The Essentials Fighter

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.

A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.

And here is the nut of the difference, both between us and between 3.x and 4e. The 4e rules aren't primarily about instilling anything, they are about resolving situations in the game. Players are freed up to imagine how it works, how it looks, and how it fits into the story to a degree that just didn't really exist in 3.x where much of that was pre-ordained by the designers. I'm fine with imagining all the different cool ways that my warlock works. His pact is a great RP hook. There doesn't need to be a bunch of rules explaining that if I change my alignment someone eats my face or whatever.

Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care.

In other words a lot of the philosophy of 4e is that less is more. Being an old time D&D I'm used to doing with a LOT less. Its like having the best of OD&D (practically total freedom to make up anything and very few numbers) with the best of 3.x (lots of mechanics to help me model what I want to do). And really ultimately combat is not everything. Even if 4e characters fight more similarly in some ways than 3.x characters did there should be a ton of other ways they are different.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care.

I couldn´t disagree more here... Some meachanical differences are welcome, otherwise it is unnecessary to have different classes and races at all...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I couldn´t disagree more here... Some meachanical differences are welcome, otherwise it is unnecessary to have different classes and races at all...

Well, there is a fine line. Every mechanical rule puts roadblocks in the way of freely combining elements to make your character work the way you envisage it. OTOH obviously everything can't work exactly like everything else or there really would be no system at all.

I tend to think 4e is somewhat caught in a bit of an in-between point between totally free-form narrative story telling mechanics and the 3.x simulationist sort of legacy of telling you exactly how every little detail of everything was supposed to work.

 

[Njall]

My point is that the fighting style specializations did make a difference in play, and I don't consider an additional shield attack that can be used to parry an enemy attack to be a passive benefit.
And I should add that the Complete Fighter's Handbook also introduced several combat maneuvers like disarm, pull/trip, shield rush (which required you to use a shield, of course) etc.; it wasn't just the I-hit-him-with-my-sword routine over and over.

Sorry if it took me so long to respond, I'm pretty busy this week...
Anyway: my point is that the fighting style specializations gave you "more of the same", be it one more parry, one extra attack or a +1 here and there. They didn't change the way you played, they just made you better at what you would have done anyway; take stuff like 4e's Weapon Master's Strike or Grappling Strike instead: these aren't just options, they're character defining features that help turning unique, unviable concepts into playable, interesting archetypes.
To me, that makes a huge difference; YMMV, obviously.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.

And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?

That's sort of what I'm talking about, though. If they're both pink, but one is called "kewl stylez babi," and another is called "duchess's blush," and then the company phases out one for the other, whoever liked the other is going to feel like the new pink isn't what they want to have out of nail polish.

Or, in another parable, a dude uses a deodorant that he likes. In part, he likes it because, like every good consumer, he identifies with what he purchases, and the casing has a sort of "old wood" look, it's name is Deep Forest, or something else quietly masculine, and it smells a little musky and reminds him a bit of his father, while being distinct. Then, the company changes and starts to market their product like AXE, with XTREME SPORTS DUDES and idiot commercials about how women fall out of the sky for the scent and now they've changed the name of the deodorant to something like NIGHTSPIKE. It's the same scent, but it's not the same experience, and he doesn't identify with this new face at all. So he tells his friends he thinks the new commercials are dumb and that Deep Forest was fine the way it was.

The fact that it's just some superficial terminology changes doesn't mean that the product -- that the rule -- reflects what they want. In fact, if they see the things as basically identical, it becomes a superficial difference for superficial reasons, they realize how superficial it is to them, and they become disenchanted with both options. Lady goes to get red nail polish. Dude buys some hippie Whole Foods brand instead (and then grows a beard, but that's neither here nor there).

But this means that the casual player isn't just a casual player, he's an inattentive one. So inattentive as to be unable to tell the difference between firing two arrows and an attack that makes you invisible to the target. (Or one that punishes them if you get hit, etc.) Yes, Eldritch Blast is like a ranged basic and pretty similar to almost any other ranged basic. But if you can't tell the fundamental difference between Eyebite and Twin Strike you aren't paying attention (or the DM isn't). And that's without getting into the other pact at wills which are even more different (other than the darkpact one). And for a Darkpact Warlock, the matter of soul fragments swirling around the body and punishing people for hitting them is non-trivial.

They may be paying attention to what interests them. What interests them just happens to not be the comparative differences between two powers. They can still be interested and engaged with in other elements of the game, such as the princess that needs savin' from the dragon.

This isn't +1 gearhead stuff. It's fundamental. It's near-ubiquitous. And if casual players aren't picking up on even that much, I wonder what they are picking up on.

Different things for different players, but remember that classes are fantasy archetypes. They're picking up on the fact that the Ranger is Legolas and that the Warlock is basically like a mythical witch. They're playing one if they want to shoot arrows all over the place into everything, they're playing the other if they want to deceive and coerce. Then they see that, deception or arrows, it all comes down to "pew pew pew" on your chosen mark.

At least, that was more or less my path.

And even people who don't see numbers should be able to tell the difference between invisibility and a second arrow. Or between automatically burning the enemy if he gets closer and a melee attack to provide a distraction to slip out of combat (to pick the only at will that really complements Twin Strike for an archer ranger).

Sure. But that's still just on paper. What am I doing in play? "pew pew pew" in both cases.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

And here is the nut of the difference, both between us and between 3.x and 4e. The 4e rules aren't primarily about instilling anything, they are about resolving situations in the game. Players are freed up to imagine how it works, how it looks, and how it fits into the story to a degree that just didn't really exist in 3.x where much of that was pre-ordained by the designers. I'm fine with imagining all the different cool ways that my warlock works. His pact is a great RP hook. There doesn't need to be a bunch of rules explaining that if I change my alignment someone eats my face or whatever.

Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care.

In other words a lot of the philosophy of 4e is that less is more. Being an old time D&D I'm used to doing with a LOT less. Its like having the best of OD&D (practically total freedom to make up anything and very few numbers) with the best of 3.x (lots of mechanics to help me model what I want to do). And really ultimately combat is not everything. Even if 4e characters fight more similarly in some ways than 3.x characters did there should be a ton of other ways they are different.

I of course realize, as I pointed out, that different people have different tastes: but, on the same way, what I said should (could?) explain why some other people feel the sameness.

I dare to go further: if the purpose of the essentials is to call back people like me, they fail. Hard. Because there is sort of a grave misunderstanding here: One can think that I don't like fighters with dailies but I could like the knight: the problem here is that there are basic assumptions in the design of the game tham make me run away. Is not just "fighter with dailies", that maybe, if well explained...

Of course, again this is a feature for many (good game everybody!).

Moreover, we have seen just a preview..

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another.

And power, specialisation, skill, and ritual (where relevant) choices make it possible to roll members of any class in 4e that are dramatically different from one another.

You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook?

You mean the large clunky thing that meant that with preparation time Wizards could do anything?

Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.

As a PC I do not expect to have a clue how dragons cast spells. And in some worlds they become less magical if I do things the same way. As for receiving spells, that was cut-scene background flavour text in my experience.

Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.

And 4e is one hell of a lot better at the mechanics interacting with the game world at a local level. Pushes, shifts, slides, marks. Those things matter at a local and immediate level. "Casts spells like a dragon" is an abstract. "Slips through the combat like an eel, avoiding opportunity attacks" or "drives the enemy backwards" is concrete.

Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).

OK. I'll grant 4th. (I forgot about the Animal Companion). But other than archers that's less variety than is in 4e fighters. (4e Ranger might be a better fit.) Even smite evil is a 1/day stronger attack. A pretty generic Daily (and the spellcasting's just utilities or rituals).

Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.

What stimulates my imagination isn't what's on the long and complex character sheet. It's what they do. How they act. And at this micro level, At Will powers kick the arse of 3e.

A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.

In the running the gameworld? Agreed. 4e makes no attempt to be simulationist.

I suppose not. Is far more convenient delay popular classes like bard or barbarian for the second PH, and continuously produce errata for the Insider.

The Bard is now popular? Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e? (I used to like it. But always thought that was a minority opinion). And as for errata, any game needs it.

 

[MrMyth]

It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently

I can see some truth to this. At the same time, I often see the situation overstated.

I mean, look at that list by Remathilis, and some of the things mentioned:
-Sword and Board, Two-handed Weapon and Power Attack, Spring Attackers, Dual-Wielding, Raging Barbarians, Scouts that move around the battlefield...

... and these all exist in 4E.

You can have someone running around with an Executioner's Axe and power attack who doesn't hit as often, but does serious damage on every hit, and occasional explosive crits.

You can have someone with sword and shield whose attacks are effective, but not as high as most, but instead has enhanced defenses.

You can have builds that are very much based around mobility, and moving into and out of combat every round. Now it is down through powers more than feats (though feats can help), rather than via a path of feats. It is mainly confined to several specific classes, though skill powers can help. But the same concept can be built.

Dual-Wielding characters still exist, and typically get more attacks than others for smaller damage. This happens through powers rather than feats and core rules, but again - a tangible difference is there, mechanically.

Barbarians still rage. Rather than giving some static numerical changes, it tends to give other big explosive powers for a combat. We do have some other classes with similar types of things - stances, warden forms, etc - but each feels distinct, and each helps define that class.

We have plenty of builds that encourage movement in 4E. And we have at least one specific one, for the ranger, that gives specific bonuses for moving an attacking, in a similar theme to the scout.

I can understand someone complaining that Healing Word and Inspiring Word are too similar. Sure. (Though, to be fair, Cure Light Wounds from a cleric and Cure Light Wounds from a bard or druid... was still Cure Light Wounds.)

Most classes have something unique to them, but some fundamental differences that could be established - especially in the domain of spellcasting - are gone, and you can end up with conceptually different builds than can feel similar in actual play.

But trying to say that everything feels identical - to say that there is no difference between a 4E character using two weapons, or a big axe with power attack, or a sword and shield - but that these all felt completely different in 3.5! - just doesn't feel right.

I can't deny him his experiences, sure. But complaints like these absolutely feel like he is either overestimating how similar everything is in 4E, or underestimating how similar it could be in any edition. I'm more than willing to admit there are plenty of areas for improvement, and making strides on this front would be something I am all for - but I also don't feel like you can really engage in genuine discussion of this when claims this exaggerated are being made.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's sort of what I'm talking about, though. If they're both pink, but one is called "kewl stylez babi," and another is called "duchess's blush," and then the company phases out one for the other, whoever liked the other is going to feel like the new pink isn't what they want to have out of nail polish.

Quick question: Are they the same pink? Would a Duchess's Blush by any other name look just as pink?

(I say yes).

Or, in another parable, a dude uses a deodorant that he likes. In part, he likes it because, like every good consumer, he identifies with what he purchases, and the casing has a sort of "old wood" look, it's name is Deep Forest, or something else quietly masculine, and it smells a little musky and reminds him a bit of his father, while being distinct. ... So he tells his friends he thinks the new commercials are dumb and that Deep Forest was fine the way it was.

Apparently it's then not the deoderant he wanted at all. It's the experience of the deoderant. It's the hipster version of culture.

They may be paying attention to what interests them. What interests them just happens to not be the comparative differences between two powers. They can still be interested and engaged with in other elements of the game, such as the princess that needs savin' from the dragon.

OK. So it's the entire combat system they aren't interested in.

Different things for different players, but remember that classes are fantasy archetypes. They're picking up on the fact that the Ranger is Legolas and that the Warlock is basically like a mythical witch. They're playing one if they want to shoot arrows all over the place into everything, they're playing the other if they want to deceive and coerce. Then they see that, deception or arrows, it all comes down to "pew pew pew" on your chosen mark.

That's only if you aren't actually using deception. The Feylock gives you invisibility as a rider to your eyebite - and if you don't use it you aren't using your deception. How do you use it? One obvious way is to draw your pact blade, run up to the artillery you've eyebitten and damn them whatever they do. (If they attack you, good luck; you're invisible. If they walk away from you, opportunity attack. If they attack someone else, opportunity attack. And if they shift away with luck you've a counter - and if not, you've pinned them down). Otherwise the invisibility becomes like the guy in Mystery men - "I can turn invisible. But only when no one is looking."

What am I doing in play? "pew pew pew" in both cases.

There's a reason the Warlock's a hard class to play well. If you're just going "pew pew pew" then Rangers do indeed do it better. Warlocks have a nice bag of tricks to make the enemy's life living hell - but these all take work to use. If all you're trying to do is go "pew pew pew" you aren't using them. And so of course it feels bland.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another.

Class features of the sorcerer were non-existant.

And sorcerers could be made different from one another because of their limitations on how many spells they could take.

And better not start with what Pathfinder did with sorcerers.

As irrelevant to the discussion as Hackmaster.

You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook? Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.

The difference between the three:

Clerics chose one time a day they recovered. Rest was not an issue.
Wizards, rest was an issue.
Sorcerers cast spells like bards with more spells. This 'like a dragon' thing is fluff... most monsters cast spells like that. In fact, the most boring thing to read in a monster description was 'cast spells like a sorcerer.' Flavorless. Bland.

So, to say that sorcerers gain flavor because monsters cast spells like them blandly?

Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.

This is what I don't get tho... how is being able to do all sorts of amazing things as riders to your attacks not interacting mechanics? In fact, isn't the central design point behind every 4th edition attack worth a damn that it -does- interract beyond damage?

[quote[Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).[/quote]

And fourth edition doesn't do that?

In fact... compare a 1st level sword and board fighter.

In 3d edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage... and is harder to hit.

In 4th edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage and push a foe away, or pull the foe into his spot, allowing a curbstomping, he can swing through and hit another enemy.... and he is harder to hit... and his allies are harder to hit... and he'll punch them for trying.

You're claiming differences in equipment made huge differences in 3rd edition while ignoring the fact those differences still exist and are compounded by the differences in characters and fighting styles that are inherent in merely uttering the words 'at-will attack power.'

Smite Evil? That's an example of a flavorful attack, but does it -really- compare favorably to hitting your foe so hard that not only does he take massive damage from your piety, but the sheer holy energy then leaks out and heals one of your friends of his wounds.

You want to talk flavorful mechanics... compare -that-.

Bonus damage, or Bonus Damage that undoes your enemy's evil.

Seriously. Compare.

Sure, not every thing I talked about was effective, but, in this case, again, just think about what pathfinder did.

Some don't consider pathfinder to be the right direction to go. If your complaint is '4th edition is not pathfinder' well... you're right it isn't.

It's also not Vampire: The Requiem.

We agree here - and I re-state it: I explain above from where the sameness feeling, regardless it's justified or not, comes. IMO, of course.

Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.

That doesn't mean the differences do not exist... it means they don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees. They have a feeling that four different game mechanics must exist for things to be different... that characters must be playing actual different games for them to be considered different.

That's an interesting viewpoint, but it's terribly myopic.

A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.

4edition has everything one needs to run a gameworld. Does it try to simulate every aspect of it? No. Why? Because doing so is unnecessary. Do you -need- rules to determine the economy in a town? No. Why? Because you're making the town, make the economy what you need it to be. No amount of 'simulationist' rules can do that accurately.

Seriously, ask yourself -why- you'd need a rule to randomly determine whether or not magical items are available in Slobadia... is it because you don't know? How do you not know? Are you not -making- Slobadia to fit the needs of your campaign? Do you envision Slobadia being big enough to have magic item shops? No? Then why do you need a chart to tell you how to make your damn city for you?

Besides, simulationist rules in roleplaying games often end up being poor simulations, failing to explain how a villiage of peasents making 1 silver piece a month, paying 1 copper piece a day for food, can ever not end up in debt by 2 silver pieces a month, while simultaneously gathering up the 50 gold pieces the party is being offered to save the town mayor from kobold invasion... or how the kobolds manage to have coffers greater than any amount of business men in such an economy could ever hope to accumulate...

It's okay to want rules to simulate a game world... but please be sure they do not immediately fall apart and become unable to support such basic assumptions like 'At some point the PCs need to be paid.' BAD simulationist rules are terrible. And D&D's simulationism has NEVER been particularily good.