Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Ulthwithian]

Lizard: One point in your latest post that I wanted to address. The Fighter, by all accounts, is most certainly not 'meant' to clear minions. That is the Controller's job. Certainly, your Fighter (with Scorching Burst) does that better than most (and note that it Marks either way, which I'm sure you know), but it certainly isn't part of his purpose. His job is to prevent the Minions from reaching the squishies, not destroying them. ;p

 

[Votan]

I dunno. It's not a BAD character, I just didn't feel I had very many choices that weren't deliberately self-screwing. Once I decided I wanted to recreate a classic Elf F/MU, the rest of the decisions seemed made for me.

Well, this seemed to be a feature of all editions of D&D (even 3rd). In 3rd you could not even have done a multi-class at level 1 at all and you needed to design the character to enter specific prestige classes. It has always been a cases that stats were not very flexible for a fighter/magic-user (as you need to bolster two different arenas).

The choices that were left (skills, feats) are still there.

There are also different ways to get "warrior who also does magic" that create other options.

I also expect that you will find more flexibility after level 2 or so when you start having enough feats to diversify.

I was actually glad of being able to do multi-class characters at low levels and not having to make the "weak now for strong later" trade-offs that often show up.

 

[Lizard]

Lizard: One point in your latest post that I wanted to address. The Fighter, by all accounts, is most certainly not 'meant' to clear minions. That is the Controller's job. Certainly, your Fighter (with Scorching Burst) does that better than most (and note that it Marks either way, which I'm sure you know), but it certainly isn't part of his purpose. His job is to prevent the Minions from reaching the squishies, not destroying them. ;p

"A corpse threatens no one."
"Uhm...what about zombies?"
"Shaddup, you're ruining my moment, here..."

Seriously, they've got one hit point. I'm not going to waste my encounter/daily movement-control powers on things I can probably kill with a DC 20 Intimidate check.

 

[Lizard]

Well, this seemed to be a feature of all editions of D&D (even 3rd). In 3rd you could not even have done a multi-class at level 1 at all and you needed to design the character to enter specific prestige classes. It has always been a cases that stats were not very flexible for a fighter/magic-user (as you need to bolster two different arenas). .

3.0 -- NOT 3.5 -- had rules for "half levels" in the DMG to let you begin a multiclass at first level. I saw them used once, and they were nifty, but I guess they were too weak or too strong and so were dropped.

IAE, yeah, the F/MU is hard to pull off well, but it is a classic archetype for us old 1e-ers. And eladrin seem built for it. I looked at doing it the other way -- Wizard (Fighter), but it seems that fighters get a lot more from dabbling in magic than vice-versa. Melee abilities aren't useful when you've got crap for hit points and no armor proficiency. Scorching Burst/Encounter > Cleave/Encounter.

And simply to clarify again, I'm not disappointed in the outcome of my experiment, just in the process and the feeling my choices were constrained to a small set. The hardest choice was which wizard at-will to take: Scorching Burst is good, but all of them except Magic Missile could be useful to a melee combatant. (MM is single target damage with no cool effects, and that's what a frackin' SWORD is for. Without the 'never miss' feature, it's not useful for a fighter that I can see.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3.0 -- NOT 3.5 -- had rules for "half levels" in the DMG to let you begin a multiclass at first level. I saw them used once, and they were nifty, but I guess they were too weak or too strong and so were dropped.

I remember them too. They might have been dropped for space and relevance, and be replaced by the Epic Level rules. Strangely enough, I think the Apprentice level rules were better and potentially more useful then the Epic Level rules...

 

[ladydeath]

How about these apples...

I think 4e is a lovely table top miniatures game. The combat is fluid. Is takes a relatively short deal of time to create a "character" but there are a few problems. Has anybody got any answers to these questions.

1. If I am a warlock once I choose to make a pact where are my choices in my abilities? It seems that if I choose to be a fey warlock all of my abilities from level 1 on have already been decided.

2. I understand that if I want to make a fighter/archer I can just choose to be a ranger. But what if I would like to have a fighter, sorry character, who can use all sorts of weapons and not specialize in using just one. The fighter doesn't get ANY ranged at will abilities and the ranger only has two weapon melee abilities. How would my character survive in a gladitorial game?

3. I like spellcasters. In 4e all wizards get at will ranged attack spells. Not bad but what if I wanted to make an illusionist? Or a conjurer. Sorry can't do that anymore.

4. There used to be different kinds of rogues. Facemen, thugs, conmen, cat burglars. Now every rogue (or anyone with the thievery skill) is just as good at picking locks as they are at picking pockets or disarming traps. What if I just want a pickpocket? I guess I can just ignore my characters other abilities.


It seems to me that character creation in 4e was more about dumbing down the process and concentrating on miniatures fighting. Don't get me wrong, miniature combat is a great time but it is not roleplaying.

4e does have some good stuff. Minions are great. I like some of the new monster special abilities. But I'm not too sure about character development. Why can't a fighter be artillery or a rogue the leader?

 

[gamersgambit]

I'm actually not upset about the lack of inclusion of the sorceror in the new edition, they call it a wizard. I'm upset about the lack of a Wizard in the new edition.

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.

The above sentiment is, actually, one of the places where I believe 4th edition shines particularly well in the way that the OP mentions.

Consider that the situation above is akin to the relationship problems that develop in that classic situation where partner A works and slaves so that partner B can go through law school/med school/whatever and then finds themselves, once partner B is done with their schooling and making a million dollars, relegated to a secondary role, feeling as if they've given up their lives and career options to help out their partner and now are at a loss for what to do.

While this -has been- the paradigm for 3.5 for the most part--the poster quoted above acknowledges that everyone understands it and those he's played with have no problems with it--the paradigm shift in 4e removes that. No, wizards are no longer the gods of reality in 4e; yes, fighters (and other classes) are now their peers; but I find that remarkably /refreshing/. The "defenders" are no longer mere meatshields, serving in 3.5 as the functional equivalent of 4e minions with a couple neat encounter abilities (and while they had more hit points, they could often be functionally negated with a single spell or two--or a simple 5' step away...), but actual threats that Stoneskin/Repulsion/Anti-Magic Zone/save-or-die-spells/flight/20" teleport/5-foot-step can't render meaningless. Everyone at the game table, regardless of class, has potent and useful abilities throughout their careers.

It is primarily for this reason that I'm happy with 4e. Character build option paradigm for a fighter meant struggling to attempt to remain relevant, often through extreme specialization, in a world where wizards didn't have to worry about that so much since they had so many options. Tactical build options make the world a much more interesting place...

 

[Lizard]

I think 4e is a lovely table top miniatures game. The combat is fluid. Is takes a relatively short deal of time to create a "character" but there are a few problems. Has anybody got any answers to these questions.

1. If I am a warlock once I choose to make a pact where are my choices in my abilities? It seems that if I choose to be a fey warlock all of my abilities from level 1 on have already been decided.

Actually, you can choose any Warlock power, regardless of Pact.

I suppose someone will say if you want a one-weapon wielding ranger, make a fighter and giv him Skill Training (Nature).

 

[Jack99]

It seems to me that character creation in 4e was more about dumbing down the process and concentrating on miniatures fighting. Don't get me wrong, miniature combat is a great time but it is not roleplaying.

4e does have some good stuff. Minions are great. I like some of the new monster special abilities. But I'm not too sure about character development. Why can't a fighter be artillery or a rogue the leader?

Or maybe it is you that lack roleplaying skills, since you obviously associate the mechanics of your character with roleplaying.

I guess you haven't played anything but 3.x, because let me tell you, in the good old days ....

 

[Propagandroid]

WotC was worried that they gave too many options, too many choices, and that making an acceptable character was a labyrinthine process full of obscure feat and class selections (to be fair, it was, if you gamed with powergamers.) So they streamlined it.

In streamlining it they took away a lot of neat stuff, and dumbed it down a bit. There are bound to be those who miss the complexity of 3.x.

What's hilarious is that they emulated the worst offenders (Book of Nine Swords).

Also, the discussion here shows that they really haven't dumbed it down. Now, it's much more difficult to find those broken combos because class abilities are obscured in the hundreds of power descriptions, so that only the most detail-oriented and hardcore will discover them.