The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[AllisterH]

Yes, I am coming to think they do. At least, it would seem to be my preference. . .

Even though in play, they are completel distinct? I mean, the paladin and the fighter have the same role so you think they play similarly, but this is the first time I've actually felt at 1st level that a paladin plays differently than a fighter

 

[Imaro]

Even though in play, they are completel distinct? I mean, the paladin and the fighter have the same role so you think they play similarly, but this is the first time I've actually felt at 1st level that a paladin plays differently than a fighter

I'm especially curious about this since these are both defenders... how did you feel they played differently. I ask because one of the things my players didn't want to do, was play the same role as someone else.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, I am coming to think they do. At least, it would seem to be my preference. . .

I suspected as much.

I think differently, especially after having seen 4E in action, and comparing to all the balance issues in 3E (and Iron Heroes, where everyone used Tokens, but everyone used different methods to gather them). I might be convinced otherwise if someone can create multiple subsystems for each character type and still great a finely balanced system. (But then, if they are truely balanced, doesn't this mean the math system is still the same, it's just hidden by some fancy tricks like "attacker rolls" vs "defender rolls" and stuff like that?)

I also don't think it helps from a playability perspective - learning different subsystems just for trying a different class shouldn't be necessary. Adapting tactics to your new class should be the goal...

I guess our sensibilities and priorities just are too different. I am glad that 4E is no longer a compromise and its focus happens to coincide with mine. I can only wish you that 3E or other D&D editions still work as well as they used to, or that someone comes around and creatures your favorite "class specific subsystem". If I am looking at Pathfinder - they seem to be going there. (Barbarian Rage Points, Monk Ki Points, Spell subsystem...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm especially curious about this since these are both defenders... how did you feel they played differently. I ask because one of the things my players didn't want to do, was play the same role as someone else.

I can only give you very specific examples, but here are the differences I noted between a Fighter and a Paladin from the DMs perspective. They weren't played at the same time, but they fought both against a lot of Kobolds:

The Fighters Combat Challange and his Mark feel very different from that of the Paladins Combat Challenge.
In our DDXP based playtest, the Fighters just didn't let the Kobolds shift away, and quite a few died due to to trying to use their Shifty ability to outmaneuver the group.
The Paladin was very different. He was "helpless" against the shifting, but his Divine Challenge was a PITA for the Kobolds, especially those that already were behind his lines and assumed they were safe from him. Taking opportunity attacks was never that dangerous for them...

The Fighter I remember seemed a little less... "flashy". He was a straightforward damage dealer in combat (maybe it was due to the Reliable Brutal Strike the PC had). The Paladin felt more divine. It might have helped that he picked up a Cleric ranged at-will as a Half-Elven encounter power (more radiant damage per encounter).

 

[Imaro]

Hmm. I found the roles part pretty useful. "Ah, Artillery, better let it it stay behind" (well, that's obvious). But I found it astoundingly easy to figure out good tactics for most monsters. (The hard part was always implementing them - how do I get the Skirmishers in flanking position without them getting hammered?)

I just wanted to comment on this real quick. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying (and admittedly I may have not stated it clearly enough). It's not the "roles" per say that are alot to keep track of it's the individual niggly powers of each goblin that is seperate. In this fight I had...
(2) Goblin Blackblades
(2) Goblin Warriors
(2) Goblin Minions

On a general note for all of them I had to keep track of their Goblin Tactics power, so that meant keeping track of not only hits, but also every time a goblin was missed so it could shift.

For each of the Goblin Blackblade I also had to remember it's extra damage anytime it had combat advantage, and when to use it's power to shift places with another ally.

For each of the Goblin Warriors I had to keep track of if it moved 4 squares away from it's previous position or more each round for it's extra damage and if it moved half speed or more so it could make ranged attacks without provoking an OA.

On top of these things I also had to keep track of different initiative mods, defenses, hp's, damage, types of attacks, whether each individual was marked or suffering any conditions (No, I don't leave it up to players because these are intelligent opponents and I needed to remember this stuff to make intelligent decisions about their tactics), concealment, etc. To me it just seemed way more to keep track of than in a low level 3e fight against goblins. Like other posters have said, perhaps it evens out at higher levels...but I' not sure that's the case as I think these goblins were on the lower spectrum in their number of abilities.

 

[el-remmen]

I guess our sensibilities and priorities just are too different. I am glad that 4E is no longer a compromise and its focus happens to coincide with mine. I can only wish you that 3E or other D&D editions still work as well as they used to, or that someone comes around and creatures your favorite "class specific subsystem". If I am looking at Pathfinder - they seem to be going there. (Barbarian Rage Points, Monk Ki Points, Spell subsystem...)

Yeah, 3.x feels like it will work just fine for me for the foreseeable future, though I would like to adapt some of the movement stuff from 4E at some point - it is just a matter of deciding if I want to do it for my current campaign, or wait until it is over (except my games tend to last 3 to 6 years, and we're only about a year and a half in).

We do have a playtest of 4E scheduled for the 12th of July, which I totally expect to be a lot of fun. I have no doubt the game will play well for what it is.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

100% with you right here. With the band of kobolds the group fought, you have to know the tidbits of their abilities, when they can shift, when they can't, their flanking mob bonuses, etc. It's not a huge deal, but it is a slight learning curve, especially the bigger the fights get. Combined with the marking abilities of the fighters, it's essential that players keep track of that themselves. It's just too much for a DM. Unless he's a computer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, 3.x feels like it will work just fine for me for the foreseeable future, though I would like to adapt some of the movement stuff from 4E at some point - it is just a matter of deciding if I want to do it for my current campaign, or wait until it is over (except my games tend to last 3 to 6 years, and we're only about a year and a half in).

May I ask how often and how long does your group play? I am wondering since I try to come up with how long our campaigns last - but that's difficult. Each player runs his own campaign. But I am pretty sure we take still less time for each campaign. Ideally, we play once per week for around 7-9h. It gotten less in the past few months, since I don't have as much time as I used to and sometimes need a little break at weekends, or to do something with my non-RPG friends.

 

[el-remmen]

May I ask how often and how long does your group play?

We aim at every two weeks, but only manage 20 to 25 sessions a year. Our sessions are scheduled to be 6 to 7 hours long, but we probably get 5 or 6 hours of gaming in. My last campaign lasted 103 sessions + 2 "special reunion sessions" after the game had officially ended.

 

[Rel]

100% with you right here. With the band of kobolds the group fought, you have to know the tidbits of their abilities, when they can shift, when they can't, their flanking mob bonuses, etc. It's not a huge deal, but it is a slight learning curve, especially the bigger the fights get. Combined with the marking abilities of the fighters, it's essential that players keep track of that themselves. It's just too much for a DM. Unless he's a computer.

My observation was that the "ease of play" that 4e appears to lend in the upper levels (where I can see it running considerably faster than 3.x) is somewhat balanced by having more complex conditions and maneuvers to track at the lower levels. Another aspect of the "flattening the curve" notion of the game design I guess. I'm not terribly bothered by this however as I'm a Tactician style player anyway.