some feats - either Weapon Finesse, or Armor & Shield Profiency, or Point Blank Shot/Rapid Shot.

You can now focus your feats on whatever you want. Pick half a dozen skills you always wanted to have. Get Skill Focus. Get some thematic, minor ability. Multiclass.

 

[Mark Chance]

Ignore this post. Go onto the next one. Thank you for your cooperation.