D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Fifth Element]

???
My 3.5 evoker had tons of versatility. Energy Spheres had entirely different application from Wingbind, which had totally different applications from Firebrand, which had a completely different application from Moonbow. No one spell does it all....well, Wish maybe.

By "versatilily", I think the OP had more in mind than "the ability to cause damage in several different ways." 4E gives that, so clealy that can't be the complaint.

I think the point is that all 4E wizards are basically evokers now.

 

[Irda Ranger]

D&D I have been doing for the greater part of my life and I hope it continues but now it seems like it's on a lifeline. Also this is not to bash 4E just wondering what people's honest opinion is.

Thanks for your responses

I love it. Best edition so far, hands down. I believe that though because I see several things differently than your first group.


once you took away the flavor text every attack is identical to the next, - Although this was also my first impression on reading 4E, it's just not true in practice. Many little things you don't notice at first end up making a big difference at the table. If your first group hasn't actually given 4E an honest shot for a few sessions though they probably won't understand. It's something you have to experience.



the versatility that Wizards once had is now gone ... quantity does not equal quality ... 3.5 I could have 3 human 1st lvl wizards that could still be completely different, in 4E that is not possible. - This is true, but that's because what's now "the Wizard" is really "the Transmuter/Evoker." He's like a 2E specialist Wizard. Once they come out with Enchanter, Necromancer and Illusionist classes you'll see that more easily. But while you're right there's no generalist Wizard any more, that's not a bad thing. The generalist Wizards of 1E and 2E made every other class obsolete by the time they hit high levels. The new Wizard lets the other classes shine and doesn't hog the spotlight.

Also, don't forget Rituals. Both Quality and Quantity can be found there.

 

[Darkthorne]

Irda,
You can't cast any ritual in combat, so when I listed the "combat spells" of 3.5 I deliberately took out anything that I could not see having an immediate combat effect to do a more "fair" comparison.
As for clarification for the versatility if you have a 4E human wizard s/he'll know 3 at wills, when you add 2 more human wizards they will be duplicated in what powers they choose. 3.5 if I had 3 wizards not one of the spells has to be duplicated and I am not taking splat books into account either. If they put the magic items back into the dmg and used those extra pages for more at-wills, encounter & dailies that would have been better. I also think if you could learn more than just 2 at wills that would be extremely better

 

[Maggan]

Maggan,
In regards to that encounter the ONLY reason I made such an impact was because they were undead (turning) and my healing ability. If they were not undead we probably would have been jam much sooner.

Yeah, pretty much a standard scenario for what clerics do best; turn undead and heal people. Classic D&D.

That's also why I don't really think that is a good example of how D&D4 "forces" groups to have different roles in the party, in comparison to earlier editions. D&D has always had the assumption that a broad set of skills and abilities are important to party survival.

You've always been better off if you have some fighters to soak up damage, some rogues to scout and backstab, some clerics to turn undead and heal, and wizards to shoot things.

So we had tanks (fighters) before D&D4, we had artillery (wizards) before D&D4, we had support troops (rogues) before D&D4. And healers (clerics)

D&D4 has put the light on those concepts much more clearly than before, and this might feel to some that it is a new concept, but to me it just feels like the same assumptions that always shaped D&D:

- A mix of classes, with different skills and abilities, makes for the best chance of survival in a diverse dungeon environment.

So D&D4 has roles in addition to classes, codifying a concept that's been around for ages. Maybe it's too integrated in the mechanics now for some players to like it, but for us at least, it works out nicely.

/M

 

[Kzach]

Originally Posted by PHB4E
Each character class specializes in one of four basic unctions in combat: control and area offense, defense, healing and support, and focused offense. The roles embodied by these functions are controller, defender, leader, and striker. The classic adventuring party includes one character of each role: wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue.
Character roles identify which classes can stand in for each other. For example, if you don’t have a cleric in your party, a warlord serves just as well in the leader role.
Roles also serve as handy tools for building adventuring parties. It’s a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. Lest the Gods of D&D teleport to your location and smite thee with a d20 Club of Unconsciousness and defile your body with tattoos of butterflies and "I luv Britney" writing inside of hearts. If you have five or six players in your group, it’s best to double up on defender first, then striker. If you don’t have all the roles covered, that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function.

Fixed it for Mr. Wise.

Oh, and nice to see another purchaser of the 4e PDF's!

 

[Kzach]

As for clarification for the versatility if you have a 4E human wizard s/he'll know 3 at wills, when you add 2 more human wizards they will be duplicated in what powers they choose. 3.5 if I had 3 wizards not one of the spells has to be duplicated and I am not taking splat books into account either. If they put the magic items back into the dmg and used those extra pages for more at-wills, encounter & dailies that would have been better. I also think if you could learn more than just 2 at wills that would be extremely better

So you're comparing a system that is eight years mature and has thousands of third-party products to a system that is a few months old and has no third party products (that I know of) released for it yet?

You're right, 4e isn't for you. Come back in eight years when it's ready enough for you.

 

[Subumloc]

Totally doin' it for me.

The group I DM never had much commitment to the rulebooks, so the streamlined play contributed to their involvement (and for the RP part, I'd say it's unchanged since the beginning of the campaign in 3.5). OTOH, I find that my job as a DM is a lot easier, and that less cruch preparation time = more fluff preparation time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm mostly in the boat with our esteemed moderator, here. 4e just "blahs" the heck out of me.

This.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you're comparing a system that is eight years mature and has thousands of third-party products to a system that is a few months old and has no third party products (that I know of) released for it yet?

You're right, 4e isn't for you. Come back in eight years when it's ready enough for you.

Isn't that when 5e is coming out?

 

[Darkthorne]

Kzach,
I'd appreciate if you stopped with the "you're complaining" rhetoric, it's inflammitory. If you read my post I cleary stated not using any splat books in my comparison, so no not 8 years worth of product, just 3.5 PHB vs 4E PHB nothing more in regards to the choice of spells. I do like 4E but I am not about to say it's perfect, just stating what I see as obvious issues. If you have to wait 8 years for one version to match a previous one's for versatility (not ease or play or anything else) just on the core PHB then something IS amiss. If 4e is the second coming for you, awesome. I'm glad you're having fun with it, but that does not mean that anyone else that finds it lacking is a bunch or complainers/whiners.
Thank You