Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[almagest]

from my quick read thru of the classes

Yeah, that's the key right there. Maybe you should actually spend some time reading the books, try making some builds, and oh, I don't know, PLAY the game, instead of quickly reading through only the PHB, then declaring 4e not ready for publication.

For those talking about how wizards can't survive in melee -- sure they can, if they plan for it. Otherwise, you stay as far away from melee as you can. It's common sense. No good DM should try to specifically kill or invalidate your character just because you're playing intelligently, either.

I also thought everyone knew that the best way to manage spells was to prepare some attack spells, control spells, and a few defensive spells, and get the rest of your spell options from scrolls and wands. There's no "economy of actions" or "but how do you afford magic items?" to worry about. You can achieve most anything through spells -- need saves? Resistance/Greater Resistance. Need HP? False Life/Vampiric Touch/Bear's Endurance. Need Int? Fox's Cunning.

And this isn't even considering non-core, with it's crazy IotSV/Abjurant Champion/Shadowcaster/Recaster stuff.

 

[Pbartender]

Almost all of the classes follow the same pattern....Once you determine STR Cleric, your choices are made. Orb Wizard? All set. Axe Fighter? Done. Infernal Warlock?......yada....

How is that all that much different from 3E?

Once you decide what build you want, the optimal choices for putting that character together are already decided. But...

It's still up to you to make that decision.


There's still choices... Do I want a two-handed axe Fighter or an axe and shield Fighter? Is he going to be a Ranger -- or be a Fighter that dabbles in Ranger or a Ranger that dabbles in Fighter -- so he can use two axes? What race should he be -- human, half-elf, dwarf or dragonborn would all work well? Or maybe I should make him a Warlord instead for the tactical abilities? And then do I want to choose a feat that enhances the axes or a racial ability or maybe something else altogether?... And I get to choose a new power or feat at every level... Later there's Paragon path choices...

Plus, if I don't like a choice, I can retrain later.

There's plenty there to choose from... Just as much as 3E, just loaded up in a different way.

 

[Onslaught]

Well, since I can't use private message, I'll have to do it openly:

JDillard, your text is very good. Indeed, it's one of the best analysis I've read so far about 4th Ed, very down to earth, without that babbling nonsense I'm used to see in other posts.

Anyway, I sent this link to a Brazilain community and the guys there also like it. Indeed, they like it so much they wanted to translate it and post as an article in www.rederpg.com.br, which is the biggest RPG site in Brazil.

So... long story short: JDillard,we'd like your permission to translate your text and post it as an article in that site! Can we do it?

 

[ladydeath]

Once you decide what build you want, the optimal choices for putting that character together are already decided. But...

It's still up to you to make that decision.

But it would be a bad decision not to make the choices which are best for your character. You won't see a rogue ever fighting with a bastard sword because none of his at will powers work with it. So, yes, you can choose to pick a feat so your rouge can use a bastard sword but why would you? Even if you had a great background story for the bastard sword (katana, whatever) you would not make the choice for your rogue to fight with it.

I know what's coming, so pick a fighter if you want to use a bastard sword. Okay, so I pick a fighter to use a bastard sword. Now I'm stuck being a defender of the party when I wanted to be a selfish rogue character. All of the feats which force opponents to fight me I don't want to use because I'm selfish and self-serving. But the smart move as a fighter is to protect the party even though that didn't fit into my original concept.

I also know that a rogue in 3.5 couldn't use a bastard sword without 1 feat but, the sneak attack could be used with it after that and there were no other limitations in the class.

There are things to pick from in 4e but you are really locked in based on what you pick at 1st level. The retraining really isn't that big a deal and the class you choose determines your duty in the party even if you wanted to perform another one.

 

[Spatula]

There are things to pick from in 4e but you are really locked in based on what you pick at 1st level. The retraining really isn't that big a deal and the class you choose determines your duty in the party even if you wanted to perform another one.

If you wanted to perform a different role, you pick a class that fits that role. Anyway, you can certainly focus on dealing damage as a fighter (or a paladin). You probably won't do as much as a ranger or rogue, but you also have better defenses, you're tougher, and you protect the rest of the party just by hitting stuff. i.e. you fufill you role just by doing what you want to be doing anyway - getting into melee and tearing things apart. It's not some burden placed on the character.

"Rogue that uses a big sword" isn't really a character concept, it's a mechanical construction that happens to be specific to 3e D&D. "Charming warrior" would be a character concept, and it's one that is not well-supported by 4e at this time (aside from Cha-based warlords). The 4e classes are not as flexible as 3e classes, and specific concepts will require their own specific class.

 

[JDillard]

Well, since I can't use private message, I'll have to do it openly:

JDillard, your text is very good. Indeed, it's one of the best analysis I've read so far about 4th Ed, very down to earth, without that babbling nonsense I'm used to see in other posts.

Anyway, I sent this link to a Brazilain community and the guys there also like it. Indeed, they like it so much they wanted to translate it and post as an article in www.rederpg.com.br, which is the biggest RPG site in Brazil.

So... long story short: JDillard,we'd like your permission to translate your text and post it as an article in that site! Can we do it?

Wow! I feel honored. Go right ahead!

 

[Agamon]

Well put, JDillard. That's certainly one of the things that draws me to 4e. I don't really enjoy making PCs (or especially as a DM, NPCs), I prefer the fun in playing.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If you wanted to perform a different role, you pick a class that fits that role.

But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role? Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation? And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?*

In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.

And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.

I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.

The system should help us create what we want. Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.

MrG


*I know, I know--WotC, that's who.

 

[ladydeath]

But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role? Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation? And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?*

In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.

And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.

I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.

The system should help us create what we want. Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.

MrG


*I know, I know--WotC, that's who.

Thanks MrG. That's what I've been trying to say.

 

[drothgery]

But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role? Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation?

WotC decided that 4e classes are combat roles (though this was largely true of 2e and 3e classes, it's more explicit in 4e). Your non-combat role is determined by your skills, feats, rituals (if you know any), and roleplaying.

95% of what any given 4e class gives you is stuff that fills its combat role. Trying to use a class for the 5% that doesn't or for the stylistic implications of the class name when its combat role isn't the one you want just doesn't make sense.