What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Psion]

A caster class? 3e warlock takes up 12 pages. 4e warlock is 14 pages, and that's with 4e's greater use of white space AND including paragon paths which are analogous to PrCs. The two editions are practically identical in this respect.

Of course they are identical, because the 3e warlock is essentially a preview of the 4e design philosophy.

But a real 3e caster class using native 3e design philosophy which doesn't require you to re-invent the spell list is a bit easier task.

 

[Tsyr]

FAIL: That post is soooo page 2.

Can't say that makes it wrong, though. Actually, that pretty much sums up my feelings exactly, the more I read it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course they are identical, because the 3e warlock is essentially a preview of the 4e design philosophy.

But a real 3e caster class using native 3e design philosophy which doesn't require you to re-invent the spell list is a bit easier task.

I see that as a bug, not a feature, for prior editions - the laziness in reusing PHB spells for both new classes and monsters. I greatly prefer the more flavourful 4e monsters which have powers that feel unique and interesting.

What you save on time by reusing the PHB, you lose in originality.

When you look at a more original class, like the 3e warlock (not entirely so, there's still a bit of PHB recycling), or the ToB classes you get a truer picture of the amount of work required to create a 3e class IF you want to do a good job.

 

[Psion]

FAIL: That post is soooo page 2.

Yeah, but JRR wasn't serious.

 

[Psion]

I see that as a bug, not a feature, for prior editions - the laziness in reusing PHB spells for both new classes and monsters. I greatly prefer the more flavourful 4e monsters which have powers that feel unique and interesting.

What you save on time by reusing the PHB, you lose in originality.

When you look at a more original class, like the 3e warlock (not entirely so, there's still a bit of PHB recycling), or the ToB classes you get a truer picture of the amount of work required to create a 3e class IF you want to do a good job.

See, and I considered ToB a waste. Little nips and tweaks in doing the same thing just for the sake of doing it different, and in doing so detracting from a sense of consistency.

To each their own, I guess.

EDIT: Of course, this is off topic. Lizard remains correct.

 

[mattdm]

Run a game that bases its physics and logic on the real world with magic tacked on. (examples: firecubes*, 1 h.p. minions, rules that change as soon as a PC shows up, diagonal movement, etc.)
* - and the 4e spell description even says it creates a *globe* of fire...

I think your *footnote here is pretty important, actually. In my estimation, 4E is a big improvement in this area, because it encourages you to think of the world as a real world and then model it in play with the rules, rather than thinking of the world as purely an expression of the rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's one thing I genuinely don't like about 4e. One of the very few. There are slightly too many exceptions in the MM. Exception-based design gone too far. For example the owlbear and the umber hulk both grab their victims with two claws and then get to do a continuing bite attack. But the mechanic used is different. The umber hulk deals ongoing damage, the owlbear gets a separate attack.

It offends my sense of neatness. I don't mind if the rules aren't consistent with the game world, those are different things. But the rules should be consistent with the rules.

That said, 3e monster design was, on the whole, much too lazy. Far too much reuse of PHB spells. Way too many monsters were boring, about 50% seemed to have improved grab. The 1e monsters otoh were too goofy. Every time one could do something that wasn't in the core rules, like grab you or trap you in a net or something, a different mechanic was used, which went too far.

4e has by far the best monsters of any edition of D&D, imo. They have the balance almost, though not quite, right.

 

[Scribble]

. The umber hulk deals ongoing damage, the owlbear gets a separate attack.

Owlbear also auto hits... Just rolls damage each time.

Also I wouldn't call that exception based. Exception implies there is already a rule in place for auto hit damage, "except" in certain cases.

I would leave exception based for things like:

Shift is considered a move action. Except for Kobolds. They consider it a minor action.

 

[SSquirrel]

... and sacrificing a few dozen virgins, and pledging your soul to Orcus.

Ahh but why nitpick over minor points like that? He wasn't using that sole anyway and those girls were virgins cuz they were ugly, he did them a favor. He's a GOOD GUY! Or maybe at least unaligned. *snicker*

 

[mattdm]

As a specific example, my wizard collects any scrap of spell he can lay his hands on. To the point of if it is a choice of save the girl or get the bad guys spellbook, the girl better hope someone else is doing the saving. If I saw the wizard we were battling cast a spell, say Vile Obliteration, and my wizard hadnt seen it before, I would take great efforts to find the other guys books after we waked him. To be told 'oooh, sorry, that is a bad guy only power' would be a real problem.

This is very doable in 4E: e.g., the ritual the evil wizard is casting requires the girl's soul as a focus. Sure, learn that if you want.