Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[JDillard]

And that seems to be the main crux of the argument about how 4e is "too focused on combat". It always comes down to: "If I wanted to disguise myself quickly in 3e, I could cast a spell and look completely different. In 4e, if I want to disguise myself, I need to find something to disguise myself with or sneak out the back or something. There isn't a power in the book directly focused on saving me in that situation, so it is too combat focused."

100% agree. There's two parts to this too. There's the bit about magic, and the bit about "combat focus".

For the magic bit, this ties right in with a lot of the people who are upset about "nerfing wizards".

I know we all thing magic is amazing, and wonderful, and should be able to do anything. That's fair. A lot of the fantasy novels we love portray magic as this thing that can, in fact, do anything with enough time and cleverness.

We want to then portray that in our Fantasy Adventure RPG's. The problem is, "Magic solves everything" is a concept far more suited to games like WW's Mage, and less suited to D&D. This is largely because not everyone in D&D uses magic.

If everyone played some variant of wizard, then yes, you'd want everything solvable via magic. The fact that most characters are not wizards though, means that you want lots and lots of things that are solvable by other means. Otherwise, one player's having all the fun and everyone merely sits around waiting for him to do his next trick.

For the "combat focus" part, well, I think the designers realized that you don't need game rules to model stuff that the DM is imagining. Game rules are there to adjudicate between player and dm or player and player during conflict. If there's no conflict, there's no need to make a rule about it.

 

[moritheil]

What's hilarious is that they emulated the worst offenders (Book of Nine Swords).

Also, the discussion here shows that they really haven't dumbed it down. Now, it's much more difficult to find those broken combos because class abilities are obscured in the hundreds of power descriptions, so that only the most detail-oriented and hardcore will discover them.

Hmm, interesting argument. Ultimately only time will tell if your assertion that power will remain in the hands of die-hard gamers is accurate.

 

[Njall]

I suppose someone will say if you want a one-weapon wielding ranger, make a fighter and giv him Skill Training (Nature).

Well, I'd just choose archery as a path, keep my dex and str high, multiclass as a fighter and take a fighter paragon path
Remember, you end up with 4 encounter powers and 4 daily powers.
Thus, you'll only need 2 encounter attack powers and 2 daily attack powers from your ranger list, the rest will be multiclass powers and PP powers.
For example, assume I want to fight with a single bastard sword...As a ranger, I'd probably do something like:

Human Ranger,

Str 16
Dex 16
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8

At-Will:
Nimble Strike
Hit and Run
Twin Strike (useful for ranged attacks).

Feats:
Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)
Lethal Hunter

Powers:
Encounter: Evasive Strike
Daily:Hunter's Bear Trap

Admittedly, Hunter's Bear Trap is the only Daily Power he can choose, but he has 2 decent encounter powers (Evasive Strike and Fox Cunning), and the same is true at 3rd level (Disruptive Strike, that I think is great, personally...YMMV, and Shadow Wasp Strike).
You're the rough equivalent of the low armored, spring attacking fighter in 3.x, and Defensive Mobility is really helpful for a highly mobile character, whether you're using a bow or a sword.
And you're not bad with a bow, either.

Take "student of the sword" at 2nd level, grab the multiclass feats ASAP, and straight into Pit Fighter or Kensai at 10th level.
Is he as good as a TWF ranger? I don't think so. OTOH, the TWF ranger is probably the best striker in the book, but if you compare him to a rogue or a fighter I'd say he's not too bad.
Furthermore, it's not really a "cookie cutter" build, so it seems that while there are far less options as far as character creation goes, we can still think outside the box and create something different from time to time ( and things will only improve as more books are released)
Just my two cents

 

[JohnSnow]

Summoner
Necromancer
Illusionist
Diviner
Transmuter
Enchanter
Shapechanger
Unarmed Mystic Martial Artist (Monk)
Minstrel (Bard)
Druid

Well, if you read my post, I specifically mentioned specialist wizards, druids and bards as an exception, but, in order:

Summoner - It's true that they've taken summoning out of the game. There's been some fairly extensive articles explaining the reasons why ("economy of actions" and all that). When they have it worked out, summoning will make an appearance (my guess is the arcane splatbook).
Necromancer - This one is a pretty fringe concept for a "heroic" character. There's plenty of rules for making NPCs that can fill this role. I admit it's missing, but due to its largely "evil" nature, I expect it was deliberately pushed back to PHB II.
Illusionist - Both the wizard and the warlock have their fair share of illusions. Ghost sound is a cantrip, disguise self is an illusion, as is invisibility. The dedicated "illusionist" from most stories is usually a fey type who specializes in enchantments AND illusions. However, I admit it's missing, but I expect you'll see many more illusions in PHB II, if not before in the form of arcane powers.
Diviner - What's a "diviner?" Conceptually? Are you saying you want to play the sage who can unearth secrets but is useless in combat? Most people don't.
Transmuter - Without giving me a laundry list of D&D spells, what IS a "transmuter?" What do they DO, exactly?
Enchanter - Charm specialist. For now, there's the Fey Pact Warlock. There's also some charms in the wizard, but the fey warlock gets a lot more. A fey warlock arcane initiate would probably be a pretty good way to model the classic beguiler character.
Shapechanger - I admit this one is missing. I expect it'll be covered (and covered well) in either the Arcane book and PHB II. From what they've said, the new druid is going to be primarily a shapechanger.
Unarmed Mystic Martial Artist (Monk) - The unarmed martial artist is another type that was cut. Any character can fight unarmed, but the specialist isn't ready. I'd expect some good unarmed feats and powers to be a shoe-in for the martial power book. As for the monk...well...PHB II probably.
Minstrel (Bard) - Make a rogue or warlord, and say he carries a lute. If you want him to be okay at lots of skills, take the "Jack of All Trades" feat. If you want him to dabble in magic, take the appropriate multiclassing feats (wizard or fey pact warlock sounds pretty good). The religious bard can be done with a cleric, especially one of Corellon. The lore-obsessed bard is probably better represented as a wizard.
Druid - If by "Druid," you mean "cleric of a nature god," that's easy. If you mean the shapeshifter druid, I admit there's no shapeshifting powers. Look for them in either the Arcana splat or PHB II.

I'm actually not upset about the lack of inclusion of the sorceror in the new edition, they call it a wizard. I'm upset about the lack of a Wizard in the new edition.

There, I think, is the biggest problem with the new edition. Spellcasters, for all of D&D's long and storied history, were the classes where you had to pay your dues in the early years in return for eventually becoming the most powerful characters in the game. I have never gamed with people who didn't understand this, and by and large they have had no problem with it. Fighters carry the load for the low levels and serve as meatshields forever. Wizards start off basically useless, and end up controlling the building blocks of reality at high levels.

That's a fine balance feature when all games (and all characters) have to start at 1st-level.

When you can play a fighter (or whatever) at the low levels and then switch out for a wizard whenever you feel like it, you're hardly "paying your dues."

To quote (IIRC) freelancer Will Upchurch: "designing a class so that it's underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels is one way to achieve game balance. It's not a good way, mind you, but it's one way."

That's how the wizard has traditionally been designed - crappy at the start, makes everyone else feel crappy later.

In addition to the pure power that is gained over the course of their career though, the spellcasters also used to benefit from the fact that spells were capable of doing more than dealing damage and providing defenses.

Need some pull with the city officials? Charm someone in the administration and get them to plead your case

Need some intelligence on your adversaries? Change into an owl, fly over to their camp and listen in on their conversation.

Want to conduct dangerous research? Summon up some zombies to use as lab assistants.

Need to ditch pursuit to gain a chance to rest? Go down a blind alley and create an illusion of a wall to hide behind.

These are the kinds of things that spell casters lose out on in the new edition...

Sorry. In my opinion, that's a feature of Fourth Edition, not a bug.

The character that can do all of these things is not balanced, can't be balanced, and is unsuitable for group play. Even if it's a question of guessing the right powers on a given day, it's still not balanced, because most of the time you don't suffer from not having the right spells prepared.

Most of the earlier editions were designed by spellcaster fans (like Gary Gygax and Monte Cook), who felt that the wizard should be the be-all, end-all of the group. Gary's campaign logs over the years point this out to an almost comedic degree. Everyone is a spellcaster. The fighters, thieves and clerics are henchmen.

There's a way to balance that game so everyone can enjoy it - let everyone play a spellcaster when they're cool and play another character when the spellcaster is a wuss. That's how, for example, Ars Magica does it.

The so-called "sweet spot" of Third Edition was the point where
everyone got to have fun. Given that there is a balance point where wizards get to be cool without everyone else being "worthless," why shouldn't that be the assumed default?

I guess I just don't see how the paradigm of the wizard going from "worthless nerd that everyone has to protect" to "god that everyone depends on" is good for the game.

But if someone can explain the value (without referencing "tradition"), I'm all ears.

 

[Felon]

Sorry. In my opinion, that's a feature of Fourth Edition, not a bug.

The character that can do all of these things is not balanced, can't be balanced, and is unsuitable for group play.

To say nothing of the number of all the hotkeys that he'd have to map!

Seriously, there have been literally thousands of such characters in thousands of D&D groups over the course of quite a few years, so I gotta think there's some empirical evidence that contradicts unilaterally deeming them unbalanced and unsuitable for play.

 

[Joe Sala]

I agree 100% with the first post. Thanks for being so insightful

I still miss several things that where in the core 3e books, specially the utility spells like illusions, and I'm not convinced about the percentage of powers devoted to making damage (in hit points). And my main concern is how the game world changes because of the new wizards and clerics.

Anyway, I'm convinced that we need several months to master the game and start giving more solid opinions.

 

[FadedC]

To say nothing of the number of all the hotkeys that he'd have to map!

Seriously, there have been literally thousands of such characters in thousands of D&D groups over the course of quite a few years, so I gotta think there's some empirical evidence that contradicts unilaterally deeming them unbalanced and unsuitable for play.

Well I'm not sure I'd say they are unsuitable for play......but quoting the massive number of people playing a certain type of character is probably not good evidence that it isn't overpowered .

 

[Ginnel]

Just like to add my thanks for the mostly good willed interesting posts, this is a refreshing thread for these boards.

I played through a bit of 4th the other night with my fighter, with 13's in dex int and wis for feat aquisition, and was thoroughly happy with his options in play, and also outside of play the arcane initiate went nicely with another dragonborn who was a wizard so we linked up as half brothers (same breath weapons and 1st level spell)

The options in play was nice from the double 5ft step, to the close breath attack to mark a whole group of kobolds (character smashing his sword and shield together after to taunt them), to the tide of iron into the cloud of claws (daggers) from the half brother party member.

I am also impressed with the variety of weapon and armor options and how even they seem to be.

P.S Kudos to the original post as well for starting this off

 

[Deverash]

Branduil, may I introduce you to the Warlock?

Cheers, -- N

The warlock, as I found out, was made mostly obsolete by the introduction of Reserve Feats. Now wizards can do nearly everything a warlock can do, and do it better to boot.

 

[JohnSnow]

I suppose someone will say if you want a one-weapon wielding ranger, make a fighter and giv him Skill Training (Nature).

I realize you're being mostly sarcastic, but maybe. However, it kinda depends on what your concept is.

"One weapon wielding ranger" isn't a character concept. It's a mechanical description.

Is it "ranger" as in 'warrior who in combat fills the role of a defender and carries a two-handed sword, but is skilled in lore?'

Or is it "ranger" as in 'skirmisher who wields a two-handed sword?'

The first is a fighter with Skill Training in Nature and/or Perception (or perhaps the Ranger multiclass feat). The second is a ranger who takes the "archery path," but carries one melee weapon.

Look at the ranger class closely. The "Fighting Style" option comes into place precisely ONCE.

Archer Fighting Style: Gain Defensive Mobility as a bonus feat.

Two-Blade Fighting Style: Wield a one-handed weapon as if it were an off-hand weapon. Gain Toughness as a bonus feat.

Each choice grants 1 feat. Two-Blade also grants you the ability to use one-handed weapons in your off-hand.

Many of the powers apply to both styles. Many of them are just as effective if you're holding a single melee weapon.

Personally, I'd take Two-Blade because it grants an option that can't be gotten via feats. If you really want Defensive Mobility, you can always take it.

Consider:

Jack
Human Ranger 1
Initiative: +3
STR 15 CON 12 DEX 17 INT 11 WIS 13 CHA 10
AC 18 FORT 14 REF 15 WILL 13
Hit Points: 29 Bloodied: 14
Healing Surges: 7 (7)
Skills: Acrobatics +7; Athletics +6; Endurance +5; Nature +6; Perception +6; Stealth +7.
Combat Options:
Longsword +5/1d8 + 2, or;
Scimitar +4/1d8 + 2, or;
Longbow +5/1d10 + 3
Powers: Hit and Run, Twin Strike, Evasive Strike, Split the Tree.
Feats: Toughness, Quick Draw, Defensive Mobility.
Class Features: Two-Blade Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry, Prime Shot.
Gear: Hide Armor, Longsword, Scimitar, Dagger, Longbow, Arrows, Adventurer's Kit.

Now I've got all the abilities of both styles, and I can use most of my powers with either weapon option. If I really wanted ALL of them to be universal, I could swap "Twin Strike" for "Hit and Run" and "Hunter's Bear Trap" for "Split the Tree."

Personally, I'd boost Wisdom and Dexterity at 4th level, but that's me. By the time you got to Level 5, it'd be a good idea to make sure that your Level 1 and Level 5 Daily powers weren't BOTH exclusively ranged or melee.

Options, options, options.

But that's just the way I play.