# Where did my options go?  - The New Paradigm



## JDillard

Got a long one here for you all.

So I'm a long time lurker here on ENWorld.  I decided it's finally time to start a thread.  I've been playing 4th for a few months now, as an NDA'd friend of a couple WotC employees.  While I can't discuss specifics, I can talk about impressions I've gotten, and I feel like I've got a good grasp of the feel of the game and how it works.  

Anyway... I'll get around to my point now. 

I keep seeing a lot of discussion on many, many threads regarding options.  I see a lot of people, both pro and anti 4e, saying that the game is more constrained, you can't do as much with characters, so on and so forth.  

I've seen a lot of people try to argue the opposite.  They've discussed "party optimization" instead of "character optimization", or compared a 1st level 3e fighter to a 1st level 4e fighter.

Furthermore, in a not obviously apparent, related topic I've seen many, many arguments about how 4e is better in play than it looks from just reading the book.  My own experiences agree with that one.

Despite that, I and many others are having an absolute blast playing the game.  So, why is that?  If the game really is constricting, if there really are less options, then why is it that it's still so much fun?  And how does that relate to the recurring theme that it's more fun in play than in read-through?

*Where did my options go?  -  The New Paradigm!* 

3e - What we're familiar with:

In the previous edition (3.x) which, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of us here are familiar with, the majority of character options were built into the character creation process.  It started with the very strong modularity of the system.  At any point, at any level, I can take my next level of whatever class I might want (assuming prereq's met).  When I want to build a level 20 character, I've got 20 "units" of build, purely based off of class levels.  I can take a bit here, a bit there, and go for it.  Or I can take all 20 of one class.  

Even further, you've got feats and skills.  Spellcasters have spells.  Tons and tons and tons of options.  Given enough time, with just the PHB, I can create hundreds of level 20 characters, all noticeably different.  Admittedly, a lot of them would be poor to unplayable (10 Ftr / 10 Wiz for example).  Still, that's a *ton* of options.

However, once you've gotten your character built and you're actually playing the game, your options drop dramatically.  With the exception of the open-ended spellcasters (and what I mean by that are the Wizard and Cleric types, who aren't constrained by a "spells known" maximum), the rest of the character types were still very limited in what sorts of actions they could take.  This is definitely true in combat, but even expands into the non-combat arena.  

While your melee fighter type character can choose from many different options to begin with, once he's in combat he's got his one or two things he does over and over again.  The heavy armor fighter runs up and stands next to the monster, hitting with his greatsword.  The spiked chain fighter does his tripping, or his moving with Opportunity attacks.  The rogue gets into flanking position and proceeds to sneak attack.  This does not generally vary from combat to combat either, except in situations where the monster is somehow "immune" to whatever your schtick is (undead for the rogue, for example), and then you generally spend the time trying to come up with creative solutions that vary from brilliant to extremely frustrating for the DM.  

This isn't just in combat though.  Given the lengthy skills list and the ability to have such variance in skill point allocation, you've got a couple different ways a character can be.   You can specialize in a few select skills, maximizing their points for your level, or you can try to spread the points out into multiple skills.  The first works throughout, but the second generally only works at lower levels.  By the time you hit the double-digits your "ok at lots of things" concept starts to turn into "poor at lots of things", and then "barely able to do lots of things" at the top end.

So suppose you stick with the familiar specialist concept.  Given how lengthy the skill list is (40ish, right?) you really can only be *really really* specialized in a couple things.  You take hide/move silent and great, you're fantastic it it.  What do you do in game?  You try to solve problems by sneaking around.  You take Jump and Swim?  What do you do?  You try to find ways to jump or swim your way past challenges.  From level 1 to level 20 you're trying to sneak past things or jump past things.  

So, to conclude and reiterate this point: 3e's paradigm is to provide you with maximal options at character creation.  However, this comes at the cost of most characters losing options during actual play.  The only exclusion to this is with the open-ended spellcasters, for whom options are maximized nearly throughout.  I'll discuss this a bit later.

4e - The New Game:

Contrasting the 3e paradigm is the 4e one.  And a contrast it definitely is, as the methods of the system seem designed to flip the situation around to its opposite.

As much as we want to argue that 4e has lots and lots of options, and it does, comparing the sheer number of characters I can create with a 3e PHB and a 4e PHB the 4e one comes out far behind.  The system is not modular in the same way.  Once I pick my starting class, that's my class throughout.  Now, as I level I do have the retraining option, so I can switch things out that I don't like with things that I do.  That's nice, but it doesn't mean much when I'm simply creating a new character from scratch.

There are a lot of feats, but they're largely restricted to a race or class.  Multiclass options are there, but they mostly allow small uses of another class's power, not a full gaining of that class's skills.  The skill list is significantly smaller and the mechanics of skill training and skill usage makes specialization difficult if not impossible in some cases.

The arguments that I've seen for the value of these changes from both posters and designers focus on a couple things:  Game balance and Fun.  Game balance is easy to see.  The "economy of actions" concept keeps the length of a combat round down, and keeps each players turn length fairly similar.  The redesign of the wizard, in particular, means that all characters have a "chance to shine", rather than the wizard being able to do basically anything, with the right spell.  Hit points are standardized, BAB's are standardized, skill values are standardized, all these things prevent a lot of the swingyness and mean that most characters, of any level, are going to be at least useable if not excellent.

How about the Fun part though?  Well, that comes in, in play.  4e's focus is not on Creation Options, but on Play Options.  It's a hard concept to explain, but I'll do my best.

Take something simple.  Say there's a rogue power that damages an enemy and slides them three spaces (I'm sure there is, but not having played a rogue I don't know the names off the top of my head).  It sounds like a simple thing, in read through.  In play, it has amazing versatility.  I can slide the enemy into flanking position, so next turn I can get to do Sneak attack.  I can slide the enemy around the fighter, so if it wants to attack me next turn it has to deal with the fighter's "stickiness".  I can slide it away, trying to protect a squishier wizard or warlock in the back.  I can slide it off a cliff, into a trap, into a damage zone cast by a warlock or wizard, into rough terrain, and so on, and so on.  

It's one power with a simple read through, but once you're actually in combat it gives you a ton of options that are all dependant upon the specific combat situation you find yourself in.

And that's just one of your powers.  You've got others.  Some deal more damage.  Some might blind or immobilize a foe.  Others might hit more than one foe at a time.  And you can use them in whatever order you want.  I can put myself in a position where sliding my foe might be useful, or if it's not, I can merely go for maximum damage.  Maybe *now* is a good time to immobilize rather than slide, so I can.  

In 4e combat is constantly shifting.  Monsters move around, traps and terrain change your ability to move or your reasons for it.  The standard/move/minor action concept means you get just as much attack whether you stay in once place or you move around the field, so often it benefits you to reposition during a fight.  

Skill use is also adjusted in a similar manner.  A reduced number of broader skills means that you can do more with any individual skill.  Thievery now covers pick pocketing, sleight of hand, trap disarming, forgery, and maybe even disguise in some cases.  One skill, lots of usability.  Stealth now covers both moving quietly and hiding.  Nature now covers handling animals, knowledge local (in the woods), knowledge nature, and even some alchemy in potion brewing (with the right ritual).  Arcana covers both knowledge and spellcraft and even detect magic, as well as lots of rituals.  When I choose a skill to train in 4e, I'm now choosing to be better at a long list of different, related things.  I'm getting blocks of skills for one training, rather than excelling at individual parts of that block at the expense of other parts.

And even further, rebalancing the way skills work to include the 1/2 level on a roll means that a character doesn't have to be highly trained and specialized to get use out of a skill.  A wizard with decent dex can actually succeed at a sneak check now, just not as often as trained rogue.  A non-charismatic dwarf might still be able to bluff his way through something.  Sure, it'd be a difficult roll, but we're opening up more options during game play here.  I wouldn't even try something like that in 3e because the way the system is designed, at mid-high levels your chance of success would be zero.

So to conclude this part: 4e reduces the number of character creation options in the name of game balance, but vastly makes up for it in the amount of "in play" options available.

Still reading?  Thanks.   Last part!

Finally, to tie up the beginning with the end, here we go.  So we keep seeing people saying "it doesn't read well, but when you play it, it's great!"  Why?  Well, look at what I just said.  They took the options we're familiar with, and replaced them with options we're less familiar with.  I look at the book and see only a few races, a few classes (both less or equal to what the 3e PHB had), with the removal of a lot of the complexity that character creation used to have.  It's more simple to make, easier to "throw something together" and completely lacking in the beloved modularity of the previous game.

You see powers that say "Do 2(w) and slide the target 3 spaces".  Does that give you an excited tingle up your spine?  No.  It sounds pretty bland on paper.  

How about "Switch places with an ally as a move action", "Close burst 1, do some damage and teleport 5 + Int mod squares", "Gain concealment when you move more than 3 spaces", and "Gain +5 to sealth checks until the end of your next turn".  Individually they all sound pretty simple, not very exciting...

Then I see my buddy's fae-lock use a minor to activate his +5 to stealth checks, do a move to switch places with the fighter who's surrounded and getting beat on, use otherworldy stride to damage everyone around him and uses the teleport it gives to get himself out of being surrounded as a standard action, and then rolls a stealth check at the end because he trained in that skill and has concealment from his other warlock power.  He makes a high stealth roll and the enemies can't see him.

The fighter is saved, the monsters are hurt, confused, and can't retaliate on the guy who just screwed them, the DM is boggled and the warlock can sit back and bask in it.  Those were "just encounter powers", he's still got his "powerful" dailies left.    

Bring on the 4e, bring on the in game options.  I loved sitting around tinkering with character builds for hours, but I don't think I'll miss it much.  I'm having too damn much fun actually playing the game!


----------



## Gargoyle

I think you've got something there.  Virtually any character concept can be done with 3E multiclassing, feats, and prestige classes.  4e is limited, and is actually more of a class system than 3e, even just considering the PHBs.  The choices at character creation are more limited like a class system should be IMO, making for few, if any, weak or silly choices.  I didn't like that in 3e a new player could create a very weak character, and that seems harder to do in 4e.

Of course in time there will be many more options in 4e, many of which will be marketed as "core rules", so in this respect it will be more like 3e and its library of splatbooks for better or worse.    It will be interesting to see the game grow.  If the new options are fun without eclipsing the options in the original books, I will be impressed.  I definitely miss the druid, barbarian, and some of the other classes, but I'm not looking forward to a bunch of new classes/feats/paragon paths that don't play well with the existing options.  I'll certainly be careful when adding new options to the game...I'm having a blast with the core 4e rules right now.


----------



## Echoes

This.  This is the post.


----------



## Lizard

Matches my one play experience w/4e. Passing the link along.


----------



## beverson

This.

Bravo JDillard.  Bravo.


----------



## melkoriii

See and it seems your are ignoring the point some are having with limited Options in 4e.

In 3.X I could make any concept. 

4e limits what you can do not only in classes bug also in powers.

There are WAY to many powers of melee only.  Rouge and Ranger are the ONLY ways to get ranged weapon powers.

Have to wait for splat books for these options SUCKS and this is one thing I dont like about 4e.  

I feel mislead abut Multi-Classing and the scope of classes.

I now have to House rule a ton to play the character concepts I like (and they are in no way munchkin/OPed abuse of options)

For me its seems that playtesting was very limited on what was actualy tested.

Just look at the Ranger One round combos....  OR the Broken Multi-Classing Warlord/Cleric....


----------



## The Little Raven

melkoriii said:
			
		

> OR the Broken Multi-Classing Warlord/Cleric....




OR the totally broken Dwarf Monk!


----------



## Nail

Nice post, *JDillard*.

Thanks.


----------



## CrimsonNeko

I hate to tell you this, melkoriii, but I can think of a ton of concepts that don't work out of the base PHB, especially any spell casting concepts (I miss 2e Wild Mage >_< ).  The concepts are all from splat books.  There are some concepts I can roll in the base 3e PHB, but generally they are flat cut out characters.  People say it was cool to build characters.  3e is the system that killed my joy of making characters.  It's meta-gaming at it's finest, and I despise meta-gaming.  The only thing that was good in 3e for character creation was that it filled in the flavor text for you.

Sorry, that was a bit rant-ish.  Maybe I'm weird, but I just really hated 3e character creation, and get a lot better feel from 4e character creation.  Heck, I liked PALLADIUM character creation better than 3e!


----------



## Nifft

From what I've seen so far, I agree with this.

It's a bit frustrating to argue about character optimization when the basic unit of battle is now the party. Characters all need to be at the highest obvious level of optimization, but their real power comes when they work together.

"Frost daggers for everyone!", -- N


----------



## Roger

I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## The Grackle

Actually "2(w) and slide target 3 squares" does give me a tingle up my spine, but great post.  It's nice to hear from playtesters who've been at it for a  few months. I've had similar observations:

3e= fun to tool around with character builds and template monsters
4e= fun w/tactics in-game


----------



## Byronic

Roger said:
			
		

> I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Roger




Pity if that happens since it's probably the closest we've gotten to actually finding out exactly what the difference is between the two.


----------



## JDillard

melkoriii said:
			
		

> See and it seems your are ignoring the point some are having with limited Options in 4e.
> 
> In 3.X I could make any concept.
> 
> 4e limits what you can do not only in classes bug also in powers.
> 
> There are WAY to many powers of melee only.  Rouge and Ranger are the ONLY ways to get ranged weapon powers.
> 
> Have to wait for splat books for these options SUCKS and this is one thing I dont like about 4e.
> 
> I feel mislead abut Multi-Classing and the scope of classes.




There's two ways to define "Limited options".  Firstly, there's the "Class concept X that I want isn't available."  Secondly there's "The total number of options is less."

I was responding to the second argument, not the first.  The first will almost assuredly be fixed in splatbooks, as you and others have mentioned.  Does it suck to have to wait for your favorite thing to be available?  Hell yes it does.  However, given how much fun I'm having with my second or third favorite concepts (I've been playing Druids since 2e, can't wait for 4e version), I'm more than happy with the game as it is.


----------



## Kishin

Great way to break out of lurking. Very insightful, and well communicated.




			
				melkorii said:
			
		

> Have to wait for splat books for these options SUCKS and this is one thing I dont like about 4e.




You couldn't make every concept in 3.5E with just the core three books, just as you can't with 4E. Your own impatience in having to wait for splat books is not a design flaw. Of course you can accomadate
more concepts in 3.5E when you have eight years more of releases to draw upon. Likewise, you really can't expect 8 years of material to appear in the core 3 of a new edition of the game unless you wanted to wait until 2017 for a 3000 page PHB. This really is the fatal flaw in the '4E has less character options!' argument: People tend to incorporate more than 3.5E's Core 3 into their view when they argue this. I'm glad the OP dodged this bullet and gave us something much more interesting to debate.



			
				Roger said:
			
		

> I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.




It would be a right shame to mistake a comparative discussion for an edition war, especially with as good as a point as the OP has made.


----------



## Derren

I disagree with that. The added effects to attacks only balance out what was lost, for example trip, disarm, sunder and grapple. Also you forget that a lot of spells in 3E, which are missing in 4E, which had effects other than dealing damage to the enemy.
The play options are more spread out among all classes instead of focussed on spellcasters which is a good thing, but 4E does not offer more options than 3E neither at character creation nor in game, especially as a lot of options are duplicates.


----------



## DreamChaser

I honestly do not think that range of options = quality of options nor does it = enjoyability of game. 3e, which I still enjoy playing, created the illusion of options by offering a system with millions of possible permutations.

However, within those permutations, the number of viable options are substantially lower (perhaps dozens or hundreds) and most of that number was not available at the inception of the edition but arose as a result of the build-up (some say bloat but I disagree) of the game over 8+ years.

Also within those permutations, there is a massive disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. A fighter or rogue has far fewer viable permutations in 3e than clerics, druids, or wizards. Why? Because there are more spells than feats, those spells tended to grow in power over the life of the edition, and those three classes could learn every new spell of their class that appeared.

So, increased options really only applied on a practical level to spell casters. In the case of fighters, new feats were as often as not useless for an established character because the truly effective ones had to be planned for from the start.

Thus, I would suggest that the increased options of 3e was actually the "illusion" of increased options, many of which exacerbated other balance issues (spellcaster vs. not) in the game.

Now clearly there are fewer options TOTAL for 4e. Wizards have lost much of their granularity (not that I saw a huge range of 1st level spell options for wizards during the years I played). The classes as a whole have prospered in my opinion.

DC


----------



## kristov

It is true that 3 rule books vs. 3000 rule books seems to lead to less options.


----------



## Malk

I don't understand how it can be called an edition war when the OP specifically talks about the advantages _and_ disadvantages of each system.

Otherwise, an excellent and insightful post.


----------



## Rechan

One thing to consider when discussing options: sure, you Could create many, many concepts! Just that if you deviated past a certain point, your character was as useful as a quadriplegic in an ass kicking contest. 

I have seen a 5th level party whose only healer was a Cleric2/Pal3. The party's only spellcaster was a Sor3/Rog2. All these choices were made for roleplaying purposes.

The DM threw CR 5 opponents at them, and the party routinely had their backsides handed to them on a silver platter. 

In 4e, while there are fewer options, it's also harder to cripple yourself by making a wrong choice. And a wrong choice can be fixed with retraining. With 4e, I can make a social character who _doesn't suck in a fight_. That's bigger, to me, than being a full-plate fighter using longbow feats.


----------



## Tony Vargas

I have to admit to getting pretty excited when I read through the Warlord powers.  I'd be pleasantly surprised if they are as much fun to use in play, let alone moreso.

3E did have quite a few in-play options, though, and not just for the prepped casters (who, really, hadn't all that many 'build' options - single-class was about it).  There were more options than just 'attack' for the melee types, and you could use feats to expand upon them.  Fighters and Sorcerers, yes, you could build endlessly different builds, but each build had only it's own fixed options - still, those were more than a few options, and they retained them through an adventure.  A sorcerer's options didn't diminish until he cast his last top-level spell, and a fighter's were there 24/7.  The prepped casters, OTOH, had tremendous options every morning, but they began declining the moment they used any of them.  

4e, I think, does do much of what the OP said, but I get the impression there's some attempt to get the best of both.  4e characters do get a lot of options at chargen and level-up, but those options are chanellilzed by class, sub-class and stats.  The same was true to an extent in 3e, but it wasn't helpfully pointed out to you.  4e characters will use a greater variety of options in combat, too.  But, part of that is because they see thier options decline when they use up a daily power, and, tactically, lose an option each time they expend an encounter power (and at-will powers are few).  That forces them to do a greater variety of things, but, unless they're clever and lucky, they may find themselves doing something less than thrilling when they could have really rocked if they'd had a certain power that they'd already expended or used a power they were saving for later.


----------



## sfedi

The OP was a real eye opener for me.

Excellent post, and I agree with it in my limited game experience.


----------



## Boarstorm

Bravo.

That is all.


----------



## JDillard

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> 4e, I think, does do much of what the OP said, but I get the impression there's some attempt to get the best of both.  4e characters do see thier options decline when they use up a daily power, and, tactically, lose an option each time they expend an encounter power (and at-will powers are few).  That forces them to do a greater variety of things, but, unless they're clever and lucky, they'll may find themselves doing something less than thrilling when they could have really rocked if they'd had a certain power that they'd already expended or used a power they were saving for later.




That's really key, in that it makes each decision important.  I often find myself opening a combat with an at-will power, even if I'm playing a bit higher level and have a larger selection of encounters.  I don't want to waste a good encounter power's secondary effects simply to do more damage from the get go.

Having lots of irrelevant options is actually worse than having a few really valuable ones.  The designers seem to get this concept, and so built it into the system.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Excellent post, and I think the analysis is spot on (though I expect the 4E creation options will expand as books are published).  I think both the 3E and 4E approaches are equally valid, though I'd like to see both.

In spite of 4E's very class-focused structure, it also appears to me that it is a much shorter leap for 4E to a classless system than it was from 3E.  Imagine all powers and feats are potentially open at character creation, plus the character begins with a handful of starting feats.  Assignment of skills and attribute bonuses is open.  Some powers or feats do have additional prerequisites, and some may only be taken at 1st level.  Conceivably you could build any 4E character ... and build a range of characters not 4E.

Were I more motivated by the idea, I'd publish "classless fantasy" under the GSL.


----------



## JohnSnow

Firstly, I want to deal with the last comment:



			
				Roger said:
			
		

> I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.




For starters, if you think something is reportable, report it. Don't threaten to report it.

I don't think it's starting an "edition war" to argue that Fourth Edition has emphasized "options in play" over "options in character building." It is, in fact, a simple statement that the game is designed to put "choosing options" in a different place.

For example, I'm very pro-4E and I'd totally agree with this statement. I know for a fact that there are people who are very pro-3e who would also agree with it. Which you prefer is a matter of preference, but the statement that 3e has more options in "character building" and 4e has more options in "play" (*) is nothing short of admitting reality.

Now, do I expect there will be more "build options" as more options are released for Fourth Edition? Yes, I certainly think that's true. But the first release has limited options.



			
				melkoriii said:
			
		

> See and it seems your are ignoring the point some are having with limited Options in 4e.
> 
> In 3.X I could make any concept.
> 
> 4e limits what you can do not only in classes bug also in powers.
> 
> There are WAY to many powers of melee only. Rouge and Ranger are the ONLY ways to get ranged weapon powers.
> 
> Have to wait for splat books for these options SUCKS and this is one thing I dont like about 4e.




What's he misunderstanding?

People are saying that there are limited options in away from the table character design. He's responding: "You're not imagining things, the 'build options' are limited."

"BUT," he continues, "There are still options and choices. It's just not all about stacking this feat and that combo or this class and those items."

You are correct. Some options (druids, barbarians, bards, certain kinds of specialist wizards) are flat out gone from the first set of rules. I would contend that most of the concepts are not MISSING so much as they've been re-allocated.

3e: "I want to make a light armored *fighter* who specializes in archery." 

 Start with fighter class, allocate attributes.
 Choose archery feats, and cross class skills.

4e: "I want to make a light armored *character* who specializes in archery."

 The best class for that is ranger.
 Choose archery style. 
 Pick powers, skills, and feats to support concept.

With the exceptions I called out above (druid, barbarian, bard, certain specialist wizards), I don't think there's that many *character concepts* that could be created "out-of-the box" in Third Edition _at the start_ that can't be done in Fourth.

In exchange, Fourth offers a few that weren't supported in Third. The arcane character who gains power via a pact wasn't supported until well into 3e. The smart warrior character who leads the team in battle is not a concept that was supported (mechanically) in Third Edition until well into its release. In fourth, both are present "out of the gate."



			
				melkoriii said:
			
		

> I feel mislead abut Multi-Classing and the scope of classes.
> 
> I now have to House rule a ton to play the character concepts I like (and they are in no way munchkin/OPed abuse of options)
> 
> For me its seems that playtesting was very limited on what was actualy tested.
> 
> Just look at the Ranger One round combos.... OR the Broken Multi-Classing Warlord/Cleric....




 What concepts? List some.

 There were hundreds of playtesters. Some of them were even the same folks from the WotC Character Optimization boards whose compatriots found the broken combos. That means either they missed the abuses (which means they're far from obvious) or they deliberately left them in.

 ASIDE from Blade Cascade (and I freely admit that min-maxers can abuse that one), what ranger combos are we talking about? Strikers are _supposed_ to do a lot of damage, and rangers are strikers.

 Warlord/Cleric is broken? What did I miss?

I admit that some multi-classing dependent combos aren't available in this edition. But with some notable exceptions, I'm not sure how "unavailable" the real concepts of multiclass combinations really are. Basically, you're forced to decide what part of his "multiclass" your character emphasizes. Are you a wizard who can fight, or a fighter who can throw out a few spells. I admit that the straight 50/50 fighter/wizard combo is hard to pull off. I just question whether there's any real concept behind it.





(*) Spellcasters are the only classes who have had their "in-play" options trimmed. Sort of. A 1st-level wizard actually has more powers than his 3e counterpart. By level 6 or so, that starts changing. Yes, his 3e counterpart had more options to choose from _each day_, but once those choices have been made, the low level 4e Wizard has more powers to pick from _in any given encounter_ than his 3e counterpart.

Not counting cantrips, our low level 4e wizard has 4 spells. He still has 3 of them even after he spends his daily. His 3e counterpart has 2 options in the 1st encounter, and his options decline rapidly _if he uses his powers_.

At the highest levels,  the character has up to 10 _attack_ spells (4 of which are available every encounter and 2 of which can be used any time) and 5-7 utility ones, _not counting rituals_. That's as many spells as the 3e wizard got from his top 3-4 (i.e. useful) spell levels.

Yes, it reads as "fewer options" but is it really?


----------



## kromelizard

It certainly is fun to have wide open tactical movement and abundant viable choices in and out of combat. There's no reason, given the incredible modularity inherent in the power system and the uniform advancement for all classes, that we couldn't have been given both the fun play options for all characters and the ability for endless customization. So, in the end, this is a weird, straw man, compare and contrast argument. The designers decided they didn't like it and didn't want to do it and thought it was bad fun for the players to have. The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.


----------



## Prophet2b

kromelizard said:
			
		

> The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.




And if I was them reading comments like that, there is no way I would even consider it.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Roger said:
			
		

> I think this thread runs perilously close to the ban on edition wars threads (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230454), but I'm not a moderator.




Of course it isn't.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Plenty of room for reasoned discussion of the differences between any of the versions.




Very reasoned, insightful (and non judgemental) discussion about some key differences between 4e and 3e.

An excellent first thread, BTW.

Cheers


----------



## bjorn2bwild

Excellent OP.  I'm forwarding it to all of my buddies who are on the fence about 4e.

thank you.


----------



## Plane Sailing

kromelizard said:
			
		

> It certainly is fun to have wide open tactical movement and abundant viable choices in and out of combat. There's no reason, given the incredible modularity inherent in the power system and the uniform advancement for all classes, that we couldn't have been given both the fun play options for all characters and the ability for endless customization. So, in the end, this is a weird, straw man, compare and contrast argument. The designers decided they didn't like it and didn't want to do it and thought it was bad fun for the players to have. The Design & Development column about it was pretty retarded. I'm just waiting for them to pull their heads out of their asses and realize they can bring back dual-classing and make it awesome.




What makes you think you are allowed to try to turn a discussion into an argument?

No more posting in this thread.


----------



## Stilvan

Well this edition changes so much it can't really borrow much from the previous editions.  This is why I think the potential of the system is fantastic but the implementation is by necessity (read: page count in core books) broad but not so deep.  It does suck having to wait for 
'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like - but the payoff is having an easy to run system that is extraordinarily ripe for expansion.

I think the story will be very different a year from now once the initial wave of first and third party expansion materials has been released.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Excellent, well thought out essay. And i agree


----------



## Felon

I like the original post's point-of-view, but I do wish that posts critical or skeptical of the new edition were treated with equal consideration by the community. I also can't say that I see why play options and build options can't co-exist.


----------



## Teydyn

Great OP, actually great threat.



			
				wartorn said:
			
		

> It does suck having to wait for 'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like



Just take a step back and divorce the name your concept has from the name the class has. A ranger is an archer fighter, a ranger is a 2-w-rogue, heck, even the rogue can be a 2-w-rogue with just 1 feat...


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I hate to say "me too", but this one had bits where I said "Hey, I was trying to say this, and failed", so I'm definately bookmarking it. 

I think there's a definate element of "system mastery" in 3.x, which is very different in 4e. You can still create optimized builds, but the different results you get will go "good to very good" rather than "useless to incredibly good". I can see why some people liked the multiplicity of options, even though I found them overwhelming.


----------



## JDillard

wartorn said:
			
		

> It does suck having to wait for 'splatbooks' to have options for archer fighters, two weapon rogues and the like...




Cutting you a bit out of context here, but I bring up this point because it seems to come up *so* often, and I don't really understand it exactly, so maybe we can discuss it a bit?

People complain about the lack of Druids and Bards.  I'm totally on board with that one.  I don't worry too much, though, we're all pretty sure WotC is working on them, and there's a lot of fun left to have with the classes we've got.

However, everyone seems to grab onto the "archer fighter" concept.  What is it you are missing when you say you want that? 

Someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit them) made a post a few weeks back that really, it's not the archery-based fighter that the system is lacking.  It's the 3e Ranger.  The 4e Ranger has the majority of the 3e Archery Fighter's abilities and none of the 3e Ranger's nature magic, animal companion or favored enemy.  

If you want to make him armored, take a couple feats and you're good to go.  Ta-da!  Archer fighter!  The only difference is that where it says class on his character sheet it says "Ranger" instead of "Fighter".

Same thing with a "two-weapon rogue".  What is it you're looking for there?  Take a Rogue, give him two weapons.  He won't have any two-weapon specific exploits, but he can still Rogue it up with the best of them.  That, or give a Two-weapon Ranger the Rogue multiclass feat.  Two weapons, Thievery, and sneak attack 1/encounter, sounds like a two-weapon Rogue to me.

People seem to want to avoid playing a Ranger.  For some reason, they'd rather play another class with all his abilities.  I guess I don't really get why.


----------



## Regicide

JDillard said:
			
		

> So to conclude this part: 4e reduces the number of character creation options in the name of game balance, but vastly makes up for it in the amount of "in play" options available.




  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.  The more powerful magic items and potions of 3E also gave even more options.

  Thats for the simplest class of all.  Any other class just goes up, rangers, factotums, warblades, you name it.

  4E combat is different.  It has less options, but WotC wants to sell miniatures so now everything gets marked and everything shifts around constantly so you have to play with a map.  It's not more options, it's just more information and more mechanics to keep track of.


----------



## hong

Regicide said:
			
		

> This is flat out false.  Even the simplest class, the fighter, had far more effective combat options in 3E than they do in 4E.




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.


----------



## Wormwood

edit: cheerfully withdrawn. Let's not derail this any further.


----------



## JDillard

Felon said:
			
		

> 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

hong 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.




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

Regicide said:
			
		

> 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

hong 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.




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

hong 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.



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

Derren said:
			
		

> 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

hong said:
			
		

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




In your game maybe.


----------



## Stilvan

JDillard said:
			
		

> 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

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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

Derren said:
			
		

> In your game maybe.



 And this is my problem because...?


----------



## JDillard

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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

hong said:
			
		

> 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

JDillard said:
			
		

> 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:


			
				Hong 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

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> 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

JDillard said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Thasmodious

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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".




Take out the word feats.  Feats are not the way you make characters in 4e. 

Fighters are my favorite class and one of the things I was most excited about was all the buzz about how fighters were awesome again in 4e.  So, when I got my hands on the books, I just started making fighters, I made about a dozen, made em at multiple levels, just to play and poke and try things out.  

I made a bare knuckle brawler that turned out pretty well.  He was no damage machine, but it was clear I couldn't make a damage machine from the beginning.  I do lament that there is no unarmed feat that takes it from improvised weapon to proficiency bonus.  But you can make one with your DM easily enough.  That's neither here nor there.  What I did see was that the best way to make a brawler was to do what I could do best, and that was be a defending machine.  Fists aren't going to compare to swords anyway, so just make as tough a fighter as I can.  Dwarf, 19 con at 1st, high str for damage, toughness, durable, weapon focus unarmed, focus power selection on inflicting conditions.  There are lots of things I could do as I went along that would work quite well in a party, and he was as tough as they come.

Just with the fighter, I made a - 

barbarian, that was easy - high str and con, hide armor, a maul, focus on heavy damage powers and knocking people down or around (6d6 brute strikes are FUN)

soldier type, polearm, short sword, light shield, powers and ability scores that had a nice synergy

an awesome, lightly armored, dex based spear fighter that used javelins for range and for short spear and shield fighting and carried a longspear for reach

a balls to the wall knight in plate armor with ye olde sword and board, killer defenses and nice shield options from powers and feats (like shield push)

My favorite, no doubt was the dwarf wizard/fighter (made him at 6th level).  A tough as nails dwarf who loved to mix it up.  He focused on close area spells, used a warhammer, took crushing blow as a 3rd lvl enc power swap, had dimension door, shield and expeditious retreat to chose from to help him get out of trouble.

I am really impressed with the wizard.  I was worried that the price we would play for viable fighters would be wizards would lose that wizard feel.  IMO, that didn't happen.  Spellbooks, having choices no other class has, implements and their options, being the undisputed master of the ritual...  All those add up to leaving the wizard versatile and, well, wizardly.


----------



## MrGrenadine

JDillard said:
			
		

> Same thing with a "two-weapon rogue".  What is it you're looking for there?  Take a Rogue, give him two weapons.  He won't have any two-weapon specific exploits, but he can still Rogue it up with the best of them.  That, or give a Two-weapon Ranger the Rogue multiclass feat.  Two weapons, Thievery, and sneak attack 1/encounter, sounds like a two-weapon Rogue to me.





I appreciate that you're really enjoying 4e, and I hope to at some point as well, but as someone who loves playing rogues I have to tell you that being able to sneak attack *once an encounter* is tremendously underwhelming.

I'm currently trying to wrap my head around all the rogue power choices in 4e, and there's some great stuff in there, to be sure.  I only wish that the new strategies and powers were *added* to what I had grown to enjoy in 3.5, instead of replacing them or making them less effective, (Once-an-encounter Tumble, I'm lookin' at you!).

I do agree that its impossible to build every choice into the game at its inception, and that, over time, 4e will become a much richer experience, (especially when user created and 3rd party material is added to the mix), and I'm looking forward to that.

MrG


----------



## Benly

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> I appreciate that you're really enjoying 4e, and I hope to at some point as well, but as someone who loves playing rogues I have to tell you that being able to sneak attack *once an encounter* is tremendously underwhelming.




Rogues sneak attack once per round, not once per encounter. You're limited by needing to get combat advantage, but that was there in 3.x anyway since the situations that give you combat advantage are largely the ones that allowed sneak attack in 3.x.

Unless you're a multiclass rogue, anyway, but then you're not exactly "playing a rogue".


----------



## MrGrenadine

Benly said:
			
		

> Rogues sneak attack once per round, not once per encounter. You're limited by needing to get combat advantage, but that was there in 3.x anyway since the situations that give you combat advantage are largely the ones that allowed sneak attack in 3.x.
> 
> Unless you're a multiclass rogue, anyway, but then you're not exactly "playing a rogue".




Yeah, I agree completely--I was responding to JDs suggestion to go Ranger and multiclass Rogue to create a TWF Rogue.

MrG


----------



## balard

You can always be a rogue that multiclass into ranger...

To the OP, excellent post, I wish it was in portuguese to rub it in some faces..


----------



## Nifft

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree completely--I was responding to JDs suggestion to go Ranger and multiclass Rogue to create a TWF Rogue.



 Bah, TWF Rogue is easy.

1/ Play a Rogue.
2/ Take the feat TWF.
DONE!

It's not double-your-damage like it was in 3e, but that's okay. The Rogue does excellent damage in 4e without any such tricks.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FadedC

Nifft said:
			
		

> Bah, TWF Rogue is easy.
> 
> 1/ Play a Rogue.
> 2/ Take the feat TWF.
> DONE!
> 
> It's not double-your-damage like it was in 3e, but that's okay. The Rogue does excellent damage in 4e without any such tricks.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




The TWF feat is actually decent for a rogue too, it's not like he has a ton to do with that other hand.


----------



## DandD

Yeah. Also, a Ranger multiclassing with Rogue still got his hunter quarry-additional damage-thingie. Just refluff it that you are doing some backstabbing with your hunter quarry-thingie. And once per encounter, you can add up the damage with sneak attack. 
No problem, unless you're devoid of imagination and incapable to see through your inner eye how that would work naratively.


----------



## Eldorian

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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".





Really?  These don't leap out at you?

Most of the "nonstandard" as I see it comes from interesting multiclasses.  Most classes multiclass best with a class from the same power source, but different role.

Take a fighter, focus on heavy/light blades/flails/any dex weapon I'm forgetting, two weapon fighting, and multiclass to ranger to pick up some highly damaging/maneuvering abilities, and perhaps a ranged/melee exploit for using when there are no melee options in the current fight.

Take a fighter, focus on secondary wisdom, multiclass to cleric and get party buffs/heals.

Take a fighter, focus on light blades, perhaps dual wield, shortsword and dagger, and get rogue multiclass and you get some ranged/melee attacks you didn't have before.  Or hell, use the advantage of dual wield to use different class weapons for different fighter powers.  Dual wield is a pretty good option actually, due to the versatility offered by making different types of attacks with main and offhand.

Take a fighter, grab warlord mutliclassing.  Many warlord abilities don't require you to have a decent Int or Cha, just Str.

A fighter can fight with any melee weapon and basically be effective, tho military weapons are generally superior.


----------



## Nifft

FadedC said:
			
		

> The TWF feat is actually decent for a rogue too, it's not like he has a ton to do with that other hand.



 Absolutely. And TWD is nice as well -- Rogues often don't have tons of options for feats, and not getting hit is really really good.

One of my favorite multi-class combos is Rogue (Rapier, Quickdraw, TWF, TWD) / Fighter feat -> Kensei. He's a tricky duelist / swashbuckler who hits hard when he fights fair, and harder when he doesn't.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hussar

Felon said:
			
		

> I like the original post's point-of-view, but I do wish that posts critical or skeptical of the new edition were treated with equal consideration by the community. I also can't say that I see why play options and build options can't co-exist.




I'll take a stab at that one.

The more options you put into the build, the more elements the system must track in order to be balanced.  In order to keep balance, you have to reduce play options.  Vancian casting is probably the best example of this.  Wizards had enormous build options.  Virtually unlimited.  But, in play, they were limited to X spells/day.

Imagine, if you will, a 3e system where wizards have no daily casting limit.  Now you have nearly unlimited play options coupled to unlimited build options.  How could you possibly balance the system against this?  Or, never mind wizards, how about clerics?  Wizards at least were limited by their spell book.  Clerics and druids don't have any limits at all.


----------



## Lizard

Eldorian said:
			
		

> Really?  These don't leap out at you?




Not really, no. The presence of "builds" really keeps me from looking, too. I mean, there it is, all spelled out for you. Why bother poring over the powers looking for Cool Stuff when someone's done all the work?

I've been trying to build an Eladrin fighter (wizard). My main choice is "Take Arcane Initiate at level 1 or take it at level 2", with the other choice being "Take Eladrin Soldier at Level 1 or Level 2". I originally wanted to go Greatsword/no shield, but the advantages of Eladrin Soldier make that really sub-optimal, or so it seems. With one Feat and no skill points, my total choices are pretty limited. There just aren't very many interesting choices to make at first level, or so it seems. The main advantage 4e has in that area is that you can multiclass from level 1, and of the two builds I've tried, that one looks more interesting.

Here's what I ended up with.
Avaliar, Eladrin Fighter (Wizard)
Hit Points: 29 Bloodied 14 Healing Surge 7
Surges: 11
Defenses:AC 19 Will 12 Fort 15 Reflex 14
Init:+1
Str: 16(+3)
Dex: 12(+1)
Con: 14(+2)
Int: 15(+2)
Wis: 12(+1)
Cha: 11(+0)

Endurance +7, Heal +6, Athletics+8, Arcana +9, History +9
Feat:Arcane Initiate

Weapon Talent: 1-handed weapons

Equipment: Scale Armor, Longsword, Longbow, Heavy Shield
  +6 vs AC 1d8+3
  +3 vs AC 1d10
 AW Cleave +6 1d8+3, 3 to adjacent target
AW Sure Strike +8, 1d8
E  Passing Attack +6 vs AC, 1d8, secondary +8 vs. AC, 1d8
 E  Scorching Burst, +2 vs. Reflex, 1d6+1 damage
 D  Villain's Menace +6 vs AC, 2d8+3, +2 to hit/+4 damage against target till end of encounter, on miss, +1 attack/+2 damage

About the only thing I find really heartening is that his Will defense sucks. Yes, I find this heartening, because I like characters to have strengths and weaknesses, and having defenses which vary by more than 1-2 points means there's some actual mechanical impact to your choices.

I see him using cleave, scorching burst, and passing strike to clear out the rabble, then hit the big bad with Villain's menace. 

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.

What other builds are viable -- not just possible, but actually GOOD? Is there any reason to forego Eladrin Soldier? How would you do a Greatsword wielder?

I need to make a few more characters to see if I start finding any interesting and unexpected combos.

EDIT: Fixed will defense, took training in History (Eladrin Education). (Damn, but Eladrin are cool beans. Almost worth the price of admission to 4e. This is what elves SHOULD be, not poncy little traipse-around-the-woods tree huggers.) (Fey step is still annoying from a world building perspective, but I've decided that there's ways to make it work, mostly involving hot pokers.)


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> About the only thing I find really heartening is that his Will defense sucks. Yes, I find this heartening, because I like characters to have strengths and weaknesses, and having defenses which vary by more than 1-2 points means there's some actual mechanical impact to your choices.
> 
> I see him using cleave, scorching burst, and passing strike to clear out the rabble, then hit the big bad with Villain's menace.
> 
> I dunno. It's not a BAD character, I just didn't feel I had very many choices that weren't deliberately self-screwing.




You don't want self-screwing choices, but you like a crap Will def?


----------



## SPECTRE666

JDillard said:
			
		

> Got a long one here for you all.
> <Snipped>



-Thank you. This post is pure win.


*SPECTRE666*


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> You don't want self-screwing choices, but you like a crap Will def?




Yes -- because it was a natural outgrowth of the other choices I made, not the consequence of me sitting down and saying "I want a low defense".

It means the choices I made *had* *consequences*. I didn't set out to have a low Will defense, I set out to build a character who was first, an effective fighter, and second, could qualify for Arcane Initiate. He needed Strength first, then Intelligence, then Con...I gave him minimal dex, but that still didn't leave me much. Given the choice between Wisdom and Charisma, I figured Wisdom was more mechanically useful and better fit the character concept. Since the two Will stats were both low -- and since his class and equipment synergized to raise the others -- he ended up with a crap Will defense as a side effect of making optimal, or at least seemingly so, choices in other areas. Something had to give.

This is how it should be.

Good game design in action.

(Anyway, it should be one higher...Eladrin racial bonus. Still pretty low, and not likely to go up anytime soon.)


----------



## hong

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yes -- because it was a natural outgrowth of the other choices I made, not the consequence of me sitting down and saying "I want a low defense".




This is important, why?



> It means the choices I made *had* *consequences*.




Every choice you make has consequences. Some just happen to be more visible than others.



> This is how it should be.




This is exactly how it should not be. Hidden traps to catch people unawares is good for a CCG, not an RPG.



> Good game design in action.




This is bad game design in action.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus

Up until now I've been thinking I'd eventually wind up playing 4E just because it's _the_ game. Let's face it, in-print D&D is the market share of rpgs, and it's the game you're most likely to be able to find a group for.

After having read the OP, I'm genuinely interested in trying it out. I've no plan on ever GMing it, but playing does sound cool.


----------



## Lizard

hong said:
			
		

> This is important, why?




Because it meant I had decisions to make.



> This is exactly how it should not be. Hidden traps to catch people unawares is good for a CCG, not an RPG.



How is it a hidden trap?

How would you have built the character? Start with standard attribute array. Swapping Con for Wis would, I think, make him a much less effective fighter -- THAT would be deliberately gimping him. 



> This is bad game design in action.




Hong says 4e has bad game design! Shun him! Shun the unbeliever!


----------



## hong

Oops, misread.


----------



## FadedC

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not really, no. The presence of "builds" really keeps me from looking, too. I mean, there it is, all spelled out for you. Why bother poring over the powers looking for Cool Stuff when someone's done all the work?




??? 3.x had builds and sample characters in the class descriptions too, it never stopped me or anyone else from ignoring them and making their own character. In fact if there is one thing that 3e and 4e has in common it's that  trusting in the default build is usually a really bad idea.....


----------



## Nifft

FadedC said:
			
		

> if there is one thing that 3e and 4e has in common it's that  trusting in the default build is usually a really bad idea.



 I agree with this. It seems like sample NPCs and pregen PCs are magnets for flat-out errors, even if we ignore their sub-optimal choices.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Eldorian

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not really, no. The presence of "builds" really keeps me from looking, too. I mean, there it is, all spelled out for you. Why bother poring over the powers looking for Cool Stuff when someone's done all the work?




Builds are for noobs.  Literally.  It's great that they're in the book, but if you want do do something odd, just do it, don't feel that because builds are in the book that you have to actually use them.


I think the trouble with your guy is that he's not a good multiclass.  See, defender with arcane multiclass isn't a very good option at current time.  The FR book will have a base class that is arcane defender, I think.  But that doesn't mean you can't make the classic elven fighter/wizard now.

You just have to realize that 4e fighter and 4e wizard aren't what you're looking for.  I played a couple bladesingers back in 2e days, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Instead of fighter/wizard, look instead at rogue/warlock, or warlord/wizard.  The rogue will either have to use a wand or rod in his offhand at higher level, and the warlord either an offhand implement, or a staff.  (staff kinda sounds cool now that I think of it).

A rogue/warlock could use the fey pact, and double dip in cha.  Eladrin would work for this, tho halfling might be better mechanically.  I like Eladrin too, so lets stick with that.

So, in the main hand, use a short sword at low levels, upgrade to rapier at higher.  In offhand, use a wand or rod.  Rod is cooler, tho =P  Buncha light blade feats that are good, and you always have warlock powers to pick up.

Every level up, pump up dex and cha.  There we go, a classic melee and magic character.  And he's offensively oriented, which was what a bladesinger was back in 2e.


----------



## Otterscrubber

Nifft said:
			
		

> Bah, TWF Rogue is easy.
> 
> 1/ Play a Rogue.
> 2/ Take the feat TWF.
> DONE!
> 
> It's not double-your-damage like it was in 3e, but that's okay. The Rogue does excellent damage in 4e without any such tricks.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Well said!  I see a lot of folks who seem sad that the rogue can't dual wield as well as a ranger.  But if they could why would anyone take a ranger?  I mean c'mon!  TWF is the schtick of the Ranger, in the way that backstab is the schtick of the rogue.  Expecting to be tops at both is kinda greedy.

There are clearly options in 4e, good ones, if you want a sneaky two weapon fighting type.  Don't get caught up in the fact that under class it might read ranger.  If you wanted to be a tough TWF sneaky type it might even read Fighter......cuz now they can get thievery skills as well....


----------



## Lurker37

JDillard said:
			
		

> Someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit them) made a post a few weeks back that really, it's not the archery-based fighter that the system is lacking.  It's the 3e Ranger.  The 4e Ranger has the majority of the 3e Archery Fighter's abilities and none of the 3e Ranger's nature magic, animal companion or favored enemy.




I believe that may have been me?


----------



## JDillard

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> I believe that may have been me?




You sir, are absolutely correct.  The post you've linked to definitely helped me figure out some of the ideas that spawned my original post here, and helped me understand the system as a whole.  Thank you.


----------



## JDillard

Lizard said:
			
		

> ...




So, I wonder if you're still approaching the system from a perspective that's expecting things that aren't there.  Then, when they aren't, you've already got grounds to be upset.

Lets take a look at your post:



> I've been trying to build an Eladrin fighter (wizard). My main choice is "Take Arcane Initiate at level 1 or take it at level 2", with the other choice being "Take Eladrin Soldier at Level 1 or Level 2".




Here's the first thing that caught my attention.  You skipped over something important.  Your main choice was not, as you said, which feat and when.  Your main choice was, and always will be in 4e, Race/Class.  The designers have made this explicit on multiple occasions.  Every other decision from here on out is going to be a decision of variability, a question of "what variety of Eladrin Fighter/Wizard am I making?"  All other decisions stem directly from this one.



> I originally wanted to go Greatsword/no shield, but the advantages of Eladrin Soldier make that really sub-optimal, or so it seems.




I would agree with you, though for more reasons than just the feat.  As you start to level a bit, if you want your Wiz spells to actually hit you're going to need to be using an implement with them.  Sword/wand makes   a pretty good combination, giving you the flexibility to fight or cast without having to switch equip.  This is going to be true of any multiclass that involves a melee and a non-melee though (except for cleric.  Damn clerics get their implements on their necks, instead of in their hands!  Lucky bastards!  )



> With one Feat and no skill points, my total choices are pretty limited. There just aren't very many interesting choices to make at first level, or so it seems.




This is in fact exactly what I was getting at in the OP.  However, I can give you a numeric number of how many choices you make at first level.

1 - Attributes
2 - Race
3 - Class
4 - Class option (twf ranger vs archer ranger)
5 - At-will #1
6 - At-will #2 (sometimes an easy, obvious choice for your build.  sometimes not)
6b - At-will #3 for humans
7- Encounter
7b - At-will as encounter for h-elf
8 - Daily
9 - Feat
9b - Feat #2 for humans
10 - Equipment
10b - Starting rituals for wizard or cleric

It's not a ton of choices, but there's a fair amount there.  I'm sure someone here could run the math and let us know how many permutations are possible given that number of choices.  Significantly less than 3rd, but not an unplayably small amount.



> 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, you are going for a *very specific* concept and have already limited yourself in certain ways.  Eldorian, above, mentions a few other ways you could make a "fighting spellcaster" character concept.  He also mentioned that WotC has already announced they're releasing one, a full-blown separate class one, in Forgotten Realms.  The class version of something is always going to be better at that concept than the multiclass version, unless the concept is itself an "X with just a little bit of Y".  

Further, it really appears as if you've constrained your thinking and are frustrating yourself by doing so.  You want to make a classic elf F/MU.  You've decided that this means Eladrin, Fighter, Wizard Multiclass.  

Right there, you're nearing the end point of level 1 character creation and you want it to be the beginning.  That's not how it works anymore.  Race/Class/Class Variant/Multiclass is, for the rest of this edition, going to be the central decision.  Everything else is just a variable of those parts.  



> What other builds are viable -- not just possible, but actually GOOD? Is there any reason to forego Eladrin Soldier? How would you do a Greatsword wielder?




I wouldn't.  Or, if I did, I would accept that I'm hobbling myself in some ways.  It'd be like playing a Fighter in 3e who exclusively uses a club.  It's an option, but it's far from a good one.  Still, I can do it if I want.  And you can do your greatsword Eladrin Ftr/Wiz if you want.  You'll just miss out on the implementy goodness I mentioned above.



> I need to make a few more characters to see if I start finding any interesting and unexpected combos.




Possibly you'll find a few.  Possibly not.  Depends on what you find interesting, and what you expect.  I'm discovering more interesting things in playing (and my own playstyle) than char building, hence the whole point of this discussion.  I would have sworn without a doubt that I was a leader player six months ago, but I'm enjoying the hell out of strikers now that I'm playing 4e.  Which made me make my next character, an elven archer ranger/cleric.  So much beautiful synergy there, I can't wait to try him out.


----------



## FadedC

JDillard said:
			
		

> 1 - Attributes
> 2 - Race
> 3 - Class
> 4 - Class option (twf ranger vs archer ranger)
> 5 - At-will #1
> 6 - At-will #2 (sometimes an easy, obvious choice for your build.  sometimes not)
> 6b - At-will #3 for humans
> 7- Encounter
> 7b - At-will as encounter for h-elf
> 8 - Daily
> 9 - Feat
> 9b - Feat #2 for humans
> 10 - Equipment
> 10b - Starting rituals for wizard or cleric




Although it is covered in your list, another important decision advanced players will want to make is what feats to take at higher levels. This is important because some very strong paragon feats have stat requirements, and may require you to move stats in ways you otherwise would not.

A wizard for example might really want the spell focus feat at lvl 11, but this requires a charisma of 13 or a fighter might want armor specialization requiring a dex of 15. If you don't plan ahead for this, the feats might not be possible to get. My elven radiant cleric has little use for strength, but many of his powers require him to get close to the enemy. So he's getting a 13 strength and con for scale armor and light shield proficiency. His 14 dex means he can take shield and scale specialization at paragon. Of course if I didn't do this I could bump his wisdom past 18.

There are actually quite a few subtleties to stat selection that make it more complicated then it initially appears.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

The original posters made some very good observations. 

I think I am gonna miss the 3E character build options. It was a lot of fun skimming the rule-books at home and finding the perfect build. It is a little like my Shadowrun times (which are only 10 % of my RPG experience, but they are the first 10 %  ), where I could spend hours to create different characters. 

But I think I am gonna like 4E in play a lot more. Because I have meaningful tactical decisions every round, every encounter. Regardless of class or build. I already tried to do this in 3E, for example by building Fighter with all the combat maneuver-related feats. 



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> What other builds are viable -- not just possible, but actually GOOD? Is there any reason to forego Eladrin Soldier? How would you do a Greatsword wielder?



I might remember wrong, but I think Eladrin Soldier and Weapon Focus do not stack. Weapon Focus is better at epic tier. So, of you want to be a Greatsword wielding Eladrin, do it with Weapon Focus. 

I can't comment on the rest of the build options, except this:
Don't let yourself be too constrained by the build options in the class paragraphs. There are a lot of powers that are independent on your subclass (if any). Warlocks Encounter powers all grant pact-dependent benefits, but daily and utilities don't. Very few Rogue powers are dependent on your Rogue Tactic. Fighter powers are mostly only dependent on weapon choice, not your weapon style (two-handed or one-handed).


----------



## TimeOut

Awesome OP, thank you.



> In 3.X I could make any concept.



And if 4e has released the same number of supplements and books as 3e, you can do the same here, and still retain more and a balanced number of options.


----------



## sbarbe

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What concepts? List some.




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


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.

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.

Need some pull with the city officials?  Charm someone in the administration and get them to plead your case

Need some intelligence on your adversaries?  Change into an owl, fly over to their camp and listen in on their conversation.

Want to conduct dangerous research?  Summon up some zombies to use as lab assistants.

Need to ditch pursuit to gain a chance to rest?  Go down a blind alley and create an illusion of a wall to hide behind.

These are the kinds of things that spell casters lose out on in the new edition.  From what I've seen, if it doesn't have tactical combat applications or is too complicated to fit within the framework of the "core mechanic" simplification, it has been ditched.  Some people may be fine with that, but when I started playing D&D all those years ago, I accepted that it was not a simple game and required me to learn a lot of things to play the game effectively and have run.  It is precisely the "complexity", which I like to call "Flexibility", which attracted me to D&D, and I lament the seemingly "Cookie cutter" nature of the new system for all of the possibilities lost.


----------



## TimeOut

sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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

TimeOut said:
			
		

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



My point exactly





			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> *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

sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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

sbarbe said:
			
		

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



Why not?


----------



## sbarbe

TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

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



Yep.




			
				TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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

sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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

hong said:
			
		

> 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

sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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

TimeOut said:
			
		

> 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

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## LostSoul

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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?




I think it's because the DM's authority to resolve any action the way he wants to (save combat, though he does decide when an encounter occurs) is like older editions of the game.

In 3e, at least the impression I had, was that the rules defined the world and therefore defined how you would resolve any action you took.


----------



## Kvantum

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think it's because the DM's authority to resolve any action the way he wants to (save combat, though he does decide when an encounter occurs) is like older editions of the game.
> 
> In 3e, at least the impression I had, was that the rules defined the world and therefore defined how you would resolve any action you took.



3e had a rule for everything. 4e has a rule for everything... in combat. Nothing else is really important enough/awful enough to need rules spelled out. Completely different paradigm, as the OP pointed out quite elegantly. Some will like it, and others, not.

I'm strongly in the "not" camp. Those in the other camp, hey, have fun with your game.

/Would 4e D&D be as controversial if it were called Chainmail 2e?


----------



## Lizard

FadedC said:
			
		

> Although it is covered in your list, another important decision advanced players will want to make is what feats to take at higher levels. This is important because some very strong paragon feats have stat requirements, and may require you to move stats in ways you otherwise would not.




Weren't we told the days of having to plot your character from first level were behind us now? 

Likewise, weren't we told that multiclassing "works" now -- any combination is viable and balanced? We sacrificed a lot of flexibility on the altar of balance -- when I asked "How can I twink my F/W?", I honestly didn't expect to be told "Go for Warlord/Wizard".

IAE, I like the character. He has several cool powers, he has decent knowledge skills. Pick up ES at 2nd level, Novice Power or Ritual Caster at 4th, maybe weapon focus at 6th. Iron Will at 12th, duh. 8th, acolyte power, 10th...probably plate proficiency or adept power.

To answer another post -- part of the problem isn't the number of decision points, but the limited set of decision OPTIONS at each point. Two of four at-wills? I mean, I get that it's hard to balance a power you can use every round and give each class unique ones, but FOUR? Six would be, I think, a bare minimum; eight would be good. (And, let's face it, since a fighter's job is Minion Clearing, Cleave is kind of a no-brainer, so you really only have one to pick.)

There are fewer feats, and thus, fewer viable feats. Yes, I could have picked Skill Training (Stealth) or something, but my point wasn't to show "Ha ha, I can make a sucky character". I don't set up experiments to fail. I set out to build a character I'd actually want to play, and, since 4e is going for the 1e retro vibe, I decided to remake my favorite character from 9th grade.  There's something uber-cool about a condescending high elf, bedecked in ornate plate  scale armor, wielding arcane forces as easily as he swings a blade. 

And, of course, no skill points. This makes it hard to 'dabble' in skills, even for flavor's sake, and barring going for pre-reqs, it seems wasteful to blow a feat on Skill Training.


----------



## MadMaligor

Kvantum said:
			
		

> 3e had a rule for everything. 4e has a rule for everything... in combat. Nothing else is really important enough/awful enough to need rules spelled out. Completely different paradigm, as the OP pointed out quite elegantly. Some will like it, and others, not.
> 
> I'm strongly in the "not" camp. Those in the other camp, hey, have fun with your game.
> 
> /Would 4e D&D be as controversial if it were called Chainmail 2e?




Kvantum, Im reposting what I wrote in another thread but it kinda answeres that chainmail question...


_"I cant wait for the 6th edition people to keep arguing with the 7th edition people about how its not D&D anymore, and all the "Old school" 4th edition people talk about playing with the guys who came back to 4th Ed D&D from the days of playing Basic/Expert D&D. Then we can read all the nostalgia posts and how Vivendi ruined D&D when they purchased Hasbro and turned it into World of Dungeoncraft and Dragonslaying.

People, listen. Gygax, Kuntz, and Arneson screwed you all when they released Greyhawk and Blackmoore on what amounts to Day 2 of the birth of D&D. Game over, end of story. We can talk about jumping the shark all day, and how Unearthed Arcana became the blasphemy of D&D, 2nd edition handbooks created the bastard children of all races and classes, and 3.5 is a simulation not a roleplaying game...blah blah blah blah blah.

Until you start rolling percentile dice to hit, and HP charts are based on appendages, and halflings cant wear shoes, and every class gets the ability to shoot some elemental based laser out their eyeballs, we are still playing D&D.

We need to move past this. Its getting old."_


----------



## Jack99

@OP

Awesome post. If any of my players were still one the fence, I would definitely show them your post. Luckily for me, I have already managed to beat them into submission, and they are thus already gung-ho about 4e.


----------



## BEAN THE CAT

Clearly the lack of options is a result of WotC/Hasbro's marketing strategy. 

3.0/3.5 proved there was virtually no limit tot the amount of supplemental meterial people would buy.

No that's not entirely fair. Hell, _TSR knew it...._ 
So, we will soon begin to see the avalanche of race/class/feet/power/paragon/magic/monster/heroic/ equipment/magic item etc./etc. "resource books" books.

And I defy anyone who says it ain't gonna happen.

It is the nature of the beast...


----------



## BEAN THE CAT

Oops. Double post. Sorry


----------



## TwoSix

BEAN THE CAT said:
			
		

> Clearly the lack of options is a result of WotC/Hasbro's marketing strategy.
> 
> 3.0/3.5 proved there was virtually no limit tot the amount of supplemental meterial people would buy.
> 
> No that's not entirely fair. Hell, _TSR knew it...._
> So, we will soon begin to see the avalanche of race/class/feet/power/paragon/magic/monster/heroic/ equipment/magic item etc./etc. "resource books" books.
> 
> And I defy anyone who says it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> It is the nature of the beast...




I don't think there's many pro-4e supporters who deny this, since few of us begrudge WotC and Hasbro their ability to make money.  I enjoy getting new books, personally.  

And if the new books are of the quality of the recent Dragon articles, avalanche away.


----------



## moritheil

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.


----------



## BEAN THE CAT

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I don't think there's many pro-4e supporters deny this, since few of us begrudge WotC and Hasbro their ability to make money.  I enjoy getting new books, personally.
> 
> And if the new books are of the quality of the recent Dragon articles, avalance away.





Well that  is the 1 million $ question now isn't it? Will be Quanity or Quality? Or Both?

Again, it's the nature of the beast-I certain won't begrudge WotC/Hasbro either.

TSR set the pace, with it's hundereds of "guides", and it proved profitable enough....

But then I will in the end, be the one who decides if I buy them, now won't I? And honestly unless the bar is set very high, I am not paying for it.


On a side note: HA! I put Feet, where I wanted to write feat! So much for proof reading....


----------



## 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

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> 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

Votan said:
			
		

> 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

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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

ladydeath said:
			
		

> 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

ladydeath said:
			
		

> 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

moritheil said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Branduil

gamersgambit said:
			
		

> 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...



Exactly. Nothing makes me happier than hearing people complain that their Wizard isn't the god of the party any more, because that means WOTC did their job. Skills were worthless in 3.x because there was always a spell that was better at the job. Wizards were better sneaks than Rogues, better diplomats than Paladins, better all-terrain adventurers than fighters, and in general stepped on too many toes.


----------



## Nifft

Branduil said:
			
		

> Wizards were better sneaks than Rogues, better diplomats than Paladins, better all-terrain adventurers than fighters, and in general stepped on too many toes.



 Branduil, may I introduce you to the Warlock? 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## TimeOut

Propagandroid said:
			
		

> 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.




... while every one else can play a hopefully balanced game and have fun.

Sounds good for me.


----------



## silentounce

Votan said:
			
		

> 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).




As others have already mentioned, those rules did exist, they started on page 40 in the 3.0 DMG.  I already told someone about that within the past 48 hours, but it might have been in a different thread.  Anyway, they were very well constructed and easily adapted to 3.5.  We used them several times.


----------



## Tony Vargas

BEAN THE CAT said:
			
		

> Clearly the lack of options is a result of WotC/Hasbro's marketing strategy.
> 
> 3.0/3.5 proved there was virtually no limit tot the amount of supplemental meterial people would buy.
> 
> No that's not entirely fair. Hell, _TSR knew it...._
> So, we will soon begin to see the avalanche of race/class/feet/power/paragon/magic/monster/heroic/ equipment/magic item etc./etc. "resource books" books.




Battletech, actually, was, if memory serves, the game that started the deluge of suplements (ie revenue) phenomenon.  Sure, Traveller had tons of suplements, but they trickled out over decades and they were cheap.  Battletech had a new suplement every month, perfect bound, in full color, and complete crap.  And people filled thier bookshelves with them.  

It's been the successful model of the industry every since: don't sell systems, sell suplements.  Some, like Battletech and White Wolf, did it by selling setting suplements, some, like D&D 3.5 did it by selling rule suplements, but the point was to sell books every month.  3.5 didn't sell suplements to expand what you could with the system, BTW, oh sure, that was the rationale, but what really sold them was how badly they could break the system.  That's why they were all new spells, new feats, and PrCs.  You could play just about anything you wanted with just the 3.5 PH - but you couldn't dominate the game with it unless you had the latest suplement.

Yes, 4e is clearly going with this model to the hilt.  Gone are 'building block' classes and feats that re-make your character.  Your character is your class, and if you want something other than the 8 classes (16 builds) in the 4e PH, you're going to have to buy the suplements. Don't worry, there'll be a new one out every month.  You'll be able to play whatever you want, just buy the right one.  But, at least the level of powergaming brokeness will likely be reigned in a bit.


----------



## Rel

Jack99 said:
			
		

> 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 ....




Let me use this post as an example of how NOT to get your point across.  It's rude and confrontational.  It ends discussion and starts argument.

What you could have said is something like, "I've found that a character's role in the party doesn't have to be tied to their class so much.  I can envision playing a Rogue in such a way as to be leader-like without their class abilities being similar to a Cleric or Warlord."  The other person might disagree but it's handled in a constructive way, not a derisive, dismissive manner.

I know that passions are high right now with the ink on 4e barely dry.  But lets try and maintain some perspective and remember that there is better discussion to be had here with more light and less heat.


----------



## Keltheos

Which version of Battletech?

I blame Runequest.


----------



## JDillard

I'll take a stab at these.  I may be shooting myself in the foot, but we'll see.  There's two kinds of people that ask questions on the internet: people who are honestly questioning, and people who are just inflamatory.  The first set I'll happily try and help, the second set won't listen to me regardless of what I say.  I hope you're in that first set, but it can be hard to tell from one post.



			
				ladydeath said:
			
		

> 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.




You can choose whichever you want.  You only get the additional bonus from powers related to your pact.  Sometimes it makes the choice obvious.  Sometimes not.  The additional effect is rarely all *that* important (teleport 5 vs teleport 5+int modifier, for example) so you're not really heavily penalized for taking powers outside of pact.



> 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?




Fighter doesn't specialize unless you want him to.  As above with the warlock, you only get a minor benefit to choosing powers that are related to the weapon you are using.  Are they nice?  Sure they are!  Do you *have* to take the hammer power if you use a hammer?  Not at all.  Sometimes the power that isn't tied to my favorite weapon has an ability that I like more than the one tied to my weapon.  

For the second part... the only thing you get from proficiencies is the +2 (+3 for swords) to hit.  That's it.  A fighter or ranger or hell, even a wizard can pick up any item he'd like and try to hit with it.  You're making a basic melee or basic ranged attack dependant.  With fighters, this is fine.  Their powers work with any melee weapon.  Same with rangers and ranged weapons.  If you're really concerned about a character using both melee *and* range, take a ranger and do both.  Take some twf powers and some ranged powers and switch weapons.



> 3.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.




Some illusions are in the rituals, so those are there, just handled a bit differently.  Conjurers are *complicated*, and a big part of why I (and others) got frustrated with 3.x.  The more stuff you, as a player, have on the board, the longer your turns and the more you have to take care of.  The longer your turns, the more you slow down combat and take away from the fun of other players.  Clerics and Wizards have some summonable help in the form of rituals, and some dailies.  If you want more than this, just sit back and wait a bit.  It's going to take the designers time to figure out how to bring this mechanic back in without breaking the advantages that 4e has.



> 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.




This is directly addressed by my OP.  What you see as a negative, I see as a positive.  Now I can play a faceman, thug, con man or cat burglar without having to choose to suck at other rogue skills.  I can opt to play a fun character archetype without knowing that mechanically I'm making the game more difficult.

Here's an example from play.  Say you play the con man rogue in a party of 5, in a 3.x game.  You're the "rogue", so you've got that spot covered in the group.  Your character's fun, people are having a good time, everything's great when you're in town.  Then you get into a dungeon, run into a trap or locked door and suddenly your awesome concept grinds to a halt.  The party waits for you to do your normal rogue thing, but can't.  You put your points in bluff, diplomacy and intimidate rather than pick lots or disarm traps.  There's only so many people in the group, so when you took the "rogue" spot, everyone else picked fighter or mage or cleric or whatever.  

Conversely, in 4e, I can *play* the con man archetype all I want.  I can choose  bluff and intimidate as my talky skills.  But what I can't do is *not* take Thievery.  If I'm playing the Rogue, I have to do what rogue's do.  And thus the party, the DM (i.e. my friends) will thank me for doing my part in the game rather than getting irritated when I can't.



> 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.




You call it "dumbing down", I call it something else entirely.  The system is simpler, definitely.  It's easier to make a character, easier to prepare a game as a DM, and easier to fix problems on the fly if you make mistakes at either of those things.  

The set of people who enjoy spending hours of prep time either working on a character or setting up an evening of adventure isn't all that large.  And that set of people is *tapped out*.  I'd bet pretty much all of them have tried 3.x and figured out their opinions on it.  The set of people who don't want to spend much time between games, who'd rather just *play* a fun, action-fantasy game is (I'd bet, and I'd also bet WotC marketing would support me on this) much larger and barely scratched.  3.X did exactly what it wanted to, and ran its course.  As I've said, I'll miss some aspects of it.  But the gains are far larger than the losses, for me.

The people who like the prep time, who like the complex rules of CharOp or designing their own monsters have their stuff and have had their time and their game.  



> 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?




Because Fighter means "melee defender" and Rogue means "melee strker" in the 4e terminology.  Classes are defined by what they do, not the other way around.  I don't even know what you mean by "Rogue leader" (ack!  Bad Star Wars pun alert!).  Do you mean "Rogue who leads the party"?  Or do you mean "Rogue with leader powers"?  You can do both.  But you're not going to find leader powers under the Rogue section of the book.  That's what the Warlord is for.


----------



## Thasmodious

BEAN THE CAT said:
			
		

> Clearly the lack of options is a result of WotC/Hasbro's marketing strategy.
> 
> 3.0/3.5 proved there was virtually no limit tot the amount of supplemental meterial people would buy.
> 
> No that's not entirely fair. Hell, _TSR knew it...._
> So, we will soon begin to see the avalanche of race/class/feet/power/paragon/magic/monster/heroic/ equipment/magic item etc./etc. "resource books" books.
> 
> And I defy anyone who says it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> It is the nature of the beast...




Yeah, so?  

I hate spending my hard earned money on bills.

I enjoy spending my hard earned money on my hobbies.  Love it, actually.

Bring on the shiny new books!


----------



## Thasmodious

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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).




The problem is you are confusing concept with mechanical choices.  If you want your fighter/mu, what are you really building?  Someone who can fight toe to toe and sling some spells.  You look to match the mechanical choices you have to the concept.  Warlord/wizard is not a strange answer to the concept of a of a warrior/mage.  It fits quite nicely, actually.  

When you described the actual concept, a condescending elf in fancy armored finery kicking ass in two dimensions, I immediately thought an elf ranger/warlock(fey) would be a great choice.  You could get chainmail with a feat and deck yourself out in the finest elfin chain, dual wield a pair of fancy swords, quickly sheathing one to draw your wand when needed, or better yet, sword/pact blade dagger and never need to draw anything, weaving your spellwork right alongside your bladework.


----------



## Plageman

As far as I know there is only two books that may present class options: Forgotten Realms PHB and Martial Power. Maybe there will be some new class option for planar characters in the Manual of the Planes.

From that we can expect some Divine / Arcane power handbook sometime next year, before the release of the PHB 2 with maybe Primal (Barbarian,Druid)/Ki(Monk)/Shadow(Necromancer)/Psionic(Psion) sources ?

I also expect some of these class to be pre-released in a Dragon issue before that date.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Keltheos said:
			
		

> Which version of Battletech?
> 
> I blame Runequest.



The second, obviously not Battledroids or the simple boxed game, but the endless stream of setting and technical readout books that they put out for it once it got off the ground.

RuneQuest had lots of suplements, but it took years for them all to come out, Chaosium never got close to a book a month.  TSR put out books /very/ slowly.  After 11 years ('78-89), IIRC, AD&D consisted of PH, DMG, MM, Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, should-have-stayed-'earthed' Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Oriental Adventures (abominations), and the Wilderness & Dungeneer's Survival Guides.  Nine hardbound books in 11 years.  2E had how many 'Complete' books?


----------



## Bialaska

My impression so far has been a bit blurry.

On one hand I like the whole combat versatility. But unfortunately that appears to be everything the new system is about. I do miss the many options for making a character from 3e. Fighter and Barbarian are both martial characters, but there is a different feel between the two types. Just like Cleric and Druid.

The one thing I lack the most though, is the non-combat stuff. Rituals can handle some of the options wizards had, but you don't have 10 minutes to conjure up a ritual to charm a the guard who's about to arrest you.

Combat has been made better, but other things have suffered for that. Not everything is about combat and fighting, but unfortunately it seems to be the policy that the new edition has embraced. In the end I guess the hack'n'slash campaigns will love 4th edition, but other campaigns with less focus on combat and more on other aspects will stick to 3.5.


----------



## JohnSnow

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.




Ah, but some of us old 1e-ers actually remember the limitations of that system and don't look at it through rose-colored classes.

A 1e Fighter/magic-user:

- couldn't cast spells in armor (until they got elven chain).
- had more hit points than a mage, but fewer than a fighter.
- had a better to-hit chance than a magic-user, but not as good as a fighter.
- had the fighter's weapon skills (about a level behind after 1st).
- had the wizard's magic skills (about a level behind after 1st).

Given all of the above, I think Eladrin Wizard (Fighter Multiclass) is a better match for the old fighter/mage than the fighter/(wizard multiclass).

Assuming the standard array, here's what I'd do...

Eladrin Wizard
STR 13 CON 15 DEX 13 INT 17 WIS 12 CHA 10
Initiative: +1
*AC* 15 *FORT* 12 *REF* 13 *WILL* 13
*Hit Points* 25 *Bloodied* 12
Healing Surges: 8 (6)
Attacks:
 Longsword +4 vs. AC
 Magic Missile +3 vs. Reflex
*Skills:* Arcana +10; Athletics +7; Dungeoneering +6; History +8; Nature +8. 
*Feats:* Armor Proficiency Leather (or Durable, for 2 extra healing surges). 
*Powers:* Fey Step, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, Icy Terrain, Acid Arrow, Sleep(*).
*Rituals:* Animal Messenger, Silence, Tenser's Floating Disk.
*Racial Features:* Proficient with longsword, Fey Step, low-light vision.
*Class Features:* Implement Mastery (Wand), Cantrips, Spellbook.
Equipment: Leather Armor, Longsword, Spellbook, Wand.

At 2nd Level, take Shield and Feather Fall as your Utility Powers. Prepare Shield most of the time. This is the time to take Student of the Sword.

Now, he can gain a fighter encounter power at 4th-level. This character will never be a great defender, but he's far less "squishy" than most wizards. Which, in 1e at least, was the primary benefit of the fighter/magic-user. Well, that and the ability to be proficient in a decent weapon (the longsword proficiency takes care of that).

The other good 1st-level feat is Toughness, which would increase the wizard's hit points by 5, but I think the added recovery from having more healing surges (Durable) is a better choice. Or, better yet, not getting hit in the first place (Leather Armor proficiency).

But that's just how I see the old fighter/magic-user.


----------



## Keltheos

FASA was never consistent enough with their release cycles to drop a book every month. And for Battletech it was mostly scenarios and a new mech or two for factions (the remainder of the books being pure fluff). Believe me, I know. Sure, they'd announce release dates that seemed monthly, but things were almost always delayed 1-10 months.

Wizards definitely isn't going the 'book a month' model unless you consider scenarios/character sheets/DM screen 'books'. The next new 'book' for D&D isn't until October unless I'm reading the release schedule wrong.

But since they had 8 years to release material for 3.5 which added to combat and non-combat encounters/events/items/etc. I'll reserve judgment on how things will shape up until at least a couple of their add-on books are released. Until then it's the 'intro stuff' to get players started and not overwhelmed with whatever extras they want to add later.


----------



## epochrpg

I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref.  But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.  

Think of the name of the class. FIGHT-er.  They should be THE BEST at fighting.  Period.  This would mean being able to use two weapons.  But if a Fighter spends a feat on TWF, he is weakening himself-- the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon.  2 weapons is not an option.  That is made of lose. 

I don't mind Rangers being the penultimate 2WF people- but fighters should have to sacrifice other bonuses just to do it.


----------



## JDillard

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon.  2 weapons is not an option.  That is made of lose.




This is an incorrect reading, I think.  The power just says "Choose one handed weapons or two handed weapons and get a +1 bonus to hit when using your choice."  Choose one-handed, and then TWF all you want.


----------



## Njall

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref.  But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.
> 
> Think of the name of the class. FIGHT-er.  They should be THE BEST at fighting.  Period.  This would mean being able to use two weapons.  But if a Fighter spends a feat on TWF, he is weakening himself-- the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon.  2 weapons is not an option.  That is made of lose.
> 
> I don't mind Rangers being the penultimate 2WF people- but fighters should have to sacrifice other bonuses just to do it.




"Choose either one handed or two handed weapons. When using a weapon of your chosen style, you gain +1 to attack rolls".
Choose 1 handed weapons, and if you're using a 1 handed weapon, you gain the bonus even if you're fighting with two weapons. 
Look at the weapon table: both longsword and shortsword fall under the "one handed military weapons" descriptor. 
Where did you read that it only works with sword and board?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Bialaska said:
			
		

> The one thing I lack the most though, is the non-combat stuff. Rituals can handle some of the options wizards had, but you don't have 10 minutes to conjure up a ritual to charm a the guard who's about to arrest you.



One question I've always had about these options is why the ability to charm the guard into letting you go so much better than the ability to use diplomacy to convince the guards to leave you alone?

Yes, one uses a spell and one doesn't.  And one is much more powerful than the other.  I just don't see that a game where the wizard comes up with some good lie to turn the guards away and they take off is so much worse than the one where he waves his hands in the air and the guards will now believe anything he say and leaves.

And that seems to be the main crux of the argument about how 4e is "too focused on combat".  It always comes down to: "If I wanted to disguise myself quickly in 3e, I could cast a spell and look completely different.  In 4e, if I want to disguise myself, I need to find something to disguise myself with or sneak out the back or something.  There isn't a power in the book directly focused on saving me in that situation, so it is too combat focused."

I suppose there is one less option in that circumstance.  However, it was always kind of a non-option anyways, wasn't it?  You either use an illusion spell to nearly automatically succeed against anyone looking at you or you risked the entire party making rolls that only one person in the party could succeed on and be spotted by anyone who was looking.


----------



## occam

Echoes said:
			
		

> This.  This is the post.




Agreed!

Can you win a thread on the first post?


----------



## JDillard

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And that seems to be the main crux of the argument about how 4e is "too focused on combat".  It always comes down to: "If I wanted to disguise myself quickly in 3e, I could cast a spell and look completely different.  In 4e, if I want to disguise myself, I need to find something to disguise myself with or sneak out the back or something.  There isn't a power in the book directly focused on saving me in that situation, so it is too combat focused."




100% agree.  There's two parts to this too.  There's the bit about magic, and the bit about "combat focus".

For the magic bit, this ties right in with a lot of the people who are upset about "nerfing wizards".  

I know we all thing magic is amazing, and wonderful, and should be able to do anything.  That's fair.  A lot of the fantasy novels we love portray magic as this thing that can, in fact, do anything with enough time and cleverness.

We want to then portray that in our Fantasy Adventure RPG's.  The problem is, "Magic solves everything" is a concept far more suited to games like WW's Mage, and less suited to D&D.  This is largely because not everyone in D&D uses magic.

If everyone played some variant of wizard, then yes, you'd want everything solvable via magic.  The fact that most characters are not wizards though, means that you want lots and lots of things that are solvable by other means.  Otherwise, one player's having all the fun and everyone merely sits around waiting for him to do his next trick.

For the "combat focus" part, well, I think the designers realized that you don't need game rules to model stuff that the DM is imagining.  Game rules are there to adjudicate between player and dm or player and player during conflict.  If there's no conflict, there's no need to make a rule about it.


----------



## moritheil

Propagandroid said:
			
		

> 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.




Hmm, interesting argument.  Ultimately only time will tell if your assertion that power will remain in the hands of die-hard gamers is accurate.


----------



## Njall

Lizard said:
			
		

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




Well, I'd just choose archery as a path, keep my dex and str high, multiclass as a fighter and take a fighter paragon path 
Remember, you end up with 4 encounter powers and 4 daily powers.
Thus, you'll only need 2 encounter attack powers and 2 daily attack powers from your ranger list, the rest will be multiclass powers and PP powers. 
For example, assume I want to fight with a single bastard sword...As a ranger, I'd probably do something like:

Human Ranger, 

Str 16
Dex 16
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8

At-Will: 
Nimble Strike 
Hit and Run
Twin Strike (useful for ranged attacks).

Feats: 
Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)
Lethal Hunter

Powers:
Encounter: Evasive Strike
Daily:Hunter's Bear Trap

Admittedly, Hunter's Bear Trap is the only Daily Power he can choose, but he has 2 decent encounter powers (Evasive Strike and Fox Cunning), and the same is true at 3rd level (Disruptive Strike, that I think is great, personally...YMMV, and Shadow Wasp Strike).
You're the rough equivalent of the low armored, spring attacking fighter in 3.x, and Defensive Mobility is really helpful for a highly mobile character, whether you're using a bow or a sword.
And you're not bad with a bow, either.

Take "student of the sword" at 2nd level, grab the multiclass feats ASAP, and straight into Pit Fighter or Kensai at 10th level.
Is he as good as a TWF ranger? I don't think so. OTOH, the TWF ranger is probably the best striker in the book, but if you compare him to a rogue or a fighter I'd say he's not too bad.
Furthermore, it's not really a "cookie cutter" build, so it seems that while there are far less options as far as character creation goes, we can still think outside the box and create something different from time to time ( and things will only improve as more books are released)
Just my two cents


----------



## JohnSnow

sbarbe said:
			
		

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




Well, if you read my post, I specifically mentioned specialist wizards, druids and bards as an exception, but, in order:

_Summoner_ - It's true that they've taken summoning out of the game. There's been some fairly extensive articles explaining the reasons why ("economy of actions" and all that). When they have it worked out, summoning will make an appearance (my guess is the arcane splatbook).
_Necromancer_ - This one is a pretty fringe concept for a "heroic" character. There's plenty of rules for making NPCs that can fill this role. I admit it's missing, but due to its largely "evil" nature, I expect it was deliberately pushed back to PHB II.
_Illusionist_ - Both the wizard and the warlock have their fair share of illusions. Ghost sound is a cantrip, disguise self is an illusion, as is invisibility. The dedicated "illusionist" from most stories is usually a fey type who specializes in enchantments AND illusions. However, I admit it's missing, but I expect you'll see many more illusions in PHB II, if not before in the form of arcane powers.
_Diviner_ - What's a "diviner?" Conceptually? Are you saying you want to play the sage who can unearth secrets but is useless in combat? Most people don't.
_Transmuter_ - Without giving me a laundry list of D&D spells, what IS a "transmuter?" What do they DO, exactly?
_Enchanter_ - Charm specialist. For now, there's the Fey Pact Warlock. There's also some charms in the wizard, but the fey warlock gets a lot more. A fey warlock arcane initiate would probably be a pretty good way to model the classic beguiler character.
_Shapechanger_ - I admit this one is missing. I expect it'll be covered (and covered well) in either the Arcane book and PHB II. From what they've said, the new druid is going to be primarily a shapechanger.
Unarmed Mystic Martial Artist (Monk) - The unarmed martial artist is another type that was cut. Any character can fight unarmed, but the specialist isn't ready. I'd expect some good unarmed feats and powers to be a shoe-in for the martial power book. As for the monk...well...PHB II probably.
_Minstrel_ (Bard) - Make a rogue or warlord, and say he carries a lute. If you want him to be okay at lots of skills, take the "Jack of All Trades" feat. If you want him to dabble in magic, take the appropriate multiclassing feats (wizard or fey pact warlock sounds pretty good). The religious bard can be done with a cleric, especially one of Corellon. The lore-obsessed bard is probably better represented as a wizard.
_Druid_ - If by "Druid," you mean "cleric of a nature god," that's easy. If you mean the shapeshifter druid, I admit there's no shapeshifting powers. Look for them in either the Arcana splat or PHB II.




			
				sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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.




That's a fine balance feature when all games (and all characters) have to start at 1st-level.

When you can play a fighter (or whatever) at the low levels and then switch out for a wizard  _whenever you feel like it_, you're hardly "paying your dues."

To quote (IIRC) freelancer Will Upchurch: "designing a class so that it's underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels is one way to achieve game balance. It's not a _good_ way, mind you, but it's one way."

That's how the wizard has traditionally been designed - crappy at the start, makes everyone else feel crappy later.




			
				sbarbe said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Need some pull with the city officials?  Charm someone in the administration and get them to plead your case
> 
> Need some intelligence on your adversaries?  Change into an owl, fly over to their camp and listen in on their conversation.
> 
> Want to conduct dangerous research?  Summon up some zombies to use as lab assistants.
> 
> Need to ditch pursuit to gain a chance to rest?  Go down a blind alley and create an illusion of a wall to hide behind.
> 
> These are the kinds of things that spell casters lose out on in the new edition...




Sorry. In my opinion, that's a feature of Fourth Edition, not a bug.

The character that can do _all_ of these things is not balanced, can't be balanced, and is unsuitable for group play. Even if it's a question of guessing the right powers on a given day, it's still not balanced, _because most of the time you don't suffer_ from not having the right spells prepared.

Most of the earlier editions were designed by spellcaster fans (like Gary Gygax and Monte Cook), who felt that the wizard should be the be-all, end-all of the group. Gary's campaign logs over the years point this out to an almost comedic degree. Everyone is a spellcaster. The fighters, thieves and clerics are henchmen.

There's a way to balance that game so everyone can enjoy it - let everyone play a spellcaster when they're cool and play another character when the spellcaster is a wuss. That's how, for example, _Ars Magica_ does it.

The so-called "sweet spot" of Third Edition was the point where 
everyone got to have fun. Given that there *is* a balance point where wizards get to be _cool_ without everyone else being "worthless," why shouldn't that be the assumed default?

I guess I just don't see how the paradigm of the wizard going from "worthless nerd that everyone has to protect" to "god that everyone depends on" is *good* for the game.

But if someone can explain the value (_without_ referencing "tradition"), I'm all ears.


----------



## Felon

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry. In my opinion, that's a feature of Fourth Edition, not a bug.
> 
> The character that can do _all_ of these things is not balanced, can't be balanced, and is unsuitable for group play.



To say nothing of the number of all the hotkeys that he'd have to map!   

Seriously, there have been literally thousands of such characters in thousands of D&D groups over the course of quite a few years, so I gotta think there's some empirical evidence that contradicts unilaterally deeming them unbalanced and unsuitable for play.


----------



## Joe Sala

I agree 100% with the first post. Thanks for being so insightful   

I still miss several things that where in the core 3e books, specially the utility spells like illusions, and I'm not convinced about the percentage of powers devoted to making damage (in hit points). And my main concern is how the game world changes because of the new wizards and clerics.

Anyway, I'm convinced that we need several months to master the game and start giving more solid opinions.


----------



## FadedC

Felon said:
			
		

> To say nothing of the number of all the hotkeys that he'd have to map!
> 
> Seriously, there have been literally thousands of such characters in thousands of D&D groups over the course of quite a few years, so I gotta think there's some empirical evidence that contradicts unilaterally deeming them unbalanced and unsuitable for play.




Well I'm not sure I'd say they are unsuitable for play......but quoting the massive number of people playing a certain type of character is probably not good evidence that it isn't overpowered .


----------



## Ginnel

Just like to add my thanks for the mostly good willed interesting posts, this is a refreshing thread for these boards.

I played through a bit of 4th the other night with my fighter, with 13's in dex int and wis for feat aquisition, and was thoroughly happy with his options in play, and also outside of play the arcane initiate went nicely with another dragonborn who was a wizard so we linked up as half brothers (same breath weapons and 1st level spell)

The options in play was nice from the double 5ft step, to the close breath attack to mark a whole group of kobolds (character smashing his sword and shield together after to taunt them), to the tide of iron into the cloud of claws (daggers) from the half brother party member.

I am also impressed with the variety of weapon and armor options and how even they seem to be.

P.S Kudos to the original post as well for starting this off


----------



## Deverash

Nifft said:
			
		

> Branduil, may I introduce you to the Warlock?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




The warlock, as I found out, was made mostly obsolete by the introduction of Reserve Feats.  Now wizards can do nearly everything a warlock can do, and do it better to boot.


----------



## JohnSnow

Lizard said:
			
		

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




I realize you're being mostly sarcastic, but maybe. However, it kinda depends on what your _concept_ is.

"One weapon wielding ranger" isn't a character concept. It's a mechanical description.

Is it "ranger" as in 'warrior who in combat fills the role of a defender and carries a two-handed sword, but is skilled in lore?'

Or is it "ranger" as in 'skirmisher who wields a two-handed sword?'

The first is a fighter with Skill Training in Nature and/or Perception (or perhaps the Ranger multiclass feat). The second is a ranger who takes the "archery path," but carries one melee weapon.

Look at the ranger class closely. The "Fighting Style" option comes into place precisely ONCE.

Archer Fighting Style: Gain Defensive Mobility as a bonus feat.

Two-Blade Fighting Style: Wield a one-handed weapon as if it were an off-hand weapon. Gain Toughness as a bonus feat.

Each choice grants 1 feat. Two-Blade also grants you the ability to use one-handed weapons in your off-hand.

Many of the powers apply to both styles. Many of them are just as effective if you're holding a single melee weapon.

Personally, I'd take Two-Blade because it grants an option that can't be gotten via feats. If you really want Defensive Mobility, you can always take it.

Consider:

Jack
*Human Ranger 1*
*Initiative:* +3
STR 15 CON 12 DEX 17 INT 11 WIS 13 CHA 10
*AC* 18 *FORT* 14 *REF* 15 *WILL* 13
*Hit Points:* 29 *Bloodied:* 14 
*Healing Surges:* 7 (7)
*Skills:* Acrobatics +7; Athletics +6; Endurance +5; Nature +6; Perception +6; Stealth +7.  
*Combat Options:* 
 Longsword +5/1d8 + 2, or;
 Scimitar +4/1d8 + 2, or;
 Longbow +5/1d10 + 3
*Powers:* Hit and Run, Twin Strike, Evasive Strike, Split the Tree.
*Feats:* Toughness, Quick Draw, Defensive Mobility. 
*Class Features:* Two-Blade Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry, Prime Shot.
*Gear:* Hide Armor, Longsword, Scimitar, Dagger, Longbow, Arrows, Adventurer's Kit.

Now I've got all the abilities of both styles, and I can use most of my powers with either weapon option. If I really wanted ALL of them to be universal, I could swap "Twin Strike" for "Hit and Run" and "Hunter's Bear Trap" for "Split the Tree."

Personally, I'd boost Wisdom and Dexterity at 4th level, but that's me. By the time you got to Level 5, it'd be a good idea to make sure that your Level 1 and Level 5 Daily powers weren't BOTH exclusively ranged or melee.

Options, options, options.

But that's just the way I play.


----------



## JohnSnow

Felon said:
			
		

> TSeriously, there have been literally thousands of such characters in thousands of D&D groups over the course of quite a few years, so I gotta think there's some empirical evidence that contradicts unilaterally deeming them unbalanced and unsuitable for play.




I don't think any D&D player anywhere can legitimately argue that the wizard (or magic-user, or whatever) is NOT an inherently unbalanced character.

And the cleric is worse. He's only "balanced" if you force him to be the band-aid monkey.

The spellcasters _can_ be dragged kicking and screaming into balance by:

 Gimping their rate of advancement so they end up a few levels behind.
 Requiring all spellcasters to start at Level 1, so that high-level wizards are rare in your campaign. That means if a player's high-level character dies, he can either make a high-level "other" or start over again at Level 1.
 A DM who consciously designs adventures so that the wizard's powers aren't always the only way out.
 Rigidly enforcing spells per day and multiple encounters per day. A wizard who can't "go nova" is better balanced.
 Some combination of the above.

You're honestly going to claim that the 3e (and earlier) wizard is a properly balanced character? Really?

People can have plenty of fun with unbalanced rules. It's just their fellows who enjoy it less.


----------



## Nifft

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> People can have plenty of fun with unbalanced rules. It's just their fellows who enjoy it less.



 Just to preempt a counter-argument: it is possible to enjoy playing a mechanically inferior character -- such as a non-Elf in MERP. However, that choice should be orthogonal to the choice of class (or more generally the choice of role).

Having balanced races & classes by default doesn't prevent one from unbalancing them later, if such is desired, for whatever reason.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Reynard

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't think any D&D player anywhere can legitimately argue that the wizard (or magic-user, or whatever) is NOT an inherently unbalanced character....
> People can have plenty of fun with unbalanced rules. It's just their fellows who enjoy it less.




Define "balance", because the 4E definition is a new definition, one made specifically for 4E.  it means balance and parity over the course of a single encounter, which has never, ever been an aspect of balance in D&D in any previous edition.  The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, _*over the course of the game*_.  This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term.  Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.

The reason balance is different in 4E is because the nature of the game and the intended style of play has changed.  The entire "culture" of D&D has been altered to be "get together with your buds, throw some dice and drink some Buds," an attempt to take a very niche hobby rewarded by its devotion to that niche and attempt to make it mainstream (or, at least as mainstream as WoW).  It won't work.  those powergamers and deep immersion simulationists, neither of which is supported by 4E, might make up a minority of the players but they make up a majority of the purchasers -- who are the truly important ones.  As such, it will not take long for splats dedicated to the number crunchers and the world builders start coming out.  They'll buy 'em.


----------



## The Little Raven

Reynard said:
			
		

> The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, _*over the course of the game*_.  This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term.  Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.




And this, to me and a lot of other people, is the worst way to try and "balance" characters. Saying "Hey, you suck now, but you'll be cool in the future" fails when you never reach that future. Same with "You're cool now, but you'll suck later." And since WotC's market research determined that most games do not last the amount of time that this method of "balance" requires to be successful (which is debatable in and of itself), then it makes sense for them to change the game to reflect how people play it.



> those powergamers and deep immersion simulationists, neither of which is supported by 4E, might make up a minority of the players but they make up a majority of the purchasers -- who are the truly important ones.




Current sales numbers don't bear this out.


----------



## Reynard

Mourn said:
			
		

> Current sales numbers don't bear this out.




Current sales are for the core rules. Core rules sales are always good.  It is supplement sales that really matter in keeping the game (or rather, an edition) alive -- as we have ample evidence for.  Now, perhaps the DDI model will be sufficient to change this and there won't have to be a supplement treadmill to keep the coffers full, or another sales paradigm takes over.  But assuming we're talking largely about the same pool of players -- which we are; WotC has even said they haven't started their marketting outside of the existing base yet, and won't until the fall -- the same rules apply for the moment.


----------



## pawsplay

JDillard said:
			
		

> While your melee fighter type character can choose from many different options to begin with, once he's in combat he's got his one or two things he does over and over again.  The heavy armor fighter runs up and stands next to the monster, hitting with his greatsword.  The spiked chain fighter does his tripping, or his moving with Opportunity attacks.  The rogue gets into flanking position and proceeds to sneak attack.  This does not generally vary from combat to combat either, except in situations where the monster is somehow "immune" to whatever your schtick is (undead for the rogue, for example), and then you generally spend the time trying to come up with creative solutions that vary from brilliant to extremely frustrating for the DM.




This is not my play experience. Maybe my players are just zany, I don't know.


----------



## Thasmodious

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> _Illusionist_ - Both the wizard and the warlock have their fair share of illusions. Ghost sound is a cantrip, disguise self is an illusion, as is invisibility. The dedicated "illusionist" from most stories is usually a fey type who specializes in enchantments AND illusions. However, I admit it's missing, but I expect you'll see many more illusions in PHB II, if not before in the form of arcane powers.





We will have more illusions any day now.  It's one of this month's Dragon articles.


----------



## MadMaligor

Reynard said:
			
		

> ....The reason balance is different in 4E is because the nature of the game and the intended style of play has changed.  The entire "culture" of D&D has been altered to be "get together with your buds, throw some dice and drink some Buds," an attempt to take a very niche hobby rewarded by its devotion to that niche and attempt to make it mainstream (or, at least as mainstream as WoW).  It won't work.  those powergamers and deep immersion simulationists, neither of which is supported by 4E, might make up a minority of the players but they make up a majority of the purchasers -- who are the truly important ones.  As such, it will not take long for splats dedicated to the number crunchers and the world builders start coming out.  They'll buy 'em.




Reynard, I dont want to come across as confrontational here, but I cant stress how wrong that paragraph is.  I respect your opinion but as stated just above me, current sales numbers prove you wrong in so many ways.  The culture of D&D has *always* been about friends, dice, and snacking till you burst.  The whole cheetos thing didnt come from out of no where.  Also, the idea that D&D is a niche hobby is like saying Basketball is a niche sport.  Roleplaying, with its king of the hill Dungeons and Dragons, is one of the juggernaughts of the hobby industry.

The important players are your enthusiasts, not your fanatics.  Bringing the game to your general population of enthusiasts and making it fun for all players involved will sell millions of books and keep the hobby alive.  There is plenty of room for devotion of material to specific groups like your crazed simulation fanatics.  But to curtail the game mechanic to a specific small group like that is commercial suicide.  I would rather have something fun to play than something that mirrors real life no matter what the setting.  Its a very broad generality but I think I speak for alot of people when I say I came to play a fantasy game in a fantasy setting.  Im not looking for rules realism, Im looking for a balanced fun game that lets me be a wizard, warrior, thief, or cleric (or some version there of) and kill dragons and explore dungeons.  Thats what this game has always been about.

3.5 is awesome for getting you real close to that simulation of a fantasy setting and will continue to be supported by outside groups.  I think thats awesome, and I love that there is a place for all of us.  But WotC and its Devs saw that it was getting away from what D&D truly is.  When you start to play 4E, there is a reason people say it feels like your going backwards in terms of editions.  It certainly is different in a number of ways and many grognards of old will rail against the fact that its called D&D.  But it is D&D, in fact I would say it is getting back to its roots.


----------



## JDillard

pawsplay said:
			
		

> This is not my play experience. Maybe my players are just zany, I don't know.




Are your games generally RAW, or do you have a lot of houserules and non-WotC splatbooks?

My games were always WotC products only (because a lot of the 3rd party stuff was crap, and it was easier to just say no and not worry than to try and figure out what was fairly balanced and what wasn't), and that paragraph is very indicative of our average combat.


----------



## pawsplay

JDillard said:
			
		

> Are your games generally RAW, or do you have a lot of houserules and non-WotC splatbooks?
> 
> My games were always WotC products only (because a lot of the 3rd party stuff was crap, and it was easier to just say no and not worry than to try and figure out what was fairly balanced and what wasn't), and that paragraph is very indicative of our average combat.




Completely RAW.


----------



## JDillard

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Completely RAW.




Then I envy your 3.5 group.  My group was a fun bunch during the RP, but combat was often boring and repetitious.  I did my best to spice things up as the DM, and think I helped a bit.  When I wasn't DM'ing it honestly painful at times.


----------



## Lizard

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Ah, but some of us old 1e-ers actually remember the limitations of that system and don't look at it through rose-colored classes.
> 
> A 1e Fighter/magic-user:
> 
> - couldn't cast spells in armor (until they got elven chain).
> - had more hit points than a mage, but fewer than a fighter.
> - had a better to-hit chance than a magic-user, but not as good as a fighter.
> - had the fighter's weapon skills (about a level behind after 1st).
> - had the wizard's magic skills (about a level behind after 1st).




Actually, a F/MU could wear full plate at first level, and use all fighter weapons, and used the fighter 'to hit' rolls. 

Just checked my PHB. 

The only 'drawbacks' were racial level caps and split XP. He was usually one level behind the rest of the party, but was, in effect, two characters -- a fighter and a magic-user. (Hit points were averaged).


----------



## MadMaligor

Lizard said:
			
		

> Actually, a F/MU could wear full plate at first level, and use all fighter weapons, and used the fighter 'to hit' rolls.
> 
> Just checked my PHB.
> 
> The only 'drawbacks' were racial level caps and split XP. He was usually one level behind the rest of the party, but was, in effect, two characters -- a fighter and a magic-user. (Hit points were averaged).




You could wear it but you couldnt cast in it.      Taking armor on and off was also a no no in combat even back then.


----------



## Hussar

> Define "balance", because the 4E definition is a new definition, one made specifically for 4E. it means balance and parity over the course of a single encounter, which has never, ever been an aspect of balance in D&D in any previous edition. The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, over the course of the game. This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term. Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.




"Over the course of the campaign"?  No, this is not balance.  This is two periods of imbalance which does not equal balance.  

What it means is, half the time, someone is useless, and the other half the time, the other guy is useless.  That's not balance.

The sooner people realize that two points of imbalance do not equal a balanced system, the sooner we'll have better games.  

3e tried to have class parity at all levels and failed.  It wasn't bad though.  It kept the sweet spot for about half the levels, where no one was really more powerful than anyone else.  For the most part.  Unless you played a bard.  

But, this has always been the holy grail of game design - making a level based system where everyone is roughly equal in effectiveness at all points in the game.  1e and 2e failed miserably at this.  The M/U was a dagger throwing peasant for 4 levels and then par for about two levels, then totally dominating after that.  3e managed to spread that out over more levels.

Hopefully, 4e will succeed at spreading it out over 30 levels and the entire campaign.  

So, let me repeat, two points of imbalance =/= a balanced system.  It just means that the system is broken at two different points.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Reynard said:
			
		

> Define "balance", because the 4E definition is a new definition, one made specifically for 4E.  it means balance and parity over the course of a single encounter, which has never, ever been an aspect of balance in D&D in any previous edition.  The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, _*over the course of the game*_.  This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term.  Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.



So what you're saying is 4e is the only version that's balanced for the way people actually play D&D in the real world, as opposed to to some theoretical ideal? I agree.


----------



## Tony Vargas

JDillard said:
			
		

> Then I envy your 3.5 group.  My group was a fun bunch during the RP, but combat was often boring and repetitious.  I did my best to spice things up as the DM, and think I helped a bit.  When I wasn't DM'ing it honestly painful at times.



 I'm always a little surprised by things like this.  There are a /lot/ of RPGs out there - new, old, supported, and nearly forgotten - I drag my mainly-D&D group over to Hero about a third of the time, and another player runs the occassional 1st-Ed Star Wars game.  There's no need to stick with a system that's not doing it for you until there's a new edition.

D&D started it all, and it really /didn't/ succeed, at all, in modeling it's genre (high fantasy or swords and sorcerery).  Rather, it created it's own genre of archetypes, treasure hunting, exploring dangerous underground labyrinths, fighting bewildering varieties of monsters and collecting scads of magic items.   The only time you see fantasy fiction that's remotely like a D&D game, is when its' based on a D&D setting.

3e did an excellent job of updating the venerable D&D propperty to something resembling a modern RPG while not only holding onto, but enhancing the feel of the original.  D&D was never a well-balanced game, it's magic system was hardly deserving of the 'system' part, and there are many - /many/ - technically superior games.  Indeed, most games, as systems, judged only by thier mechanics, are superior to D&D - better balanced, more sophisticated, more realistic, more whatever they're trying to model (unless they're trying to model D&D, which is so often the case!).

D&D can never compete on being a balanced or realistic or 'simulationist' or 'storytelling' game.  It can compete on being D&D.  3e did that extremely well.  As different as 4e may seem on a read-through, a lot of the core things that make it D&D are still there.  You still have the hit point abstraction.  You still have classes.   You still have miniatures and maps of improbably 10x10 corridorred 'dungeons.'  You still have flaming longswords and dwarven throwing hammers that return to your hand and bags of holding - and you still need a collection of magic items to get by at high level.  You still need to kill monsters and take thier stuff.  OK, you've mostly gotten rid of 'vancian' casting, just a little hint of it with the Wizard.  That's a risk.  But it's a risk that made class balance a lot easier to deliver, and class balance was being complained about a lot there towards the end.  

Being responsive to the complaints of your fans is not a bad thing - even if some of those complaints may have been a little overboard.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know, some time ago, I posted a thread on the General Forum talking about how, despite the mechanical changes in editions, D&D hadn't actually changed all that much.  At least at the table.  Strangely enough, despite some criticisms that I was trolling for another edition war (I wasn't), most people tended to agree.  Sure, there are differences in play, but, stepping back a bit and taking a somewhat wider view, in all editions of D&D, when you sit down a play, everyone instantly knows that you are playing D&D and not some other system.

I truly, truly think, in a year or so, we'll be saying the same thing of 4e.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, this has always been the holy grail of game design - making a level based system where everyone is roughly equal in effectiveness at all points in the game.  1e and 2e failed miserably at this.  The M/U was a dagger throwing peasant for 4 levels and then par for about two levels, then totally dominating after that.  3e managed to spread that out over more levels.
> 
> Hopefully, 4e will succeed at spreading it out over 30 levels and the entire campaign.
> 
> So, let me repeat, two points of imbalance =/= a balanced system.  It just means that the system is broken at two different points.




The holy grail for whom?  See, here's the thing:

-- wait, let me throw in a caveat: I am no longer a 4E hater; I own 2 PHBs, for goodness sake, and am going to give it an honest try.  this does not, however, mean that I am blind to, if not its flaws, its differences -- 

Anyway, here's the thing: whether or not a game is "balanced" depends entirely upon the point of the game, the playspace.  4E's balance, or more accurately its focus on PC parity, is built around a combat centric model.  Now, D&D has always featured combat (and I am talking rules here, not necessarily how any given group plays the game), but it has never focused so specifically on it before.  4E has delved so deeply into balance and parity in encounters that, in order to do so, the designers were forced to leave things out that disrupted that balance or were to far awy from the "let's fight" model to include -- things that have always been a part of D&D (perhaps less OD&D -- I have never played it). The obvious ones include: summoning, followers and henchmen, long term resource management.  the whole "economy of action", the foundation on which play in 4E is built, precludes these fundamental aspects of D&D as we've known it.

Now, none of this is to say that 4E isn't designed well for its intended purpose, but it narrows the focus of play to a very specific playstyle, one that while perhaps WotC's market research says is the most popular playstyle certainly is not the only playstyle.  So, you are right in a way: D&D was never balanced the way 4E was balanced, but it was never intended to be, because decriers aside, D&D is not, in fact, about killing things and taking stuff any more or les than it is about epic storytelling or simulating Lord of the Rings style fantasy or allowing players to rule nations.  It is all of those things.

4E narrows the field considerably, though, using the excuse that all that non combat stuff doesn't need to be statted anyway.  Well, 1) some people want it to be statted, and 2) it is a temporary argument until they decide to start putting out Dominion and War Machine rules.

Again, 4E isn't bad or wrong and I assume it is fun (my first session as a player is Sunday), but to argue that it is as broad and as permissive in its design as pervious editions is a case of either deliberate obtuseness or a failure to see underlying playstyle in the game design.


----------



## Hussar

> D&D is not, in fact, about killing things and taking stuff any more or les than it is about epic storytelling or simulating Lord of the Rings style fantasy or allowing players to rule nations. It is all of those things.




The problem is, whenever D&D tried to do any of those things - allowing players to rule nations, forex - it failed miserably.  Other than the Companion rules, D&D never really did Feudal Sim very well.  What you had were a number of subset rules that worked if you were willing to make them work.  

But, this is a different issue anyway.  Your original claim was that the system was balanced because a weak character at the outset got stronger at the end.  I've shown that to be false.  

I never claimed anything about the other elements your are talking about.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, whenever D&D tried to do any of those things - allowing players to rule nations, forex - it failed miserably.  Other than the Companion rules, D&D never really did Feudal Sim very well.  What you had were a number of subset rules that worked if you were willing to make them work.




Subsystems are a good thing: they are plug and play.  Integration causes problems with modification and /or introduction of new stuuf.  Example: some d20 products, including WotC's tried to broaden play through the use of feats.  this is ba dbecause you are telling players they can't be Beowulf -- they can't be a badass and rule a nation, because they've a limited number of coolness resource points (feats) and now they have to spend them on leadership stuff.  PHBII got it right, I think, because it created new subsystems for joining or running an organization not dependent on using already scarce resources to do these things.  But now I am drifting way off topic...



> But, this is a different issue anyway.  Your original claim was that the system was balanced because a weak character at the outset got stronger at the end.  I've shown that to be false.
> 
> I never claimed anything about the other elements your are talking about.




The reason i brought it up is because the "balance for encounters" thing is predicated around a narrow playstyle: kill and take, whereas balance over the course of a campaign is built around a broader set of playstyle assumptions.

Don't get me wrong: I understand why they did it, and I understand why many people like it that way.  But I think it is short sighted to assume that the whole game should be built to accomodate this playstyle.  IME, people start out playing like that -- wanting to be a badass and get loot -- and eventually either drift away of change their playstyle to encompass more things as the possibilities spread out before them.  If those possibilities don't exist or are obscurred by a very strongly presented (in mechanics of gameplay, I mean) preferred playstyle, they'll just stop.

A while back, I did a poll about what percentage of 3E play was combat and the spread was amazing -- aside from the extreme ends of the spectrum (I did it by 10% increments), every catergory was well represented.  Some people like 70% combat, and an equal number like 20% and the people at 50% weren't that much larger of a percentage.  Obviously, WotC's market research showed something different.  I never did do the poll to find out how important people thought it was that their character be as effective in combat as the other PCs, though.


----------



## The Highway Man

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, whenever D&D tried to do any of those things - allowing players to rule nations, forex - it failed miserably.




Do you consider Birthright a failure?


----------



## d20Dwarf

Deverash said:
			
		

> The warlock, as I found out, was made mostly obsolete by the introduction of Reserve Feats.  Now wizards can do nearly everything a warlock can do, and do it better to boot.




Oops.


----------



## Lizard

MadMaligor said:
			
		

> You could wear it but you couldnt cast in it.      Taking armor on and off was also a no no in combat even back then.




Nope, in 1e, you could. The only restriction was for thieves, who had to wear leather to use their thief abilities. Page 16.

"Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the classes the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weapons usable by the thief class."

And on page 18, "A fighter/magic user can benefit from both armor, weaponry, and spells; a fighter/thief is limited by the constraints of the thief class".

F/MU cast in full plate from level 1, making all of the "reasons" why magic users couldn't wear plate pretty spurious. 

So 4e is a bit of a throwback to 1e in that regard. While you can learn to wear heavy armor as a wizard, it costs a ton of feats; better to start as a fighter if that's what you're going for.

EDIT: Source is the 1st Edition PHB, 4th printing, 1979. The one I used in High School. Which I still keep by my desk, 'cause, you never know...


----------



## ladydeath

Jack99 said:
			
		

> 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 ....





Well, I've been roleplaying for 20+ years. In a multitude of game systems. 

I was surprised to see a response such as yours. I only voiced some concerns and was glad from some actual feedback from others on the board. 


What I was trying to get at is that there are alot of things that are locked into your character concept based on the smart thing to do once you have a character class and you cannot change your character's direction once you have picked a class. 

Can you play a character who started out surviving on the streets of a city (2 levels of rogue) who suddenly finds out he's got a great aptitude for wizardry?  (I know there is a multiclass feat which gets you Arcana, a wizard ability and the ability to use wizard implements)


----------



## ladydeath

Reynard said:
			
		

> T
> Anyway, here's the thing: whether or not a game is "balanced" depends entirely upon the point of the game, the playspace.  4E's balance, or more accurately its focus on PC parity, is built around a combat centric model.  N




Well said, Reynard.


----------



## almagest

I've read quite a few people stating that caster classes aren't overpowered at lower levels in 3e, and this constitutes some sort of "balance."  I don't know how anyone could possibly think this is true.  Just looking at the core 1st level Wizard/Sorcerer spells for 3e:

Shield, Mage Armor, True Strike, Enlarge Person, Magic Weapon, Summon Monster I - Prepare a couple of these, and/or potions/scrolls/wands, and you're quite a strong melee character.

Grease, Charm Person, Hypnotism, Sleep, Color Spray, Cause Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement, Reduce Person - Sleep and Color Spray are pretty potent save or dies for a first level character.  The others inflict some strong battlefield control conditions.

Mount, Obscuring Mist, Comprehend Languages, Floating Disk, Disguise Self, Silent Image, Animate Rope - You've got a ton of utility covered here.

So what can other, non-caster classes do at first level that compares to the above?


----------



## VannATLC

ladydeath said:
			
		

> Can you play a character who started out surviving on the streets of a city (2 levels of rogue) who suddenly finds out he's got a great aptitude for wizardry?  (I know there is a multiclass feat which gets you Arcana, a wizard ability and the ability to use wizard implements)




What does surviving on the streets, even as a pickpocket and petty thief, have to do with being a Rogue?

He'd be a straight Wizard, who might, possibly, have the Rogue Multiclass, but most likely just has Thievery trained, possibly Streetwise.

This is weird, it feels like arguing with ex-wife, whose screen name is also ladydeath.)


----------



## almagest

ladydeath said:
			
		

> What I was trying to get at is that there are alot of things that are locked into your character concept based on the smart thing to do once you have a character class and you cannot change your character's direction once you have picked a class.



I'd like to think I'm playing a smart character, yeah.  You don't get to be a high-level character by playing an Elven fighter with a CON of 8 or a Wizard/Sorcerer multiclass.



			
				ladydeath said:
			
		

> Can you play a character who started out surviving on the streets of a city (2 levels of rogue) who suddenly finds out he's got a great aptitude for wizardry?  (I know there is a multiclass feat which gets you Arcana, a wizard ability and the ability to use wizard implements)



Assuming this rogue/wizard character is a 3e character, I'd have to ask -- why in the world would you do that?  Just play a Beguiler or Spellthief.  You keep the flavor and lose the terrible character.

And yes, both classes I mentioned are *not* 3e core.  Just like I'm sure 4e will have lots of neat classes/options to get the magic-y rogue you're talking about.


----------



## Keltheos

The Highway Man said:
			
		

> Do you consider Birthright a failure?




Now or when it was still in print?


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:
			
		

> Y'know, some time ago, I posted a thread on the General Forum talking about how, despite the mechanical changes in editions, D&D hadn't actually changed all that much.  At least at the table.  Strangely enough, despite some criticisms that I was trolling for another edition war (I wasn't), most people tended to agree.  Sure, there are differences in play, but, stepping back a bit and taking a somewhat wider view, in all editions of D&D, when you sit down a play, everyone instantly knows that you are playing D&D and not some other system.
> 
> I truly, truly think, in a year or so, we'll be saying the same thing of 4e.




Let's contrast to what people are saying right now about 4e. I think from the very beginning, while some people were not happy to embrace the changes in 3e, I think people generally agreed it was still pretty much D&D. 

I don't see the future, true. But I feel very differently about 4e than I did about 3e. For 3e, it was like, "Finally! They fixed that." With 4e, I'm like, "Wow, I would never have done it like that."


----------



## Plageman

When it was announced I expected 3E to be a good mix of Alternity and AD&D2. After two years of actual Campaign in 3E and SWD20 I decided the system was not for me: too complicated to design an adventure fast and the whole skill point system was flawed in my eyes.

Try to create a 1st level Fighter in 3E who knows how to negotiate (Diplomacy) or is a tactician (Knowledge: Tactics) or is street wise (Gather Information). And, no I don't want to multiclass or house rule it. Unless you're a class with that skill in your list or accept to dilute your character abilities by multiclassing you're going to suck at it. The whole "fun" of 3E is actually -planning- you're character progression, however when you play only from time to time as we do, 1 game session a month (as we rotate games systems and DMs), it may be a loooooong time before you start to shine...

As a player I enjoyed 3E, but heck I enjoy Exalted too. As a DM i hate both games as they are too clunky and complex when you try to design challenging encounters. What I'm looking in 4E is a more DM friendly game, and I'll only be able to say if it work or no AFTER playing it for a few game sessions.

If the 4E fails to deliver I'll simply do what I've already done; go play another RPG, heck I've a whole library of them at my home and new ones are coming out regularly...


----------



## Horacio

Plageman said:
			
		

> As a player I enjoyed 3E, but heck I enjoy Exalted too. As a DM i hate both games as they are too clunky and complex when you try to design challenging encounters. What I'm looking in 4E is a more DM friendly game, and I'll only be able to say if it work or no AFTER playing it for a few game sessions.
> 
> If the 4E fails to deliver I'll simply do what I've already done; go play another RPG, heck I've a whole library of them at my home and new ones are coming out regularly...




After having read the three books and having tried several combat encounters, I find 4E very DMs friendly. 

The most time consuming activity for a 3e DM is encounter design, it's difficult to design an adventure fast.  I've only tried a few encounters, so I can generalize, but 4e seems to have a neat improvement in this area.

And as you say, it it fails to deliver, there are tons of other games out there 

BTW, I think I will continue to use 3e too. Different people, different game style, different D&D edition.


----------



## sbarbe

Votan said:
			
		

> 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.




But at least you actually *were* both a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter with 3 wizard spells or a wizard with 3 fighter feats.


----------



## TheWyrd

sbarbe said:
			
		

> But at least you acutally *were* both a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter with 3 wizard spells or a wizard with 3 fighter feats.




There's a difference?


----------



## bobthehappyzombie

Yeah as a wizard and a fighter you could suck at both.


----------



## GnomeWorks

sbarbe said:
			
		

> But at least you actually *were* both a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter with 3 wizard spells or a wizard with 3 fighter feats.




That level of granularity is neat, though. I like being able to make a fighter dabbling in magic, or a wizard dabbling in... stabby-ness. 4e did a relatively good job in that arena.

But I do agree with you - I also want to be able to go the straight 50/50, and that seems to be where 4e fell short.


----------



## vagabundo

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> But I do agree with you - I also want to be able to go the straight 50/50, and that seems to be where 4e fell short.





Just wait for Dual-Classing in the DMG2.

The treads will be massive!!!


----------



## Plageman

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> But I do agree with you - I also want to be able to go the straight 50/50, and that seems to be where 4e fell short.



Isn't there a spellsword slated for release with the Forgotten Realms PHB ?


----------



## GnomeWorks

Plageman said:
			
		

> Isn't there a spellsword slated for release with the Forgotten Realms PHB ?




I think you're missing the forest for the trees, a bit.

They're not going to make a base class for every possible class/class combination, which is what I'd like. I can be a warlord and dabble in paladin-ness, why can't I go 50/50?

The best solution at the moment, IMO, seems to be to grant the second class's class features at 11, if you take all the multiclass feats. It at least lets you work up to 50/50, and doesn't seem too unbalanced.


----------



## Plageman

Mutliclassing has always been something I didn't like in 3E. Either it was too powerfull or it made you suck. I won't even discuss ECL >_<

Pre-3E Multiclassing slowed your progression as you had to split your XP but you advanced in -both- classes gaining the whole benefits of the two. In 3E you could swap class at any level but you gained only the features of that class level. In both cases you may be well behind your buddies in terme of character power, especially if you're a caster; being 10th lvl Wizards and 10th lvl Fighter certainly do not equate to be a 20th lvl Wizard imho.

4E try to solve this by -adding- thing on top of you main class. That's the way Paragon / Mutliclassing work. However where it may fail is that it forces you to swap a power of you main class to gain a power of your secondary class. Maybe another solution would have been more appealing.

Now about WotC plans, it seems clear that they intend to offer more focused base classes ("War" Wizard, Illusionist, Necromancer) rather than risking "unbalanced" PC with open-ended multiclass.

The fact that a character backstory not being "in line" with the Class levels does not shock me. After all Bargle was a MU in BD&D who lived in the streets as a kid and got his first magic book after killing an apprentice. His Class was only MU and it worked well. If you look at Grey Mouser he's a Thief at core and only dabble in magic...


----------



## GnomeWorks

Plageman said:
			
		

> Pre-3E Multiclassing slowed your progression as you had to split your XP but you advanced in -both- classes gaining the whole benefits of the two. In 3E you could swap class at any level but you gained only the features of that class level. In both cases you may be well behind your buddies in terme of character power, especially if you're a caster; being 10th lvl Wizards and 10th lvl Fighter certainly do not equate to be a 20th lvl Wizard imho.




This approach made sense to me, but you're right - it ultimately made you mechanically inferior, if you chose the wrong pairing (I'm playing a 3.5 fighter/rogue at the moment, and it is fantastic, so not all combinations are bad ones).

I think the problem with 3.5-style multiclassing is that the classes all have different resource-management styles, which also impacts the strength of their abilities: fighters can use their feats all the time, so they are generally of less mechanical impact than a wizard's Vancian spells. The abilities are perhaps too silo'd, in such a way that you cannot meaningfully combine them in one character to produce something roughly equal to another single-classed character.

I imagine that 4e would be able to handle 3.5-style multiclassing much better, except that they backed off a step and made all the classes "top-heavy," and also made a few new class-based mechanics that would be difficult to make sense out of if 3.5-style multiclassing were allowed (healing surges and hp/level, specifically, though I imagine there are more).


----------



## Plageman

Spycraft has (had ?) an interesting option: It define Core Class Abilities that are available ONLY to you first class pick. If you later multiclass in the said class you get the other benefits but not the Core Class Abilities. The same goes with PrC if I remember correctly; first PrC CCA, second no CCA.

Funnily the 4E do the reverse somehow; when you multi you only get the CCA (and later on some "treats") but not the full class treatment. However you're supposed to continue to grow in your main class un-stymied.

What lacks at 4E release is more distinct Class Paths. I guess it would have been "easier" if they did use the Talent Trees like in SWSE or D20Modern but I'm quite sure people would have balked at it too ^_^


----------



## Shabe

Just a small comment on the number of play options available in combat to people. Given that all classes use the same power progression, all characters will have the same number of viable options in combat as each other except for a couple of small exceptions.

-Characters focused on str will have more options due to grab/bull rush.

-Dwarves gain no ability due to their racialness, merely have a standard action encounter power upgraded to a minor action encounter power.
 (Dragonborn - Breath Weapon 	Elardrin	- Teleport	Elf - reroll	 Half-elves - extra encounter "at will"	Halflings - reroll an enemy hit	Humans - extra at will	Tieflings - Infernal Wrath)

So erm fighters seem to have more options than wizards in combat, dun dun duuuun *dramatic chipmunk*

Shoot i skipped class features...

Cleric:		Healing Word, Channel Divinity
Fighter:		Marking (although only a choice when theres another "mark"er on the party)
Paladin:		Divine Challenge, Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands
Ranger:		Hunters Quarry
Rogue:		Sneak Attack
Warlock:	Misty Step, Curse, (Pact Bonus)
Warlord:	Inspiring Word
Wizard:		Cantrips, Implement Mastery

_disclaimer: I've only read the phb twice I may have missed out some options_

Okay so maybe the paladin turns out as having the most options. But we are only talking about a difference of 2 or 3. 
Overall it takes away the fact that one person is dithering over their options while the fighter decides to full attack/trip, and leads to the fact that everyone understands that they have a few options to mull over and it might all be a bit quicker and less painful if they plan their upcoming actions, hopefully.


----------



## Lizard

almagest said:
			
		

> So what can other, non-caster classes do at first level that compares to the above?




Survive more than one round in melee. 

If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.

In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)


----------



## Plageman

Well in BD&D you even didn't cast as spell as 1st level Cleric. I agree that if we discuss ONLY low-levels, spellcasters do suck somehow. Now let's start to discuss MU at lvl 10+...


----------



## Lizard

Plageman said:
			
		

> Well in BD&D you even didn't cast as spell as 1st level Cleric. I agree that if we discuss ONLY low-levels, spellcasters do suck somehow. Now let's start to discuss MU at lvl 10+...




Well, for the first time EVAR, I am playing a primary caster to high-ish levels. Raven humanoid (SS), Wizard 6/Blood Magus 5 (CL 10). With small size and a base Strength of 6, he isn't entering melee, ever, if he can avoid it.

He does have some useful tricks -- the words "Sudden Maximized Firebrand" come to mind. But he can pull that off *once*, and often, it's not the best thing to do -- especially if his allies are in melee. Our DM doesn't usually let us get away with "We're going to go into combat, let's buff" -- combats come to us. We're in the middle of a nice diplomatic dinner, when one of the diplomats suddenly signals for the Totally Expected Betrayal. And since everyone is scanned for magic before entering, we can't just buff up before dinner; it's not only rude, it might get us all killed. (We are in a setting where arcane magic, while not quite *illegal*, is very Socially Unacceptable, and where using any kind of spells, including divination, on an unwilling subject is basically asking for a death sentence -- and there are high level clerics and druids watching out for it in most social situations.) Or we're on a long journey through the Swamp Of Undead, and we don't have a nice five minute warning to let us start buffing. So my choice each round is "Buff myself, or do something useful", and it's usually the latter. So let's toss out the "Uber Wizard Buffs" meme, in a well run game, you don't have the luxury. 

In actual combat, my tactical options are shaped by my low hit points (though still good for a caster, thanks to high Con and being a Blood Magus) and crap AC. I have a lot of huge area blasting spells (some might say he's compensating...) and a reserve feat that let's me toss a 5d6 fireburst around. Both require my allies to be out of the friggin' way. Because I don't know what I'll encounter, my spell mix for the day is usuall broad -- my character's personality is such that he usually has Chain of Eyes and Prying Eyes prepared, and of course Dispel Magic sucks down several 3rd level slots. If I know we've only got one encounter for the day, I can unload all my nukes early, but, 9 times out of 10, we don't, and our DM usually structures things so, no, the monsters will NOT patiently wait for us to nap between every combat. We usually have 2-3 sessions of pure RP followed by The Big Battle, and once that starts, we're invariably on a tight time limit with no way to just rest up. Either we battle through, no matter how low we are on resources, or we fail in our mission, often with dire consequences. (Like, changing all history...for the worse). 10 minute adventuring day? I friggin' wish!

So I really don't get this whole "Wizards r00l!" stuff. Yes, my character is powerful -- but he has limited resources he has to carefully dole out, he often has spells which aren't appropriate, he must waste actions to get away from foes, he sucks down healing because he can't take more than 1-2 direct hits, etc. His at-will nuke is weak for his level, and has a Reflex save most creatures will make. He's not useless by any stretch, but he's not t3h ub3rne55, either. He's a fun, balanced, character with strengths and weaknesses, and I don't see him shooting ahead of the others in a few levels.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> Survive more than one round in melee.
> 
> If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.
> 
> In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)




Oh, we have played a few high level games with 3E. With casters.

I once played a Druid/Shifter. Another character was a Cleric/Paladin/Fighter/Hospitaler. And another character was a Drow Wizard. The weakest was a Bard/_Gatecrasher_. He later replaced the character with a Rogue/Paladin. 

We rocked the house. Our DM really had to try hard to "beat us". And trust me, the DM for that campaign might not be good, but he had a certain "adversial" streak. 

Preparing or knowing the right spells isn't that difficult at high levels. It's trivially easy. Spells you can't prepare go into Scrolls. Low Level Buff spells go into Wands. Healing, naturally too.

It was probably one of the most fun campaigns, but it was still pretty ridicilous.

Later, we tried to be creative. Having Bard/Fighter/Cleric/Ranger as a party configuration. That was a lot harder. Having no Wizard hurts a lot. To much utility magic is lost, and let's not even discuss fighting groups of foes...


----------



## Plageman

I think one of the thing those who find MU "uberish" try  explain is that -some- spells in the MU/Cleric arsenal are unbalanced. While this might never happen in your campaign it has ruined other DM (and often Pcs) fun. So it's not that ALL MU/Clerics are overpowerd, it's that some BUILDs are. I can only imagine that WotC wanted to "nerf" those unbalanced builds by modifying the system and splitting the spells the way they've done. 

About planning you spells, I admit that if you "just" run dungeon-like adventures you may have hard times preparing the right spell for the right event, but if you play more RP/investigation scenarios you may have the time to research, expand and exploit your whole spell library. Providing you campaign theme do not put a drastic limit to the way spell casters are handled (i.e. Clerics are only Healers otherwise they're outlaw, MU are seen as "diabolical" entities and hunted).


----------



## ladydeath

almagest said:
			
		

> Assuming this rogue/wizard character is a 3e character, I'd have to ask -- why in the world would you do that?  Just play a Beguiler or Spellthief.  You keep the flavor and lose the terrible character.




At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.


----------



## Lizard

ladydeath said:
			
		

> At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
> I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.




In actual play, though, this tends not to happen. As long as you stay within the melee classes (in 3e), you can do the 'rogue joins the military (gains fighter levels) and then finds god (gains paladin levels)' routine -- sort of -- and still be effective. Once you add in spellcasting, though, it becomes much harder. A level or two of a pure caster class tends to benefit a mostly-melee character; the reverse, not so much.

4e, actually, allows this a bit more, with retraining. You can always retrain a low level feat to be a multiclass feat instead. Your rogue discovers a talent for magic at level 6? Retrain Backstabber to Arcane Initiate -- you have spent time studying magic, and you're a *little* less stabby than you used to be due to neglecting your Stabbing Practice while you learned how to make your enemies BURN from Quite A Long Way Away.

Granted, you can only pull this trick with one multiclass at a time, which is problematic for more complex characters. Again, though, we get back to Actual Play. I've never seen a PC with more than two base classes+one PrC; the mythical This 2/That 3/The Other 2/PRC1 4/PRC2 3 never seems to show up at a real gaming table. 

3e's system modeled well the fact people can learn new skills all the time (pick up different classes) and let you have your class reflect what you're character was doing at any given moment. The in-play mechanics, though, tended to punish dabbling (and sometimes reward it in very odd ways, like huge save bonuses). 4e "fixes" this by (as is typical for 4e) nerfing it to hell and gone. The 4e mantra seems to be "If it's too complex to be balanced, simplify it until it can be." Whether this leads to a more satisfying play experience over the long term, especially over multiple campaigns where people want to try out new things, remains to be seen.


----------



## Shabe

ladydeath said:
			
		

> At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
> I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.




Then 4E can't handle that, its a class based system, with those classes fitting into various defined roles, the system is balanced around a party with classes that fill certain roles, theres a section on it in the DMG, if you start veering off from your predefined role then the game reigns you in by only allowing "partial" multiclassing.

On the other hand if you want to blur the lines a bit then you can take on other classes powers with the multiclassing options, if you want a particular feel to the character, urban and city dwelling then perhaps you get skill training streetwise and stealth, but there is no way to have several levels in X and then decide to be Y instead. You have a class and you have to continue improving in that class till the day you ascend into immortality.


----------



## almagest

Lizard said:
			
		

> Survive more than one round in melee.
> 
> If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.
> 
> In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)



So, in other words, casters aren't broken because if you specifically plan an encounter around beating them, they're beatable.  Ok.

Spell resistance isn't difficult to overcome, you know.  A CR 14 Blue Dragon has SR 21.  Fighting it at 14th level means a caster needs a 7 to beat it's resistance -- a 5 or 3 if you take spell penetration feats.  And how many monsters have dispel magic?  And of the ones who do, how many have a caster level high enough to make the check consistently?  Also, how many monsters are smart enough to go after a spellcaster instead of the big guy with a giant axe that's running at them?

I guess if you arbitrarily decide that you need to kill the caster or make him worthless to the party, and tailor repeated encounters to ensure this, then you can find ways of doing it.  I don't consider it proof that casters aren't much more powerful than non-casters, though.  I just consider it bad DMing.


----------



## almagest

ladydeath said:
			
		

> At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
> I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.



You don't.  But coming into a game without at least a basic idea of what you want to play leads to some awfully unplayable characters.  In this example, as I said before, you *will* have to do some planning beforehand, otherwise you might end up with a race that doesn't have rogue or wizard as a favored class, and you'd have to work around multiclass xp penalties.  You'd also want to avoid a race with a LA or racial hit dice, because they'd further cripple your casting ability.

And again, why not just play a beguiler or spellthief?  Same flavor, more playable characters, no shoehorning race into your character concept, and all you'd have to do is have your character make the decision to get spellcast-y one level earlier.


----------



## Mort

Lizard said:
			
		

> Survive more than one round in melee.
> 
> If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard




The problem with this argument is: 

1) you are actively targeting a characters weaknesses - this works against any character not just the wizard; but

2) unlike most melee classes, a spellcaster (and wizard particularly) can change what his weaknesses are. Depending on spell selection if he encountered something that exploited his weaknesses before he can, very easily plug those weaknesses up in the future. Plus with the introduction of ever more conjuration spells, spell resistance was rarely an issue.

The last more than anything is what made 3e casters (the ones that could pick spells sorcerers  etc. not so much) more powerful class over the others.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> ..., as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.
> 
> In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)




In practice any wizard paying attention can make it very, very hard for others to damage him - he can easily have a ridiculously high AC (especially if splat books are involved, though even without them) and descent HP (false life and empowered false life are vastly underestimated). Or forgetting that easily have a flat % miss chance (b/c it's flat it's usefull at all levels making it even more powerful in high level play) Further wizard mobility (with spells such as expeditious retreat, dimension door, and dimension hop etc (splat books) was unmatched.

As for "limited resources" - you're completely discounting how easy scrolls were to make in 3e. Spells such as knock, comprehend languages, prying eyes etc. could be put on scrolls and rarely if ever needed to take up a wizards actual spell slots (yes this costs xp but it works out to a pittance compared to utility, this is even less an issue in 3.5 where experience was given at a higher rate if a character lagged in level).

Sorry, I've both DM'd for and played mid-high level casters and the gap was just too wide.


----------



## Lizard

almagest said:
			
		

> Spell resistance isn't difficult to overcome, you know.  A CR 14 Blue Dragon has SR 21.  Fighting it at 14th level means a caster needs a 7 to beat it's resistance -- a 5 or 3 if you take spell penetration feats.  And how many monsters have dispel magic?  And of the ones who do, how many have a caster level high enough to make the check consistently?  Also, how many monsters are smart enough to go after a spellcaster instead of the big guy with a giant axe that's running at them?




We usually fight PC-classed opponents of roughly our level, not random monsters. That does make a difference. In the game I'm in, we rarely fight creatures straight out of the MM; opponents are part of the complex web of allies and enemies we find ourselves in.



> I guess if you arbitrarily decide that you need to kill the caster or make him worthless to the party, and tailor repeated encounters to ensure this, then you can find ways of doing it.  I don't consider it proof that casters aren't much more powerful than non-casters, though.  I just consider it bad DMing.




I'd consider not making sure an encounter challenges the player to be bad DMing.


----------



## Thasmodious

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> But I do agree with you - I also want to be able to go the straight 50/50, and that seems to be where 4e fell short.




I think six days after release is a bit early to say 4e "fell short" with anything yet.  There was a design article or blog a while back dealing with multiclassing and what they felt was good and wasn't.  Trying to wedge true 50/50 into the system has never worked very well.  In previous editions, capped levels and split XP were necessary to prevent brokenness.  In 3e, multiclassed casters too often lost caster levels and found they couldn't keep up with the delicate balance of the game.  And when it worked in 3e, it was often broken or at least overpowered.  4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers.  True x/x are classes.  The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last.  So, as the game moves on in this edition, we should have a lot of options to represent our mixes: dabblers, prestige multiclassing, and the true 50/50s as classes.  I hope it bears out this way, anyway.


----------



## JDillard

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers.  True x/x are classes.  The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last.  So, as the game moves on in this edition, we should have a lot of options to represent our mixes: dabblers, prestige multiclassing, and the true 50/50s as classes.  I hope it bears out this way, anyway.




Agreed!  It's time to redefine our terminology.  In 4e, "multiclass" means to take those extra feats that allow some dabbling in the other class's powers.  If you want a true 50/50 split type class, you need a whole class to accurately represent that.  

The design goal looks like it was to make classes balanced and capable of performing their role duty despite what weird combinations of stuff players might come up with.  This takes the "accidentally sucky character" out of the mix, something that will help bring in new players.  You don't need system mastery to be able to make a character that's at least moderately effective in his role.  A new player who sees a feat or power that "sounds really cool!" can't accidentally screw himself and make his character basically unplayable.


50/50 splits generaly either suck at both roles (ftr/wiz in 3.x) or are nearly just as good (sometimes as good or better) at both than their single class counterparts (high dmg ftr/thf).  Either you pick two classes with opposing roles and fail, or two classes with the same role and the synergy of the two makes either individually seem a waste.  Neither of these seems like a good way to handle multiclassing, to me, to lots of you, and to the designers it seems.

So instead, if you want a 50/50 whatever, wait for them to make a class that does it.  Spellsword looks like it'll be our first.  And it'll work because instead of taking two classes with opposing roles or two classes with synergistic roles, you've only got one class.  And balancing a single class is thoroughly easy.


----------



## JohnSnow

JDillard said:
			
		

> So instead, if you want a 50/50 whatever, wait for them to make a class that does it.  Spellsword looks like it'll be our first.  And it'll work because instead of taking two classes with opposing roles or two classes with synergistic roles, you've only got one class.  And balancing a single class is thoroughly easy.




Agreed, mostly - except the class will be called, I believe, "Swordmage," not "Spellsword."

For the record, I actually look forward to seeing what an arcane defender will look like.

Similarly, I think there's room for an arcane striker that's less like the warlock and more like the old elven bladesinger - a capable melee combatant that targets single foes, but who can do some control as well.

There's some pretty cool possibilities looming out there, but they'll be better as single classes (IMO).


----------



## JDillard

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Agreed, mostly - except the class will be called, I believe, "Swordmage," not "Spellsword."




Ack!  You've discovered my secret!  I don't care one bit about the gish character, never have.  It's not my thing.  I'm only curious to see how they handle the 50/50 split concept so that I can see how they'll hopefully later introduce the splits I'm more interested in (cleric/thf ftw!).


----------



## almagest

Lizard said:
			
		

> We usually fight PC-classed opponents of roughly our level, not random monsters. That does make a difference. In the game I'm in, we rarely fight creatures straight out of the MM; opponents are part of the complex web of allies and enemies we find ourselves in.



So you can kill a caster with another caster, or an NPC you specifically designed to kill casters?  Congratulations, I guess.  I don't see how this suddenly balances 3e.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I'd consider not making sure an encounter challenges the player to be bad DMing.



"Challenging" is different than "specifically designed to kill or make a specific character or class useless in a battle."


----------



## GnomeWorks

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> I think six days after release is a bit early to say 4e "fell short" with anything yet.




Hmm... no. There are some mechanics that all you need to do is look at them, and they fall apart, or clearly fall short of a goal. 4e's multiclassing mechanics is an instance of such a thing.

Not only that, but they're not going to make a class for every possible "normal" class combination - and I wouldn't expect them to, because that would get ridiculous. Not only that, but thus far, 4e classes have a very strong tendency to pidgeonhole characters that take them, and as such any kind of hybrid class will probably be suitable only for one or two "takes" on such a combination.


----------



## Spatula

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref.  But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.



It's extremely suboptimal for fighters in 3e, as well - you need large per-attack damage bonuses (like sneak attack dice) to make the feat and attack-penalty hits worth it, vs using a 2Her and PA, and fighters don't get such bonuses.  So nothing has changed as far as the Fighter class and TWFing.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't think any D&D player anywhere can legitimately argue that the wizard (or magic-user, or whatever) is NOT an inherently unbalanced character.



I reject the entire premise.  It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e.  Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.  What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc.  And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless.  But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.

Admittedly I run a mostly core game.  If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers.  True x/x are classes.  The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last.



Yeah.  Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.


----------



## Mort

Spatula said:
			
		

> I reject the entire premise.  It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e.  Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.  What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc.  And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless.  But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.




Damage isn't everything - 3e casters can completely dominate and control the battlefield with spells like grease, web, slow, evards black tentacles etc., all core spells. The shear ease with which a well designed 3e caster (core or otherwise) could lock down a battle and turn it into a mopping up exercise for his party was just too much.  Non-casters (until Bo9S) had nothing to compete with what a caster could do in a fight. Then of course casters could totally dominate outside of combat too (comp. languages, knock, charm spells, teleport etc) which completely unbalanced the equation.

4e attempts to put other classes on even footing with casters while still giving casters a clearly defined role - this is a laudable goal.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.




I'll agree here, the 4e goal was to expressely change the view and nature of multiclassing.


----------



## Mister Doug

Reynard said:
			
		

> Define "balance", because the 4E definition is a new definition, one made specifically for 4E.  it means balance and parity over the course of a single encounter, which has never, ever been an aspect of balance in D&D in any previous edition.  The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, _*over the course of the game*_.  This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term.  Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.
> 
> The reason balance is different in 4E is because the nature of the game and the intended style of play has changed.  The entire "culture" of D&D has been altered to be "get together with your buds, throw some dice and drink some Buds," an attempt to take a very niche hobby rewarded by its devotion to that niche and attempt to make it mainstream (or, at least as mainstream as WoW).  It won't work.  those powergamers and deep immersion simulationists, neither of which is supported by 4E, might make up a minority of the players but they make up a majority of the purchasers -- who are the truly important ones.  As such, it will not take long for splats dedicated to the number crunchers and the world builders start coming out.  They'll buy 'em.




My group of friends who game stopped playing D&D due to a number of reasons, bt some of that is the difficulty of getting our real lives to give us room to play a game balanced over multi-year scale. Playing D&D so it wasn't frustrating required time commitments we couldn't make due to real life concerns or a willingness to dismiss balance by long-term play and focus on a mix of pick-up style sessions with some role-play. In the end, it didn't work, and some of the structures of D&D were central to that. So much that D&D is not even kept on the table for discussion of getting the group together again unless it is in much smaller groups.

Of course, I don't think that 4e is going to fix some of these problems either, but making D&D easier to just sit down and play is not an appeal just to the mainstream or to newbies, but to some real-life long-term gamers who find free time a rarer and rarer commodity.


----------



## Keltheos

Mister Doug said:
			
		

> Of course, I don't think that 4e is going to fix some of these problems either, but making D&D easier to just sit down and play is not an appeal just to the mainstream or to newbies, but to some real-life long-term gamers who find free time a rarer and rarer commodity.




Amen. The only reason I'm even looking at it is right here.


----------



## Spatula

Mort said:
			
		

> Damage isn't everything - 3e casters can completely dominate and control the battlefield with spells like grease, web, slow, evards black tentacles etc., all core spells.



Yep.  That's the purpose of those spells.  Notice which role the 4e wizard got?


----------



## Mister Doug

MadMaligor said:
			
		

> You could wear it but you couldnt cast in it.      Taking armor on and off was also a no no in combat even back then.




That was true in 2e, but not 1e.

They totally nerfed F/MUs in 2e.


----------



## Mort

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yep.  That's the purpose of those spells.  Notice which role the 4e wizard got?




not the point. The point was the 3e wizard rendered the other party members secondary. 4e at least attempts to make everyone useful on the same level, too early (for me) to see if it's successful.


----------



## Nifft

Reynard said:
			
		

> The wizard and cleric were quite balanced in 1E and 2E (for very different reasons) and, assuming a DM that enforces the actual rules, pretty well balanced in 3E, over the course of the game. This last bit is important because D&D has always been intended to play over the long term. Early weak levels balance out powerful high levels; role-playing restrictions balance out power disparities.



 Very strongly disagree. You're saying Wizards and Fighters are balanced because Wizards suck now, but win later; and Fighters win now, but suck later.

I reject the legitimacy of any argument that includes "you suck" as a design goal.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Keltheos

Nifft said:
			
		

> I reject the legitimacy of any argument that includes "you suck" as a design goal.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Unless it's about Dyson vs. Dust Devil...


----------



## The Little Raven

Spatula said:
			
		

> I reject the entire premise.  It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e.  Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.




Suddenly? HARDLY. They've been considered the uberest of the uber since back in the day, when they overshadowed everyone after a few levels. This is a decades-old issue, not something that's popped up out of the blue.



> What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc.  And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless.  But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.




High level casters still out damage non-caster, because iterative attacks (which are supposed to help balance damage output) are relatively useless when your other attacks are at 10 or more below your primary attack.


----------



## drothgery

Spatula said:
			
		

> I reject the entire premise.  It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e.  Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.  What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc.  And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless.  But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.
> 
> Admittedly I run a mostly core game.  If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.




Err... it's also because we haven't ever had a pure wizard PC; I've run most of the almost-pure wizards and I think wizards are supposed cast _fireball_ whether it's optimal or not. We've never had anyone that played save-or-die/lose spells to the hilt.


----------



## Spatula

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... it's also because we haven't ever had a pure wizard PC; I've run most of the almost-pure wizards and I think wizards are supposed cast _fireball_ whether it's optimal or not. We've never had anyone that played save-or-die/lose spells to the hilt.



Trust me Dave, the monsters that you guys are facing at 19th level aren't failing saving throws anytime soon, thanks to the way HD scales to CR.  There's no way you can push your DCs high enough with core materials.


----------



## Spatula

Mort said:
			
		

> not the point. The point was the 3e wizard rendered the other party members secondary. 4e at least attempts to make everyone useful on the same level, too early (for me) to see if it's successful.



The 3e wizard controls the battlefield (now its primary role in 4e), does some damage, and provides a lot of out-of-combat utility (now justifiably nerfed / available via rituals).  You still need the rest of the party, because someone has to actually deal massive damage that isn't subject to saves for half to a monster in 3 rounds, and someone has to take that monster's hits.

(yes casters have a lot of ways to avoid getting hit.  high level monsters have plenty of countermeasures to them, as well)


----------



## Mort

Spatula said:
			
		

> The 3e wizard controls the battlefield (now its primary role in 4e), does some damage, and provides a lot of out-of-combat utility (now justifiably nerfed / available via rituals).  You still need the rest of the party, because someone has to actually deal massive damage that isn't subject to saves for half to a monster in 3 rounds, and someone has to take that monster's hits.





I'm not disagreeing with the overall statement (heck I said the same thing) I'm talking about degrees - the 3e wizard (and his high level 1-2e counterparts) was an island; the other members were (too) often secondary and just provided support. And to somewhat disagree the 3e wizard could lay out massive damage if needed and to large swaths of monsters as well. 

In 4e the wizard should be one of a group, necessary but not overwhelming - it's a big difference.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> (yes casters have a lot of ways to avoid getting hit.  high level monsters have plenty of countermeasures to them, as well)




Just to single this out - the problem was if you need specific countermeasures for only one class and you have to figure out ways to control for just that class all the time- that class is too dominating.


----------



## Henry

Mourn said:
			
		

> Suddenly? HARDLY. They've been considered the uberest of the uber since back in the day, when they overshadowed everyone after a few levels. This is a decades-old issue, not something that's popped up out of the blue.




Heh - not only that, I remember design statements from 3E's roll-out that said they were trying to remove the wizard's "suck now, be great later" problem even back then. That's why he (and other casters) got the Cleric's "extra spells" boost at low levels, so he wasn't stuck with being a one-charge magic wand at first level.


----------



## Njall

Spatula said:
			
		

> Trust me Dave, the monsters that you guys are facing at 19th level aren't failing saving throws anytime soon, thanks to the way HD scales to CR.  There's no way you can push your DCs high enough with core materials.





Well, Human Wizard, lvl 20, int 18 at 1st level.
23 with level ups.
+5 Inherent.
+6 Enhancement.
That's 34 Int.

Base DC for a 9th level spell: 10+9+2 (spell focus and greater spell focus)+12= 33.

Some examples:
Old Red Dragon, CR20:
Fort: +23, Will +21.
Balor, CR20:
Fort: +22, Will +19.
Pit Fiend, CR20:
Fort: +19, Will +21.
Tarrasque, CR20:
Fort: +38, Will +20.

Aside from the Tarrasque, any other monster fails its fortitude save 45% of the time, and its will save 55% of the time. That's not what I'd call a low percentage of success...


----------



## Spatula

Mort said:
			
		

> Just to single this out - the problem was if you need specific countermeasures for only one class and you have to figure out ways to control for just that class all the time- that class is too dominating.



It's not countermeasures to a specific class at all.  Monsters have counters to high-level magic abilities, which many casters can do on their own, but other classes can also accomplish through items.  You can't compare the high-level wizard to the high-level fighter-type without considering their wealth, which is quite considerable in 3e, and the fighter-types get more out of their items.  And before that launches another tangent, I'm glad the wealth & relative item values issues has been addressed in 4e and not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it.


----------



## Spatula

Njall said:
			
		

> <snip>



High-level CRs are not very accurate IMO.  I think the numbers are generally few levels too high, but aside from that it's hard to enforce the gradual-attrition assumption of the EL model.


----------



## Hussar

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's extremely suboptimal for fighters in 3e, as well - you need large per-attack damage bonuses (like sneak attack dice) to make the feat and attack-penalty hits worth it, vs using a 2Her and PA, and fighters don't get such bonuses.  So nothing has changed as far as the Fighter class and TWFing.
> 
> I reject the entire premise.  It's funny, before 4e the argument was that damage spells were too weak because they still do the same damage they've always done, but monster HP exploded in 3e.  Now suddenly wizards are the uberest of the uber.  What spellcasters are great for, in 3e at least, is utility stuff - scry, teleport, invisibility, etc.  And in that realm they just ridiculously better than anyone else, and make skills a little useless.  But their damage output just doesn't compare to what non-casters can dish out.
> 
> Admittedly I run a mostly core game.  If you want to allow poorly designed and tested material into your game willy-nilly, that's your own fault.
> 
> Yeah.  Some people just get hung up terminology and can't see that the whole concept has changed.




Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir.  Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9.  Against a single target, he wins.  Every time.  No save.

You're right, direct damage is pretty weak in 3e.  But, there are so many save or die/suck spells, plus "I Win" spells that get around defenses.  Web at low levels is pretty much an instant win spell.  Evard's Tentacles also incredibly powerful.  You certainly don't need to go outside of core to have wizards at the top of the food chain in double digit level games.

I cannot believe that anyone thinks that this is a new issue.  EVERY poll on the General Forum put Wizards, Clerics and Druids in the top three of classes.  EVERY TIME.  Didn't matter if it was 2002 or 2008.  

When the same classes are considered the most powerful classes in the game every time the issue comes up, maybe, just maybe, those classes were a bit overpowered.


----------



## Njall

Spatula said:
			
		

> High-level CRs are not very accurate IMO.  I think the numbers are generally few levels too high, but aside from that it's hard to enforce the gradual-attrition assumption of the EL model.




Well, that's what the books assume you're facing at those levels.
So, the core books assumes that a wizard ( or, more in general, a spellcaster ) can kill a monster that should be a challenge for the entire party 3/4 times /day in 1 round, 45-55% of the time, and still have enough spell slots to make the whole group invisible, fly all day long, knock a couple of locks just in case there isn't a rogue, Poly into something nasty in case he's stuck in melee...I can go on, but I think I've made myself clear.
That's why you hear people saying that RAW, spellcasters are not balanced, at all.
Now, you can say that those numbers are not appropriate, and "fix them" using higher level monsters. That's fine, but isn't it an admission that yes, spellcasters are indeed unbalanced? 
A CR 20 dragon against a party without a caster is overkill, or at least a hard fight; against a party with a properly optimized spellcaster it is, usually, a pushover.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir.  Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9.  Against a single target, he wins.  Every time.  No save.
> 
> You're right, direct damage is pretty weak in 3e.  But, there are so many save or die/suck spells, plus "I Win" spells that get around defenses.  Web at low levels is pretty much an instant win spell.  Evard's Tentacles also incredibly powerful.  You certainly don't need to go outside of core to have wizards at the top of the food chain in double digit level games.
> 
> I cannot believe that anyone thinks that this is a new issue.  EVERY poll on the General Forum put Wizards, Clerics and Druids in the top three of classes.  EVERY TIME.  Didn't matter if it was 2002 or 2008.
> 
> When the same classes are considered the most powerful classes in the game every time the issue comes up, maybe, just maybe, those classes were a bit overpowered.




Yes, casters were powerful, but the point is that the balancing factors built into the system -- spells/day, lower defenses and hit points and the big fat target on them, not to mention the fact that PCs don't just pick whatever spells they want, they have to acquire them (for wizards anyway) -- get ignored in these discussions.  Sure the wizard looks like a juggernaut when one assumes he can have whatever spells he wants and give no thought to resource management or conservation, which of course then leads to the 15 minute adventuring day complaint.

So now, instead, we have removed the interesting magic and effects from the game to save the poor fighter player the heartache of being less awesome than the wizard, while at the same time alienated the casual player who doesn't want to have to learn a dozen "spells" and the simulationist fiddler player who wants to tweak skill points and feat choices for days on end to get just the right feel, just so we can have a 2x 15 minute adventuring day instead.


----------



## Branduil

What you call "interesting magic and effects" I call "stealing everyone else's thunder and giving the DM massive headaches."


----------



## Reynard

Branduil said:
			
		

> What you call "interesting magic and effects" I call "stealing everyone else's thunder and giving the DM massive headaches."




This is the complaint I don't understand, because there is so much more that goes into a real world play situation.  it always strikes me as a theoretical complaint.  Sure, given optimal circumstances all the time, the caster can steal the show and make life hell for the DM, but those optimal circumstances are the DM's fault by letting the wizard player have whatever he wants whenever he wants it and the oter players' fault for not reminding the wizard he is a part of a team and to reserve some spells for utility that helps the whole party, and of course the wizard player's fault for being a self absorbed jerk.

But then, as player or DM, I don't mind so much when a particular PC gets the spotlight in one particular situation as long as everybody gets a chance to shine and most situations do engage the whole party.  I don't mind encourage creative casting and spell choice by creating situations where wizards are necessary (which has the added benefit of requiring a spell like fly instead of yet another fireball or whatever).


----------



## terraleon

Hussar said:
			
		

> Core wizard polymorph's into a Behir.  Now he's a grappling master that out damages any class at level 9.  Against a single target, he wins.  Every time.  No save.




Black Pudding with an illusion making it appear to be an AngryMeatyThing. That's even EL -1. If I advance it to an even EL9 it's got even more potential.

I sit back and watch the mage die a terrible unpleasant death and try not to laugh. Please, attack into my grapple and attempt to determine what the monster is, increase the number of puddings that will consume your fellow party member. 

It all depends on the sort of game. 4E seems to take whole swaths of playstyle and say, "Your game was not appropriately mainstream. We will not support you with our new shiny toys until some time in the future. Bummer for you." Can any GM make 4E work for those campaigns? Sure, I guess...but there's going to be a lot more work involved for some of them, and that's my concern with it.

-Ben.


----------



## Mort

Reynard said:
			
		

> This is the complaint I don't understand, because there is so much more that goes into a real world play situation.  it always strikes me as a theoretical complaint.  Sure, given optimal circumstances all the time, the caster can steal the show and make life hell for the DM, but those optimal circumstances are the DM's fault by letting the wizard player have whatever he wants whenever he wants it and the oter players' fault for not reminding the wizard he is a part of a team and to reserve some spells for utility that helps the whole party, and of course the wizard player's fault for being a self absorbed jerk.




Why do you think the 4e designers spent so much effort re balancing the classes? Because it is by no means a theoretical complaint, casters dominated unless the DM took drastic measures to change the situation. Saying a player is a jerk when the dominate the party in no way changes the fact that they can dominate.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> But then, as player or DM, I don't mind so much when a particular PC gets the spotlight in one particular situation as long as everybody gets a chance to shine and most situations do engage the whole party.




Wizards could fly, and cast knock, and scry and so many other non-combat things as to be ridiculous. Then when there was a combat, they could dominate that too (maybe outshined by the druid or cleric - but hey that's because they're casters too).



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't mind encourage creative casting and spell choice by creating situations where wizards are necessary (which has the added benefit of requiring a spell like fly instead of yet another fireball or whatever).




The problem was not creating a situation where the wizard was useful, the problem was creating a situation where the wizard was not.


----------



## Reynard

Mort said:
			
		

> Wizards could fly, and cast knock, and scry and so many other non-combat things as to be ridiculous. Then when there was a combat, they could dominate that too (maybe outshined by the druid or cleric - but hey that's because they're casters too).




Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

terraleon said:
			
		

> Black Pudding with an illusion making it appear to be an AngryMeatyThing. That's even EL -1. If I advance it to an even EL9 it's got even more potential.



How well does the equal level Fighter or Rogue stand up against this Black Pudding?


----------



## Shabe

Reynard said:
			
		

> Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.




No we are assuming the wizard has haste, fireball and dispel magic prepared. Then he has scrolls of knock, comprehend languages and flight. Oh and that he will get to rest when the cleric runs out of healing.


----------



## Lizard

Reynard said:
			
		

> Again, you assuming optimal circumstances, with the wizard having all the right spells at exactly the right time with no need to conserve his resources for future encounters.




Like I said -- apparently, in some games, wizards just keep the PHB and the Spell Compendium on their laps, and pick any spell they like at any time.

In games I'm in, you have:
a)A limited subset of spells to pick from -- you don't get to know every spell in the book (well, unless you're a cleric/druid...), and it's easy for the DM to say, "Sorry, there's no one you can learn that spell from".
b)Of that subset, you can only prepare a limited number.

If people think that not allowing players a day's rest after each encounter, or surprising them with combat in what should be a non-combat situation, or making sure their enemies are just as aware of how the world 'works' as they are and take the same precautions is "unfair" or "screwing the players", well, I'm glad they enjoy their games. I'd be bored stiff.

(Also, making wands/scrolls/potions costs gold and takes *time*. Even when we have a long 'downtime' between adventures, we all have things to do besides sit in our rooms and scribe scrolls! We have lives, families, contacts, connections, side trips, duties, personal projects -- all of which eat up weeks of downtime, leaving only a bit left for item crafting. Are your characters so divorced from the world that they need do nothing but craft magic items anytime they're not adventuring?)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lizard said:
			
		

> Like I said -- apparently, in some games, wizards just keep the PHB and the Spell Compendium on their laps, and pick any spell they like at any time.
> 
> In games I'm in, you have:
> a)A limited subset of spells to pick from -- you don't get to know every spell in the book (well, unless you're a cleric/druid...), and it's easy for the DM to say, "Sorry, there's no one you can learn that spell from".
> b)Of that subset, you can only prepare a limited number.



The spells from the core rulebooks are usually enough. Though splats certainly help.



> If people think that not allowing players a day's rest after each encounter, or surprising them with combat in what should be a non-combat situation, or making sure their enemies are just as aware of how the world 'works' as they are and take the same precautions is "unfair" or "screwing the players", well, I'm glad they enjoy their games. I'd be bored stiff.



It all depends on the adventure setup. Some have timelines, where you can't rest after each day. Others don't. But even if you do have a timeline, you will have to rest eventually. Wands of Cure Light Wounds are cheap and effective to extend the day, but if the Clerics is out of the more powerful healing spells, how are you gonna survive the next full-attack of an enemy brute monster? Or two guys with 2 fireballs per day?



> Are your characters so divorced from the world that they need do nothing but craft magic items anytime they're not adventuring?)



Sadly, yes. (But craftig takes only 8 hours -that's like a normal work day. You can leave the other 16 hours of the day to sleeping and socializing with your family, friends and allies. They probably don't have so much time during the day, either - daily work doesn't do itself!)


----------



## Plageman

Lizard said:
			
		

> Like I said -- apparently, in some games, wizards just keep the PHB and the Spell Compendium on their laps, and pick any spell they like at any time.
> 
> In games I'm in, you have:
> a)A limited subset of spells to pick from -- you don't get to know every spell in the book (well, unless you're a cleric/druid...), and it's easy for the DM to say, "Sorry, there's no one you can learn that spell from".
> b)Of that subset, you can only prepare a limited number.



Well if your GM is actively stopping you from learning "powerful" spells, all the power to him. But it can stop players from having fun too. And yes you  have a limited subset a day as a caster (wizard or otherwise) thus forcing you to find another use in later encounters (crossbow anyone ?).

If this is certainly true for a time, once the caster get a good number of spells / day and supposing the DM didn't sell him only crappy spells a smart player may become very versatile. Of course this depends of which table your playing and of the tone of the campaign. Myself, I blame the FR for the whole epic trend we've seen since 3E release but of course you're allowed to have your own take on the subject...


----------



## Gort

Lizard said:
			
		

> Are your characters so divorced from the world that they need do nothing but craft magic items anytime they're not adventuring?)



Depends on the character. The 3rd ed wizard was meant to have d4 hitpoints per level for the very reason that he was so divorced from the world that he didn't spend time doing healthy exercise and suchlike, instead labouring in his workshop or poring over manuscripts in his library.

And I don't think that scribing scrolls that may potentially save his and his party members lives would be a waste of time, in or out of character.


----------



## Lizard

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The spells from the core rulebooks are usually enough. Though splats certainly help.




What I meant was, my wizard has, in his spellbook, maybe twice as many spells as he can cast per day. He doesn't have every spell in the PHB to pick from at the start of the day. He learns a limited number per level, and has to choose carefully which spells he adds to his repertoire.

Sure, you rest eventually. My point was, at each new day, you need to repick your spells, not knowing what the day will bring. Barring painfully obvious hints, you have to spread your spells out among combat and utility. Spells which are especially effective against specific enemies are generally risky to take, since you don't know what will be coming. I don't think I've ever been on adventure where I didn't have a few 'worthless' spells prepped -- spells that would not have been worthless under other circumstances.


----------



## Pbartender

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sure, you rest eventually. My point was, at each new day, you need to repick your spells, not knowing what the day will bring. Barring painfully obvious hints, you have to spread your spells out among combat and utility. Spells which are especially effective against specific enemies are generally risky to take, since you don't know what will be coming. I don't think I've ever been on adventure where I didn't have a few 'worthless' spells prepped -- spells that would not have been worthless under other circumstances.




Don't forget, the other school of thought was...  

"I've only got so many spells I can prepare per day, and I don't want to waste them.  I don't know what the day will bring, but combat is almost a sure bet.  So, I prepare nothing but attack spells, and maybe a few defensive spells to make certain everything I prepare is useful. If I have the money, I'll buy scrolls, potions, or wands for anything other spells I might need, and hope I have enough of the right ones."

So, despite having the potential for a wide variety of spells, the vast majority of Wizards and Clerics would tend to prepare the same handful of spells for each level every day, and only changing the basic formula when an obvious obstacle was presenting itself...  "We're heading into a Red Dragon's lair, time for some Resist Elements."


----------



## Hussar

Reynard said:
			
		

> Yes, casters were powerful, but the point is that the balancing factors built into the system -- spells/day, lower defenses and hit points and the big fat target on them, not to mention the fact that PCs don't just pick whatever spells they want, *they have to acquire them (for wizards anyway)* -- /snippage




Umm, what?  All wizards gain two spells per level free.  No research, no "finding them", no limitations.  By 10th level, I will have 18 spells in addition to the ones I start with at 1st level.  

That's 18 effects that are easily as powerful as any feat or class ability.  

Scrolls take a day, at most, to craft.  Even the busiest campaign is going to have a couple of weeks of down time every couple of levels.  Poof, there's 14 scrolls.  Never mind just going out and BUYING them.

You don't memorize utility spells, you put them on scrolls.  Couple of scrolls for each spell and you're good to go in any situation.

This is all pretty basic wizard stuff.  Heck, I get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, so the assumption is right there in the rules that I'm going to be using it.


----------



## LostSoul

Lizard said:
			
		

> Spells which are especially effective against specific enemies are generally risky to take, since you don't know what will be coming. I don't think I've ever been on adventure where I didn't have a few 'worthless' spells prepped -- spells that would not have been worthless under other circumstances.




That reminds me of the Rogue's Sneak Attack.  Totally worthless in some circumstances.  Too bad he doesn't have worthwhile ones as well.


----------



## Reynard

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, what?  All wizards gain two spells per level free.  No research, no "finding them", no limitations.  By 10th level, I will have 18 spells in addition to the ones I start with at 1st level.




The wizard then has 4 spells per spell level that he gets to choose for free -- which, given the vast array of spells of each level (and that's what we're talking about, right? -- that the wizard is so uber-versatile that he outshines everyone?) he's still pretty limited without a combination of active research and luck.  But even if the wizard had access to every spell of every level, he is still limited to his spells per day, which requires that he not only have a decent idea of what to prepare, but also that he conserve them.

Yes, the wizard can get a couple wands for the common use spells and some scrolls for those "just in case" situations, but there's a resource tradeoff here, too: money he is spending on wands and scrolls are not going into stat boosters, wonderous items, and other wealth-essentials.  he is choosing to be weaker in order to be more versatile, and for some it is a good trade off.

Personally, I like the fact that every class in 3E and earlier plays completely differently.  that's a feature.  it means that there's a class or two for everyone around the table, based on their preferences and their capabilities.  3E also improved the basic tactical options of everyone, which meant that no one was ever "useless' (despite protestations to the contrary) while 4E removed those basic tactical options and handed them to specific classes, and at the same time madse every class play the same and be equally complex.  it's not a bad idea for a certain playstyle, but it is certainly different.


----------



## Plageman

dbl post


----------



## Plageman

Reynard said:
			
		

> 3E also improved the basic tactical options of everyone, which meant that no one was ever "useless' (despite protestations to the contrary) while 4E removed those basic tactical options and handed them to specific classes, and at the same time madse every class play the same and be equally complex.  it's not a bad idea for a certain playstyle, but it is certainly different.



I hardly see which "tactical option" was removed from Martial (4E Terminology) classes. What I see now is that they seriously rethought the way Caster classes worked and decided to create whole classes around older "schools" of play (Blaster, Illusionist, Mind control, Necromancer, Summonner, etc) rather than recreate the Jack-of-all-trade spellcaster we had in earlier edition.

Is it worse or is it better I guess it depend on which experience you had with those classes in previous campaigns. As a regular player of Clreic-type characters I'm happy to see that I'll be able to play a Fighter that is not limited to swing his sword or select crappy Feats...


----------



## AllisterH

I tend to disagree with Lizard and Reynard.

In 1e/2e, yeah, there was a good chance you could be left memorizing useless spells but that's because of 3 different things.

1. You couldn't buy magic items. You could SELL them in 1E, but you couldn't buy them back.
2. You couldn't really create magic items, not easily anyway (anyone remember what the PO:S&M recommended to create a simple Philter of Love? It was a bloody adventure in of itself)
3. The treasure tables in 1e/2e were slanted towards the non-spellcasters. Compare the chance of getting a wizard magical item like say a scroll versus a magical weapon/armour in 1e/2e to the same chance in 3e.

Furthermore, I don't think the "Limited" drawback of slots really were a balancing factor. Increasingly past level 7, the monsters in the game REQUIRE that you have magic. So if the wizard is out of his big guns, the entire party has to stop.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that when healing is out, everyone has to stop.


----------



## Spatula

Njall said:
			
		

> Well, that's what the books assume you're facing at those levels.
> So, the core books assumes that a wizard ( or, more in general, a spellcaster ) can kill a monster that should be a challenge for the entire party



Equal-level encounters consume resources, they're aren't meant to be a challenge.


			
				Njall said:
			
		

> 3/4 times /day in 1 round, 45-55% of the time



Old red dragons cast spells at 11th level, and thus have buff spells available to them.  Pit fiends & balors have an additional +4 to their saves (unholy aura) and can take a caster out of the fight with one action (power word stun).  All three have treasure that they can make use of as well.  The tarrasque isn't killed by insta-death attacks.


			
				Njall said:
			
		

> Now, you can say that those numbers are not appropriate, and "fix them" using higher level monsters. That's fine, but isn't it an admission that yes, spellcasters are indeed unbalanced?



I didn't say the numbers were off because of spellcasters.  They're off because a high-level party outputs tremendous amounts of damage each round.


----------



## Njall

Spatula said:
			
		

> Equal-level encounters consume resources, they're aren't meant to be a challenge.



If they only consume 1 spell, then I'd argue they've not served their purpose at all, can we agree on this?


> Old red dragons cast spells at 11th level, and thus have buff spells available to them.  Pit fiends & balors have an additional +4 to their saves (unholy aura) and can take a caster out of the fight with one action (power word stun).  All three have treasure that they can make use of as well.  The tarrasque isn't killed by insta-death attacks.



And high level spellcasters have debuff and dispels. So buffs aren't generally a huge problem to them.
Unholy aura can be dispelled.
Assuming a wizard starts with 12 con, by 20th level his Constitution can  easily reach 20.
That's 100 bonus HP right there, +4+19d4.
19d4 average to  52 HP, so he has an average 152 HP. Power Word Stun doesn't work unless he's injured.
Furthermore, druids and clerics have far more HP, and a Wizard can easily start with 14 con.
OTOH, the wizard can just cast Gate and summon another Balor/Pit Fiend/whatever to fight for him.



> I didn't say the numbers were off because of spellcasters.  They're off because a high-level party outputs tremendous amounts of damage each round.




A fighter's damage output against a pit fiend is like 65 damage/round, assuming he can full attack the opponent; if he has to charge, his damage output drops to about 30 damage/round; and he's easily taken out of the fight if the Pit Fiend just casts Mass Hold Monsters (DC 27) a couple of times.
As I said, while four spellcasters can easily dispatch him in 1/2 rounds, a party without a caster can face TPK.


----------



## Spatula

Njall said:
			
		

> If they only consume 1 spell, then I'd argue they've not served their purpose at all, can we agree on this?
> 
> And high level spellcasters have debuff and dispels. So buffs aren't generally a huge problem to them.



And then they're taking actions (and using resources) to dispel buffs - with a good chance of failure - before using more actions (and more resources) to no-longer-quite-one-shot the creature.  What happened to only consuming one spell?  There's all sorts of situations and counter situations that could happen.  What does happen is that the entire party contributes to the fight, which is rarely if ever against a single creature, as that's not a challenge for _any_ group unless the monster is a total bad-ass (economy of actions, yadda yadda).



			
				Njall said:
			
		

> and he's easily taken out of the fight if the Pit Fiend just casts Mass Hold Monsters (DC 27) a couple of times.



Freedom of Movement & Protection from/Magic Circle against X are pretty much standard issue at the upper levels, both of which negate hold person.


----------



## Njall

Spatula said:
			
		

> And then they're taking actions (and using resources) to dispel buffs - with a good chance of failure - before using more actions (and more resources) to no-longer-quite-one-shot the creature.  What happened to only consuming one spell?  There's all sorts of situations and counter situations that could happen.  What does happen is that the entire party contributes to the fight, which is rarely if ever against a single creature, as that's not a challenge for _any_ group unless the monster is a total bad-ass (economy of actions, yadda yadda).




So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level? 
The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...


> Freedom of Movement & Protection from/Magic Circle against X are pretty much standard issue at the upper levels, both of which negate hold person.



And Dispel Magic is a common spell like ability at 19th level. Our Pit Fiend can cast it at will, for example. Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?


----------



## RefinedBean

Ahem.  This is a 4E thread, I believe?

I'm a gigantic fan of the system as far as character creation goes.  Whether or not it's true, it FEELS like I have more options to sort through, mechanically.

3E:

Race, Class, Feat, Skills, Weapon, Armor.  Oh, and Spells, maybe.

4E:

Race, Class, Sub-Class (or what have you), Feat, Skills, At-Will powers, Encounter power, Daily power(s), Weapon, Armor.  

Half again as many choices, and given the nature of character creation in any RPG (except Mechwarrior), making up a character background and history is equally as exciting for 3E and 4E.

Not that I mind 3E, I just always thought it was weird when the next, decade-portion of my life was pretty much spelled out for me, barring something in-game that would necessitate multi-classing or taking a prestige class.


----------



## Henry

Njall said:
			
		

> So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level?
> The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...
> 
> And Dispel Magic is a common spell like ability at 19th level. Our Pit Fiend can cast it at will, for example. Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?




Here's the problem for me -- all those buffs and debuffs flying around, recalculating ACs, Saving throws, hit point totals, attack bonuses, damage -- and you actually want to have time to PLAY the game, too? I wouldn't mind the buffing and debuffing, IF it didn't affect so many statistics at once. But the higher level the combat, the more you have to play with the stats, independent of actually running a combat.

In the end, a win or loss can be decided by the -1 CON and according hit points the DM forgot to remove because of one extra hit by a weapon of wounding; then the players feel cheated because the DM flubbed a calculation. I don't mind simple addition and subtraction; I do mind having to keep track of a dozen recalculated stats for each monster on the board, and I've been in combats at higher levels (above 15) where I'm not exaggerating. I'll miss my Spell Slots in 4E, but I won't miss the ability buff spells, dispel magics, and ability damages from 3E. I've been toying with including a condition track a la Star Wars Saga Edition in 4E for persistent conditions, because it's a good way to handle such without a bunch of side calculations.


----------



## Spatula

Njall said:
			
		

> So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level?
> The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...



Right, and the monsters are just sitting there for 2 rounds letting the PCs kill them.  Dispels will fail 50% of the time vs equal-level casting levels, in any case.



			
				Njall said:
			
		

> Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?



Group of noncasters? Where did that come from?



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Here's the problem for me -- all those buffs and debuffs flying around, recalculating ACs, Saving throws, hit point totals, attack bonuses, damage -- and you actually want to have time to PLAY the game, too? I wouldn't mind the buffing and debuffing, IF it didn't affect so many statistics at once. But the higher level the combat, the more you have to play with the stats, independent of actually running a combat.



Yeah, I'm glad 4e basically ditched the whole structure of how buff / debuffs work.  It makes high-level 3e a real headache to run.


----------



## Marshall

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> 4E:
> 
> Race, Class, Sub-Class (or what have you), Feat, Skills, At-Will powers, Encounter power, Daily power(s), Weapon, Armor.




Heres the thing, from my quick read thru of the classes almost all of those come down to one choice. _Sub-class_

Want to be an Archer? 
   You're a Ranger.
   You need a +DEX race.
   Your At-wills are pre-selected.
   Encounter/Dailys might have a "choose between two" but probably not
   Your skills come from the Ranger list.
   You are limited to a tiny list of feats available to your Race/Class.
   Weapon? pre-set.
   Armor? Best available. No reason not to.

Almost all of the classes follow the same pattern....Once you determine STR Cleric, your choices are made. Orb Wizard? All set. Axe Fighter? Done. Infernal Warlock?......yada....

I'm not seeing a whole lot of choices that arent made by picking your build.

Come to think of it, I'm not seeing much that makes me think this game was actually ready for publication.


----------



## RefinedBean

Marshall said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, I'm not seeing much that makes me think this game was actually ready for publication.




Fair enough.  I'll go down to the store and check out the products you've written, revised, and published, and compare and contrast.  You might be right!

At any rate, I do think you have a point there.  The build is very much key in the initial progression of your character.  However, with the choice of bumping up two ability scores each level, as well as the new multi-class feats for dabbling, I don't see it as much of a problem.

And what with the number of feats, I can be a Plate-Mail wearing Wizard pretty early in the game, or a ranged-attack Cleric, or what have you.  Nobody's stopping you from doing this.

And as for Powers, there always seems to be a middle route with most character classes.  Warlocks can choose whichever power they want regardless of pact, Rangers can choose powers that can be both ranged and TWF, etc.  There's still a lot of breathing room, but it's thrown under the heading of "suboptimal."


----------



## almagest

Marshall said:
			
		

> from my quick read thru of the classes



Yeah, that's the key right there.  Maybe you should actually spend some time reading the books, try making some builds, and oh, I don't know, PLAY the game, instead of quickly reading through only the PHB, then declaring 4e not ready for publication.

For those talking about how wizards can't survive in melee -- sure they can, if they plan for it.  Otherwise, you stay as far away from melee as you can.  It's common sense.  No good DM should try to specifically kill or invalidate your character just because you're playing intelligently, either.

I also thought everyone knew that the best way to manage spells was to prepare some attack spells, control spells, and a few defensive spells, and get the rest of your spell options from scrolls and wands.  There's no "economy of actions" or "but how do you afford magic items?" to worry about.  You can achieve most anything through spells -- need saves?  Resistance/Greater Resistance.  Need HP?  False Life/Vampiric Touch/Bear's Endurance.  Need Int?  Fox's Cunning.

And this isn't even considering non-core, with it's crazy IotSV/Abjurant Champion/Shadowcaster/Recaster stuff.


----------



## Pbartender

Marshall said:
			
		

> Almost all of the classes follow the same pattern....Once you determine STR Cleric, your choices are made. Orb Wizard? All set. Axe Fighter? Done. Infernal Warlock?......yada....




How is that all that much different from 3E?

Once you decide what build you want, the optimal choices for putting that character together are already decided. But...

It's still up to you to make that decision.


There's still choices...  Do I want a two-handed axe Fighter or an axe and shield Fighter? Is he going to be a Ranger -- or be a Fighter that dabbles in Ranger or a Ranger that dabbles in Fighter -- so he can use two axes? What race should he be -- human, half-elf, dwarf or dragonborn would all work well? Or maybe I should make him a Warlord instead for the tactical abilities? And then do I want to choose a feat that enhances the axes or a racial ability or maybe something else altogether?...  And I get to choose a new power or feat at every level...  Later there's Paragon path choices...

Plus, if I don't like a choice, I can retrain later.

There's plenty there to choose from...  Just as much as 3E, just loaded up in a different way.


----------



## Onslaught

Well, since I can't use private message, I'll have to do it openly:

JDillard, your text is very good. Indeed, it's one of the best analysis I've read so far about 4th Ed, very down to earth, without that babbling nonsense I'm used to see in other posts.

Anyway, I sent this link to a Brazilain community and the guys there also like it. Indeed, they like it so much they wanted to translate it and post as an article in www.rederpg.com.br, which is the biggest RPG site in Brazil.

So... long story short: JDillard,we'd like your permission to translate your text and post it as an article in that site! Can we do it?


----------



## ladydeath

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Once you decide what build you want, the optimal choices for putting that character together are already decided. But...
> 
> It's still up to you to make that decision.




But it would be a bad decision not to make the choices which are best for your character. You won't see a rogue ever fighting with a bastard sword because none of his at will powers work with it. So, yes, you can choose to pick a feat so your rouge can use a bastard sword but why would you? Even if you had a great background story for the bastard sword (katana, whatever) you would not make the choice for your rogue to fight with it.

I know what's coming, so pick a fighter if you want to use a bastard sword. Okay, so I pick a fighter to use a bastard sword. Now I'm stuck being a defender of the party when I wanted to be a selfish rogue character. All of the feats which force opponents to fight me I don't want to use because I'm selfish and self-serving. But the smart move as a fighter is to protect the party even though that didn't fit into my original concept.

I also know that a rogue in 3.5 couldn't use a bastard sword without 1 feat but, the sneak attack could be used with it after that and there were no other limitations in the class.

There are things to pick from in 4e but you are really locked in based on what you pick at 1st level. The retraining really isn't that big a deal and the class you choose determines your duty in the party even if you wanted to perform another one.


----------



## Spatula

ladydeath said:
			
		

> There are things to pick from in 4e but you are really locked in based on what you pick at 1st level. The retraining really isn't that big a deal and the class you choose determines your duty in the party even if you wanted to perform another one.



If you wanted to perform a different role, you pick a class that fits that role.  Anyway, you can certainly focus on dealing damage as a fighter (or a paladin).  You probably won't do as much as a ranger or rogue, but you also have better defenses, you're tougher, and you protect the rest of the party just by hitting stuff.   i.e. you fufill you role just by doing what you want to be doing anyway - getting into melee and tearing things apart.  It's not some burden placed on the character.

"Rogue that uses a big sword" isn't really a character concept, it's a mechanical construction that happens to be specific to 3e D&D.  "Charming warrior" would be a character concept, and it's one that is not well-supported by 4e at this time (aside from Cha-based warlords).  The 4e classes are not as flexible as 3e classes, and specific concepts will require their own specific class.


----------



## JDillard

Onslaught said:
			
		

> Well, since I can't use private message, I'll have to do it openly:
> 
> JDillard, your text is very good. Indeed, it's one of the best analysis I've read so far about 4th Ed, very down to earth, without that babbling nonsense I'm used to see in other posts.
> 
> Anyway, I sent this link to a Brazilain community and the guys there also like it. Indeed, they like it so much they wanted to translate it and post as an article in www.rederpg.com.br, which is the biggest RPG site in Brazil.
> 
> So... long story short: JDillard,we'd like your permission to translate your text and post it as an article in that site! Can we do it?




Wow!  I feel honored.  Go right ahead!


----------



## Agamon

Well put, JDillard.  That's certainly one of the things that draws me to 4e.  I don't really enjoy making PCs (or especially as a DM, NPCs), I prefer the fun in playing.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Spatula said:
			
		

> If you wanted to perform a different role, you pick a class that fits that role.




But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?  Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation?  And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?*

In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.

And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.

I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.

The system should help us create what we want.  Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.

MrG


*I know, I know--WotC, that's who.


----------



## ladydeath

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?  Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation?  And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?*
> 
> In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.
> 
> And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.
> 
> I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.
> 
> The system should help us create what we want.  Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.
> 
> MrG
> 
> 
> *I know, I know--WotC, that's who.




Thanks MrG. That's what I've been trying to say.


----------



## drothgery

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?  Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation?




WotC decided that 4e classes _are_ combat roles (though this was largely true of 2e and 3e classes, it's more explicit in 4e). Your non-combat role is determined by your skills, feats, rituals (if you know any), and roleplaying. 

95% of what any given 4e class gives you is stuff that fills its combat role. Trying to use a class for the 5% that doesn't or for the stylistic implications of the class name when its combat role isn't the one you want just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ThirdWizard

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?




Any class can have any out of combat role. At least, with the investment of just one or two feats, you can do a _lot_.


----------



## JDillard

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?  Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation?  And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?




As you said, WotC.  Why?  Because it gives each class a specific focus in combat.  Each class has a thing to do.  They can tailor all the combat powers in each class to do that thing.  Thus, you can't accidentally make a character that can't accomplish his class's combat role.  This has been mentioned, a couple times already, in this thread alone.  



> In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.
> 
> And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.




What is a rogue that's not a striker?  A rogue that's a defender?  What makes it a rogue at that point?  Thievery and sneak attack?  Take a fighter and give it the rogue MC feat or a rogue with fighter MC feat.

I don't get what you think you're missing.  Why is it so important to have "Rogue" written in big font at the top of the section?  You can mix and match things really, really well within 4e.  With the exception of an easy 50/50 split character (as mentioned above, this is going to be done via new classes rather than multiclassing), you can pretty much mix and match anything you want.

Combat roles are not limiting.  They are exhaustive.  There are four of them.  Those four roles cover basically the entirety of what you can do in combat.  You deal damage, keep others from taking damage, heal and support, or change how the enemies act to help the previous three.  If you want a rogue that's not a striker or a wizard that's not a controller then you need to pick a different role because those four are it.  And by the time you pick a different role, you're picking something that somebody else already does (or will do once the class list grows a bit bigger).  

Classes = Combat role with some class specific bonus stuff added on.  Even the class specific bonus stuff often plays right into that role (sneak attack = striker power).  All that's left that makes something a rogue is what?  Thievery and a couple other class specific skills?  The combat powers are basically just "close range melee striker" with some rogue flavor thrown in. 

That's why people keep saying "You want a ranged rogue?  Make a ranger, give him 'Skill Training: Thievery'."  You get the ranged combat role you want, and still get the part that makes him really rogue-like.




> I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.




How is that fighting the system?  What you call fighting, I call using exactly as intended.  It's not like it's difficult to make those things work.  It's not like it's a struggle, or the mechanic doesn't work well.  It's easy, and the mechanic works fine.  



> The system should help us create what we want.  Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.




I still don't know what you feel like you're missing.


----------



## ravenight

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.




Your entire complaint here is "I want to call my character a rogue, but play like a fighter" or "I want to call my character a wizard, but play like a rogue" or whatever. It has nothing to do with the flexibility of the system and everything to do with you defining your character by the name of their 3e class.

"A wizard that's not a controller" means a spellcasting class that doesn't do lots of area effect damage, debuff and terrain-changing spells. Not only are there already 2 that exist (Warlock and Cleric), but you can even make this character by playing as the Wizard class and taking a significant amount of another class to supplement your damage or healing or whatever it is that you'd like to do that doesn't involve AoEs.

The point is, stop getting offended by WotC applying terms to describe the way classes act in combat and just think about what character you want to play, then figure out how you can play that character in the game. If you want to play a sneaky, self-serving, non-spellcasting, offensive warrior with a huge sword, play a Ranger/Fighter, Fighter/Ranger or Warlord/Ranger. Don't take powers that do generous things (so you might take a Warlord power that commands an ally to attack, but not one that buffs your allies), don't use any free abilities you get that do generous things (is it really so bad to have an ability and not use it?) and just play the guy the way you want. I'm sorry that you used to get to do completely absurd damage by sneakily attacking several times a round with an enormous sword, but that's not how 4e does combat. There are plenty of playable builds, and the obsession over what is "suboptimal" is silly. If you want to be absolutely sure that you get every +1 and use every ability each day, and are a tweaked-out max-damage machine, then yes, you are limited in what you can build, but that's trivially true - it is not possible to create a system with variations in power level between builds that doesn't limit which builds are perfectly optimized.

So basically, I don't understand where your complaint has any basis at all. You want to use a big sword, sneak around and be selfish - no problem, the rules accommodate that completely. You want to not be overwhelmed in combat as a result? Also possible. You want to make the optimal selfish warrior with a big sword? Also possible. So what exactly is the problem?


----------



## MrGrenadine

drothgery said:
			
		

> 95% of what any given 4e class gives you is stuff that fills its combat role. Trying to use a class for the 5% that doesn't or for the stylistic implications of the class name when its combat role isn't the one you want just doesn't make sense.




I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:
A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat.  However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​
Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system.  Hell, throw in a heart of gold that makes him have to help the downtrodden, even when he risks his own skin--well there's a character I'd really like to play.

I *could* make a non-combat character in 4e by just not picking the combat powers available in the PHB, and replacing them with some cool non-combat skills of my own design--if a DM would allow that kind of thing--but 4e is SO combat-centric that you really have to jump through hoops to play a character that excels at anything but combat.

MrG

p.s. Hmm, cool non-combat oriented powers....Sounds like a job for the house-rule/ user creation forum!


----------



## WalterKovacs

ladydeath said:
			
		

> 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.




At-Wills are decided (humans get a third at-will from one of the other pacts). If you go Fey (CHA) or Infernal (CON), there are a few Star pacts that have the matching main attack stat ... and if you are Star (both) you can pick from just about any power. [And that is restricting your power based on main attack stat]. The "benefit" for your pact is generally additional benefit based on INT score ... nothing stops you from picking other powers. Many powers have no pact specific benefit, so can be used by any kind of Warlock equally.



> 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?




Multiclassing can allow for power swaps to break characters out of their molds.

A fighter is a defender ... it is difficult, if not impossible to be a ranged defender. Their powers are tied as such. A ranger can specialize in ranged fighting, and switch to two weapon fighting if neccesary. Their at-wills consists of 2 powers specific to each type, and 2 powers that are usable both ways. It's going to involve weapon switching [unless you are wielding thrown weapons in the off hand, in which case you aren't an 'archer' per se, but are able to go in melee or ranged with the same weapons in hand.]

Ultimately ... in gladitorial games which ranged weapons are you looking to use? A fighter doesn't have to specialize in a single weapon ... they get a benefit when wielding a weapon a certain type of way [one handed or two handed]. Their various powers get extra benefits when used with certain weapons, but they aren't forced to specialize. They could take a variety of weapon based powers so that, regardless of weapon, they'll get a benefit for it.

If gladitorial games are going to be part of the campaign ... you've already got things working a lot differently than normal [solo player fights instead of party fights, limited access to weapons and armor, etc]. More class options or powers could be developed to fit that concept. [I would guess the first "splat" book of martial things will increase the number of build options and could cover some of the 
holes.



> 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.




They didn't want to give wizards everything. In 3e, wizards had all the spells, and every spellcasting type class got subsets or variations of the schools. Certain effects were taken away from wizards so that other spellcasters could get them later.

And ... Wizards has put up options for an illusionist on the website. Those options aren't in the core, but they aren't impossible.



> 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.




(a) Thieves' tools are required for certain uses of thievery

(b) There are specific rogue powers that give you extra bonuses to certain uses of Theivery. One power, for example, allows for pickpocketing in combat (Dangerous Theft), while another allows you to swiftly open a lock (Foil the Lock).



> 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?




Fighter in 3e was open ended ... Fighter in 4e = defender. Artillery is not a defender role ... it's a striker role or a controller role.

Of course, in 3e, Ranger tried to be an archer or two weapon fighter ... but with fighter feats, you can quickly get better at either of those things than the Ranger is. So, people associate the "Ranger" stuff with Fighters. The difference between a 3e Ranger Archer and Fighter Archer is favored enemy, less feats, possibly an animal companion and some limited spellcasting, some skills, etc ... The favored enemy being/feat trade off being the most relevant in combat situations.


----------



## drothgery

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:
> A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat.  However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​
> Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system.  Hell, throw in a heart of gold that makes him have to help the downtrodden, even when he risks his own skin--well there's a character I'd really like to play




Huh? In 3.5, even a low-str halfling rogue is pretty effective striker (those sneak attack dice do add up). The best class for a guy with no combat skills is Commoner, but they don't really get enough skill points to be a 'master' of more than one or two things unless you're a high-int human, and doesn't have the right skills (and in fact suck way too much to be a PC), so this guy is probably an Expert -- so he fights almost as well as a Rogue before sneak attack figures in, and has more hit points.

About the only 'non-combatant' type that was anything resembling an effective 3.5 character is the pure buffer (usually bard, but only with CAdv and Eberron feats so you don't suck too bad) or healbot (the pacifist healbot cleric is effective, just boring to play in combat).


----------



## WalterKovacs

ladydeath said:
			
		

> But it would be a bad decision not to make the choices which are best for your character. You won't see a rogue ever fighting with a bastard sword because none of his at will powers work with it. So, yes, you can choose to pick a feat so your rouge can use a bastard sword but why would you? Even if you had a great background story for the bastard sword (katana, whatever) you would not make the choice for your rogue to fight with it.




Ranger, not Fighter, is the right choice. Ranger [TWF] could actually dual wield Bastard Swords if he really wanted to. Or, he could just have a dagger in the off hand, giving him an option for ranged attacks [to use with ranged or melee at-wills].

The hunter's quarry gives a pseudo sneak attack type, ranger's like all the strikers, have a selfish type concept "This guy is MINE!"

If you had a light blade in the off hand, it gives the option of multiclassing into Rogue and using the Rogue powers with that weapon.


----------



## JDillard

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:
> A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat.  However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​




Because the designers realized that the vast majority of D&D games involve combat, regularly.  If you don't want any combat at all, you're probably not playing D&D in the first place.  

Now, given that basic premise, they took away the option to screw yourself over by having to choose between combat stuff and non-combat stuff.  Now they are like two separate little bins.  One has all yoru combat stuff.  The other has all your non-combat stuff.  No need for overlap, because, in reality, most combat stuff *doesn't* overlap non-combat stuff. 

And now I can't choose the character you mentioned above, try to bring it to a game and have everyone look at me like I'm crazy the first time we get into a fight and I spend each round hiding and hoping I don't get found.


----------



## smetzger

JDillard said:
			
		

> I don't get what you think you're missing.  Why is it so important to have "Rogue" written in big font at the top of the section?




I recognize this.  

However, this can also be said of the the many classed character in 3.5; and a lot of people had problems with characters that had 3+ classes.  I called my character a scout even though he was a Rogue/Ranger/Barbarian.

Because of the multi-classing rules in 3.5 I found that one could make a very wide variety of character concepts with just the core rules.

I think with 4e we are going to see the return of a plethora of base character classes and because there is no Druid, Monk, Barbarian, or Illusionist (not saying that you couldn't make something like these with the given rules; but I bet WOTC will release a supplement with these at some point) WOTC has built in a demand for expansion books that did not exist in previous versions.

For me 4e is shaping up as a different way to play D&D not as a replacement for 3.5.  Just as Arcana Evolved is a different way to play D&D.


----------



## Spatula

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:
> A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat.  However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​
> Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system.



I'm not sure what game you've been playing all these years.

A 1e/2e thief's THAC0 improves with levels, and he can deal a lot of damage with backstabs.  Doesn't sound like someone who never learned to fight, to me.

A 3e rogue's BAB improves with levels, and he can deal a lot of damage with sneak attacks.  Doesn't sound like somene who never learned to fight, to me.

So by "supported" you mean "I ignored all the class' combat abilities."  Which you can still do in 4e, can you not?  What you do outside of combat is largely the province of skill, feats, and roleplaying.  Which is exactly how it was in 3e, too.  I'm not seeing much of a difference, myself.

The 3e rogue is just as much as a striker as the 4e rogue, whether you made use of the striker abilities or not.  The roles have always been there, although they always haven't been implemented well (namely meatshields, i.e. defenders).


----------



## WalterKovacs

Marshall said:
			
		

> Heres the thing, from my quick read thru of the classes almost all of those come down to one choice. _Sub-class_
> 
> Want to be an Archer?
> You're a Ranger.
> You need a +DEX race.
> Your At-wills are pre-selected.




Actually 1 of your 3 at-wills is eliminated. Ranger has 1 ranged only, 1 melee only and 2 either/or powers. Certain classes have preselected powers [Warlock is explicit unless human, cleric cuts down the middle of wisdom or strength to attack]. Most classes follow a "1 at-will for each build, and 2 that can work either way]. Fighter, for example, has reaping strike which prefers 2 handed weapons, and another that requires a shield. The other two can go either way. This means that, outside Cleric, humans should have a good 'third choice' for their at-will.




> Encounter/Dailys might have a "choose between two" but probably not




For the Ranger [who, like the cleric, has the most 'extreme' difference between builds] has 3 options that work with either build, and a single "melee only" power for encounters. Of the 4 dailies, 3 use melee, 2 use ranged.



> Your skills come from the Ranger list.




Which is different than 3e where you have the option of spending double to get your cross class skills ... which over time will be capped so that they are still bad [unless you get a way to make it a class skill through multiclassing or a paragon path ... or you are only taking 5 ranks for the skill synergy].



> You are limited to a tiny list of feats available to your Race/Class.




And the ones that are open to anyone. Depending on the class, the feats aren't that limited ... And the feats go larger as you go on.



> Weapon? pre-set.




Archer uses a bow ... shocking. How many options for archers in 3e? Composite added a bit extra, but ultimately "best composite based on characters strength and available money" wasn't exactly an option. And there is still the option of going with a 'mixed' ranger that can use a thrown weapon off handed to be able to dual wield in melee and make ranged attacks with the same weapon selection.

And of course, this is an example for a single class that you are using to represent everything. Other classes have a bit more options. Rogue chooses between dagger [effective +4 prof], short sword, rapier [feat requirement for higher damage die]. Fighters, paladins, clerics and warlords have to choose between extra damage and certain tricks involving hammers and axes, or the higher proficiency bonus for blades.



> Armor? Best available. No reason not to.




For certain classes, you will have an option of whether to wear chainmail or hide. Part of that has to do with determining ability scores and feats. Hide or leather is a choice for some ... take the skill check penalty for the AC bonus? The option of taking a feat to gain higher armor proficiencies is also part of these options. The heavier armor has penalties for speed as well. For some characters, your ability to make athletic checks, stealth checks, etc may be more important than +1 to AC.



> Almost all of the classes follow the same pattern....Once you determine STR Cleric, your choices are made. Orb Wizard? All set. Axe Fighter? Done. Infernal Warlock?......yada....




You CAN go with a build, and then make few/simple choices. However the powers "earmarked" for your build aren't necessarily the best.

Of course, the 'build types' vary.

For Ranger and Cleric ... it's just "what type of attack is it". A power is only better for one build or the other because of the ability you use to attack. Using certain monster manual races, you can get a ranger with 18 in STR and 18 in DEX (Bugbear) ... and your 'build choice' is really only what bonus feat you get [probably take TWF for the ability to dual wield one handed weapon]. Cleric's don't even make an active choice [neither do Paladin's]. They get access to both builds via their channel divinity powers that they can pick between. A Dragonborn Paladin can be built to work equally well with STR and CHA based powers. There is a monster that can allow an 18 STR, 18 WIS Cleric that is equally good at either build.

In other cases, you make a choice and that has a specific effect. 1HW vs. 2HW really only effects your to hit. Wield a versatile weapon, and just be prepared to spend a bit of time to get out your shield if necessary to boost your AC [and access shield based powers]. Fighters care more about weapon groups than what their build type is.

Similarly ... wizards don't have specific powers "tied" to their build type ... the encounter ability for their implement works better with certain powers. Wizards, with their options for daily and utility, definitely have variability. And they do have an implement that is effectively "undecided" for build type.

Warlocks are very rigid for their at-wills, your build determines which ones you get, unless you are human, than you get to choose an additional one. Each of their encounters [but none of their daily or at-wills] are tied to a specific pact in that they give a bigger bonus when used with that pact. This is mostly tied to how good their INT bonus is. Their paragon paths are similarly rigid, with each pact having a single paragon path. Warlocks are amongst the most rigid.

Rogue Encounters have 1 for Brutal Scoundrel, 1 for Artful Dodger and 2 generics. The two build options often have a fixed effect that uses STR or CHA bonus instead when used with the right build. The paragon paths have one power in the Shadow Assassin path that involves charisma, and neither use strength. Warlord's have similar builds around inspiring vs. tactical.

So, there are extremes in terms of options, with a variety of different effects. The most "rigid" are actually the ones that don't really force any build framework onto it. Warlock's are encouraged to take pact powers by slapping the pact name on the power ... but ultimately, you may prefer to give your opponent a -1 penalty to their will defense instead of a - (2 + INT mod) to their attacks. In that case, going out of pact [while still keeping a Charisma based attack] may be worth it.


----------



## MrGrenadine

Spatula said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what game you've been playing all these years.




D&D!  And loving every minute of it, since '81 or so.

No need to get snippy.  4e narrows a player's choices in terms of character role--its part of the design plan for goodness sake--and obviously some people are ok with the roles as defined.  For me, I don't like having to shoehorn my characters into the predefined roles built into the system, so I'll be looking for ways to bend the system to what I want.

Which is what we've all done to *some* extent since the boxed sets, right?

MrG


----------



## Spatula

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> D&D!  And loving every minute of it, since '81 or so.
> 
> No need to get snippy.



I wasn't being snippy, so I apologize if you took it as such.  I honestly don't see how "ignoring combat abilities" is any less possible in 4e than it was in previous edition, since that was the extent of the support those editions had for your non-combatant concept.



			
				MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> 4e narrows a player's choices in terms of character role--its part of the design plan for goodness sake--and obviously some people are ok with the roles as defined.  For me, I don't like having to shoehorn my characters into the predefined roles built into the system, so I'll be looking for ways to bend the system to what I want.



Except the roles don't _mean_ anything, mechanically.  They're just useful labels that tell you what a class is best at.

In what edition do thieves/rogues not have backstab/sneak attack?  In what edition do fighters (and paladins) not have the best armor & HP?  In what edition are clerics not the healers & buffers?  The roles have always been there, built into the classes.  They just were not called out and labeled in the rules.


----------



## Hussar

Spatula said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> Freedom of Movement & Protection from/Magic Circle against X are pretty much standard issue at the upper levels, both of which negate hold person.




Cast by who?  Oh, right, by the casters who dominate the game.  Because, for those spells to be standard issue, means that you cannot operate WITHOUT those spells.  But, a 4 cleric party can get along just fine thanks.  Heck, at those levels, a 4 wizard party isn't doing too shabby.



			
				MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.
> 
> And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.




How does someone play a 3e rogue that is not a "striker"?



			
				Smetzger said:
			
		

> I think with 4e we are going to see the return of a plethora of base character classes and because there is no Druid, Monk, Barbarian, or Illusionist (not saying that you couldn't make something like these with the given rules; but I bet WOTC will release a supplement with these at some point) WOTC has built in a demand for expansion books that did not exist in previous versions.




Return?  What do you mean return?  Core, there are pretty much the same number of base classes in every edition.  Outside of core, 3e had dozens of base classes.  Pretty much every splat book introduced one to three new base classes.

This thread has a pretty good list of base classes and that's only counting WOTC and not 3PP.  We've always had a bajillion core classes.


----------



## Spatula

Hussar said:
			
		

> Cast by who?



Casters, wands via UMD, scrolls via UMD, and/or passive magic items like this one.  The other PCs aren't running around naked and penniless, as it happens.


----------



## Hussar

Spatula said:
			
		

> Casters, wands via UMD, scrolls via UMD, and/or passive magic items like this one.  The other PCs aren't running around naked and penniless, as it happens.




Hang on, on one hand people are telling me how wizards are so weak because the other classes get much better bang for their buck on magic items, but, no I've got you telling me that it's better for other classes to blow their cash on items that the wizard/cleric casts for free.

40k gp for a ring and you're looking at around a 12th, 13th level PC before he can afford it without stripping himself of most of his goodies.  Never mind that the cleric has been casting that spell for the past 4 or 5 levels for free.

Hang on again.  How does protection from evil protect you from hold person?

Are you seriously going to argue that the wizard isn't one of the most powerful classes in the game?


----------



## Hussar

Doing a bit of Google Fu.

Jan 22, 2002 - Wizard places second.

My Google Fu is exceptionally weak.  What can others come up with?


----------



## Spatula

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on, on one hand people are telling me how wizards are so weak because the other classes get much better bang for their buck on magic items,



I never said wizards are weak.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on again.  How does protection from evil protect you from hold person?



It suppresses compulsions, although looking at the spell text it's arguable whether it applies to _hold_ spells.  Either way, _freedom of movement_ makes one immune to such effects and you'll want it at high levels to avoid grapples.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Are you seriously going to argue that the wizard isn't one of the most powerful classes in the game?



Never said that, either.


----------



## AllisterH

The only edition where you can actually build a rogue that "shuns combat" and it be represented mechanically was in Player's Option:Skills & Powers.


----------

