On homogeneity, or how I finally got past the people talking past each other part

[AllisterH]

).

In 4e I feel as if I had to choose a class first, then a concept, whereas in most other RPGs and D&D incarnations it's always been for me more a first concept, then game details approach. And paying 10$ a month for something that should be in the first core book is not acceptable for me.

So download it once and you get all the options PLUS. You _DO_ realize that the character builder doesn't go away with your subscription, right?

 

[drothgery]

So you really think 5 books for making a PC is not overkill. Wow.

5 books if your class, race, and campaign setting are all in different, non-PH1 books is not overkill. And if you don't care about splatbook material or campaign-setting specific stuff (which is hardly necessary), you're down to three. My Eberron characters are very likely to have a Dragonmark or be an Eberron race or otherwise have some mechanical indications of being from Eberron, but a plain human fighter works just fine.

And when I played 3.x, the only book I used part from the PHB was PHB2, just for the Fighter feats. That's a big difference. In 3.x, splatbooks were largely optional, whereas in 4e they're pretty much needed for very basic concepts (as familiars or animal companions).

Before the Spell Compendium collected most of the splatbook spells in one place, it was hardly uncommon for my casters to have spells from three or four different sources.

Mid to high level bards needed feats from Complete Adventurer, prestige classes from Complete Arcane, and feats from the Eberron Campaign Setting to be viable. You needed a DMG for access to magic items and the core prestige classes. You needed an MM for stats for mounts, animal companions, familiars, and summoned monsters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mid to high level bards needed feats from Complete Adventurer, prestige classes from Complete Arcane, and feats from the Eberron Campaign Setting to be viable.

It is entirely likely that your definition of "viable" here isn't a universal one.

Not that bards were any great shakes, just that "able to be played on a regular basis" is not a very hard criteria to meet, especially with an observant DM.

 

[drothgery]

It is entirely likely that your definition of "viable" here isn't a universal one.

Okay, 'effective' would have been a better word choice than viable. How about "contribute enough in combat that you're alive for some reason other than the monster didn't think you worth eating"?

 

[Betote]

So download it once and you get all the options PLUS. You _DO_ realize that the character builder doesn't go away with your subscription, right?

I can download the character builder and watch it take up space in my hard disk because I'm not a Windows user.

That, and that ANY amount I HAD TO pay in addition to the core rules is too much, if we compare it to what any other game or D&D iteration does: give you the core rules in the core book, not scattered among a pile of supplements.

 

[AllisterH]

I can download the character builder and watch it take up space in my hard disk because I'm not a Windows user.

That, and that ANY amount I HAD TO pay in addition to the core rules is too much, if we compare it to what any other game or D&D iteration does: give you the core rules in the core book, not scattered among a pile of supplements.

1. There _ARE_ MAC users that are using the character builder. Virtual PC users says it works but yes, if you don't want Windows on your PC, then you're out of luck.

2. Really? You thought the non-spellcasters were viable past lmid level WITHOUT supplements? Especially the monk and the fighter? Even the Rangers and paladins that did get spells kind of benefit immensely from Complete Warrior and PHB 2. Same goes for the barbarian and rogue (rogue especially once you start running into a lot of "immune to sneak attack" critters).

3. The 4e PHB provides as many classes as either 1e or 2e. Are you insisting those aren't D&D?

 

[mudbunny]

1. How the heck do you make a character? As the number of splat books for 4e grows at an amazing pace (and note that the 4e splat books are *mandatory* due to the incredible volume of feats and powers), I'm finding myself completely unable to keep up in any effective way with the hundreds and hundreds of new feats and powers added to the system.

The reliance upon splatbooks is, for me, no different than in 3.5. There is no need, in either system, to use splatbooks to make your PC. All the splatbooks do is increase the number of options available to your PC. If you were comfortable buying splatbooks and digging through them in 3.5, you should be equally comfortable doing so in 4E.

 

[green slime]

Okay, 'effective' would have been a better word choice than viable. How about "contribute enough in combat that you're alive for some reason other than the monster didn't think you worth eating"?

In one of the early "Games of Death", held here on these boards, a certain player (whose name eludes me now) demonstrated the power of the bard. No one participating in that game would have called the bard underpowered, after his opening few rounds. We were pretty much WoTC 3.0 (I remember there being OA, and Manual of the Planes involved).