pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[Deep Blue 9000]

Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.

Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.

Wow, you're right. I went and looked back at the article and multi-classing is not very customizable at all. I can see why you have problems with TWF being a power.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.

Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.

Wow, I just noticed that.

That's...really crappy.

 

[Counterspin]

Yes Pawsplay, they're useless to you. But you can easily ditch them without any negative effect. And there are a lot of us who like them. I don't see how this is a problem.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, your point is valid.

I still think that it would have been nice to provide some greater flexibility for TWF in 4E, even if this flexibility wasn't really present in previous editions.

Hi Nikosandros,

Dungeons & Dragons is a class-based game. Your class is important to you. Most of the options available to you are determined by your class. In 3E, nearly all of the faux "general" combat options like disarming, tripping, two-weapon fighting, and so on were dependent on class-related features like weapon proficiencies, base attack bonus, and priority of attribute dependency (i.e., a class that benefits from a high Dexterity will get more from TWF than a class that does not). In 4E, they have mostly limited these options to class powers.

Personally, I have no problem with this. Instead of bogging down the general ruleset with faux options that only a fraction of the core classes can use, they have compartmentalized those options as features for the classes that would have ended up using them anyway. I'm still a little annoyed that grappling is a general option, but I can live with it.

In any event, I suspect the upcoming Martial Power book may come with TWF options for Fighters and Rogues. We'll just have to wait and see.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.

Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.

Hi Nikosandros,

Well, that is something of a moot point because if the Stormwarden is any indication, there are TWF encounter and daily powers, as well. It also seems to be keyed to Strength, not Dexterity.

Personally, I'm less concerned with "builds" than I am with "character concepts". If the concept is simply a warrior who fights with two swords, I would use Ranger as a base. The TWF powers are seemingly tied to Strength, so the character could multiclass quite well with a Fighter.

Laterz.

 

[Baen]

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

The deal is that hitpoints are not some exact durability anymore, they are a representation of the individuals plot usefulness. All minions are is a monster that goes down with the first legitimate hit on them. However the difference between 3e and 4e in this manner is that this sort of minion CAN actually do damage against the character. It is not a low level creature thrown in as a space blocker and to waste hits on, its a legitimate threat, albeit not so much as other monsters. The non minion monsters are the leaders or specialists of the group, the ones that stand toe to toe with the pcs in combat for a bit before dying, the memorable foes. Now you can certainly throw no minions at all against your pcs, that is your choice, but minions add a lot in the sense that your pcs can feel overwhelmed, yet have the chance for victory. They add a strong storytelling sense to the game, maybe a hollywood esque story but far better then no matter how strong my pc is the little guys are always able to hold their own in combat with me, or might as well not even be there.

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

This has been discussed to death all over the place. My personal take on it is that unless you receive specialized training, you will not be able to two weapon fight effectively. Everyone starts off learning one weapon at a time, simply because the coordination for even one weapon is hard to master. If you have trained exclusively with one weapon style and then decide to pick up a second weapon against an opponent of your level, you are probably going to lose just because of the awkwardness involved. Two weapon fighting is NOT OUT OF D&D. Instead of being able to pick up one and try without any training and fumbling around horribly as in 3e you simply still fight as if you were fighting with just one weapon, since that is all you have trained to focus on. However if you want to learn how to do it feats and the multiclass system will likely more then make up for it.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e.

This as a policy issue I don't agree with, but I doubt I will be using a frost giant for a while regardless. If necessary I will just make one by switching the fire giant to cold. I haven't been playing as long, so can't say I am as attached, but all you really have to do is wait a few months and it will be out there.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

Actually it really irritated me in 3rd that my party rest schedule always revolved around the wizard. It just really broke the realism for me that the charachters would charge into the temple, but oops, wizard wasted his spell on a too easy encounter and now they have to retreat and hide out somewhere. Since I tend to dm from a real consequences perspective this led to me having to change a whole lot of things on the fly if i hadn't specifically planned for it, or throw random convenient rest areas into my dungeons. This way all my players will feel like they are a useful member of their class at all times of the day.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

This is actually the thing that irritated me the most about 4th, considering that my favorite race/class combo has been a gnome illusionist, although I played them less with my players then I did against them (ahhh, gotta love five 5th level gnome illusionists with an hours warning on a 10th level party) However I imagine the gnome will be statted out in the MM as a player race, and once again it is just a waiting game. Considering that lots of the changes from 3rd edition I have waited years for I don't mind waiting just a few more months (heck, I may actually be able to afford the books then.)

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

I sort of like this, sort of don't. I like their to be consequences to players decisions. However they are supposed to be heroes, and I can't think of many non min maxed heroes that would have been less then 10 in any stat. Regardless it isn't much of a penalty, when everyone has them. Even though my eladrin doesn't have a +2 to strength, it doesn't mean he has a penalty to it considering he has a +2 in another stat. Those are simply the races strengths, you can't really say any race is penalized for not having a certain strength in any edition.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

I would agree a lot more with this one if they didn't fit so well into a campaign idea I have. Regardless it is not a true teleport, or at least not in my game. It would still follow certain rules considering you are going through the feywild.

*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.

I personally find it better then 3e's complete lack of zow. Of course this is assuming you are talking about the fighter, since the wizard/cleric/ranger/rogue has no more or not much more then before. When I first started playing, I was the fighter in the party. Suffice to say I was bored out of my mind, I stood in place and rolled x amount of d20s and did x*(2d6+y) amount of damage. Compared to our wizard who threw around spectacular fireballs. It came down to the only way your fighter was cool was if your dm described as such or allowed you to provide descriptions. Every other class had cool things already, rogues still backstab, rangers shoot arrows like guided missles, barbarians froth at the mouth. The only class that has really been zowed up is fighters, and I feel that considering how in the modern iconery and such the stuff they do deserves it.

*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

From my understanding the only real thing different is that companies cannot publish the same product for both systems, and that wizards can revoke their ability to produce things for it all. I am personally fine with it simply because it is a step back it is a step towards a free yet sustainable system. Eventually someone would abuse an open gaming license or something to the effect hurt wizard sufficiently that they would have to retract it. The new license seems geared at two things, profits for wizards and quality control. Which is honestly a good thing in my eyes, even if a few products are not going make it to 4e or 3e, it is better then thousands of crappy ones flooding both.

 

[Nikosandros]

In any event, I suspect the upcoming Martial Power book may come with TWF options for Fighters and Rogues. We'll just have to wait and see.

That's certainly a possibility.

 

[Nikosandros]

Personally, I'm less concerned with "builds" than I am with "character concepts". If the concept is simply a warrior who fights with two swords, I would use Ranger as a base. The TWF powers are seemingly tied to Strength, so the character could multiclass quite well with a Fighter.

I agree about character concept. I guess that we'll have to wait for the PHB in order to see how viable different concepts are... it might very well be that using ranger as a base could work.

 

[Fifth Element]

It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem exactly functionally equivalent to taking a feat.

No, it's not exactly the same in that you don't take the same set of feats or whatever to accomplish it. But it's functionally equivalent because you need to take certain feats/powers if you want to do it effectively, regardless of which specific feats/powers they might be.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't think the issue is "I need a feat to use two weapon fighting" so much as the worry it might be "I need to be a ranger to use two weapon fighting, and I can only multiclass once."