The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[AllisterH]

re: Building an ineffective character

This is quite easy to do in 4E (I actually disagree with the 4E proponents that say it is impossible. Hogwash I say).

Step 1. Have your character make the key stat for its class the 3rd or 4th most important stat.

Step 2. Have your character increase the non-primary/secondary stats when appropriate

Step 3. When the option for retraining higher level powers, simply pick up the LOWEST level power available. (This is the one that people keep forgetting. There's absolutely no rule that says you have to retrain for a better power)

Step 4: When using your feats, focus on picking up Skill Training and Skill Focus in Bluff, Streetwise, History, Knowledge, Diplomacy etc.


You will see a marked difference in character effectiveness compared to a "normal" character and this is ALL LEGAL by the rules.

The main difference in the two editions is as another poster said. It is newbie-proof in that a newbie wouldn't make those decisions normally.

However, to those that want to play "non-combat focused, I'm bad at combat" characters, you can still do this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But something about it just feels a bit...limiting I guess. I can't quite place my finger on it but I think I'd sort of describe it as a bit of a "movie set feel". The world is pretty and shiny and a great backdrop for the adventures of the PC's. But if you glance behind it, you see that it's just a backdrop and not all that functional.

That peasant over there? He has whatever qualities that the GM decides he needs to be an adequate peasant. No mechanical underpinnings but that's not important. He's only a peasant. Same with the King. He's got whatever qualities a king has. Was he once a Fighter or Warlord? Is he NOW a Warlord? If the PC's aren't going to fight him, who cares?

Is this a bad thing? In many cases, no. I don't need to have the hardness of the walls of the peasant's hut written down. The PC's aren't going to try and knock it down anyway. It's unnecessary. But it also just feels a bit shallow to me.

This is precisely it, and this is why the comparisons to MMORPGs, specifically WoW, are actually sometimes valid, because that's pretty much exactly the situation you have there. Everything and everyone has the stats the game needs them to. Not the stats they should logically have, the ones the game needs them to. If they need you to not kill an NPC, he's unkillable, or level a zillion, or what-have-you. You can't open that door because there's nothing behind it. In 4E, you could open the door, of course, but because you'd have a fair inkling that it wasn't one of the DM's carefully Pre-Prepared Level-Appropriate Encounters (TM), you'd know it was pretty much being made up.

Further, if you find yourselves in a situation where you have to fight the king, you know the king is fight-able. Maybe it was likely that he was in previous editions, but in 4E it's even more clear.

Like you say, though, I'm not sure it matters for most purposes. It does matter for some, though, and I can definately feel it, and feel the sacrifice that's been made in 4E's rules. It's one I can probably live with, but failing to acknowledge serves no-one but bonkers fans.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm with another poster who said that 3.x was HORRIBLE for non-combat encounters.

Frankly, coming from SWSE, the half-scaling of the skills was CLEARLY the reason why we actually had more non-combat encounters.

When everyone has a semi-decent chance of success and no-one is auto-succeeding, a DM is more likely to use a non-combat challenge.
In combat, EVERYONE gets to take part (even the bard), yet in non-combat situations, only the "face-man" gets to shine?

AND this is considered INCENTIVE for DMs to have non-combat situations?

Well, D&D 3x heavily encouraged the 'every character gets a turn in the spotlight' ideal. 4e, OTOH, is more about teamwork than individual accomplishments.

 

[billd91]

No, a caster's increased save DCs and caster level are equivalent to BAB, since they are the method by which you overcome the defenses of the target in order to effect them with your power.

Not at all. The question is what feature does the class have that sets it apart from other classes. For fighter types, it's primarily the fast growing BAB and it's features (rapid development of multiple attacks). I'll give you that the fighter's faster feat structure (paladin's extra powers, ranger's specialties, barbarian's rage, what-have-you) are also involved. But the main feature is dynamite BAB.
The wizard's save DCs doesn't even rate a comparison since that's a necessary part of the spell system. Even a half-assed caster like the paladin or ranger has the exact same structure as far as their spell-casting goes.

The individual weapons and fighting styles, while modified or derived by feats, are just tools for bringing that main class feature to bear in a meaningful way, like the individual spells cast by the wizard/cleric/druid. So there's no way they're nearly as all important in 3.5 in defining what the class is as they are in 4e. That's a decision the 4e designers made for good or bad. And where a player likes it or not, it does come with a decrease in a character's developmental flexibility, a quality that some 3e players have come to enjoy.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, D&D 3x heavily encouraged the 'every character gets a turn in the spotlight' ideal. 4e, OTOH, is more about teamwork than individual accomplishments.

But said paradigm only works in combat. Everyone (even the bard) gets to do SOMETHING in combat and be somewhat effective barring special scenarios (rogues in combat with undead).

In non-combat encounters, how come this isn't true?

 

[Silver Moon]

I'm afraid that I don't agree with one of the earlier statements in your initial post:

The central focus of D&D, mechanically speaking, has always been combat.

The central focus of my gaming group has always been role playing. Combat is one gaming element, I always like a good climax battle to end a moudle with, but I consider combat far from the central focus. To me the most central focus points are storytelling and character interactions with the other characters. The best module that our weekly gaming group ever played actually went on for sixteen game nights before the first combat encounter.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I really get tired of this kind of argument. The bard's been core since 1989 and in the main books since a decade before that. Why should we have to wait for it now? Why should it have been removed from the initial core to show case the promotion of a second string character class from a previous edition supplement?

It ain't an argument, it is more of an observation. As to why? I don't know that is a decision made by WoTC. I was only suggesting a possible option. Of course you could keep playing 3.x. I would still enjoy playing, just don't ask me to DM it.

 

[Wolfwood2]

The central focus of my gaming group has always been role playing. Combat is one gaming element, I always like a good climax battle to end a moudle with, but I consider combat far from the central focus. To me the most central focus points are storytelling and character interactions with the other characters. The best module that our weekly gaming group ever played actually went on for sixteen game nights before the first combat encounter.

How does that in any way contradict the statement that, "The central focus of D&D, mechanically speaking, has always been combat."?

Just because you didn't use the mechanics doesn't mean that they aren't the central focus of the game. It's like if some dude pointed at a carrot farm and told you the central focus of the farm was growing carrots, and you responded that no, you and your friends have a lot of fun playing in the dirt and ignoring the carrots. It may be true, but all the farm machinery, carefully tilled land, and growing plants are still devoted to carrot production.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Accepted. Nevertheless, the homogenous nature of all the classes under the new pogrom does not infuse me with confidence that it is going to be friendly to someone who would rather go read a book than play a cookie-cutter D&D character. Original characters aren't easy to design after 20+ years of gaming, but with the power based yin/yang system of 4th classes it's certainly not going to be any easier, ya?

Well, that my be so, Alot depends on your standards of original and back in the day,aside from spell casters all that distunguished one fighter from another was initial stats and equipment. We still managed to make some original characters. Alot depends on the players and the DM, but is not really a matter of "lets pretend"?

 

[Imaro]

Snip...

All of this...I've been trying to put my finger on it as well, and you know what your post made me think about... The Matrix. Remember in the first movie when Mr. Smith is talking to Morpheus about the failure of the original matrix that was suppose to be a utopia. Now he claims not to know why it failed and goes on even further to postulate it's because humans can't accept a "perfect" world. I always thought it was because

1.) There is no way a computer can create a "perfect" world for a human being.

2.) There is something that rings false to everything being artificially logical within it's particular bubble, but not in the environment it exists within as a whole.

Number 1 I bring up because after reading through 4e it left me a little cold. I wanted to try it out but it didn't give me that "Wow, this is a cool game" feeling I've had with previous editions (and yes, even 3e)...especially the Monster Manual. It just seemed to sterile, and the funny thing is I don't sit up and read through my 4e books, unless I am specifically preparing for my game. With other editions I often found myself paging through them or reading tidbits for enjoyment.

Number 2 is what I feel makes it so that I can't fully embrace 4e. I will also go so far as to say it's even worse for someone who DM's and plays because you are acutely aware of how 4e is set up. Perhaps it's just me but I like for things to come together in a believable way, and 4e stretches that believability (for me at least) almost to it's breaking point.

SIDE NOTES: 1.)Contrary to the popular sentiment, I'm also experiencing a strong dislike for the monotony that player attacks seem to have. I don't just mean the use of the same at-will for 95% of combat (which does happen)... but also the fact that each PC's attacks are based of their strongest ability and so even the bonus to hit is usually close to or the exact same for each PC. Now my players don't realize this yet, as I don't tell them monsters defenses but I see it. Perhaps I'm judging to soon, we've only played a few sessions and just got into campaign mode with my players close to 2nd level, but I definitely

2.) As a DM there seems to be alot to keep track of when using different monster roles in fights. I recently ran a fight with some goblin warriors, minions and blackblades...and it seemed like I had to spend more mental power keeping track of which, how best and when of their slightly differing abilities to use. Definitely seemed like more than I had to monitor in a 3e low-level game. Again this may get easier with time but it was something I noticed.