Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[JDillard]

Example?

Seriously. Show me a non-standard 4e fighter build which can be made viable via feat selection. It would do a lot to convince me the game is deeper than "Pick one of two basically pre-made characters per class".

I'm at work, so I can't give you a list of specifics, but I think part of the problem (if I'm understanding you), is that you're looking for the wrong thing here.

Feats don't give you more or less options anymore. They just make slight adjustments to the options you already have.

Take your comment and replace the word feat with "fighter power" (or to be 4e accurate, "exploit") and you can probably pretty easily come up with something. Make a sword fighter, or a polearm fighter, or a hammer fighter, or a flail fighter... these things are all options within the fighter exploits.

Does that make sense? I could be misunderstanding your meaning when you say "non-standard fighter" but then, the system isn't designed to allow you make something that's not a melee defender with the word "fighter" on his class line. If you want something else, you need to be a different class.

 

[Derren]

And this is my problem because...?

Normally I would say because it invalidates your argument as you can't assume that everyone plays like you. But I am not sure if you care about that.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Hong, Derren - don't derail this discussion, please.

 

[Lizard]

I'm at work, so I can't give you a list of specifics, but I think part of the problem (if I'm understanding you), is that you're looking for the wrong thing here.

Feats don't give you more or less options anymore. They just make slight adjustments to the options you already have.

Yes, I know.

Hong, however, said:

No. They had far more bad combat options in 3E. Unless, that is, they took a bunch of feats to specialise in one or more of these options, in which case they did become good combat options. Much like what happens in 4E.

So, I wanted to see a 4e fighter who could start with a "bad combat option" (Let's say, bare-knuckle brawler) and, via feats, make it into a "good combat option".

 

[hong]

Yes, I know.

Hong, however, said:

To be precise, hong said that you could start with a bunch of bad combat options, and turn them into good combat options by using funky powers. Implicit in this is the assumption that a smart player will not use bad combat options. Of course, one can never allow for players who are not smart, but they're not my problem. Further implicit in this is the allowance that the specific method by which a game introduces funky powers is not particularly important, but one can never allow for pedants.

So, I wanted to see a 4e fighter who could start with a "bad combat option" (Let's say, bare-knuckle brawler) and, via feats, make it into a "good combat option".

Most fighter abilities work on unarmed strikes. Actually, I suspect it's all fighter abilities, but I haven't checked.

 

[Jhulae]

I think I can understand what the OP is trying to say.

But, I'll also agree with the one poster who mentioned that just because there were limitless options on how to make a character didn't mean there were limitless *good* options on how to do so.

On another board, one player lamented that 3.x allowed one to make a supremely *suboptimal* character because of it's options, and such is true, really. For every powerful build, there are probably half a dozen or more absolutely underpowered builds.

While 4e does seem to be going back to AD&D and BECMI (via having specific classes), it does limit the possibility of making a gimp. However, each class in 4e is far more customizable than any were in AD&D and BECMI.

And, if new PHBs come out with new classes that fit the power level of the original ones, there should be enough options to fit most of the concepts players will want, as each class is still fairly customizable.

 

[Dormain1]

@ OP Fantastic summary, and very insightful opinions

one thing I would add to what you have said

3E was 20 levels of builds
with feats used to customise your character idea

4E is 3 levels of builds
with powers to customise your character
and feats to tweak it

all in all when a few more feats and powers come out the versatility will be there

my only problem is the multiclass rules but I also think that it will be the most errated section of the books

The suboptimal builds will dry up when people understand how the stats and powers mesh and begin to memorise the pre req's for their favorite feats and powers

and I think Hong is correct(OMG again ) the fighter can use most of his powers with their fists....actually I think I am going to create a bare knuckle dwarven fighter right now

 

[DandD]

In 3rd edition, you were a complete moron for trying to disarm, grapple or trip the opponent, unless you had the right feats for it. Whenever you tried the above-mentioned actions, the enemy attacked you with an Attack of Opportunity. Also, you risked the danger to be disarmed, grappled or tripped yourself. And the best thing was, you just wasted your turn doing nothing. If you even managed to disarm your enemy, his weapon lied on the ground. Then, he picked it up with his move-action, may perhaps inquire an Attack of Opportunity from you, and then he continues stabbing you in your face. The same for Trip. You managed to make him prone... Then he stands up with a simple move action, does perhaps get an Attack of Opportunity from you, and he continues smacking your dumb head like a whack-a-mole. And if you tried to grapple, if you sustained damage from the Grapple attempt, your action was wasted. But if you did manage to grapple, you got to deal your fantastic unarmed combat damage...
Gosh, really, I'm even starting to wonder if trip, grapple and disarm weren't another batch of "system mastery"-traps that Monte Cook and co. planted into the 3rd edition player's handbook, like the turkey-feats Dodge, Toughness and Skill Focus.

And the worse part is, many enemies were outright immune to grappling (because they were too big and had improved grab), disarm (because their weapon were too big, or they didn't even carry one) and trip (because they had more legs, were stable, or didn't even walk at all).
Your ability to delay the combat and waste your turn was very impressive in D&D 3rd edition.

Thank god for Tome of Battle making combat a lot better.

 

[Gothmog]

Great post JDillard- I agree 100%. I really got burned out on on 3E D&D, but after playing about a dozen sessions of 4E now, I have to say its a breath of fresh air and has reinvigorated my love of D&D.

Correction, the PCs had a lot of situational abilities which they might or might not use and which they could specialize in. 4E removes all those options and makes them into class specific powers which are limited by their uses.

Anyway, as I said before while the fighter has gained some options the spellcaster lost them and overall 4E does not have more "play options". It has likely less but the ones it has are spread out among all classes. Thats a good thing, but it does not change that 4E offers less options, especially as many powers are very restricted (only once per encounter/day, only with specific weapons) and that many powers are just copies from each other.

I have to chime in here and say that fewer character build options isn't necessarily a bad thing for 4E. Here's my reasoning:

4E is trying to be a more streamlined and quick-paced game, attractive to some folks who have only experienced MMORPGs before. Making character building too complicated only drives away casual gamers who might otherwise become hardcore gamers.

More options doesn't mean better. I used to think it did at one point in the past too. But honestly, looking through the endless options in 3E, characters had to develop a "schtick" if they wanted to truly excel in any given area. For example, the spiked chain trip monkey, the APAATT greataxe specialist weilder, the mobile dervish (dodge, mobility, spring attack, etc). The character uses those abilities to the exclusion of all others, so in the end the 3E character doesn't have more options open to them, but FAR LESS. Most 3E characters end up being a specialist in one or two capabilities, and royally suck if for whatever reason they are denied the ability to use them (witness the rogue vs undead or constructs).

4E nicely solves this problem. Sure, you can still build your APAATT greataxe weilder, but now he also has powers that let him do his schtick AND diversity his abilities a bit, just in case for whatever reason he cannot use the schtick. Basically, 4E has been pretty carefully designed to prevent character suckage due to one-trick-ponyness. Am I willing to sacrifice some options so all characters are more well-rounded and have more options during play- HELL YEAH!

4E will have more options soon- Martial Power being the first of the expansion books for the core classes.

Fewer options also means less brokenness right out of the gates. Sure, there are few 4E combos that can produce some powerful results, but nothing like some of the situations you'd run into with 3E. Thats a good thing- it prevents the annoying disruptions at the table when one person powergames and optomizes like crazy and the other players didn't. I saw that so many times during the years I played 3E, and it caused so many problems, that I don't lament loss of options in that regard at all. On the other hand, its harder to build a completely suboptimal character who stinks at everything in 4E as well- another good thing.

Finally, fewer options that modify and make exceptions to the rules also makes the game more rules-transparent. What I mean by that is that in 3E, the system was in the forground all the time, and all the players and DM had to give it consideration at the same time as they were trying to roleplay. I saw people who were incredible roleplayers in earlier versions of D&D or other RPGs become number-crunching rules monkeys when playing 3E, and who viewed their character as his collection of stats and abilities rather than as their character. 4E puts the rules in the background again, so that you only really think about them when actively using a power. That speeds up play, keeps the game flowing smoothly, and lets people get into the game, rather that just playing the numbers game.

The whole "options not restrictions" mantra of 3E sounded noble at the time, but with experience it revealed itself to be a true nightmare. I'm certainly willing to trade some options for ease of play, being able to immerse myself in gaming, and fun!

 

[Felon]

4e focuses on game balance as a central goal.

Oh, I think we've seen enough posts about powers without any caps on bonuses or other appropriate restrictions to dispute the notion that balance was a central goal. They wanted it to be streamlined and accessible, but balance was strictly a "close-enough-for-government-work" affair.