What is wrong with 4E?

[Intense_Interest]

results mostly from benefit gaps in leveling

I have no problem with that. It models myth and fiction quite well.

But for those who have a problem with that, a feat analogous to Practiced Spellcaster or Empower Spell would be an easy fix, getting the shapeshifter better abilities in at least one form.[/quote]

In this edition, feats aren't used as an alternate cost to make a character exceptional, they're additional separate abilities, for one.

Secondly, you're ascribing to the "Level 1 means can't swing a sword." Sacred Cow. A level 1 Rogue is already doing 2d6 Sneak Attack damage, so we're really seeing a conflict between two distinct senses of scale here.

Multiclassing isn't about optimizing a PC for performance, its about flexibility and roleplay.

What does a multi-class do that can't be made achieved by a well-designed base class already? Half-and-Half classes like the "Arcane Avenger" are good enough to be class concepts, and dabbling is well contained within the current Multiclass feats or a slight alteration within them.

The encounter should either be commensurate with the party's abilities or designed to make them consider actions other than combat to the death. Encounters that depend upon the abilities of a single player are potential TPKs.

"Fuzzy numbers" are System Mastery dog whistles. You'd have to break the entire system down to take into account either the Do Everything Super-classes or the Behind The Curve partial classes.

The exponential nature of the class-based system math (Magic Items, Powers) means that a Level 15 character has to be able to contribute equally across the entire spectrum, or else the Flat Number XP reward that is so brilliantly elegant goes out the window.

To you, perhaps, but not to everyone.

Remember, I'm not saying I dislike the 4Ed multiclassing system. I actually like it as an option. Before 4Ed's release, I was working on something like it for my upcoming 3.5 campaign.

I'm saying that its not a substitute for real multiclassing.

PrCs in 3E give you the level 15 fighter level 1 Plaguelord instead of a level 16 Plaguelord, or the 7 levels of crap. It was never a good idea- This goes beyond Power Creep and Optimization Wormholes.

"Real multiclassing" is either Dabbling or a Mashup, in a broad stroke. Dabbling we have, and Mashups are supposed to be actual classes anyway. There might be a third option between the poles, but I'm not seeing a distinction.

Considering the more than 150 years of combined gaming experience in my group, and their willingness to teach others older editions of the game- especially their kids?

I'll go with my group, thank you very much, but in all honesty, though, the truth is "neither."

"Linear" teaching mechanics vs. "Exponential" fad growth. The Old Forgotten Realms defense that the grognards taught the newbies didn't hold up: you have to have a game that advertises itself.

A game's mere simplicity is neither a flaw nor a feature. Longevity- coupled with measurable popularity- is the true test.

Chess, Go, Checkers- all have fairly simple rules, but have lasted centuries. Their simplicity is surface only, however, and require deep thought to master. In addition, their popularity waxes and wanes, but they never fade away.

Right now, neither of us has the proper frame of reference to determine which D&D edition is superior- we need the perspective of someone living 30+ years from now.

Considering that the rule-set of the previous edition isn't being printed anymore, I think you're dropping the "Longevity" ball in a straight edition-to-edition comparison.

Now if in 8 years the engine needs to be overhauled (not as in 3.5 style, which would be 4 years then), then we've got a comparison.

 

[pemerton]

I still see an ultimately shallow game that will go from *new shiny* to *been there done that* much faster than any prior version.

Shallow in what way?

It's not mechanically shallow - there are a lot of character build options available, and action resolution mechanics at least as rich as 3E's. (It's mechanically far richer than 1st ed AD&D, to pick one well-known comparator).

It's not shallow in the sort of roleplaying it supports. In fact, mechanical changes such as the new approach to damage and healing, the new approach to skills (via skill challenges) and the new approach to class design increase the space for sophisticated roleplaying. And the DMG is the first-ever core D&D rulebook to actually talk about such roleplaying and how one might go about it handling it at the table as a GM (eg pp 73-74 discussing the role of player narration in skill challenges, including in the use of secondary skills; p 28, in which James Wyatt gives an example of a player (his 9-year old son) adopting director's stance, and talks about how a GM can handle that).

It's no more shallow in its concept of what the game might involve than any earlier edition of D&D, or other some-time popular games like Tunnels and Trolls. I'll agree that it's conception of the gameworld is more shallow than something like Runequest, but there's no evidence that Runequest's greater depth of concept has led it to flourish at D&D's expense. Furthermore, of all editions of D&D 4e seems perhaps the best suited for use in a game with a deeper, more Runequest-like tone. (Part of what leads to this is the changes to healing rules. A game system which encourages one to treat hit points as literal physical invulnerability and death as a mere mechanical speedbump - of which 3E is an example - automatically precludes a certain sort of depth. 4e, by treating hit points as plot immunity and leaving the narration of healing surges and extended rests up to the players and GM, provides the mechanical advantages of a hit point mechanic while also providing the narrative advantages of a Fate Point system.)

And finally, to come at this from a slighly different angle - look at a module like Bastion of Broken Souls and then tell me how an RPG could be any more shallow than that: an adventure about the font of life itself degenerating into a hackfest against crystals on the Positive Material Plane. My impression is that 4e is automatically precluded from such shallowness simply by the way the powers of different monsters are designed, which means that thematic aspects of an adventure can't help but emerge in the very manner in which adversaries participate in combat.

 

[small pumpkin man]

No, they're not. They're not even close.

When I multiclass a PC, I'm looking to get access to the full range of abilities and powers that added class has, not just a cherry-picked selection of them.

Except of course, you never got that. A decent level Fighter who multiclasses into Wizard will never get meteor, a decent level Rogue who mutliclasses in Barbarian will never get Tireless rage. Multiclassing has allways been "give up some of my abilities for a selection of the other class's abilities" and it still is.

I'm not alone in this- when I read that section of the rules to my group, the general reaction was one of disgust.

Good for you.

 

[Spatula]

And finally, to come at this from a slighly different angle - look at a module like Bastion of Broken Souls and then tell me how an RPG could be any more shallow than that: an adventure about the font of life itself degenerating into a hackfest against crystals on the Positive Material Plane. My impression is that 4e is automatically precluded from such shallowness simply by the way the powers of different monsters are designed, which means that thematic aspects of an adventure can't help but emerge in the very manner in which adversaries participate in combat.

...huh? 4e is precluded from adventures with shallow plots? Or just shallow fights against crystalline monsters.

 

[DaveMage]

4E is a success. It's not for you. Who cares? I don't. No one else does.

(I care!)

 

[Wolv0rine]

No.

Or rather. He doesn't have to be good at his original class at the same level. But he should be as good - overall - as a member of the original class of the same level. If he gets more versatile, then this versatility must translate to the characters power level. Being able to cast Cure Serious Wounds and Fireball is versatile, but it is never as useful or powerful as being able to cast Cure Light Wounds (Mass) or Cone of Cold.

If you wanted to be more powerful in your original class, then you shouldn't have multiclassed, you should have continued to progress in your original class. My mind just boggles at the idea that seems to have cropped up that any option that isn't the best option is 'broken'. I've played single-class characters (lot of them), I've played multiclass characters. The single class characters were better at this single class, but their options were restricted to that class' options, and the multiclass characters were weaker at either class than single class character, but able to pull out a trick that the single class characters couldn't do. That's what multiclassing is for, to broaden your repertoire, not to increase your power. You're supposed to know going into multiclassing that you're taking a hit in raw power.
Now, I've seen the basic arguement that 4E 'does this too' with it's "you can get one power from another class, that you can use.. well.. sometimes". Of course, this system makes it impossible to make a character who goes through say 6 levels of fighter, then decides through the course of the campaign to switch careers, becoming a paladin (not "I can do some Paladin things now", but dedicates the rest of his levels to Paladin for the remainder of his career). Which is an off-the-cuff example, but as far as I can see in the 4E books, it's just not possible. 4e HAS no multiclassing options, it has only cherry-picking options until you reach Paragon Paths. Which, imo, are a sorely lacking replacement for PrCs.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

(I care!)

I stand corrected.

To be fair, however, I saw that coming. Shazam!

W.P.

 

[billd91]

Except of course, you never got that. A decent level Fighter who multiclasses into Wizard will never get meteor, a decent level Rogue who mutliclasses in Barbarian will never get Tireless rage. Multiclassing has allways been "give up some of my abilities for a selection of the other class's abilities" and it still is.

Ah, but there's a difference in the class abilities you give up. In previous editions, you got all of the abilities of the character class at the level you had achieved in that character class. You may give up the stuff that would only become available at the pinnacle of the class, available only to the character who effectively specialized in it by being single-classed.

In 4e, you get a subset of the 1st level powers and a small slice amounting to a few powers as you advance. For some people, that difference is significant.

Personally, I'm not thrilled by it.

 

[waysoftheearth]

Hello Wisdom Penalty,

4E is an unmitigated commercial success.

This is getting way off topic now (my apologies), but is 4E really an unmitigated commercial success?

According to this poll http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=229795 at the time of this reply approximately 40% are switching to 4E, approximately 15% are undecided, and approximately 45% are not switching to 4E.

I know nothing about corporate marketing or finance, but I can't believe that any company would write off 50% of an existing repeat-returning-customer base and call it "success".

 

[sukael]

I know nothing about corporate marketing or finance, but I can't believe that any company would write off 50% of an existing repeat-returning-customer base and call it "success".

The books have already (in the few days since released) oversold the initial runs of both 3.5e and 3e.

Things might change in the future, but the current projections are looking good.