You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[rounser]

But then, I am also a fan of Grand Admiral Thrawn. He might be utterly unrealistic with his ability to predict enemy actions based on the art of their culture, but his tactical and strategic genius felt just interesting. The trilogy around him still are my favorite books in the Star Wars franchise.

I won't bother arguing this one out again, but the fact you chose a general with an army at his beck and call says it all.

 

[fuzzlewump]

To Psion, the classes seem to play to their thematic element first. Paladins are using divine powers that heal at level one. What does that have to do with their mechanical role of Defender? Nothing. What about any class being able to do damage except for the striker? How about the wizard being able to cast Light, Ghost Sound, Presdigitation, and Mage Hand? Thematic or mechanical? Yeah. How about a fighter being able to use different weapons with different effects, even if minor. Mechanical or thematic? To the dungeon exploration, it must be a group preference thing. My group was bored to tears when I played the rogue, as I searched every nook and cranny while they sat back, talked about things outside of D&D or grabbed a Mountain Dew. Actually, I wasn't having fun either, I just knew the group would be screwed if I didn't search for traps. In any case, now each class has a selection of skills and each has a reasonable option of filling that sector of dungeon exploration. All you need is perception and thievery. Some classes have them as class skills, otherwise grab the skill training or appropriate multi-class feat.

Oh, and, to ExploderWizard, it's not a question of how the game is played, it's how it's designed. 3.5, which is what I can speak for, was designed with having the 4 iconic roles, fighter, mage, cleric, thief, in mind. That's how monsters were balanced, against Regdar, Mialee, Jozan and Lidda. If you can succeed otherwise, holy crap, that's amazing, but the DM is probably pulling some strings and turning the game a bit. If not, I'm awestruck that you are able to get anywhere in a dungeon sans a cleric. Or without a wizard.

The question is not one of "need". We had an edition where this sort of flexibility was a given. This edition says that flexibility is "unfun" because we might make the "wrong" choices with it. So, now you can't make the character you want, but have to settle for something else, because if you could make what you wanted, you might make an "unfun" choice.

and

And for the record (going back to my original post), I never said thematic elements were impossible: I said I thought they were more locked down or restricted (archer fighter? Nope. Spear-wielding ranger, or sword & shield ranger? nope.) and kludgier (I'm looking at you, multiclassing!)

Fighters have bow proficiency in 4th edition. All simple and military ranged weapons. If you want ranger powers with your ranged weapon, multiclass. If you think that is a bad option, which is isn't, really, then be a ranger, and get armor feats and toughness and now you're the fighter basically. If you wanted to be a fighter who is as good at using the bow as a ranger, then that's too good, simply enough. Because then you're covering two roles equally awesomely in one fell swoop. Was that the goal here?

Rangers can use all simple and military melee, including the spear. Yep. From the "Archer Ranger" choice in the players handbook. "You are a master of the bow (or, rarely, the crossbow, sling, or thrown weapon)." Well, the spear isn't a ranged weapon, but I thought that was cool. Feel free to throw javelins instead of using a bow and arrow. So is 4E still restrictive? If you want to use a spear, pick two-weapon fighting option, because no where in that section does it say you're required to actually use two weapons. Some powers, however, require that you do. But not all! Some good powers are flexible and say "Melee or Ranged Weapon" as a requirement, including encounter powers and daily powers at first level, so spear fits into that category. If you want to use a two-weapon power, hold a dagger in your off-hand as you swing around your spear. Please research this option before you say 4E is horribly restrictive. If you want to use a board with your sword, sorry, you'll need to spend a feat. One feat. So, those are the two examples given that can be done, quite easily. I hope this gets through to you guys.

But I mean, is this going to be it? A back and forth as someone comes up with examples that 4E doesn't seem to support on face so they can eventually be right and prove that 4E in fact has no flexibility, is unpolished, is for 10-year-olds, and all around sucks? I guess people will be set in their ways.

Look forward to a response, I have to be off for now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I won't bother arguing this one out again, but the fact you chose a general with an army at his beck and call says it all.

And I am not allowed to have this on a tactical scale? It is thematically inappropriate? Yes, let's agree to disagree.

 

[wingsandsword]

I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway? If orcs ambush you, you don't have time for your one minute diplomacy check, and even then you have to get some silly number that a multiclass bard/monk isn't going to have.

How often were monsters defeated by social skills? Pretty dang often in my experience. Encounter some dimwitted ogres guarding the cave entrance? Some Disguise and Bluff skills later and the ogres are letting the PC's in because they say they are envoys from the Evil Kingdom out there that their boss wants to ally with. Run across some orc highwaymen demanding tribute or they attack? You could intimidate them, or bluff them into thinking you're working for their boss and on the same side or don't have any money, or play nice and talk with them long enough for the rogue and/or ranger to sneak around and take them out while they are distracted (which case they aren't being defeated by the social skills, but it's making a wonderful stalling tactic).

Oh, and why wouldn't a bard/monk be a social skill expert? The bard gets all the social skills, monks get diplomacy and sense motive. If you started out as a bard and multiclassed to monk you could still spend cross-class costs to keep bluff & intimidate at maximum. Heck, if you multiclassed to Monk after only 2 or 3 levels of Bard you could even eventually get Tongue of the Sun and Moon which helps monks be uber socialites. I think a Bard/Monk would be a really interesting and fun character. . .a charming bard who retired to a monastery and now is the pleasant public "faceman" for his monastery that they like to send on missions away from their cloisters because he is more adept at working with the outside world, while he is still a skilled martial artist his bardic training long ago gives him some unusual knowledge and magical abilities that make him distinct among the monks of his order.

If Augment Healing doesn't "fit a campaign", why does healing magic even exist?

Because in that campaign healing magic may exist, but it's rare and teachings and techniques that modify it haven't been developed yet, or healing magic is relatively weak because of the ever-oppressive influence of dark forces and being able to amplify healing magic as easily as taking a feat isn't going to be possible? Like in pre-War of the Lance Dragonlance when there was no true divine spellcasters and if there was any healing magic it was from Bards (if that) or wizards that had researched very weak and inefficient healing spells, so healing magic was incredibly rare on it's own and Augment Healing just wasn't out there.

 

[Turanil]

I'd honestly prefer if people who don't like a particular thing find something else to talk about -- or fix it.

If you like 3e, fine: we can discuss that.

If you like Mutants & Masterminds, cool: tell me about it.

However, I have less than zero interest in a support-group for nurturing nerd rage.

Cheers, -- N

What are you doing reading this thread then?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

How often were monsters defeated by social skills? Pretty dang often in my experience.

Now someone tell me why this can't be done in 4e, since that was the original argument leveled.