Removing homogenity from 4e

[I'm A Banana]

$70 for a yearly subscription is equivalent to two books...

Yeah...I kind of will have to give the Spockbrow to anyone that complains about the "it's too expensive and takes up too much room to keep current".

Well, the point I was making wasn't about the cost or the "room," but about the need for supplements in the first place. 4e is more dependent on them than 3e was, but simultaneously gives us a very useful way to handle all that supplemental material via the DDI. The quantity of supplements necessary essentially isn't an argument for or against the ability to make a given character archetype in either edition. Both editions need a parade of splats to make a variety of character archetypes viable.

That said, I'd still find the above longbow-rogue rather unsatisfying, since I don't see anything rogue-like about them. But I have a tremendous bushel of problems with the 4e rogue being not very rogue-like to begin with, so I'm likely not the fairest of judges there.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, the point I was making wasn't about the cost or the "room," but about the need for supplements in the first place. 4e is more dependent on them than 3e was, but simultaneously gives us a very useful way to handle all that supplemental material via the DDI. The quantity of supplements necessary essentially isn't an argument for or against the ability to make a given character archetype in either edition. Both editions need a parade of splats to make a variety of character archetypes viable.

This has been true since D&D was created. Since D&D is class based (well, OD&D, 1e/2e and 4e are...3e was a fusion) of point buy and class. I mean, if you wanted to play a barbarian in 1e, you had to wait until UA which was a few years after 1e was created.

EDIT: I actually think the importance of supplements actually gets understated in 3e. Core-only melee classes WILL feel small in the pants past level 9 since they didn't really give them many GOOD options past then. Spellcasters of course made out like bandits (How come clerics and druids got such great love from transitioning from classes that only had 7 levels of spells to 9 LEVELS of spells - yet the non-magical classes got so few beanies)

As you pointed out though, DDI changes how "treadmilly" new editions will feel.

That said, I'd still find the above longbow-rogue rather unsatisfying, since I don't see anything rogue-like about them. But I have a tremendous bushel of problems with the 4e rogue being not very rogue-like to begin with, so I'm likely not the fairest of judges there.

Shortbow rogue who is a master diplomat created at 1st level. But yes, if your idea of a rogue is different than the base rogue, you're going to be out of luck.

Personally, I've never really subscribed to the idea of CLASS NAME = Actual character.

 

[Rechan]

Okay, I was hyperbolic. But certainly a philosophy of "Three books and then add on whatever you want" is much less dependent on supplements than a philosophy of "expanded core," where new "essential" books will be added even five years into the edition.

Except that you don't need any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.

There's nothing that came later which was preventing you from playing D&D until it came out.

And before you say "Barbarians! Bards! Half-orcs," I retort: 2e AD&D. The 2e PHB's classes: Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin. Races: Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome.

There's something you may WANT that you don't have, but you don't NEED it to play D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Yup. Note there's less rooting involved in 4e, giving the changes made to multiclassing.

Don't know what you mean by this, Rem. I think you're reading in what isn't there.

I made two claims...

1) 3e classes aren't really archetypal, primarily because there are so damn many of them, which dilutes the concept of 'archetype'. They're better seen as ability packages which can be used and/or combined to create characters that fit broader archetypes (which are no longer well-resented by the ever-increasingly fiddly and specific 3e classes/PrC's).

2) You can make a thief with a bow in 4e using ranger + Thievery. I didn't mean to suggest 4e classes can't be viewed as mere ability packages.

This is hypocrisy?

It came off sounding like "3e classes are just blocks of proto-class stuff that, if you take enough of one certain type you get something resembling an archetype vs. 4e, where archetype is tightly defined and regulated" so it seemed odd a few posts down your were reversing and essentially saying "Oh, you can play a 4e class as a collection of proto-class stuff too, just file off the names. See, isn't 4e versatile?"

Then again, I'm of the opinion that classes should be more generic and versatile (but not to the point of a point-buy system). For example, a FIGHTER should be good at different types of fighting: sword 'n board, two-handed weapons, twf, archery, thrown weapons, etc. (He can even be good at unarmed striking if he wants, though he shouldn't challenge the monk for the supernaturally good at it).

In 2e, I could specialize in a melee weapon, a 2hander, or a bow. I could dual-wield (at a penalty negated by my dex, and later with a non-weapon prof).
In 3e, I could spend feats to become good at one (or more!) styles of combat, meaning I could switch from melee to range at no loss of effectiveness provided had the requisite feats.
In 4e, I can be great at sword-n-board OR two-handed fighting. I cannot dual wield effectively unless I have Martial Power, and I cannot do anything with a bow except make basic attacks. The latter two fighting styles have been given exclusively to the ranger to make up for the fact rangers lost all their rangerly abilities (animal companions, spells, camouflage, tracking superiority, favored foes) they had in 1e, 2e and 3e.

Same with the rogue Imaro mentioned. I played an elven rogue. Sweet, I thought, I get shortbow/longbow free! How elfy! Until I saw I couldn't use a single rogue power with either bow. So my elfy-elf rogue had a bow he couldn't use except for basics and he carried a crossbow so he could use sly flourish. How homoge... you get the idea.

(Oddly, eladrin can use their longsword for rogue powers. They can use their longsword with wizard-spells too, both for the cost of a feat each. Yet elves can't use their bows for rogue powers nor can dwarves use their warhammers. I guess WotC is happy to have a new kewl-elf race with a unique IP name so they don't have to share them with OGCers, Tolkienists, and WoW players.)

And don't get me started on dual-wielding rogues. I have a dozen reaper and DDM "rogue" minis that I guess are rangers now!

Granted, few fighters did specialize in archery, and I saw plenty of rapier-crossbow rogues (esp. after PH2-3.5 came out) but now, if I plan on using my powers beyond "basic attack" I'm FORCED to give up ranged attacks as a fighter or I must use a crossbow, sling or thrown weapon as a rogue. Or play a ranger I guess.

 

[AllisterH]

Again, I should point out that there _IS_ a rogue ranged at-will that doesn't stipulate that it requires a crossbow.

As for the "in 3e, I could switch from ranged to TWO-handed or two-weapon fighter and be equally as effective"...

Er no. Two weapon fighting was a decidely subpar option and woe be to the joker that thought it was smart to actually try and put feats into BOTH. Come on Remathilis, this was a known TRAP for newbie players.

This actually I think is a 4e strength. If you want to be as effective as a ranger with a ranged weapon, it costs you 1 to 2 feats. Or, you could just use a hybrid character from the get go.

 

[Remathilis]

Except that you don't need any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.

There's nothing that you can't play D&D without that came later. Nothing.

And before you say "Barbarians! Bards! Half-orcs," I retort: 2e AD&D. The 2e PHB's classes: Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin. Races: Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome.

There's something you may WANT that you don't have, but you don't NEED it to play D&D.

Uh. First off, 2e's PHB was Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, SPECIALIST (Illusionist, etc), Cleric, SPECIALTY PRIEST (granted, they were guidelines more than a class), Druid, Thief, and BARD (Yes, they were there, and they kicked ass).

Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos.

And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.

Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals.

Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.

 

[Remathilis]

Again, I should point out that there _IS_ a rogue ranged at-will that doesn't stipulate that it requires a crossbow.

As for the "in 3e, I could switch from ranged to TWO-handed or two-weapon fighter and be equally as effective"...

Er no. Two weapon fighting was a decidely subpar option and woe be to the joker that thought it was smart to actually try and put feats into BOTH. Come on Remathilis, this was a known TRAP for newbie players.

This actually I think is a 4e strength. If you want to be as effective as a ranger with a ranged weapon, it costs you 1 to 2 feats. Or, you could just use a hybrid character from the get go.

So the way to fix TWF being subpar to 2-handed weapons to to remove TWF from all classes but one? (Two, using a supplement).

And one At-Will. Woohoo! Now, how bout all those crossbow-friendly encounters or dailies?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This has been true since D&D was created. Since D&D is class based (well, OD&D, 1e/2e and 4e are...3e was a fusion) of point buy and class. I mean, if you wanted to play a barbarian in 1e, you had to wait until UA which was a few years after 1e was created.

Yep. I'm 100% not disagreeing with you there. Which is why I think it's a wash -- you can't effectively make a "But you need supplement X to do archetype Y well!" case against any version of D&D, because EVERY version of D&D has that problem.

I actually think the importance of supplements actually gets understated in 3e. Core-only melee classes WILL feel small in the pants past level 9 since they didn't really give them many GOOD options past then. Spellcasters of course made out like bandits (How come clerics and druids got such great love from transitioning from classes that only had 7 levels of spells to 9 LEVELS of spells - yet the non-magical classes got so few beanies)

This I disagree with, but I'm willing to bet that experiences here are much more subjective than elsewhere. Because D&D has always been team-based, "small in the pants" was relative to the amount of spotlight time a given player of a given class was...er...given by the DM, such as by choosing enemies that targeted specific saves or whatever. My 3e games never had any issues with the fighters and other melee classes feeling like they could kick butt (example memorable 3e character: a frenzied berserker gnome who fell at terminal velocity into lava and WOULD NOT DIE), but I totally believe others did, and am on board with beefing up martial options regardless of my disagreement with that experience.

Still, again, it's basically a wash. You can't really successfully argue "3e needed a lot of supplements!" and then turn around and say "4e doesn't need a lot of supplements!", nor can you really successfully argue the reverse. You could argue that both needed too many supplements, but that's a whole different bag of issues to deal with.

Except that you don't need any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.

There's nothing that you can't play D&D without that came later. Nothing.

And before you say "Barbarians! Bards! Half-orcs," I retort: 2e AD&D. The 2e PHB's classes: Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin. Races: Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome.

There's something you may WANT that you don't have, but you don't NEED it to play D&D

Ah, your issue was with the word "need"? Okay, let's clarify a little.

4e has greater implied need of supplements than 3e did, because part of 3e's philosophy was that everything supported three core rulebooks, while 4e's philosophy is that almost everything *is* a core rulebook, with "core" carrying the implication that you need it to play a fully-functional game. While you can play 4e without the PHBII, the game assumes you have the PHBII, and without the PHBII, your value in 4e overall decreases ("Primal Power" holds no appeal for you without primal characters, ferex), while 3e never assumed that you would use any particular supplement, but you could if you wanted to (well, with a minor exception in some later products, but certainly much more rarely).

Technically, you don't need more than the three basic books in any edition, but 4e certainly places much more emphasis on people owning future books than 3e did.

Still, same conclusion: it's a wash, because both have a functional need for supplements (that is, in order to play a more fully realized range of archetypes, you need more supplements to do so). The DDI is an edge in this, though I think we can call the DDI more or less "edition neutral," since it's an organizational tool, not a true inherent feature of 4e itself.

 

[Rechan]

Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos.

And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.

That doesn't prevent you from playing D&D. Just because you can't play a gnome doesn't mean you can't play D&D.

It doesn't matter what specialty classes were missing: you can Still Play D&D with the first PHB.

Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals.

Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.

Again, the issue is not which edition's first books have bigger page numbers, more classes, more monsters. THe issue is "Can you play D&D without the supplements"? Can you run it? Are all the rules necessary to make the game function? Are there monsters to run 1-30 levels? Are the classes needed to play the game that have always been there - fighter rogue wizard cleric? Yes.

There is nothing that in its absence from the 3 books prevented one from playing D&D. By saying that you cannot play D&D without more than the first 3 books, then you are saying anyone who just use the first three are not playing D&D.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I never really understood the devotion towards core only. People stated their devotion to it in 3E, but always for the wrong reasons. People said core only was more balanced, when the opposite was true. What core only 3E did accomplish was a less untidy game easier for the Dm to control, not something more balanced.