D&D 4E I'll say one thing for 4E... It is more accessible.

[Kid Charlemagne]

I understand the reasons why. They wanted to avoid "Send the rogue with +25 H/MS, we all stay here". They didn't want "I can't fail a Fort save and can't make a Will save" characters. They didn't want "fighter only misses on a 1, Wizard only hits on a 20". I get that. The cost of not sucking at anything, though, is not being great at anything, either. Is this a fair tradeoff? Only extended play will tell...

This is the thing I think I like most about 4E (and I'm kind of ambivalent about much of it).

I think that the current power set is pretty limited and limiting; I also think that we'll begin to see lots of builds and powers in subsequent books, so customizability will increase as we move forward. Luckily for me, I'm not in a position to switch to 4E even if I were 100% behind it, so I can afford to wait and see how things develop.

 

[Harr]

It's been said that 4E emphasizes party optimization. You can still optimize, but you can no longer do so by building your character alone and showing up at the table with an unstoppable killing machine. Instead an optimized group will build their characters to complement each other by using powers that synergize well.

This.

4e runs away from the character-building game and into the party-building game. It's about finding the combos between two characters that will let the whole group do well. And that, IMHO, makes it superior.

Let's be clear here, by the 'character-building game' (and by stating that you're looking for this game not in roleplaying but in the mechanics) we're essentially talking about one guy, sitting alone in his room, reading his books and crunching his numbers over and over in an individual, imaginary fantasy of performance-seeking delight. The act of getting together with other people later on is simply the conclusion of that, the validation/reward of all the previous hours of 'game'.

This may be extremely enjoyable for some... but it doesn't strike me as the right way to design 'what D&D should be'. I could be wrong of course.

Also, as your friend shows somewhat, I've talked to many people who imagine many negatives while reading the rules. I've yet to meet one person who gamed 4e with me that didn't end up nodding their head going, 'yeah I like it'. Game experience goes a long way to weighing out those kinds of comments.

 

[Agamon]

Not good for gearheads (the sort of building gearheads - for homebrew gearheads, 4E is *great*).

As a GM, I don't like games that minmax the potential for minmaxers. So I like 4e for that.

And agreed, I'm in homebrew heaven for sure!

 

[TwoSix]

Let's be clear here, by the 'character-building game' (and by stating that you're looking for this game not in roleplaying but in the mechanics) we're essentially talking about one guy, sitting alone in his room, reading his books and crunching his numbers over and over in an individual, imaginary fantasy of performance-seeking delight. The act of getting together with other people later on is simply the conclusion of that, the validation/reward of all the previous hours of 'game'.

This may be extremely enjoyable for some... but it doesn't strike me as the right way to design 'what D&D should be'. I could be wrong of course.

This.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because I've certainly indulged in that sort of behavior. But, a lot of times, 3e was more fun away from the table than it was during. I can remember times feeling let down that my carefully built character didn't get to perform the way I wanted him too. If lessening a player's investment in the mechanics of his character allows him to become more invested in the actual play at the table, I'm all for it.

 

[Thasmodious]

I would challenge lizard, or anyone else, who thinks that 4e has less build options than 3e to provide some examples of character concepts that you can't do in 4e. And we are comparing PHB to PHB, not 3e after a decade of splatbooks to 4e five days after release. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that someone who thinks that 4e restricts freedom of concept hasn't really test drove that theory.

In fact, I can get the ball rolling. Here are some things you can do, out of the box and at 1st level that you can't do in 3e:

fighter/rogue
wizard/cleric
warlock/fighter
warlord/paladin
...

I'm only kidding (partly). But there is a point there in that in 3e, out of the book, you couldn't mechanically represent a multiclassed character. You had to wait until at least 2nd level. In 4e, you can, right out of the starting gate. That thief turned scout/spy that you want to build can start the game as just that (rogue/ranger or ranger/rogue). You can start the game as a wizard/fighter, and be effective, from 1st level. I've got a dwarf wizard 6 /fighter, that I'm playing that is made of pure win.

And others are absolutely right, the party, rather than the character is the new playground for the COs (POs?), and they are already hard at work, gods bless 'em.

Like the other day, playing a warmup game with my wizard/fighter, we were facing off against the big bad and his many minions (not all were actual minions, i mean in the general sense). The fighter and warlord sealed off the battlefield, while I held the big bad immobilized with bigby's icy. The rogue was working around behind to get to the big bad.

In one round, the warlord ended his turn, after dropping an enemy, by using knight's move as his move action, allowing the rogue a free move, who closed within striking distance of the big bad, still hidden. The fighter was holding back a large group to one side with his fighter-y-ness. My turn, I cast dimension door and went from a protected ranged position to right up in the big bads grill. I smashed him with crushing blow (my multiclassed fighter power) for heavy damage, sustained my hand for more damage, then used my AP to hit him and the group around the warlord with burning hands, dropping several minions. The group clustered around the fighter couldn't move past the fighter to get to me without really paying for it. Next round, the rogue finished off the big bad with his daily, and I found myself fairly surrounded (flanked and damaged) and couldn't thunderwave to clear my spaces because I would catch my allies. So the fighter used tide of iron to make a small opening. I targeted an enemy with a hammer basic attack and activated the lightning hammer's daily and nailed all enemies within 2 for extra damage (dropping several more minions), then used expeditious retreat to shift clear across the battlefield, to relative safety.

Yeah, not many options there.

 

[Kaffis]

As far as 4e being less "tinker-friendly" -- I disagree.

I think 4e is simply more about tinkering *in the game* rather than tinkering with the numbers on your character sheet.

Is there less to fiddle with and optimize as far as feat selection and frankenstein-PrCing goes? Yes. Is there way more to experiment with once the figures are on the map and the dice hit the table? I think so.

To me, this represents a shift from "armchair CharOp" as a hobby to "playing D&D" as a hobby. That's a shift I'm not going to complain about.

Instead, I'm going to complain that my group only has so much time to play! DDI's full roll-out will hopefully offer me the chance to fill a bit more odds and ends time (say, weekday evenings) with digital games.

 

[LostSoul]

If I say, "My character is a sneak; he has spent his life focusing on being stealthy and quiet", then, I ought to be able to reflect this.

Oh, I thought you meant actual personality mechanics. What it sounds like you mean to me is focus in some kind of area.

Anyway, in 4e, you play a Rogue. You train Stealth. You get Skill Focus in Stealth. You get the following Powers:
Fleeting Ghost ◊ Rogue Utility 2
Chameleon ◊ Rogue Utility 6
Shadow Stride ◊ Rogue Utility 10
etc.

Or you take Sneak of Shadows, train Stealth, take Skill Focus, take Acolyte Power and swap one of your Utility powers with one of the above Rogue powers.

***

Anyways. How does 4e support actual personality?

[sblock=Look into 4e's mechanical support for personality]Let's say I pick some personality traits at random from the list in the PHB:
My character is:
Reserved, Enthusiastic, Naive, Easygoing, Pragmatic, Protective, Competitive, Vengeful, and Calm.

What an interesting fellow! I see him as a young guy, out to prove himself; he's a good guy, quiet, helps out his friends when they need it, and if anyone hurts someone he cares about, he calmly beats the crap out of them.

Fighter or Paladin sound best; I think I'll go with Fighter because that doesn't suggest any personality off the bat. I'll pick human, too, because humans are bland as well. I want to start out with a blank slate for the mechanics to work on.

I train these skills:

• Athletics - I don't sit around on my ass all day long, I work out, and I enjoy it.
• Endurance - I can take it, and I won't break a sweat doing it.
• Heal - Because I want to help out my friends.

I'm too easygoing to take Intimidate.

I take the following Feats:

• Potent Challenge - because I see this guy as a rock, so I'm going to push Con.
• Action Surge - because I hate to miss, especially when the chips are down.

I pick the following powers:

• Sure Strike - I'm calm enough to trade damage for attack.
• Tide of Iron - I'm vengeful and protective; I push the bad guys away from my friends and I chase them down.
• Cleave - because even if you're hiding behind your friend, that won't stop me from having vengance!
• Covering Attack - because I put myself in harm's way to protect my friends.
• Villain's Menace - because when someone gets my blood boiling, I will focus on them with single-minded intensity and beat them to a pulp.

[/sblock]

I think that 4e goes a lot further in allowing the mechanics to reflect a character's personality.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's been said that 4E emphasizes party optimization. You can still optimize, but you can no longer do so by building your character alone and showing up at the table with an unstoppable killing machine. Instead an optimized group will build their characters to complement each other by using powers that synergize well.

That's an interesting point. It's almost like the designers made a deliberate attempt to turn character building into a cooperative exercise, so that it could be done as part of the game.

For example, in earlier editions, character building was mostly something that was done away from the table and (beyond making sure all the bases are covered) independently of the other people in the group. As a DM, I often had people just make characters and bring them to the first game.

With 4th Edition, it looks like we're into a game where building a party can be a group activity involving all the players. They meet, talk about what they want to play, and then pick their feats, powers and skills to complement one another. In other words, they've turned even character building into an activity that the whole group can enjoy and do together.

Now, that does mean that they've, to an extent, surrendered the "solo activity" that 3e made available to the character-optimization types. In 4th Edition, it seems that the "away from the table" hobby for a solo actor is intended to be more the sorts of things that DMs do, like world-building, monster design, and so forth.

They've often said that the way to grow the hobby is to encourage more people to take up the reins of the Dungeon Master. Could this all be part of some nefarious scheme to encourage more people to DM by making "DMing activities" the predominant source of "away from the table fun" in the game?

I wouldn't be surprised if WotC was that clever. Mearls, for one, is certainly that evil.

It also has the side effect of letting character building become "at the table" fun. Which would be one more good reason for putting magic items in the Player's Handbook.

 

[Argyuile]

This shift is welcome to me. I spent more time creating characters in 3E than I ever did playing the game.

Don't get me wrong I love building and tinkering with characters. Even if I don't play a particular type of game I have probably made a character or two in it. However in my mind 3E was the worst edition for actually playing and the best tinkering new characters.

4E is more about tinkering what you do while your in combat. Not only because of character creation but also due to the nature of encounters. PC's are usually out numbered as opposed to the other way around encounter areas are much larger and teamwork is essential instead of just being an afterthought.

 

[Cadfan]

My fiance created several characters after her ranger. She doesn't intend to play them, but she had fun.

She saw that Warlocks had kind of a dark edge to them, and that they were charismatic. So her fey pact Warlock is trained in Bluff and Intimidate. She told me after she was done that she liked that Warlocks had good charisma, and that they were kind of dark, so she wanted to take that and exagerate it a bit- so she made her warlock manipulative, so that he could "use his charisma in all the wrong ways."

See, normal people think "I want a manipulative character" and train their character in lying and bullying. Its just us demanding, jaded people who say, no, that's not enough. I want more.