I had to snort at this

[der_kluge]

So, does this mean that all the powergamers are not going to move to 4th edition and will stick with third edition?


That's quite possibly the best argument I've ever heard to switch to 4th edition. hmm

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, does this mean that all the powergamers are not going to move to 4th edition and will stick with third edition?


That's quite possibly the best argument I've ever heard to switch to 4th edition. hmm

Don't be silly, they'll definately move. After all, it's a whole new game to break ;p

 

[Hussar]

I don't really agree with that. While broken builds are something of a sport, in the main, people are looking for elegant ways to solve problems with character creation or create big win synergies. 4e is basically a streamlined system that mainly rewards big win synergies.

The difference being that big win synergies in 3e were based on your character. Take a little from Column A and add it to Column B and you increase your total power.

In 4e, it's more about talking to Bill across the table and coming up with ways you can work together to increase your total power collectively.

That's a HUGE shift.

 

[pawsplay]

The difference being that big win synergies in 3e were based on your character. Take a little from Column A and add it to Column B and you increase your total power.

In 4e, it's more about talking to Bill across the table and coming up with ways you can work together to increase your total power collectively.

That's a HUGE shift.

You could do that before. I think the main powergaming approach in 4e is still to pick abilities that go well together. It's only that in 4e, the powers mostly come from the same class.

 

[Hussar]

You could do that before. I think the main powergaming approach in 4e is still to pick abilities that go well together. It's only that in 4e, the powers mostly come from the same class.

I completely disagree with this.

First off, most of the classes in 3e were pretty self contained. If I take Fighter, and you take anything other than a caster, your abilities and mine do nothing for each other. Ever. PHB 2 did introduce a few concepts for team tactics, but, by and large, unless you were casting a buffing spell, nothing you did would help me.

In 4e, doubling up on roles doesn't really help with synergy either. Two strikers do not play well together at all. Nothing, or at least very little that helps a striker hit more often or harder belongs to the striker roles. Striker plus Controller or Striker plus Leader go extremely well together.

Two controllers? Why? They could both control the battlefield, but, that doesn't really help each other do it better, it just widens the area of control. Controller plus Defender OTOH, opens up all sorts of juicy goodness. Tide of Iron the baddie into the damaging area and then make him stay there with the fighter's stickiness.

I think you're really off base with this.

 

[pawsplay]

I completely disagree with this.

First off, most of the classes in 3e were pretty self contained. If I take Fighter, and you take anything other than a caster, your abilities and mine do nothing for each other. Ever. PHB 2 did introduce a few concepts for team tactics, but, by and large, unless you were casting a buffing spell, nothing you did would help me.

Not even if I was flanking for the rogue, or readying an action to trip someone who made a move at the wizard, or positioning myself to provide cover against a Large monster?

In 4e, doubling up on roles doesn't really help with synergy either. Two strikers do not play well together at all. Nothing, or at least very little that helps a striker hit more often or harder belongs to the striker roles. Striker plus Controller or Striker plus Leader go extremely well together.

Two strikers will make something twice as dead. It's not ideal, but it's an approach. But I don't see what in my post suggests you would double up roles.

Two controllers? Why? They could both control the battlefield, but, that doesn't really help each other do it better, it just widens the area of control.

I don't know specifics about the powers, but i know that in the City of Heroes MMO, two Controllers is awesome, particularly if they are of different types. Why make the area controlled twice as big... when you can make it twice as bad? Enemies become completely neutered or inert, damage happens every round no matter what they do, and when it goes right, you never even break a sweat.

 

[ronin]

You could do that before. I think the main powergaming approach in 4e is still to pick abilities that go well together. It's only that in 4e, the powers mostly come from the same class.

I agree that group synergy worked well with 3.5, at least for our group it did. Our casters (wizards in particular) found we took creatures down alot faster when they got the fighters (melee types) in positions to get their full attacks off.

The amount of damage done at higher levels was unreal at times.

 

[Imp]

First off, most of the classes in 3e were pretty self contained. If I take Fighter, and you take anything other than a caster, your abilities and mine do nothing for each other. Ever. PHB 2 did introduce a few concepts for team tactics, but, by and large, unless you were casting a buffing spell, nothing you did would help me.

That's not so, you don't even need to go outside of fighter. Greatsword/PA brute + trip monkey. They could probably come up with two or three other complementary tactics with more levels. Now, it's not something you'd really see except in big parties because of the usual expectations of how parties were composed.

Two controllers? Why? They could both control the battlefield, but, that doesn't really help each other do it better, it just widens the area of control.

Lock an area down twice with two saves? (I could be wrong about how this works, I've only given the 4e PHB a couple read-overs)

 

[VictorC]

Tim would be a supreme court justice of rules lawyering.

Is Tim Tim's real name and if so waht's his last name?

 

[Elephant]

I completely disagree with this.

First off, most of the classes in 3e were pretty self contained. If I take Fighter, and you take anything other than a caster, your abilities and mine do nothing for each other. Ever. PHB 2 did introduce a few concepts for team tactics, but, by and large, unless you were casting a buffing spell, nothing you did would help me.

Okay, you play a Fighter, I play a Barbarian. On my turn, I take up flanking position. +2 to hit isn't the pinnacle of "cool", but surely it's more than "nothing". Or how about if I'm playing a Rogue? Sneak attack from flanking is nothing to sneeze at.

There are synergies with Monks, too. My monk hits a foe with Stunning Fist, and you attack the same foe with an extra two points of Power Attack tradeoff. The same types of tradeoffs work for grappling, too.