Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[TimeOut]

Summoner
Necromancer
Illusionist
Diviner
Transmuter
Enchanter
Shapechanger
Unarmed Mystic Martial Artist (Monk)
Minstrel (Bard)
Druid

Of course all those were possible with the Core 3 of 3e.

There, I think, is the biggest problem with the new edition. Spellcasters, for all of D&D's long and storied history, were the classes where you had to pay your dues in the early years in return for eventually becoming the most powerful characters in the game. I have never gamed with people who didn't understand this, and by and large they have had no problem with it. Fighters carry the load for the low levels and serve as meatshields forever. Wizards start off basically useless, and end up controlling the building blocks of reality at high levels.

And that is fair and balanced how? It only works (quirky) if you play the complete game from Level 1 to End.

In addition to the pure power that is gained over the course of their career though, the spellcasters also used to benefit from the fact that spells were capable of doing more than dealing damage and providing defenses.

*points at the ritual section*

 

[sbarbe]

Of course all those were possible with the Core 3 of 3e.

My point exactly

And that is fair and balanced how? It only works (quirky) if you play the complete game from Level 1 to End.

It is fair because people know the score when they go in. It is balanced because spellcasters put in the time as the spearcarriers to become gods later while the fighters and rogues maintain a relatively consistent level of utility. The fighter has always been the backbone of any party, whether they are 1st level or 30th. They always have the most HP, and always deal a consistent level of damage to their foes. The only limitations fighters ever classically had to worry about was DR, and DR is so easy to get past, that basically meant that they were always able to damage anything they had to fight.

Spellcasters have significantly more problems with creatures that are immune to certain elements or have excessively high spell resistance. This is not to say that those things cannot be countered, but is it easier to pick the right feats to counteract such things, or buy a magical silver sword?

I have known multiple players in my life who would not play a spellcaster if you paid them to, because their enjoyment of the game largely derived from the fun of hitting critters with the biggest pieces of metal they were allowed to wield. They were happy playing one-shot Johnny with the biggest stick and it was fine with them that I could turn them into a newt if I wanted to. To each their own.

*points at the ritual section*

The problem is that it should not require an hour and the expenditure of money to charm someone and rituals still do not address the lack of polymorphing, summoning, necromancy or illusions.

 

[TimeOut]

My point exactly

So, now you can either think of how you would adapt these concepts in 4e, wait until they are officially covered by the books or continue to use 3e.

What is the problem here? That a new game system with new base content choose not to replicate content that counted as old base content?

*snip long quote about fighters and wizards*

I assume you never played a fighter? There is no more boring job then to say "I full attack the x" and to see a wizard struggle with all his possible options. And I don't think that the mental image of "hitting something with a big piece of metal" compensates for boring and unfun gameplay mechanics.

To each their own.

With that I can agree. You like the old system, I like the new one.

The problem is that it should not require an hour and the expenditure of money to charm someone and rituals still do not address the lack of polymorphing, summoning, necromancy or illusions.

Why not? This is your understanding of magic. You are free to change the way magic works anytime. The basic assumption in the new "default setting" is that it costs time and components to charm someone. That might be different from the "old" version, but no one forces you to use this version in your setting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem is that it should not require an hour and the expenditure of money to charm someone

Why not?

 

[sbarbe]

So, now you can either think of how you would adapt these concepts in 4e, wait until they are officially covered by the books or continue to use 3e.

Yep. I've already decided to continue with 3e/Pathfinder when it comes out.

What is the problem here? That a new game system with new base content choose not to replicate content that counted as old base content?

The problem is that they are calling it Dungeons and Dragons. I will be the first to admit that my dissatisfaction with the new rules comes largely from the goring of many of the sacred cows of previous D&D rulesets, but I also object to moving the entire focus of the rules to the lowest common denominator of tactical combat.

I assume you never played a fighter? There is no more boring job then to say "I full attack the x" and to see a wizard struggle with all his possible options. And I don't think that the mental image of "hitting something with a big piece of metal" compensates for boring and unfun gameplay mechanics.

I have played a multitude of fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues and almost any character you care to name, and the only times I have ever been bored have been when playing with bad GM's. One of the basic truths of Roleplaying is that a good GM can make a bad system fun and a bad GM can ruin even the best system. And if the Wizard is struggling with his possible options, he is not very good at playing a wizard and needs to put more time and effort into his preparation before the game instead of doing it at the table. One of the responsibilities that you take on when playing a spellcaster is doing the vast majority of your prep work out of game so that you don't take time away from the group for it. Playing a spellcaster is significantly more complex than playing a fighter, and it requires a correspondingly higher amount of time and level of effort to make sure that you are prepared.

With that I can agree. You like the old system, I like the new one.

Yep.

Why not? This is your understanding of magic. You are free to change the way magic works anytime. The basic assumption in the new "default setting" is that it costs time and components to charm someone. That might be different from the "old" version, but no one forces you to use this version in your setting.

It is mine and every other D&D players understanding of magic through 3 previous rulesets and countless novels, spinoff products and imitators for over 30 years, so I feel justified in considering it a common perception. I have always felt free to change anything I don't like in a ruleset, but I am not always a GM, so yes, it irks me when I might have to play in someone else's game where it would be enforced as written (or simply not possible). I can indeed look the other way on it, but it seems silly to have changed it, since the only real reason for it is that it is not really a tactical combat effect, which is all you really get out of powers.

I suppose my real point here is that I dislike the over-riding focus on tactical combat to the detriment of utility/misc spells and powers. I also feel that the only reason to abbreviate the selection of classes and spells available in the initial release is to cash in on the sale of more product in the future that contains things they should have included in the initial release, and I object to the profiteering nature of that. I've spent thousands of dollars on D&D products over the years, they don't need to shaft me in order to make money off of me, but apparently they are determined to do so.

 

[hong]

I have always felt free to change anything I don't like in a ruleset, but I am not always a GM, so yes, it irks me when I might have to play in someone else's game where it would be enforced as written (or simply not possible).

Well, you don't have to play.

 

[sbarbe]

Well, you don't have to play.

That is very true, and I am not in fact currently playing in a D&D game (although that has more to do with working nights). I will say that even with all of the problems that I have with the modifications, I would like to play a few games to give it the benefit of a full test drive. At worst I think it has the makings of a fun tactical fantasy combat game, and I'm sure that I would enjoy it for a little while. The problem with that is that I can easily see myself playing out all of my character creation options and growing bored with it in short order. And I certainly have no intention of paying multiple hundreds of dollars per year simply to buy more books of available "templates" to play.

 

[TimeOut]

Yep. I've already decided to continue with 3e/Pathfinder when it comes out.

That is great! I hope you will have many fun hours with this system. It is just not the right thing for me.

The problem is that they are calling it Dungeons and Dragons. I will be the first to admit that my dissatisfaction with the new rules comes largely from the goring of many of the sacred cows of previous D&D rulesets, but I also object to moving the entire focus of the rules to the lowest common denominator of tactical combat.

They own the right to that name, so they decide to call the continuation of their fantasy product line like the old one. That they might be different systems mechanically doesn't forbid them from doing so. In my opinion 4e is even more true to the beginnings of D&D, but that standpoint may vary.
That most of the rules focus on tactical combat is a good point in my eyes. Gone are the stupid "you can't do that, the rules say otherwise" days of roleplaying. I really don't need rules that tell me how to play my character in non-combat situations, but I want a fixed ruleset to use in combat resolution.

But that is entirely my preference of play, and if you desire other things, I can't speak against it. But I will ask you the same question I ask other people who have decided against 4e (for whatever reason): Why do you bother with discussing and arguing about a game system you won't use and that is not your style? I don't want to play DSA or Shadowrun again, yet I would never go around and tell other people that they are using a bad system. It is just not my style.

I have played a multitude of fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues and almost any character you care to name, and the only times I have ever been bored have been when playing with bad GM's. One of the basic truths of Roleplaying is that a good GM can make a bad system fun and a bad GM can ruin even the best system. And if the Wizard is struggling with his possible options, he is not very good at playing a wizard and needs to put more time and effort into his preparation before the game instead of doing it at the table. One of the responsibilities that you take on when playing a spellcaster is doing the vast majority of your prep work out of game so that you don't take time away from the group for it. Playing a spellcaster is significantly more complex than playing a fighter, and it requires a correspondingly higher amount of time and level of effort to make sure that you are prepared.

(Emphasis mine)

I totally agree with you on the bold part.

The wizard issue: Sure. But I can't agree with you that this is the only way of doing things. 4e has taken another approach to this stuff. It is up to everyone to decide if it is for him or not.

It is mine and every other D&D players understanding of magic through 3 previous rulesets and countless novels, spinoff products and imitators for over 30 years, so I feel justified in considering it a common perception. I have always felt free to change anything I don't like in a ruleset, but I am not always a GM, so yes, it irks me when I might have to play in someone else's game where it would be enforced as written (or simply not possible). I can indeed look the other way on it, but it seems silly to have changed it, since the only real reason for it is that it is not really a tactical combat effect, which is all you really get out of powers.

Because powers are encounter based effects. Some powers are useful in non-combat encounters (which are still not roleplaying aspects, at least under the 4e definition of non-combat encounter); all other powers are meant to be used in combat situations.

This is the result of the design goal to clearly separate encounter options and all other forms of interaction. It is meant to provide more meaningful choices for a good encounter resolution system, but doesn't interfere with all other options.

Of course you can say "it always was so, so it can never change" but things change. You can adapt or you can continue to use the old things. Whatever suits you best. That is why people have the option of choice: To make choices.

I suppose my real point here is that I dislike the over-riding focus on tactical combat to the detriment of utility/misc spells and powers. I also feel that the only reason to abbreviate the selection of classes and spells available in the initial release is to cash in on the sale of more product in the future that contains things they should have included in the initial release, and I object to the profiteering nature of that. I've spent thousands of dollars on D&D products over the years, they don't need to shaft me in order to make money off of me, but apparently they are determined to do so.

Of course they are. It is a company, their foremost goal is to gain money. That their people are interested in providing a good or fun experience is just a side effect.

 

[Reynard]

In my opinion 4e is even more true to the beginnings of D&D, but that standpoint may vary.

I see this sentiment pop up every now and again and I must say that I am as confounded by it as others may be confounded by "it's too videogamey". So I'll just ask: how is 4E like "old skool" D&D, either OD&D or BD&D? I mean, other than the fact that it is designed to be played as a tactical skirmish game?

 

[TimeOut]

I see this sentiment pop up every now and again and I must say that I am as confounded by it as others may be confounded by "it's too videogamey". So I'll just ask: how is 4E like "old skool" D&D, either OD&D or BD&D? I mean, other than the fact that it is designed to be played as a tactical skirmish game?

For me it just feels like the D&D of old. It might have no connection on the rules level, but it certainly has connections on the general assumptions behind gameplay and design choices. I never had that feeling while playing 3e.