Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[GnomeWorks]

I think six days after release is a bit early to say 4e "fell short" with anything yet.

Hmm... no. There are some mechanics that all you need to do is look at them, and they fall apart, or clearly fall short of a goal. 4e's multiclassing mechanics is an instance of such a thing.

Not only that, but they're not going to make a class for every possible "normal" class combination - and I wouldn't expect them to, because that would get ridiculous. Not only that, but thus far, 4e classes have a very strong tendency to pidgeonhole characters that take them, and as such any kind of hybrid class will probably be suitable only for one or two "takes" on such a combination.

 

[Spatula]

I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref. But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.

It's extremely suboptimal for fighters in 3e, as well - you need large per-attack damage bonuses (like sneak attack dice) to make the feat and attack-penalty hits worth it, vs using a 2Her and PA, and fighters don't get such bonuses. So nothing has changed as far as the Fighter class and TWFing.

I don't think any D&D player anywhere can legitimately argue that the wizard (or magic-user, or whatever) is NOT an inherently unbalanced character.

I reject the entire premise. It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e. Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber. What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc. And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless. But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

Admittedly I run a mostly core game. If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.

4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers. True x/x are classes. The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last.

Yeah. Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.

 

[Mort]

I reject the entire premise. It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e. Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber. What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc. And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless. But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

Damage isn't everything - 3e casters can completely dominate and control the battlefield with spells like grease, web, slow, evards black tentacles etc., all core spells. The shear ease with which a well designed 3e caster (core or otherwise) could lock down a battle and turn it into a mopping up exercise for his party was just too much. Non-casters (until Bo9S) had nothing to compete with what a caster could do in a fight. Then of course casters could totally dominate outside of combat too (comp. languages, knock, charm spells, teleport etc) which completely unbalanced the equation.

4e attempts to put other classes on even footing with casters while still giving casters a clearly defined role - this is a laudable goal.

Yeah. Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.

I'll agree here, the 4e goal was to expressely change the view and nature of multiclassing.

 

[Mister Doug]

Define "balance", because the 4E definition is a new definition, one made specifically for 4E. it means balance and parity over the course of a single encounter, which has never, ever been an aspect of balance in D&D in any previous edition. The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, over the course of the game. This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term. Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.

The reason balance is different in 4E is because the nature of the game and the intended style of play has changed. The entire "culture" of D&D has been altered to be "get together with your buds, throw some dice and drink some Buds," an attempt to take a very niche hobby rewarded by its devotion to that niche and attempt to make it mainstream (or, at least as mainstream as WoW). It won't work. those powergamers and deep immersion simulationists, neither of which is supported by 4E, might make up a minority of the players but they make up a majority of the purchasers -- who are the truly important ones. As such, it will not take long for splats dedicated to the number crunchers and the world builders start coming out. They'll buy 'em.

My group of friends who game stopped playing D&D due to a number of reasons, bt some of that is the difficulty of getting our real lives to give us room to play a game balanced over multi-year scale. Playing D&D so it wasn't frustrating required time commitments we couldn't make due to real life concerns or a willingness to dismiss balance by long-term play and focus on a mix of pick-up style sessions with some role-play. In the end, it didn't work, and some of the structures of D&D were central to that. So much that D&D is not even kept on the table for discussion of getting the group together again unless it is in much smaller groups.

Of course, I don't think that 4e is going to fix some of these problems either, but making D&D easier to just sit down and play is not an appeal just to the mainstream or to newbies, but to some real-life long-term gamers who find free time a rarer and rarer commodity.

 

[Keltheos]

Of course, I don't think that 4e is going to fix some of these problems either, but making D&D easier to just sit down and play is not an appeal just to the mainstream or to newbies, but to some real-life long-term gamers who find free time a rarer and rarer commodity.

Amen. The only reason I'm even looking at it is right here.

 

[Spatula]

Damage isn't everything - 3e casters can completely dominate and control the battlefield with spells like grease, web, slow, evards black tentacles etc., all core spells.

Yep. That's the purpose of those spells. Notice which role the 4e wizard got?

 

[Mister Doug]

You could wear it but you couldnt cast in it. Taking armor on and off was also a no no in combat even back then.

That was true in 2e, but not 1e.

They totally nerfed F/MUs in 2e.

 

[Mort]

Yep. That's the purpose of those spells. Notice which role the 4e wizard got?

not the point. The point was the 3e wizard rendered the other party members secondary. 4e at least attempts to make everyone useful on the same level, too early (for me) to see if it's successful.

 

[Nifft]

The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, over the course of the game. This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term. Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.

Very strongly disagree. You're saying Wizards and Fighters are balanced because Wizards suck now, but win later; and Fighters win now, but suck later.

I reject the legitimacy of any argument that includes "you suck" as a design goal.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Keltheos]

I reject the legitimacy of any argument that includes "you suck" as a design goal.

Cheers, -- N

Unless it's about Dyson vs. Dust Devil...