Okay people, a little wake up call.

[Voss]

Now, since being a sneaky guy in 4E amounts to taking one skill (Stealth), having a decent Dexterity, and not wearing heavy armor, making a sneaky guy who doesn't know how to deal with traps is really not too hard. Play a ranger, for instance.

This is a good point actually. In fact, you can actually make a worthwhile fighter with a competitive (slightly lower at low levels, but you can catch up in the paragon tier) AC, who's still effective at his role, but can also be stealthy.

Could be fun, too. A savage skirmisher-type.
Human fighter 1
Str: 18 Con:12 Dex: 16 Int: 10 Wis:12 Cha: 8
feats- skill training: perception, skill training: stealth
hide, light shield and battle axe, 6 javelins
AC:17 For: 17 Ref 15 Wil 12
stealth check: +7

A fighter in scale and heavy shield would have a, what, 19 AC?

 

[smathis]

Me? I hated having to give up adventuring competence in order to gain "rounding" details.

This. In a big way.

In 3e, I was constantly getting screwed because I had a "well-rounded" character with actual skill-points in a "profession" of all things to represent my background. This meant that by 6th level or so I could do all sorts of meaningless, tangential things to the actual adventure -- while the Rogue surpassed me in Arcana or some other schtick-crapping thing.

It came to the point, rather quickly in my 3e days, where I would play nothing but a maxed out Dwarven Cleric. Sure, it was boring. But it kept me from getting thrown to the lions.

To me, 3e seemed to be about character builds and being skilled or lucky enough to survive long enough to optimize that character. After that point, it was mostly a matter of wrecking the system, party or whatever. Granted, not everyone played it that way. But that was my experience with it in three separate groups.

For example, I'd show up with a Human Sorcerer suffering under a long-standing family curse that had forced him to survive as a beggar. The guy next to me would have a Tiefling/Drow Rogue with some sort of darkness and firebally power, the guy next to him would have a half-dragon/kobold with some sort of flying power, a breath weapon and DR, next to him a Celestial/Elf or some such that could walk on water at will, ad infinitum.

The end result?

I got dead because I was the least sub-optimal build while these other players basically devolved into a gambit of "see how much damage I can do" or "dude, I just rolled a 38 on my skill check".

Teamwork rarely, if ever, entered the equation.

And this is not one group, mind you. It was three, all with different members and one over a thousand miles away from the other two.

What I like about 4th edition is the emphasis on teamwork. I no longer have to worry about "builds" and keeping up with the min-maxers. I can play the character I want to play and not concern myself with whether or not I'll contribute (or be able to keep up) in combat.

The system itself insures that I'll be capable of doing all this.

As far as options? They're still there. Don't want to play a Rogue with Theivery? Fine. Don't take it as a trained skill. No one's going to send you to Gitmo for that.

And Wizards have all the potential to be just as creative in play, with their cantrips, rituals and such. Utility powers are where it's at.

It's hard for me not to see a bit of the old groups when I hear complaints like this. Sure, 4e is different. But if you're really unhappy that those 8 or so years of "rules mastery" are now sunk. And if you really don't like that the new edition makes the old builds, loopholes and rules arcana obsolete? Then play 3e.

It's still there. There's no magic involved with the GSL that makes the old books go away as soon as you buy the new books. (At least for consumers. )

But 4e is a new edition. There's a whole new set of rules to learn and master (in their own way). Give it a couple of weeks and someone will be on the boards with some hack or creative interpretation that gives the Fighter, Warlord or one of 'em some awesomely twisted game-breaking ability. Like the Paladin's Mark of Death.

But I'm far from disappointed.

 

[hong]

Hmm, I think this might be a possible perspective.

Some people liked having characters with an almost ridiculous amount of choice, lots of complexity etc. Some people liked having to study the books to get everything they wanted out of the character. These people could play a Wizard in 3ed

Some people really just wanted to roll some dice, swing a sword and watch things die. They did not care for the complexity.

This argument fails as soon as you consider people who want to roll some dice, cast a fireball and watch things die; or who want to study the books to get everything they want out of swinging a sword.

 

[Mort_Q]

So say we all.

 

[Kesh]

I like my systems to give me options. I want complexity most people find unnecessary. I want to give my character useless skills such as "profession: librarian" so I can smirk on the inside as I make my character (mechanically) more "rounded" while I watch people min-max their character and then wonder why it isn't that much fun to play afterwards.

The first part of your statement is dead simple to house-rule. Two options off the top of my head:

1) Simply replace the trained skill you don't want with one you do. Especially if you're picking a "useless" skill, it's not likely to overpower your character, though you may simply be gimping yourself in the long run.

2) Take a page from Shadowrun: Each character gets (INT bonus) trained "knowledge" skills. These are skills that have little to no mechanical impact, but grant flavor and potential role-playing opportunities. Skills like Historical Plays, Sport:Stickball or Current Royal Gossip for the Kingdom of Blue Cards.

The second part of your statement just comes across as saying those who want to play their character with the skills as written are having BadWrongFun™. You assume that they aren't having as much fun as you by not playing your way.

 

[billd91]

This. In a big way.

In 3e, I was constantly getting screwed because I had a "well-rounded" character with actual skill-points in a "profession" of all things to represent my background. This meant that by 6th level or so I could do all sorts of meaningless, tangential things to the actual adventure -- while the Rogue surpassed me in Arcana or some other schtick-crapping thing.

<snip>

To me, 3e seemed to be about character builds and being skilled or lucky enough to survive long enough to optimize that character. After that point, it was mostly a matter of wrecking the system, party or whatever. Granted, not everyone played it that way. But that was my experience with it in three separate groups.

How do you really expect this to be all that different with 4e? Because you don't have as many options to create characters not suited to the table you're playing with? Because that's the fundamental problem. The characters weren't suited to the groups you've been playing with.

Now, maybe it's because you were playing with people focused too much on the "back to the dungeon" mode of D&D while the 3e rule set provided tools to reach beyond that type of play, where skills not important in the dungeon can actually play an important role. I've played a couple games like that and, when I run, I try to include the non-adventuring skills (various cooking-type skills particularly seem to come up for some reason). But then, I learned to do that sort of thing back when running 1st edition Oriental Adventures where a serious and important encounter could revolve around handling a tea ceremony correctly or going to an impromptu poetry contest could net you serious connections with the local lord.

So, please, could everyone STOP blaming a rule set for any problems you've all had with min-maxing and realize where the blame really lies: with the table's style of play decision.

 

[Yergi]

This is a good point actually. In fact, you can actually make a worthwhile fighter with a competitive (slightly lower at low levels, but you can catch up in the paragon tier) AC, who's still effective at his role, but can also be stealthy.

Could be fun, too. A savage skirmisher-type.
Human fighter 1
Str: 18 Con:12 Dex: 16 Int: 10 Wis:12 Cha: 8
feats- skill training: perception, skill training: stealth
hide, light shield and battle axe, 6 javelins
AC:17 For: 17 Ref 15 Wil 12
stealth check: +7

A fighter in scale and heavy shield would have a, what, 19 AC?

He would indeed have a 19 AC, though I would stick with a Light Shield so as to not have an armor check penalty at all. 18 AC and no check penalty? That sounds pretty tasty for a sneaky guerilla fighter type.

Although I would actually change his weapon to a light blade or something else that would capitalize on his high Dex score.

 

[smathis]

How do you really expect this to be all that different with 4e? Because you don't have as many options to create characters not suited to the table you're playing with? Because that's the fundamental problem. The characters weren't suited to the groups you've been playing with.

The classes appear to be better balanced in 4e and also appear to fill certain niches in combat (which, let's face it, has always been D&D's flagship for conflict resolution).

I think 4e handles the problem of "the table I'm playing with" because it puts us all on the same table to begin with. I frequently discussed a campaign with a DM beforehand to get an idea what sort of characters would be appropriate, how the group interacted, etc. I heard all sorts of stuff about story, roleplay, epic, heroes, yadda, yadda.

Only to find the same, old familiar twinks with bat-wings, breath weapons and swords that could fly.

Everytime this happened I found out about the group's playstyle after the character had been statted up. Call it my fault, call it the DM's fault, call it the groups fault but this was less of an issue in previous versions of D&D (at least as long as the 2e kits were kept reasonably within limits).

Maybe that is due to limiting options. But I think it's due to a more focused design. 3e's a good game. I've said it before and I stand by that.

But I think 4e is more designed with a specific play experience in mind.

I like that because I don't have to wonder what the next group will be like. My Rogue will do his Rogue stuff from one table to the next and I just don't have to worry about it.

So, please, could everyone STOP blaming a rule set for any problems you've all had with min-maxing and realize where the blame really lies: with the table's style of play decision.

C'mon. You don't see how the whole "cross-class" skill buy rate in 3e contributed to this? Granted 4e may end-around this by out-and-out forbidding those kind of buys -- I don't know I don't have the books yet.

But you don't at least see where rules contribute some to this interpretation of play. It's not like I'm talking about one isolated group of guys.

This is a style of play in 3e that emerged spontaneously in many different regions. I'd wager I'm not the only person to have experienced it myself.

Granted it existed prior to 3e in D&D and many other systems. But you don't see how 3e itself played some part in players leaving "well-rounded" PCs behind for twinked-out mega-warriors of doom and mayhem?

I mean, Dragon used to have articles about this stuff. Monk teleport, anyone?

 

[Dausuul]

So, please, could everyone STOP blaming a rule set for any problems you've all had with min-maxing and realize where the blame really lies: with the table's style of play decision.

Actually, if you ask me, a good solution is to adopt the "siloing" approach 4E favors for combat versus noncombat stuff.

"Adventuring" (combat, exploration, diplomacy, et cetera) abilities go over here; "character background" abilities go over there. All characters get both and you can't sacrifice one to boost the other. Then you no longer have to worry about how to balance their relative importance.

 

[Henry]

It occurs to me that people are getting a taste of OD&D's flavor in this: "If there isn't a rule for this, work with your DM and make it up." People have been so used to the situation for the past five years or so where you could cobble almost ANYTHING together with a combination of books, that they forget that back in late 2000, people were doing this exact same thing with 3E; many people refused to switch initially, and stuck with 2E until the breadth of 3E material matched all of the splat books, character kits, optional rules, etc. that 2E had come out with by that time. When 3E reached a sufficient "critical mass" of rules, people more readily switched in droves. While a lot of people had bought their books, they were waiting for the point when they didn't have to make enough stuff up. Right now, the 4E pioneers are filling in the gaps with homemade spackle, whereas the rest of the gamers are waiting for the WotC-approved construction-repair products.