Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[JDillard]

I also can't say that I see why play options and build options can't co-exist.

You're right, there's no reason they can't. In time, they probably will.

The design goals for 4e appear to be maximizing fun, with a sub-goal of game balance (most of us will agree that a well-balanced game is generally more fun).

"Less build options" makes it easier to maintain that balance. I mean, c'mon, this stuff is just as new and different and groundbreaking (in its ways) for the designers as it is for us. As far as pure, individualized build options (# of classes, races, feats...) go, we've got a workable amount. Just not as many as we might like. But what we have is a very solid set of them. It's going to take them time to figure out the various ways they can work to get more varied, more interesting concepts without breaking the system.

As I said in the OP, 3e focused on build options as a central goal. 4e focuses on game balance as a central goal. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but it's damn hard to have them both right from the beginning.

EDIT: Adjusted the quote to just the part I was responding to.

 

[Derren]

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.

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.

 

[Kishin]

This is flat out false. Even the simplest class, the fighter, had far more effective combat options in 3E than they do in 4E. Bullrush, grapple, trip. power attack, expertise, cleave, tumble, spring attack, whirlwind attack are all PHB available options, and unlike 4E you can use them multiple times, none of them are once per day or oncer per encounter. A fighter can also pick up a bow or other ranged weapon and use it effectively, opening up even more combat options, something the 4E fighter has somehow forgotten how to do.

As Hong said, unless you specialize in one of those combat options, they're certainly not better off than 4E. In fact, some of them are not worth the effort (tumble, unless you take Able Learner and multiclass and whirlwind attack, namely). Also, a fighter stops being effective with a bow pretty quickly. If you wanted to play an effective archer in 3E, you played a scout. You certainly didn't rely on being a Ranger or a Fighter with Manyshot/Greater Manyshot.

Fighter with bow now = Ranger in 4E. I don't know why people are somehow offended by having 'Ranger' in the class blank on their sheet for this concept.

 

[Lizard]

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.

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".

 

[Felon]

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.

I think I have to go with Hong for the center square here. As the OP stated, most fighters were built to perform one tactic really well. If you attempted to disarm or sunder or grapple or bull rush and weren't feated to execute those maneuvers, they provoked OA's and then routinely failed to have any effect.

 

[hong]

Correction, the PCs had a lot of situational abilities which they might or might not use and which they could specialize in.

Correction, the PCs had a lot of situational abilities which they never used. Except for the specialised people.

 

[Derren]

Correction, the PCs had a lot of situational abilities which they never used. Except for the specialised people.

In your game maybe.

 

[Stilvan]

Cutting you a bit out of context here....

Well to be completely honest I'm just echoing the opinions of others with that statement.

But playing devil's advocate I think there is room for ranged weapon powers/feats in the fighter 'tree' (I'm particular to thrown weapon options). I can't really see the Fighter class having a ranged specialization tree as its difficult to be a defender when you're in the rear plinking away.

The Rogue breaks down a bit since a Ranger can't really do the same kinds of things as a Rogue. Further I assume the people wanting a two weapon rogue are really looking for cool powers beyond the option to carry two weapons. But like the Fighter I think you can stuff a few two weapon powers into the Rogue tree without upsetting much.

Perhaps in the future we'll see classless powers with some kind of prerequisite component - something I would love to see.

 

[hong]

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".

What?

 

[hong]

In your game maybe.

And this is my problem because...?