Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Tony Vargas]

I have to admit to getting pretty excited when I read through the Warlord powers. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they are as much fun to use in play, let alone moreso.

3E did have quite a few in-play options, though, and not just for the prepped casters (who, really, hadn't all that many 'build' options - single-class was about it). There were more options than just 'attack' for the melee types, and you could use feats to expand upon them. Fighters and Sorcerers, yes, you could build endlessly different builds, but each build had only it's own fixed options - still, those were more than a few options, and they retained them through an adventure. A sorcerer's options didn't diminish until he cast his last top-level spell, and a fighter's were there 24/7. The prepped casters, OTOH, had tremendous options every morning, but they began declining the moment they used any of them.

4e, I think, does do much of what the OP said, but I get the impression there's some attempt to get the best of both. 4e characters do get a lot of options at chargen and level-up, but those options are chanellilzed by class, sub-class and stats. The same was true to an extent in 3e, but it wasn't helpfully pointed out to you. 4e characters will use a greater variety of options in combat, too. But, part of that is because they see thier options decline when they use up a daily power, and, tactically, lose an option each time they expend an encounter power (and at-will powers are few). That forces them to do a greater variety of things, but, unless they're clever and lucky, they may find themselves doing something less than thrilling when they could have really rocked if they'd had a certain power that they'd already expended or used a power they were saving for later.

 

[sfedi]

The OP was a real eye opener for me.

Excellent post, and I agree with it in my limited game experience.

 

[Boarstorm]

Bravo.

That is all.

 

[JDillard]

4e, I think, does do much of what the OP said, but I get the impression there's some attempt to get the best of both. 4e characters do see thier options decline when they use up a daily power, and, tactically, lose an option each time they expend an encounter power (and at-will powers are few). That forces them to do a greater variety of things, but, unless they're clever and lucky, they'll may find themselves doing something less than thrilling when they could have really rocked if they'd had a certain power that they'd already expended or used a power they were saving for later.

That's really key, in that it makes each decision important. I often find myself opening a combat with an at-will power, even if I'm playing a bit higher level and have a larger selection of encounters. I don't want to waste a good encounter power's secondary effects simply to do more damage from the get go.

Having lots of irrelevant options is actually worse than having a few really valuable ones. The designers seem to get this concept, and so built it into the system.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Excellent post, and I think the analysis is spot on (though I expect the 4E creation options will expand as books are published). I think both the 3E and 4E approaches are equally valid, though I'd like to see both.

In spite of 4E's very class-focused structure, it also appears to me that it is a much shorter leap for 4E to a classless system than it was from 3E. Imagine all powers and feats are potentially open at character creation, plus the character begins with a handful of starting feats. Assignment of skills and attribute bonuses is open. Some powers or feats do have additional prerequisites, and some may only be taken at 1st level. Conceivably you could build any 4E character ... and build a range of characters not 4E.

Were I more motivated by the idea, I'd publish "classless fantasy" under the GSL.

 

[JohnSnow]

Firstly, I want to deal with the last comment:

I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.

For starters, if you think something is reportable, report it. Don't threaten to report it.

I don't think it's starting an "edition war" to argue that Fourth Edition has emphasized "options in play" over "options in character building." It is, in fact, a simple statement that the game is designed to put "choosing options" in a different place.

For example, I'm very pro-4E and I'd totally agree with this statement. I know for a fact that there are people who are very pro-3e who would also agree with it. Which you prefer is a matter of preference, but the statement that 3e has more options in "character building" and 4e has more options in "play" (*) is nothing short of admitting reality.

Now, do I expect there will be more "build options" as more options are released for Fourth Edition? Yes, I certainly think that's true. But the first release has limited options.

See and it seems your are ignoring the point some are having with limited Options in 4e.

In 3.X I could make any concept.

4e limits what you can do not only in classes bug also in powers.

There are WAY to many powers of melee only. Rouge and Ranger are the ONLY ways to get ranged weapon powers.

Have to wait for splat books for these options SUCKS and this is one thing I dont like about 4e.

What's he misunderstanding?

People are saying that there are limited options in away from the table character design. He's responding: "You're not imagining things, the 'build options' are limited."

"BUT," he continues, "There are still options and choices. It's just not all about stacking this feat and that combo or this class and those items."

You are correct. Some options (druids, barbarians, bards, certain kinds of specialist wizards) are flat out gone from the first set of rules. I would contend that most of the concepts are not MISSING so much as they've been re-allocated.

3e: "I want to make a light armored fighter who specializes in archery."

Start with fighter class, allocate attributes.
Choose archery feats, and cross class skills.

4e: "I want to make a light armored character who specializes in archery."

The best class for that is ranger.
Choose archery style.
Pick powers, skills, and feats to support concept.

With the exceptions I called out above (druid, barbarian, bard, certain specialist wizards), I don't think there's that many character concepts that could be created "out-of-the box" in Third Edition at the start that can't be done in Fourth.

In exchange, Fourth offers a few that weren't supported in Third. The arcane character who gains power via a pact wasn't supported until well into 3e. The smart warrior character who leads the team in battle is not a concept that was supported (mechanically) in Third Edition until well into its release. In fourth, both are present "out of the gate."

I feel mislead abut Multi-Classing and the scope of classes.

I now have to House rule a ton to play the character concepts I like (and they are in no way munchkin/OPed abuse of options)

For me its seems that playtesting was very limited on what was actualy tested.

Just look at the Ranger One round combos.... OR the Broken Multi-Classing Warlord/Cleric....

What concepts? List some.

There were hundreds of playtesters. Some of them were even the same folks from the WotC Character Optimization boards whose compatriots found the broken combos. That means either they missed the abuses (which means they're far from obvious) or they deliberately left them in.

ASIDE from Blade Cascade (and I freely admit that min-maxers can abuse that one), what ranger combos are we talking about? Strikers are supposed to do a lot of damage, and rangers are strikers.

Warlord/Cleric is broken? What did I miss?

I admit that some multi-classing dependent combos aren't available in this edition. But with some notable exceptions, I'm not sure how "unavailable" the real concepts of multiclass combinations really are. Basically, you're forced to decide what part of his "multiclass" your character emphasizes. Are you a wizard who can fight, or a fighter who can throw out a few spells. I admit that the straight 50/50 fighter/wizard combo is hard to pull off. I just question whether there's any real concept behind it.





(*) Spellcasters are the only classes who have had their "in-play" options trimmed. Sort of. A 1st-level wizard actually has more powers than his 3e counterpart. By level 6 or so, that starts changing. Yes, his 3e counterpart had more options to choose from each day, but once those choices have been made, the low level 4e Wizard has more powers to pick from in any given encounter than his 3e counterpart.

Not counting cantrips, our low level 4e wizard has 4 spells. He still has 3 of them even after he spends his daily. His 3e counterpart has 2 options in the 1st encounter, and his options decline rapidly if he uses his powers.

At the highest levels, the character has up to 10 attack spells (4 of which are available every encounter and 2 of which can be used any time) and 5-7 utility ones, not counting rituals. That's as many spells as the 3e wizard got from his top 3-4 (i.e. useful) spell levels.

Yes, it reads as "fewer options" but is it really?

 

[kromelizard]

It certainly is fun to have wide open tactical movement and abundant viable choices in and out of combat. There's no reason, given the incredible modularity inherent in the power system and the uniform advancement for all classes, that we couldn't have been given both the fun play options for all characters and the ability for endless customization. So, in the end, this is a weird, straw man, compare and contrast argument. The designers decided they didn't like it and didn't want to do it and thought it was bad fun for the players to have. The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.

 

[Prophet2b]

The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.

And if I was them reading comments like that, there is no way I would even consider it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.

Of course it isn't.

Plenty of room for reasoned discussion of the differences between any of the versions.

Very reasoned, insightful (and non judgemental) discussion about some key differences between 4e and 3e.

An excellent first thread, BTW.

Cheers

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Excellent OP. I'm forwarding it to all of my buddies who are on the fence about 4e.

thank you.