While I HATE to miss out on a challenge, I'm going to for one reason; I have no idea what 1/2 those things DO anymore!
I pretty much described them in the post. Commander's Strike and Direct The Strike both mean that an ally makes a basic attack instead of me making an at will (useful when the ally in question is normally an Avenger with a fullblade or a Str 20 Fighter with an axe and I've just got a longsword and Str 18). Brash assault is a gamble - I attack my foe and he can choose to attack me with combat advantage (and a basic attack). If he does, one of my allies can attack him with combat advantage and a basic attack. Powerful Warning is an encounter power - an interrupt giving the triggering attack -2 to hit (meaning I can convert a hit to a miss on an ally) and giving the targetted ally a free melee basic attack. And my daily allows me to as an interrupt run over to a fallen ally, attack the person who hit them and shield them so they can get back up.
Are you going to tell me that
any of that sounds like a cleric?
Based on the handful of abilities that were in PHB1, MP, and EPG, I found the three classes didn't feel diverse enough. If, by the time of paragon levels with a full DDi subscription and 2 years of books this doesn't hold water, I simply claim to be behind the times.
The build I presented was up to date - but was a build for
a first level character.
See, I quit sometime last summer. My warlord was 95% PHB1 (with one MP power, I think it was his 3rd level encounter power), my cleric was 100% PHB (plus Selune's Channel Divinity) and the Artificer was 100% Eberron Players Guide. No domain powers, no skill swap utility powers, no Style Feats (except for a few in Dragon) no hybrid classes, etc.
Almost all of my comparisons have assumed the default 2 builds in their core book introduction without a giant influx of supplemental material. I'm well aware a tempest fighter is different than a greatweapon one, a beastmaster ranger doesn't play like a archer, and summoning went a long way to making the wizard stand out against the invoker and druid. Yet when I played in those early days (When the PHB and a couple of dragons was it) I didn't see any quantifiable difference in those classes. Apparently WotC has gone a long way to making those distinctions more pronounced, at the cost of $30 a hardback and $10 per month.
One thing that's been fascinating to watch is how much the game design has improved over the two years 4e has been out. The classes in the PHB2 are generally a lot more distinct and interesting than those in the PHB1 (that said, the PHB1 classes have had a lot done to them with the splatbooks whereas the PHB2 classes need it less). And for the record just buy a 1 month DDI subscription and download the character builder.
For multiclass I mean the freedom of build a fighter dipping rogue, vice versa, or a 50:50 fighter/rogue. Puggins indeed raised a good point (see below).
Small dip = multiclassing (which works for that), 50/50 = hybrid (or paragon multiclass). What you can't do easily is 60/30.
Well, another generaization here. Sometimes you have to pay for spellcasting in 3.5 and Pathfinder, too. But my point was that each day thay utility for the Ranger would change, raising in number at higher level and increasinglt hugely the flexibility.
There is a point there. And a spellcaster busy really taking off in power level at the same time.
No. The true Batman makes everyone great. if this can be degenerated, I concede. but the fact that several spells in 3.5 needed reworkind, does not mean that I cannot make a spellbook mechanic intersting and flavourful. See, in AD&D IIRC there was a rule about known spells and int score (the wiz int score put a limit). That was a limitation like in 4th, but didn't seem the same way arbitrary.
The limitation is different. In 4e, I expect most paragon wizards to be able to cast
every wizard at will and most of the encounter powers. However, what it will take is scrabbling through his/her spellbook and going through the casting ritual. The powers listed aren't the limit to his/her casting - they are simply the spells he/she focussed on and practiced enough to memorise all the complex movements and then train them down to be cast in a matter of seconds. If it takes you 30 seconds to look up the ritual, it's not a combat ability.
That started as an example of diversity (how they cast spell and this mechanics make them differen from Wizard and is reflected in monsters).. I don't follow you anymore here
That how you cast spells and the mechanics are more different in 4e. (And besides, "Cast spells like a dragon" is one thing - "Cast spells like a dragon, a sylph, and two dozen other unrelated monsters" is another). You're changing the game for flavour. Which is fine. But not a 3e specific advantage or 4e specific disadvantage.
Components didn't matter before? And the fact that there is not recognizable analogy between rituals and combat magic (combat magic is more similar to the fighter swinging a sword) increases the disconnect for someone.
If you want combat magic to seem magical, don't do it in combat. Combat magic all needs to be fast and almost reflexive or you end up
dead because it will take the fighter seconds to slit your throat.
I was just joking about the fact that some people (not you, reading the sentence above) finds the rogue very boring in 3rd edition, while two same maneuver (move tumbling and stab) has been merged in one, given a fancy name and WHAM! is suddenly cool.
You have a point there
Feats in 4th are less a class feature for fighter (barring Essentials
). The real maneuvers fighter performs are in the powers. Am I wrong?
Feats are modifiers, yes.
I meant the capstone feat. My bad. And I'm pretty sure that they are even more(out shield defence, add shield slam, power attack, improved bull rush, and maybe improved trip) but is not the point.
But the point is here: the fighter will push people from level 1 with power attack and improved bull rush. And don't start with the argumentation that tide of iron deals dmage - 1st level enemies in 3rd have not the same HP than in 4th, you will bash their skull the round later, for now.
Um... yeah. Which means that for now, any attempt at pushing with bull rush is
strictly inferior to simply bashing their heads in. It's an
option for a fighter to jump around the battlefield on a pogo stick. But it's not worth listing because it isn't a good one. Likewise the capstone feats being powerful vastly
restrict what's worth doing.
The point is that the way the fighter will play will change dramatically each feat he takes. And the weapon used. The whirliwind above will be very different if using a shield and bull rushes, or a glaive and trip.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. - D20 SRD
How will it be different? Given that you're not allowed to use bonus or extra attacks on the Whirlwind Attack. No cleave. No bonus from Bull Rush or Improved Trip - and a Bull Rush is a standard action, a Whirlwind Attack is a full round attack and the two do not combine. Likewise on the Improved Trip with the glaive, you do not get the +4 bonus and you do not get the extra attack from improved trip (having forfeited both for the Whirlwind Attack).
Now, I concede that some feat was lame and remains that way (mobility)
Throw in dodge. And you can't spring attack and take a full round attack meaning that it's situational at best above fifth level. (Which is to me damning on how fun 3e is - once full round attacks become worthwhile the fighter's best plan is to stay in position).
Point being that breaking the game is the least of my concerns. I prefer diversity. But I will take a look, because I trust your knowledge of the game.
For sure, make the fisrt core so bland has not been a smart move by WotC part.
Thanks and point
WoTC have learned what they can do over time with 4e. PHB2>PHB1 (And the Seeker and Monk from the PHB3 are great - I'm just not a fan of psionics). MM3>MM2>MM1. MP2>MP1 (Didn't think I'd like Martial Power 2 - but the Brawler Fighter, the Hunter Ranger, the Battlefront Leader Warlord and the Archery Warlords are all great).
and spend 10 minutes to cast a silence!
Same name, different spell. Silence in 4e is social intrigue/anti-eavesdropping. In 3e my bard used to use it as a counterspell/mage-killer. (Ready Silence, throw it at the wizard's feet).
I restate it again - is not the point of of absence or presence (there are things missing here or there, but is another topic).
In 4th edition, the way powers are conceived and shown is not the same.
My point is that since, just to say, eldricht blast is a spell-like, and the arrow is not, interacts with the gameworld, in both ways (AOO, damage reduction, energy resistance) in a different manner.
They do in 4e - and even have differently based to hit rolls. (Eldritch Blast isn't stopped by armour which is why it attacks reflex).
Such interaction remains in 4th edition, even if tuned down (cast spells in combat does not cause AOO, but there are monsters with, say, resist fire 10).
Casting close combat spells in combat doesn't cause AoO. Trying to shoot a bow in combat does. Just means Wizards have got smarter about their spells.
yeah, was good to skip encounter too (cfr: noisy clerics) or to shut down monsters calling for reinforcements. But good for some social intrigue too. 6 seconds are less than 10 minutes!
