What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[Scribble]

Where did I read that the default was 4 monsters vs. 5 PCs then? I ask because 5 v 5 is *much* easier to scale up or down for different-size parties than 4 v 5 is.

Lanefan

I remember them saying this way back in the beginning... But I think they were also assuming 4 players as well?

 

[pawsplay]

Unfortunately the request was just as lacking in specifics. Add specifics to the request, and I am sure specifics will be added to the answer.

A character with tumbling capabilities, who uses a light sword, fights in light or no armor, and has a substantial Armor Class. A mobile, lightly armored defender. The kind of person who can fence the bad guys up and down a winding staircase while his friends escape or attack someone else or whatever. Someone who can dive into a trio of guards and put them all on the ground.

 

[Qualidar]

You can do the exact same style of class creation you claimed to do in 3e: steal stuff from other classes.

Is that what I claimed?

Just because 4e has more stuff going on in each class doesn't meant you can't just be lazy like in 3e and just cherry-pick other classes to make your "new" class.

It does if you want a satisfying result. In other editions of the game you could make a character up with, what, 2 pages of rules? The complicated (caster) classes had a shared base of spells to work with, but there was room in that selection to make each and every character unique.

There isn't enough variability in class abilities in 4e to provide differentiation if you use various parts of what's already there. The niche protection is too strong. To get a satisfying new character class you need to develop a full suite of powers. That's not the same amount of work as creating a class in previous editions. That's the same as creating a class and 1/4 of the spells in the game.

And as for "lazy"?: I don't have an unlimited supply of time. I'm unable to lurk on message boards all day deriding or lauding a particular version of a role-playing game, for example. Nor do I necessarily have the time to sit around crocheting, making websites of myself modeling Peter Pan costumes, or other fanciful pursuits. When I have some free time to be creative I like to use it to make exciting adventures for my players. I have a real life I'm fitting all this fun gaming around. I don't want to have to shoulder the workload a professional game designer to add in a new character class.

And that's something you can't do in 4e.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Thanks.

That's a good example of a rules simplification which actually works. While penalties for attacking non-lethally are realistic, the net gain from tracking lethal/non lethal damage is generally not worth it, and creates extra math. While it works if you have a Wounds/Vitality system ala old SW or Hero, it really doesn't work with classic D&D. Allowing players to decide if they have killed or knocked out someone does sacrifice some realism, but doesn't lead to grossly ridiculous situations or bang you over the head with its gamism.

Unless of course your wizard reduces 6 guys to zero with an area spell and says " knock out the subchief and the shaman. toast the rest"

 

[Lizard]

Unless of course your wizard reduces 6 guys to zero with an area spell and says " knock out the subchief and the shaman. toast the rest"

Call it Player Editing.

 

[Mallus]

Unless of course your wizard reduces 6 guys to zero with an area spell and says " knock out the subchief and the shaman. toast the rest"

Why would that be a problem? So the wizard has fine control over his magical effects. So what?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why would that be a problem? So the wizard has fine control over his magical effects. So what?

If you don't see a problem, then there isn't one at all.

 

[Mallus]

If you don't see a problem, then there isn't one at all.

Is there some reason you're being evasive? It was an honest question.

What you described is easy to narrate, so that's not the problem. If you accept that PC's get to choose whether an attack is lethal in the first place, then it's not a power issue. It's easy to generate an in-game rationale for it, so that ain't it.

No, really, what's the problem?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Let's make sure we keep things civil in here.

 

[Ginnel]

A character with tumbling capabilities, who uses a light sword, fights in light or no armor, and has a substantial Armor Class. A mobile, lightly armored defender. The kind of person who can fence the bad guys up and down a winding staircase while his friends escape or attack someone else or whatever. Someone who can dive into a trio of guards and put them all on the ground.

Stick the guy in leather armor max out dex, try bending the two weapon fighting feats so its effective with just one weapon and only when your other hand is free or just go with a light shield

Now I'd suggest making this guy a rogue with their tumbling/shifting powers, use the back to the wall feat to give extra advantages in those tight situations, using his shifting attacks to move back and forth and his sliding powers to push back the enemy, the rogue also has some close burst attack powers which could be useful for one character on 3.

Wait until this evening and I can get to my books to draw him up sounds like a blast to play actually.

With maxxing out dex in hide armor and the relevent feats you can get an equal AC to a character in full plate who has the relevent feats, so downgrading to the leather shouldn't gimp you.