# The Essentials Fighter



## I'm A Banana (Jul 23, 2010)

Free for all to judge worthy or unworthy, as is their wont!

Check this noise:


			
				Essentials said:
			
		

> As a fighter, you make most of your attacks using basic attacks. Some classes rely primarily on class-specific attack powers, whereas you typically make basic attacks enhanced by your fighter stances and other class features and powers.




They look much simpler, but still crazy effective, and I love the "when you hit, do something extra" mechanic *so much*. It all seems to make sense from a "by your own muscle and steel!" angle! 

I am getting more and more pumped for this stuff...


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

It is interesting. On the one hand, it looks like it will be much farther afield from the standard class designs than even Psionic classes were, and much harder to trade elements with standard builds (as the Essentials Wizard and Cleric seem able to do.)

On the other hand, this is actually how I've long felt 4E should have been designed from the start - rather than needing hundreds of powers for each class, instead having access to various 'modifications' and 'upgrades' that you could use to boost your basic attacks. So I'm interested to see it in action, and I like the approach I'm seeing thus far!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 23, 2010)

Not enough info yet on how all the features work to see how it stacks up to the regular fighter but it looks interesting. No feat tax to get plate armor for a fighter is a good start.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> It is interesting. On the one hand, it looks like it will be much farther afield from the standard class designs than even Psionic classes were, and much harder to trade elements with standard builds (as the Essentials Wizard and Cleric seem able to do.)




I think though that's part of the design goal though.

You start with the "easy" fighter, and don't even worry about things like multi-classing, or power swapping. (Or very rarely do.)

It is what it is.  

There will probably be other fighter builds that have more leniency, and you can always take the original gangsta... err fighter, if you really get into the nitty gritty power swapping stuff.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jul 23, 2010)

Huh.

This might warrant further investigation in the future.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 23, 2010)

We're discussing this on the 4e forum here


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think though that's part of the design goal though.
> 
> You start with the "easy" fighter, and don't even worry about things like multi-classing, or power swapping. (Or very rarely do.)
> 
> ...




I'd still like the option to be there. And from Mearls comments in another thread, it sounds like it might be - you may be able to choose to trade out certain class features to regain access to encounter power choices or the like. As long as it all remains balanced, I'm a fan of that - having the simple option for those who are solely looking for that, and having the choice of trying out some of these new elements without giving up completely on broader options.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm paraphrasing myself from another thread, but I don't think this is actually "simpler."  At all.

It's more like older D&D, and therefore reads as simple to most of us, but it's actually very fiddly and less straightforward.

You're keeping track of which modifiers are pre-applied, attacking, and also choosing whether or not to apply further modifiers.  How is this simpler than choosing from a suite of powers?

You have a smaller list of things to choose from, but to do it right you have more to track.  You have to remember which auras and stances apply and also make extra decisions at the time of attack, i.e. whether to apply "Power Strike" (least evocative name EVAR, incidentally).  I've worked in developmental and cognitive psych, and my instincts are telling me that the naive subject is going to have lower performance on the "Playing the Essentials Knight" task than on the original "Play a 4e Fighter" one.  This version eats more cognitive resources, easy, unless they've left out some incredible way of tracking this stuff for you.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 23, 2010)

> I'm paraphrasing myself from another thread, but I don't think this is actually "simpler." At all.




I think it's "simpler," but that doesn't mean it still isn't a little fiddly in certain places.

That's somewhat the nature of 4e's tactical combat grid. You can only be so simple. 

That's also just because choosing options (which this fighter certainly lets you do!) is pretty key to engagement, too.

This isn't an "I just swing my sword" answer. This is a "I swing my sword to do X, then I swing my sword to do Y, and then I swing my sword to do Z" thing.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 23, 2010)

But, they got rid of a little fiddliness in choice of attack and replaced it with a lot of remembering and fiddliness every time you have to attack.

That may be easier for some people, but it's going to be harder for others.  And I think they're making it harder for the people they should be targeting: young gamers.

EDIT:
I think the overall complexity is the same or very possibly greater, but the semantics have changed and the location of the complexity is different.

Instead of "I use Reaping Strike" you say "I swing my sword."  This _sounds_ simpler.  But is it?  When you used "Reaping Strike" you had a listing right there of what effects occur.  There isn't anything to track.  But now that you're swinging your sword, you have to remember which modifiers apply, and instead of having them written down right under "Reaping Strike" you have to find them scattered all over whatever happens to be active in terms of stances/modifiers/whatever-we-haven't-seen-yet.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

I think you also need to keep in mind _how_ a new player might approach this. 

Someone playing a PHB fighter will often roll around and swing at people. Usually just saying, "I go up and attack!" Now, after that, I can ask, "What did you attack with" - and we need to pause and figure that out. Or, when an enemy shift away from them, I might have to ask, "Did you mark that guy last round?"

And so you end up with needing to either retroactively figure out what they could have done, or trying to preemptively make very clear what they are doing, which can disrupt the flow of combat. 

With this... I mean, worst case, you can pretty much just assume they are always walking around with Defender Aura and Battle Wrath. They walk up to an enemy? Bam, he's in the aura, no questions needed. They swing, they hit, they deal damage. 

When they hit, you can check if they want to Power Strike, and I think that is a lot easier since they _can_ decide, as it lands, if they want to use it. Rather than, "That attack you just rolled - was it Reaping Strike, or Passing Attack, or Comeback Strike?" 

The switching stances, really, is the trickiest part - and as long as they have one stance they like, they never really need to worry about doing so. More than that, I think it is a lot easier to keep in mind, "Here is something that happens every time I hit" and "Here is something I can use instead of a basic attack whenever I want to." 

Is it _as _simple as an old-school fighter that just steps up and swings, steps up and swings? No, its not. But I think it is definitely simpler than a PHB fighter, and more than that, much more well-suited for the play style of a new or casual player.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 23, 2010)

Canis said:


> But, they got rid of a little fiddliness in choice of attack and replaced it with a lot of remembering and fiddliness every time you have to attack.
> 
> That may be easier for some people, but it's going to be harder for others.  And I think they're making it harder for the people they should be targeting: young gamers.




With something like a stance, the dm can just assume that you're using it whenever you say you attack someone. It's a pretty big gulf between telling someone that they have to say which attack they use each time they attack, and asking them which adjacent foe they'd like to apply their cleave damage to.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 23, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> With something like a stance, the dm can just assume that you're using it whenever you say you attack someone. It's a pretty big gulf between telling someone that they have to say which attack they use each time they attack, and asking them which adjacent foe they'd like to apply their cleave damage to.



So, at best, you're off-loading complexity from the player to the DM?

I'm not sure that's an improvement, either.

Also, see my edit above.  Shuffling complexity around to tasks that human beings are actually quite bad at, overall, isn't usually a good thing.  For example, we're better at choice than memory, IME and according to my data.  We're also not real good at multiple modifiers.  Ditching a system that emphasizes choice for one that emphasizes applying previously chosen modifiers may not be playing to our strengths, as a species.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 23, 2010)

Canis said:


> So, at best, you're off-loading complexity from the player to the DM?



Typically the DM is the guy who's voted "most likely to learn the rules".


> I'm not sure that's an improvement, either.
> 
> Also, see my edit above.  Shuffling complexity around to tasks that human beings are actually quite bad at, overall, isn't usually a good thing.  For example, we're better at choice than memory, IME and according to my data.  We're also not real good at multiple modifiers.  Ditching a system that emphasizes choice for one that emphasizes applying previously chosen modifiers may not be playing to our strengths, as a species.




I don't understand how you think that constancy isn't a thing that humans deal with effectively (and indeed often crave).


----------



## the Jester (Jul 23, 2010)

It looks to me about as complex as remembering whether you're using your broad sword or your battle axe, and whether you have your cloak of displacement or your cloak of resistance on.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 23, 2010)

Canis said:


> So, at best, you're off-loading complexity from the player to the DM?
> 
> I'm not sure that's an improvement, either.





That player-side complexity will probably be available in later books.  It'll be a handful of books in before anyone will really know what this revision portends.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

You also may be making assumptions about how many conditional modifiers are in play, here. Right now, we have to remember that the attack does +2 damage, or hurts an adjacent enemy. And once the decision is made, it stays active - that _is_ a lot easier to track than choosing from different powers. 

I mean, no way to know for sure until we see things in action. But I've given my examples in my post above - those are genuine areas I've run into where younger players or newer players have had a hard time with choosing powers, and would _not_ have an issue with the new system. Whatever hypothetical complications the Knight might add, I'm less concerned about those as compared to solving tangible complications I've truly seen in action.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

I must support MrMyth here:

if not so much easier, it makes combat way better:

"I attack the goblin/ I swing my sword at the Goblin" sounds much more like an RPG fighter than:

"I use reaping strike power at the Goblin"

It has everything to do with flavour...


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> You also may be making assumptions about how many conditional modifiers are in play, here. Right now, we have to remember that the attack does +2 damage, or hurts an adjacent enemy. And once the decision is made, it stays active - that _is_ a lot easier to track than choosing from different powers.
> 
> I mean, no way to know for sure until we see things in action. But I've given my examples in my post above - those are genuine areas I've run into where younger players or newer players have had a hard time with choosing powers, and would _not_ have an issue with the new system. Whatever hypothetical complications the Knight might add, I'm less concerned about those as compared to solving tangible complications I've truly seen in action.



And when something is turned on, it stays on, for opportunity attacks, charging attacks, etc, etc.


----------



## Truename (Jul 23, 2010)

It also looks like they got rid of the Combat Challenge / Combat Superiority distinction (to be replaced with Battle Guardian?). In my game, that always causes the most confusion. 

"The monster shifts away." "No he doesn't! I attack him!" "No, he still gets away, it was a shift not a move and you haven't marked him." "???"

"The monster turns and runs." "Oh, darn, I already used my Immediate action." "No, this is a move, you get an opportunity attack." "Okay, I hit it with my axe. Does he stop moving or not?" "I don't remember, let me see your cards again?"


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I must support MrMyth here:
> 
> if not so much easier, it makes combat way better:
> 
> ...




Which supports my secondary thesis that they're appealing to the old crowd, not a new one 

As for multiple modifiers... we haven't seen how this scales as you level. I'm assuming there must be more modifiers, or this is going to be not merely simple, but dry toast boring.  If I'm wrong on that, I'll be happy to be wrong.

But from the pittance of information they've released, this doesn't look like it conforms to their stated design goals.  Again, if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to be wrong when we have enough information to say so.

I wouldn't ever play the thing, myself, but I'm on record around here as saying I wanted a couple "simple" classes for things like introducing my nephews to the game.  I honestly don't think this does that.  Hence my disappointment.  I think I'd be better served simply rolling up an original 4e Fighter for them, with deliberately simple power selections pre-made and giving them a more limited set of choices as they level.  I'd rather have something they could actually take ownership of without having to wrestle with additional minor actions and reminding them to use "Power Strike" and so on.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2010)

Canis said:


> Also, see my edit above.  Shuffling complexity around to tasks that human beings are actually quite bad at, overall, isn't usually a good thing.  For example, we're better at choice than memory, IME and according to my data.  We're also not real good at multiple modifiers.  Ditching a system that emphasizes choice for one that emphasizes applying previously chosen modifiers may not be playing to our strengths, as a species.




Speaking from my personal DMing experience, I tend to remember auras more then I remember when a monster has a mark ability.

As far as the defensive thing, I think it might end up being easier for players to remember anyone around me that doesn't attack me gets a -2 then to remember when someone was marked. (And less clutter on the board to boot...)


Will have to see it in action though.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I must support MrMyth here:
> 
> if not so much easier, it makes combat way better:
> 
> ...




Er....not if you grew up with shonen manga/anime.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 23, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Er....not if you grew up with shonen manga/anime.



Kame - Hame - *Shoryuken*


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

Canis said:


> I wouldn't ever play the thing, myself, but I'm on record around here as saying I wanted a couple "simple" classes for things like introducing my nephews to the game. I honestly don't think this does that. Hence my disappointment. I think I'd be better served simply rolling up an original 4e Fighter for them, with deliberately simple power selections pre-made and giving them a more limited set of choices as they level. I'd rather have something they could actually take ownership of without having to wrestle with additional minor actions and reminding them to use "Power Strike" and so on.




Fair enough! I do think you are underestimating how easy it would be for them to just always assume they are Defending and Cleaving, and never worry about switching stances at all - and occasionally saying 'Power Strike!' when they want to. More complexity than that will only be there if you want it.

But it is also true you can set up a pretty easy PHB Build with a couple straightforward powers. I do think that between Combat Challenge and Combat Opportunity, you'll run into a lot more complications than anything the Knight has to offer, but in the end, if it works for you, that's all that matters.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

What is easier for one person may be harder for the other one... i also believe auras are easier to grasp, but actually non of my players find it hard to use powers or distinguish between combat superiority and combat challenge...


----------



## YRUSirius (Jul 23, 2010)

So, is someone up to the challenge of speculating about the concrete  mechanics of the Battle guardian class feature? How would you design it  (given it might be a less complex combat superiority class feature)?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 23, 2010)

Well, it certainly seems to live up to the original mission statement of Essentials:  an easier class for beginners to grasp.

The fighter used to be the classic 'easy class,' but in 3e, it started being pretty hard - at least, hard to build and play effectively.  In 4e, no class is really /that/ easy (as simplistic as a 1e fighter), but Strikers are probably the least trouble to figure out and play.

The Knight is back to being an easy class.  It's still got some inevitable 4e complexity.  The qualifiers on the Defender's Aura might have newbies scratching their heads a bit ("What's marked? Why does that stop my Aura from working?"), but that's minor.   The basic-attack-enhancing mechanic does make the Knight good at OAs and charging, though.  

The inability to swap anything to or from regular fighter builds (beyond Utility Power, since they see to get those) makes it more like a separate class than a sub-class.  The lack of daily powers (again, except perhaps for the odd utility) gives the Knight different resource-management issues than other classes, and could lead to marked imbalance depending on the length of adventuring 'days,' the how varied the level of challenge presented by encounter is, and to what degree challenges for the day are 'telegraphed' or 'unpredictable.'

A class with fewer or no daily resource-management issues is favored by a DMing style that tends towards long adventuring days with unpredictable encounters - which forces characters with dailies to hoard or run out of them, giving them many occassions when they can't or won't use their best power.  Conversely, if encounters tend to be very difficult and spaced a day or more apart, so you have single-encounter days where daily powers can be used agressively, then classes like the Knight tend to fade into the background as their actions fail to stack up.

Of course, the availability of the Fighter makes that much less problematic than before.  In campaigns that clearly favor classes with dailies, Fighters will be played, and the Essentials alternatives ignored.




UngeheuerLich said:


> I must support MrMyth here:
> 
> if not so much easier, it makes combat way better:
> 
> ...



No one appends 'power' to reaping strike like that, they go "Reaping Strike!"  I've seen a number of fighters played, and the players always had a blast with the powers, the anime fans in particular litterally shouting out the names in-character.

And, I really don't think "I make my melee *basic* attack against another goblin, again, since that's all I can do..."  is all that riveting or flavorful.   "Hey, Knight, when are you going to learn an 'intermediate' attack?"


Now, fighter fans have always had the option - and many of us exercised it with great abandon - of at least trying to describe each futilely repetative attack a little more interestingly.  Some DMs would even hand out the odd bonus if the attack you described seemed particularly creative or tactically sound.

In 4e, though, we actually get the same breadth, variety and power of options as casters.  I know that pissed some folks off, but I don't see a reason to turn the clock back on that, and Essentials isn't doing so, since the existing Fighter builds are always there in all their resource-management-required glory.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 24, 2010)

It doesn't seem easy to play, per se.  It seems easy to build and play for the first time.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> It doesn't seem easy to play, per se.  It seems easy to build and play for the first time.




That's my thought as well... It's a class that lets someone get up and running without having to put a lot of effort into things before he's even decided if he actually wants to play the game or not.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> That's my thought as well... It's a class that lets someone get up and running without having to put a lot of effort into things before he's even decided if he actually wants to play the game or not.



So THAT's the big WotC strategy!

Ninja recruiting!

"D&D: You'll be playing it before you know it!"


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 24, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> It doesn't seem easy to play, per se.  It seems easy to build and play for the first time.




I think its easier to play because the way the stances work, you don't have to change them all the time if you don't want to.

Lets say I just turn on my +2 damage stance and never take it off. I add +2 to damage and I'm done. This allows newer players to grow with the mechanics. For a while they are just a fighter doing damage. If after a while, they get comfortable with teh rules and want to branch out, they try that cleaving aura. 

With encounters and dailies, the problem is in forgetting these powers you give up a lot of your effectiveness. If I forget to do my 2W and 3W powers than I'm giving up a lot of damage. If I choose the +2 stance and never switch to cleaving strike I don't give up that much.


----------



## Markn (Jul 24, 2010)

I absolutely agree with Stalker0.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 24, 2010)

In looking at this class, they've managed to do something that hasn't happened in all the time 4E has been out: they've made a class I have no interest in playing whatsoever.

That sounds flippant, but considering the diversity of design that has come out, it was pretty difficult to do. The key here is that this is much more of a 3X fighter, which was the class that I'd never play either.

So I'm sure it's going to create some interest with people who haven't liked the complexity of 4X classes, and that's a good thing, but man does it seem dull to me.

--Steve


----------



## Melkor (Jul 24, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> No one appends 'power' to reaping strike like that, they go "Reaping Strike!"  I've seen a number of fighters played, and the players always had a blast with the powers, the anime fans in particular litterally shouting out the names in-character.




Hi Tony,

Most of us who have played the game for more than a year or two have probably 'seen a number of fighters played,' and my personal experience differs quite a bit from yours. 

The gaming groups I have been in had relatively few anime fans, and from the conversations with players that I had shortly after 4E came out, and since, the use and description of 'powers' by Martial Characters in game (particularly ones with an anime feel), tended to detract from their experience rather than enhance it - especially the long-time D&D players that have played early editions of the game. 

After emailing a couple of them the link to the Knight insider article, the two players are really looking forward to the essentials series because they feel like some of the flavor they enjoy will be 'coming back'.

I agree with them, but that's just my opinion, and we are all entitled to those.


----------



## Dan'L (Jul 24, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> The basic-attack-enhancing mechanic does make the Knight good at OAs and charging, though.




I have to admit, this is the bit that bugs me the most (based on what we've seen of the build so far; there may be a rules restriction coming that we haven't seen yet: "you do not benefit from stances when making OAs or charging" or similar, but I somehow doubt there will be one.)

Basically a Knight can do, from level 1 with no other outlay of resources, what another fighter cannot approach doing until paragon levels, and even then it takes certain weapon choices, stat allocations, feats, and/or PP selections:  He can use his at-will bonus on every OA and charge he makes.

-Dan'L


----------



## Henry (Jul 24, 2010)

Didya notice something else there? Unless I misread it, I didn't see the words "push, pull, or slide" anywhere in those power listings! Meaning that of the material this showed us, you could VERY easily run it in a 4E play by post game with minimal fudging by the DM and players on those effects. Other than "adjacent", which is pretty easily decided, of course.

I'm not saying _"this means the fighter will have no movement effects whatsoever,"_ but it could possibly mean a player could choose a track that would make it easy to run in a PBP game without having to rely on guesswork to value the power in an online game. Something to think about...


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 24, 2010)

Henry said:


> Didya notice something else there? Unless I misread it, I didn't see the words "push, pull, or slide" anywhere in those power listings! Meaning that of the material this showed us, you could VERY easily run it in a 4E play by post game with minimal fudging by the DM and players on those effects. Other than "adjacent", which is pretty easily decided, of course.
> 
> I'm not saying _"this means the fighter will have no movement effects whatsoever,"_ but it could possibly mean a player could choose a track that would make it easy to run in a PBP game without having to rely on guesswork to value the power in an online game. Something to think about...




That would make me happy panda!


----------



## Klaus (Jul 24, 2010)

SteveC said:


> In looking at this class, they've managed to do something that hasn't happened in all the time 4E has been out: they've made a class I have no interest in playing whatsoever.
> 
> That sounds flippant, but considering the diversity of design that has come out, it was pretty difficult to do. The key here is that this is much more of a 3X fighter, which was the class that I'd never play either.
> 
> ...



May I ask you why?

Picture the PH1 Fighter, listing only the Marking ability (but not Combat Superitority), Reaping Strike, Cleave and one Encounter power. What myriad options does he have that what we've seen from the knight so far doesn't?

Instead of having two different at-will powers (which are just alterations of a basic attack), the knight has two class features that alter his basic attacks. Instead of having a mark that requires him to attack a creature, he marks every adjacent enemy.

At the end of the day, the Guardian Fighter and the Knight Fighter are doing the same things in slightly different ways.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 25, 2010)

Klaus said:


> May I ask you why?
> 
> Picture the PH1 Fighter, listing only the Marking ability (but not Combat Superitority), Reaping Strike, Cleave and one Encounter power. What myriad options does he have that what we've seen from the knight so far doesn't?
> 
> ...



I think that's a fair point. We really may not be seeing the most important features of the class, and I'm happy to say I'm wrong if there was something more interesting that isn't being illustrated here. I am a pretty big 4X fan and I want the line to succeed.

With that said, I'm bored with this class because there isn't much to it. Is it a bad preview? Well, time will tell, but we have at wills that do a small amount of extra damage or cleave. The encounter is rolling an extra die of damage once per encounter? Ugh! Now I have already seen that there's a huge amount of extra damage that can be added on to a basic attack, so I have no doubt we'll see a very strikerish form of fighter is easily possible and that could be a useful addition to a group.

What I'm not seeing is a strong defender aspect to the class or any real amount of control. I play a fighter at the moment (and this is the first edition I've done so since back with first edition!) and the thing that got me interested in the class was in a discussion of a martial controller. Someone (and I forget who it was) said you don't need a martial controller, because the fighter is it already.

Once I read that, I was intrigued and decided I'd write up a character who was designed to control the battle and manage it. One of the other players in my group plays a warlord, and together we pretty much handle the flow of combat in that group. That's a very complex character to play that's a lot of fun for me. Now I certainly wouldn't expect Essentials to give me that level of control, I'd expect to see something more than their Defender Aura.

What this preview is showing me is a very simple character who can do a fair bit of damage, but not much else. I think there is a strong incentive to have that kind of character available, since there are players who want simplicity and to do some damage and have that 10 second turn. Heck, I've already seen that with the new magic missile: at one of the Encounters I was at, a player just pointed at a monster and announced it took 5 points of damage as his turn for the entire battle!

Maybe the new Essential's fighter can do more controllery and defendery sorts of things, but we're not seeing it here.

So that's my thought... I'm not calling this a bad class, it's just boring from what we've seen. And if there are all sorts of interesting things we haven't seen, well, I'd say this isn't the best preview.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 25, 2010)

Okay, I understand your point better.

IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!


----------



## SteveC (Jul 25, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Okay, I understand your point better.
> 
> IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!



No problem... if anything I see a bit of a Star Wars Saga influence here: it kind of reminds me of some of the Jedi combat abilities. Maybe some Rodney Thompson influence?

In that case, I think it can get more interesting: there are a lot of interesting things a Jedi can do, but they can also do the +XdY damage sort of things.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 25, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Okay, I understand your point better.
> 
> IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!




Wait until you realize this class is cut off from all its "at-will" powers when dazed, so ends up stuck in one stance all combat if they get dazed repeatedly (which can happen to a defender). Wizards have managed to make the first class in 4E that cannot use its at-will powers when dazed (or has reduced actions). That's not what I call "great" class design.

Not to mention if they take a better daily stance like Rain of Steel or Avalanche from the standard fighter, they won't be able to use any of their at-will stance powers - so they'll be stuck making a very unexciting basic attack all encounter. Of course that something like Rain of Steel is far and away better than a simple cleave or +2 damage is pretty clear - it's just the regular fighter gets that PLUS an excellent encounter length stance. I think it has been mentioned that they can take fighter powers, so if they can and they take stances, their entire "class" idea goes down instantly.

Personally from what I've seen of the Knight I think it's a boring class both to play and have at the table. It also isn't anywhere near "simple". People pretending this is simple aren't considering all the explanations you will need to give players, like needing minor actions to switch stances and that their aura excludes marks while not being a mark (so won't interact with things that interact with marks, like Mark of Warding). Not to mention that when said PC falls unconscious their aura deactivates, requiring a minor action to reactivate it as well (presumably with standing up). 

Further, powers that are required to be used when you use other powers - like the additional 1[w] power are harder to explain again. Because now you're dealing with interrupt like mechanics, making it just as complicated as the traditional fighter. I've seen new PCs get very confused - just as confused with other powers - about the Half-Orcs furious assault. I don't see how this is any different.

To be honest, I still haven't seen a coherent argument why this is simpler to play. I can make a fighter that any new player can play easily. It uses 2 at-wills that are simple to grasp (Reaping Strike and Cleave), it has a 2[W] encounter power and a 3[W] daily. None of these powers have any particularly special effect whatsoever, meaning that the player just uses them and rolls the correct dice. Not to mention they don't get cut off from half their powers when dazed.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Wait until you realize this class is cut off from all its "at-will" powers when dazed, so ends up stuck in one stance all combat if they get dazed repeatedly (which can happen to a defender).




Yet because all of his power is in his MBAs, even when dazed he can still charge an opponent with all of his might.

Compare to that a regular fighter who wouldn't even get to use an at-will if his opponent is away from him.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 25, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> Compare to that a regular fighter who wouldn't even get to use an at-will if his opponent is away from him.




Or the regular fighter that gets Punishing Charge (Encounter 1), which damages every enemy that takes an OA against you equal to con and does 1[W]+strength+con damage. 

Oh and did you forget about threatening rush, which is a fighter at-will you can use as a melee basic attack when charging? Not to mention it handily marks each creature adjacent to you at the end of the charge. So your statement isn't even true.

Not that fighters usually have poor MBAs by any stretch, given that their opportunity attacks get + wisdom to hit and so they have good incentive to boost their OAs considerably. So making sure you have a solid melee basic attack is not off any regular fighters agenda to begin with. Regular fighters have tons of options to handle this, while what options - oh wait the knight doesn't have any. He just loses access to his _at-will_ powers instantly. Or he could action point to change a minor benefit to another minor benefit. Doesn't seem like a good choice though and could be easily frustrating.

You seem to have utterly missed the point though, because a dazed fighter doesn't suddenly lose access to ALL his at-wills bar whatever he used last turn. That's far worse than just using your already decent MBA on a charge instead of an at-will (where you can in fact have an at-will that works on a charge, defeating your entire point anyway). Not to mention, the regular fighter could charge and make an MBA, action point and dump another at-will/encounter/daily into that creature. The knight, well he can action point to change his stance. Whoopee.

Edit: You also incorrectly assume that he can charge an enemy and use something that will actually be useful. Having to charge an enemy with cleave on is pretty worthless - especially given you have the pretty rotten choice of wasting your entire turn changing to a more useful stance or attacking. Meaning that very often, the knight can end up being no better - perhaps in fact _worse_ off - than the fighter.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You seem to have utterly missed the point though, because a dazed fighter doesn't suddenly lose access to ALL his at-wills bar whatever he used last turn. That's far worse than just using your already decent MBA on a charge instead of an at-will (where you can in fact have an at-will that works on a charge, defeating your entire point anyway). Not to mention, the regular fighter could charge and make an MBA, action point and dump another at-will/encounter/daily into that creature. The knight, well he can action point to change his stance. Whoopee.



It's only an issue if the knight was already in a bad stance to begin with. Otherwise he's up and running just fine.

for the case of at-wills (since we only know one encounter power of the knight)

Regular fighter: charge, use a power that's worse than an MBA (no strength bonus to damage), mark adjacent foes.

Knight: charge, MBA, mark adjacent foes *then get additional bonus based on my last stance, like cleaving or bonus damage*


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 25, 2010)

Melkor said:


> The gaming groups I have been in had relatively few anime fans, and from the conversations with players that I had shortly after 4E came out, and since, the use and description of 'powers' by Martial Characters in game (particularly ones with an anime feel), tended to detract from their experience rather than enhance it - especially the long-time D&D players that have played early editions of the game.




Yes, some grognards had a lot of trouble grokking martial powers.  Also, the idea of a 'fighting style' seemed to roll over their heads, and that powers were the best mechanic yet for showing a fighter that relies on actual fighting styles.

Sorry if that seems derisive, but the old school fighter was bland and boring.  The only thing that made fighter a different than fighter b was an item list an the stats you lucksacked into.  The characters themselves were merely a collection of inventory slots, but nothing more... and a poor representation of individuals.

It was always sad, because you'd think the class dedicated to fighting could show some variance in the manner of fighting.

3.x improved it, but 4th actually nailed it.  Two fighters fight differently, because they use different fighting techniques and styles.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Sorry if that seems derisive, but the old school fighter was bland and boring.  The only thing that made fighter a different than fighter b was an item list an the stats you lucksacked into.  The characters themselves were merely a collection of inventory slots, but nothing more... and a poor representation of individuals.
> 
> It was always sad, because you'd think the class dedicated to fighting could show some variance in the manner of fighting.
> 
> 3.x improved it, but 4th actually nailed it.  Two fighters fight differently, because they use different fighting techniques and styles.




I don't know about 1e, but you're way off the mark regarding 2e. Weapon specialization from the PHB in addition to kits and fighting styles from the Complete Fighter's Handbook made a _huge_ difference between fighters even in early 2e, both in terms of mechanics and roleplaying. The later Player's Option books added even more fighting styles and weapon mastery.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 25, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> I don't know about 1e, but you're way off the mark regarding 2e. Weapon specialization from the PHB in addition to kits and fighting styles from the Complete Fighter's Handbook made a _huge_ difference between fighters even in early 2e, both in terms of mechanics and roleplaying. The later Player's Option books added even more fighting styles and weapon mastery.




Weapon specialization was the same bonus no matter what.  It only changed what slot the bonus applied to, same with mastery and such.  There isn't much difference between a longsword wielder with mastery and a battleaxe wielder with mastery... other than one could have +5 weapons and the other capped at +3.

When all bonuses are the same, you don't actually have 'different.'  You just have 'same.'  The equivalent in 3e was 'take weapon focus and weapon specialization.'  Not exactly an exciting option.

Contrast that with 'An axe using fighter tends to have heavier attacks and occasionally does greater bursts of damage, but a sword fighter will be stickier and can do more with their off-turn attacks... a hammer fighter does more reliable damage, and a polearm fighter excels at zone control.'

And that's just the weapon-based stuff.  That doesn't take into account difference in -styles- of combat.

I'll grant you, fighter kits did something to give options to players in terms of bonuses they could add on once in a while, but it really wasn't that drastic... not even as drastic as taking Cleave vs Reaping Strike.  The two at-wills you take do more to determine a combat style than anything second edition cooked up.

And Player's Option... sucked.  Yes.  It sucked.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Or the regular fighter that gets Punishing Charge (Encounter 1), which damages every enemy that takes an OA against you equal to con and does 1[W]+strength+con damage.
> 
> Oh and did you forget about threatening rush, which is a fighter at-will you can use as a melee basic attack when charging? Not to mention it handily marks each creature adjacent to you at the end of the charge. So your statement isn't even true.




Dude, seriously, these are some pretty petty corner-cases. Comparing the Knight (for whom we know 2-3 powers) vs specific builds with specific powers?

Look, if a Knight gets Dazed, then... he's actually really well off, because he is probably already _in_ a stance, and he is getting all sorts of benefits to his melee basic attacks by default, and can still trigger his free action encounter boosts, and he probably already has defender aura up and is doing perfectly fine at marking people.

And, as mentioned, likely better on a charge than the regular fighter stuck with his basics. Yes, the fighter could have taken some very specific powers you can use on a charge. Will most fighters take those powers? No, and it is silly to imply that they do. 

In any case, assuming the Knight will regularly spend combats dazed is about as reasonable as assuming all Fighters will regularly spend combats immobilized. Sure, it might happen, but very, very rarely and isn't worth declaring a build useless because of it. 

Especially when the hypotheticals you've stacked against the Knight are really not that big a deal for him. "Oh no, I'm stuck doing extra damage with all my attacks." "Oh no, I'm stuck hurting multiple enemies when I charge."

Does being dazed limit his versatility? Yes. But, like the regular fighter, it honestly causes far fewer problems for him than for most classes. Other defenders, like the Paladin, will have trouble marking while dazed. Striker's won't be able to curse/quarry enemies, or lose the mobility to get into position, or can't flank to deliver sneak attacks. Leaders can't use their healing word and attack. 

I mean, I'm pretty sure the Knight comes out ahead of 90% of the classes in the game for how effective he is while dazed. And when we see the full details of the class, I wouldn't be surprised if he comes out ahead of the regular fighter, as well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 25, 2010)

> In looking at this class, they've managed to do something that hasn't happened in all the time 4E has been out: they've made a class I have no interest in playing whatsoever.




Really? For me, *every 4e class in the first PH* was one of those classes. Specifically because they all worked the same, boring, way (even if they did different things, they didn't do them differently).



> Contrast that with 'An axe using fighter tends to have heavier attacks and occasionally does greater bursts of damage, but a sword fighter will be stickier and can do more with their off-turn attacks... a hammer fighter does more reliable damage, and a polearm fighter excels at zone control.'




In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.

In 3e, an axe fighter dealt higher damage on a crit.

Etc.

The differences were mostly in the weapon rules.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Really? For me, *every 4e class in the first PH* was one of those classes. Specifically because they all worked the same, boring, way (even if they did different things, they didn't do them differently).



And this may mean that Essentials is the product for you, which would be a good thing for 4E. I would just say that even with the same mechanic (at-will, encounter and daily) characters in 4E played very differently. Even a group with a ranger, a rogue and a fighter you'd have three very different play experiences. At least that was my experience... your mileage obviously varied. .

This may be a stroke of marketing genius by WotC if they're able to bring back people who've left, who knows.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 25, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> And Player's Option... sucked.  Yes.  It sucked.




No, Skills and Powers sucked.  The other two books,  "Combat and Tactics" and "Spells and Magic", were great.


----------



## Markn (Jul 25, 2010)

Those books were good or bad depending on the individual tables preferences.  From a  community perspective, those books ensured no one was playing the same rules ever again!


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Weapon specialization was the same bonus no matter what.  It only changed what slot the bonus applied to, same with mastery and such.  There isn't much difference between a longsword wielder with mastery and a battleaxe wielder with mastery... other than one could have +5 weapons and the other capped at +3.




Depending on your chosen weapon, weapon specialization gave you a different attack rate, and bow specialists gained point-blank range. Other differences between weapons were damage (also depending on the opponent's size category), speed factor, reach and (optionally) bonuses vs. different types of armor. Certain weapons were very effective to discourage charging enemies, and Combat & Tactics also introduced knockdown rules which favored the usually low-damage bludgeoning weapons. Also: firearms rules, if the DM allowed them .

There were differences, just not to the same extent as in 4e. (I've never played 3.x, so I won't comment on that edition.)




> And that's just the weapon-based stuff.  That doesn't take into account difference in -styles- of combat.
> 
> I'll grant you, fighter kits did something to give options to players in terms of bonuses they could add on once in a while, but it really wasn't that drastic... not even as drastic as taking Cleave vs Reaping Strike.  The two at-wills you take do more to determine a combat style than anything second edition cooked up.




To be fair, you're comparing two editions that are almost 20 years apart; of course 4e improved on its predecessors and does things differently.
Still, 2e's early fighting styles had "drastic" effects. For example:
Weapon & Shield spec: You get an additional attack with your shield so you can parry an enemy attack or knock someone down with it.
Two-Hander spec: You're faster with your two-handed weapon. This made a lot of difference in fights against spellcasters (higher chance of interrupting their spells).
Later styles included e.g. horse archery.

And from what I remember, most kits gave permanent bonuses. The swashbuckler had good reasons to stay in light armor (AC bonus), and bonus weapon proficiencies don't exactly count as "once in a while".




> And Player's Option... sucked.  Yes.  It sucked.



I disagree.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.




I think you might be remembering 1e's initiative rules here (segments). Battleaxes were slower than longswords, but the rate of attacks stayed the same in 2e. You didn't lose an attack in a round because your initiative was too high; you simply went last.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

Markn said:


> Those books were good or bad depending on the individual tables preferences.  From a  community perspective, those books ensured no one was playing the same rules ever again!




Good point, although I was under the impression that every table played by different rules just using the PHB and DMG. Those books alone had lots of optional rules.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.




There was no "rate of fire" for melee weapons; all weapon speed meant was that you attacked sooner or later in the round, not more or less often.

Kits were _terrible,_ horribly unbalanced and one of the most omni-banned bits of 2e IME. Even so, the amount of differentiation with weapon styles in 2e was laughable. What was there that didn't come straight out of the weapons' stats themselves? What was there that was user-based? 

Usually a bonus to attack and damage. That's it.

There is a whole world of difference in terms of how different fighting styles work in 4e, though- a huge, immediately noticeable difference in how an axe-wielding fighter compares to a glaive-wielding fighter, for instance. 

As to whether an Essentials fighter is better or worse than a PH fighter: looks to me like _it depends on the circumstances._ Sometimes better, sometimes worse. That's good- that's how it _should_ be. Each should sometimes have an edge; that way they end up (dare I say it?) *compatible.*


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 25, 2010)

Greg K said:


> No, Skills and Powers sucked.  The other two books,  "Combat and Tactics" and "Spells and Magic", were great.




Spells and Magic introduced spell points... good for many games involving spell casters, bad for 'we already made the mage the most powerful class in the game so here is some more' balance.

Combat and Tactics was... ok.  But it compared to contemporary games out there, it didn't deal with 'combat styles' very well. It was an attempt to catch up to what was already obsolete.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Kits were _terrible,_ horribly unbalanced and one of the most omni-banned bits of 2e IME.




IME the kits that were usually banned came from the infamous Complete Elves Handbook (*cough*Bladesinger*cough*), sometimes together with the Bard's and Humanoids kits. (The Humanoids Handbook was usually banned outright and for good reasons, though.)

IMO the kits from the early Complete Handbooks weren't even close to being "horribly unbalanced", and the same can be said for the kits in Skills & Powers.




> Even so, the amount of differentiation with weapon styles in 2e was laughable. What was there that didn't come straight out of the weapons' stats themselves? What was there that was user-based?
> 
> Usually a bonus to attack and damage. That's it.




I've touched on this in a previous reply to DracoSuave, so I'll just list the various benefits of fighting style specializations: 
Bonus to AC, an additional attack, bonus movement, lower penalties for attacks while moving or using two weapons, using two weapons of medium size, lower speed factor.
There's just one case each of getting bonus damage (+1 when wielding a versatile weapon two-handed) or an attack bonus (+1 when using a shield instead of gaining +1 AC). Not quite laughable differentiation, if you ask me.



We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on the 4e Essentials Fighter.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Jul 25, 2010)

I think the words "corner case" have already been mentioned in this thread so I won't mention "corner case" again after the next time I say "corner case". corner case

From my corner, it looks like a case where "different builds are different and have different pluses and minuses."  In this thread, it is being argued that the knight is underpowered because he cannot switch stances while dazed. But even if your characters spend an average of two rounds in EVERY COMBAT dazed, and can charge in both (their enemy isn't around a corner; it isn't a case where the enemy is already adjacent) you'll probably hit on only one of your two attacks. That means this makes a difference of 2 damage in the entire combat.

Just in case you missed it, other people are arguing that the knight is overpowered because he gets his +2-damage stance on charges and OAs.

The knight didn't exactly corner the market on damage bonuses while charging, though: there have been cases where other classes have been given damage-boosting at-wills usable on charge. Battle Wrath is worse than howling strike, for instance.

What if we cover it with "different builds are different and have different pluses and minuses?" 

If one build is definitely better than another, you may feel cornered into taking the better. This does not yet look to be one of those cases.


----------



## Njall (Jul 25, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> I've touched on this in a previous reply to DracoSuave, so I'll just list the various benefits of fighting style specializations:
> Bonus to AC, an additional attack, bonus movement, lower penalties for attacks while moving or using two weapons, lower speed factor.
> There's just one case each of getting bonus damage (+1 when wielding a versatile weapon two-handed) or an attack bonus (+1 when using a shield instead of gaining +1 AC). Not quite laughable differentiation, if you ask me.




Yes, but I think his point is that nothing of these made an actual difference in how you played a fighter, since all of the fighting styles granted passive benefits: regardless of the weapon you were using, the most effective strategy ( usually move and attack, sometimes holding back one attack to block an opponent's blow ) was what you ended up using over and over; a +1 here or there didn't change that.
Compare that with 4e (and, to a lesser extent, to 3e) , where you can, for example, capitalize on OAs, focus on burst rather than sustained damage, create a fighter that relies on footwork to move his opponents around or one that is really good at grabbing them, build a hammer-wielding fighter that uses his bulk to damage his opponents even when he misses, or a spear wielder that's really good at impaling people with his spear and keeping them at bay...that's just an example of something that you just couldn't do in 2e ( and I played the hell out of 2e at the time...).


----------



## the Jester (Jul 25, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> IME the kits that were usually banned came from the infamous Complete Elves Handbook (*cough*Bladesinger*cough*), sometimes together with the Bard's and Humanoids kits. (The Humanoids Handbook was usually banned outright and for good reasons, though.)




Almost every Complete book in 2e had many many kits with advantages with no compensating disadvantages. The fighter's book- which was first- sent up big alarm bells for all of my groups. Everything after, with the possible exception of the Priest book (which was laughably _underpowered_) just exacerbated it... until Skills & Powers, which broke the game so thoroughly that it didn't matter that they actually balanced the kits. I made more than one cleric with massive spell ability, equal fighting ability to a fighter and a few wizard spells... in full armor and with pretty much any weapon you choose.



Peraion Graufalke said:


> I've touched on this in a previous reply to DracoSuave, so I'll just list the various benefits of fighting style specializations:
> Bonus to AC, an additional attack, bonus movement, lower penalties for attacks while moving or using two weapons, using two weapons of medium size, lower speed factor.
> There's just one case each of getting bonus damage (+1 when wielding a versatile weapon two-handed) or an attack bonus (+1 when using a shield instead of gaining +1 AC). Not quite laughable differentiation, if you ask me.




A +1 to something buried in an optional rule sub-set that was rarely used (again, bonuses with no drawbacks- in all the years of 2e I played and dmed, I NEVER saw a single group use the fighting style stuff) hardly counts as a distinctive combat style imho. Obviously, YMMV and does.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

Njall said:


> Yes, but I think his point is that nothing of these made an actual difference in how you played a fighter, since all of the fighting styles granted passive benefits: regardless of the weapon you were using, the most effective strategy ( usually move and attack, sometimes holding back one attack to block an opponent's blow ) was what you ended up using over and over; a +1 here or there didn't change that.




My point is that the fighting style specializations did make a difference in play, and I don't consider an additional shield attack that can be used to parry an enemy attack to be a passive benefit.
And I should add that the Complete Fighter's Handbook also introduced several combat maneuvers like disarm, pull/trip, shield rush (which required you to use a shield, of course) etc.; it wasn't just the I-hit-him-with-my-sword routine over and over.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Everything after, with the possible exception of the Priest book (which was laughably _underpowered_) just exacerbated it... until Skills & Powers, which broke the game so thoroughly that it didn't matter that they actually balanced the kits. I made more than one cleric with massive spell ability, equal fighting ability to a fighter and a few wizard spells... in full armor and with pretty much any weapon you choose.




Ah, _those_ clerics . Have you ever tried to build the Forgotten Realms specialty priests with Skills & Powers? Some of them (Mystra, I'm looking at you) need far more character points than you're allowed to spend. 
But yeah, just ignore chapters 2-4 in Skills & Powers and you're good to go. 




> A +1 to something buried in an optional rule sub-set that was rarely used (again, bonuses with no drawbacks- in all the years of 2e I played and dmed, I NEVER saw a single group use the fighting style stuff) hardly counts as a distinctive combat style imho. Obviously, YMMV and does.




Indeed . But the thing is, it's not a case of bonuses without drawbacks. Every basic fighting style had its advantages and disadvantages listed right in the book, and to receive the bonus that a fighting style _specialization_ granted, you had to spend a weapon proficiency slot.



OK, I'll let this topic rest now. Sorry.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 25, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> OK, I'll let this topic rest now. Sorry.




It's a totally valid topic of discussion, just one where we disagree. 

To follow a different tangent for a moment- 2e's specialty priests, _when done well_, were the best iteration of the cleric that D&D has ever seen. In an edition so full of warts, the priest rules were the shining beacon of amazing clarity and brilliance. Sadly, many (maybe even most) published specialty priests were terribly unbalanced, but a well-made homebrewed pantheon with a few dozen different types of priests, each with a spell selection _actually based on its gods portfolio_, was amazing.

I lurve my 4e cleric, but it doesn't feel at all like a priest of anything in particular. It certainly doesn't feel like a priest of the sea god. As compared to my the priest of Decker, the god of ships, the sea and travel- they used tridents and nets and other aquatic-themed weapons; their spells were about elemental water, travel, the weather, with unique spells that would repair or summon ships, speed their travel, etc. Each type of priest different, with special granted powers that gave them supremacy in their god's area, and sometimes restrictions related to their god to balance them out (my specialty priests of Nerull were not allowed to accept healing, but had powerful death magic available to them).

Sorry, carry on, threadjack over.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

the Jester said:


> It's a totally valid topic of discussion, just one where we disagree.




True, but we were somewhat off-topic, I think. 




> To follow a different tangent for a moment- 2e's specialty priests, _when done well_, were the best iteration of the cleric that D&D has ever seen. In an edition so full of warts, the priest rules were the shining beacon of amazing clarity and brilliance. Sadly, many (maybe even most) published specialty priests were terribly unbalanced, but a well-made homebrewed pantheon with a few dozen different types of priests, each with a spell selection _actually based on its gods portfolio_, was amazing.




I'm in full agreement with you on this. 
Amazing potential, yet too often terrible execution.




> I lurve my 4e cleric, but it doesn't feel at all like a priest of anything in particular. It certainly doesn't feel like a priest of the sea god.




The channel divinity and domain feats do mitigate this somewhat IMO, but there's not as much differentiation for 4e clerics compared to their 2e counterparts. I'm having high hopes for the Essentials cleric to improve this; the warpriest preview gave me that 2e vibe, and I totally blame Mike Mearls for that!  




> Sorry, carry on, threadjack over.




What he said.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh yes....I too tried making the F&A priests with Skills & Powers and I say at LEAST 33% couldn't be built.

(Mystra was obscene...think she was more than double the cost. I had a chart one time with the entire point totals written down).

Most "balanced" of the F&A was Selune's specialty priest IMO.

(Still though, the F&A series I consider the single greatest campaign specific resource and is on my top 5 list of ALL-TIME best D&D products)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 25, 2010)

> And this may mean that Essentials is the product for you, which would be a good thing for 4E. I would just say that even with the same mechanic (at-will, encounter and daily) characters in 4E played very differently. Even a group with a ranger, a rogue and a fighter you'd have three very different play experiences. At least that was my experience... your mileage obviously varied. .
> 
> This may be a stroke of marketing genius by WotC if they're able to bring back people who've left, who knows.




Well, I haven't left. I'm DMing 4e currently, and I'll be playing it again soon enough. I've played many games, and I've DMed just about as many, and I've maintained a DDI subscription since I think the second week it was offered.  What Essentials might do for me is solve some of the problems I have with the game currently, and perhaps persuade me to buy a few more books than I presently do. 

One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate. The variety in types and methods and recovery rates and frequency of power use (from the fighter's "I can do my stuff all day long" to the wizard's "go nova, then I'm spent") was a *valuable* difference.

I mean, given Essentials, it looks like WotC kind of agrees. It's not just in paper. *In play, this difference matters*.

You'll forgive me if I grind this axe a little bit, I hope. I understand mileage may vary, but the whole "plays better than it reads, so you must not be playing it!" bogeyman smacks of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, I haven't left. I'm DMing 4e currently, and I'll be playing it again soon enough. I've played many games, and I've DMed just about as many, and I've maintained a DDI subscription since I think the second week it was offered.  What Essentials might do for me is solve some of the problems I have with the game currently, and perhaps persuade me to buy a few more books than I presently do.
> 
> One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate. The variety in types and methods and recovery rates and frequency of power use (from the fighter's "I can do my stuff all day long" to the wizard's "go nova, then I'm spent") was a *valuable* difference.
> 
> ...




And you'll pardon us if we are totally unable to even vaguely comprehend how a 4e shaman is even vaguely similar to a 4e barbarian. I hear this assertion all the time from people that haven't played 4e. TBH I pretty much have to wonder if anyone who makes this assertion can possibly have played anything beyond the most trivial amount of 4e. I wouldn't say 4e classes are more varied than classes in previous editions, but they are certainly EQUALLY varied.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And you'll pardon us if we are totally unable to even vaguely comprehend how a 4e shaman is even vaguely similar to a 4e barbarian. I hear this assertion all the time from people that haven't played 4e. TBH I pretty much have to wonder if anyone who makes this assertion can possibly have played anything beyond the most trivial amount of 4e. I wouldn't say 4e classes are more varied than classes in previous editions, but they are certainly EQUALLY varied.



Just anecdotal, but, having played every other week since 4E was released (except for 2 months last fall) and through all 3 tiers - many of the classes just don't play out that different at the table IMO. Now you could blame this on our DM or our playing style, or it just might be that whatever that intangible difference I felt when playing other editions is not being supplied by the current rule set. Or it could mean the things that have been changed/eliminated are what helped give the classes and even different characters of the same class a unique flavor/feel to me and the people I game with.

I also have to comment on the the idea that the Essentials classes are going to be more difficult, or even no harder, to teach to new players. I have just started a new campaign with a group of new players (the group is both young and have never played RPGs before). It has been an absolute bear teaching them the game so far (I have gone so far as to have another player there just to help them out - he doesn't even run a character) - the Knight preview certainly looks like it would be easier to teach them. In order to ease them into the current game I intend to give them a limited list of feats/powers (no more than 3 - 4 powers and feats) at each level to select from.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate. The variety in types and methods and recovery rates and frequency of power use (from the fighter's "I can do my stuff all day long" to the wizard's "go nova, then I'm spent") was a *valuable* difference.



I guess this is one case where we'll have to just agree to disagree. I will say that I do quite like Final Fantasy Zero if that helps. 

I would certainly agree that it's possible to play 4X in a way where the classes are all doing the same thing, much as it is with earlier editions of the game. What I've found is that different characters, classes and roles can really have a different approach to combat. If you don't mind a few examples...

I play in a low level game where I'm playing a bard. Another character in the group is a barbarian, my character's brother. All of the time I find myself trying to keep my older brother alive, and I'll do things like send a staggering note into the enemy he's charged "get away from my brother, you oaf!" and I play it strongly to keep control over the raging inferno of destruction that seems only to be trying to get himself killed.

In a higher level game, I'm a fighter who specializes in control. I control what I refer to as the "velvet rope" where no one gets by me to attack the rest of the group unless I let them. "Are you on the list? No, I didn't think so!" I'm right in the center of the front line being a barrier to anything and everything around me.

My first character in 4X was a rogue, and he was a bit of a glass cannon. He'd approach each battle as an exercise in how to get in, get his licks in, and get out without drawing undue attention to himself.

In each of the cases, the kind of powers I selected came out of roleplaying decisions I made about the characters in question, and the choices I had available to me made those characters feel and work radically differently and seem distinct. I could easily have made the characters work in a different fashion, and have seen many other fighters, bards or rogues who've done so in entirely different ways.

The goal in a D&D combat tends to always be the same: defeat your enemies, but how you get there is where the fun comes in. I was a lit major in college, and I enjoy going to see one of Shakespeare's plays I've seen many times before simply to see a new and distinct take on the familiar. 

This new fighter doesn't seem to offer much of anything that makes it unique, or have much to offer outside of "I hack," so it's going on my "meh," list. The standard disclaimer of "it this isn't an accurate picture of what the new class represents, I'll happily admit to being wrong," applies. I'll also say that if the preview for a class doesn't give an idea of what that class really is about, it isn't much of a preview.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> Knight: charge, MBA, mark adjacent foes *then get additional bonus based on my last stance, like cleaving or bonus damage*




Assuming you had the correct stance up at the beginning, which again is the entire point I'm trying to make here. If you're in one stance advantageous one round and then are dazed the next, you can end up in an entirely useless stance as you get cut off _from your at-will powers_. Also, not to be petty but the Knight doesn't mark adjacent foes whatsoever and has an aura with a -2 penalty, which doesn't interact with normal marks. This is important terminology, because the aura does not mark so won't interact with things that enhance or trigger off marks. 

One of the core problems I see with the Knight is how they enforce enemies to stand next to them, because a fighter with the other charge power I know will be super sticky to those enemies he marked. Without knowing the Knights mark enforcement, which is hopefully an immediate interrupt or similar attack when an enemy shifts out of its aura - his aura is nowhere near as worthwhile as the fighters mark. Not to mention unlike the normal fighter, the Knight doesn't get + wisdom to OAs, so if an enemy walks away there isn't a lot the knight can do about that at all.

And again, if you take one of the currently excellent fighter daily stances (I think it's been confirmed essentials classes can take powers from the original class, but not vice versa), then he gets cut off from all his at-wills entirely. Then again, a stance to deal 1[W] damage for every enemy starting adjacent like Rain of Steel is infinitely better than a minor +2 to damage on an MBA. 

Meanwhile the actual fighter gets his excellent stance cake and doesn't lose any powers in the process to use it (except another choice of another excellent stance).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> (I think it's been confirmed essentials classes can take powers from the original class, but not vice versa)




Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it _either way_. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it _either way_. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.




That's not what I've heard, because last I heard an essentials Domain Cleric could - for example - retrain out his Domain power for a Cleric one, but a Cleric couldn't get a essentials Cleric domain power (I think). I might need to listen to the podcast again, but I'm sure they said essentials classes can take original fighter/cleric/wizard powers, but some of the original classes might not be able to access essentials class stuff.

Edit: Now I think of it, if the knight does lack dailies that probably means he can't get the original fighters far superior stances. That's probably good for compatibility because I don't see many knights bothering with a +2 damage stance over what the original fighter gets. Then again, IMHO from what I've seen thus far I don't see anyone wanting to play a Knight over the original fighter. Hopefully I'm wrong and there is something _really really_ good in there we haven't seen yet, or an incredibly strong defender aura enforcement that makes him super sticky.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it _either way_. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.



Yep. If the power says "Class Attack X", any member of that class can take it at level X. If it lacks a level, it belongs just to that build.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Just anecdotal, but, having played every other week since 4E was released (except for 2 months last fall) and through all 3 tiers - many of the classes just don't play out that different at the table IMO. Now you could blame this on our DM or our playing style, or it just might be that whatever that intangible difference I felt when playing other editions is not being supplied by the current rule set. Or it could mean the things that have been changed/eliminated are what helped give the classes and even different characters of the same class a unique flavor/feel to me and the people I game with.




Well, all I can say is that AD&D character within the same class were VASTLY less differentiated. That changed somewhat with late 2e but it was nothing like as much of a difference as there is between a 4e Tempest fighter and a 4e FWT sword-n-board or polearm build. 

There are some 4e classes that probably can seem SIMILAR to other ones, but is that really new? 2e fighters, cavaliers, barbarians, and rangers really weren't much different. You could drop one into a party in place of the other and not bat an eye. In 4e you could drop an Invoker in place of your wizard. You WILL notice some difference, though they'll also function pretty similarly and you could refluff one as the other without too much notice. Still, how much difference would you have in 3.5 between a wizard and a sorcerer? Not a heck of a lot. 


> I also have to comment on the the idea that the Essentials classes are going to be more difficult, or even no harder, to teach to new players. I have just started a new campaign with a group of new players (the group is both young and have never played RPGs before). It has been an absolute bear teaching them the game so far (I have gone so far as to have another player there just to help them out - he doesn't even run a character) - the Knight preview certainly looks like it would be easier to teach them. In order to ease them into the current game I intend to give them a limited list of feats/powers (no more than 3 - 4 powers and feats) at each level to select from.




Well, we don't know how many things knights will have to select from, probably a lot less, but in actual play I see NOTHING that indicates to me they'll be easier to play. The complexity of 4e combat is largely baked into the system and the knight player is still every turn deciding what stance to use, who to attack, and whether or not to toss on one of his encounter boosts. The 4e FWT fighter is choosing an at-will or an encounter or daily power to use. It seems like LESS choices needing to be made and about the same number of options to choose from.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

To add to the above, stances and auras are arguably "up there" in complexity as far as 4E goes for new players. They are not inherently "simpler" to understand and have their own rules nuances. Of course many have pointed out that many new players will stick to one simple stance, like the +2 damage one and be done with it. In the end though, getting anywhere near the versatility of a normal fighter out of the knight will require understanding just as many rules as anything else. Different ones at that, which normally only rarely apply like stances and auras (especially in the case of PCs). Plus having to use and remember you have interrupt/free action powers to add to damage you've done is something new players frequently forget (As I often see with Furious Assault, even with experienced players!).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> To add to the above, stances and auras are arguably "up there" in complexity as far as 4E goes for new players. They are not inherently "simpler" to understand and have their own rules nuances. Of course many have pointed out that many new players will stick to one simple stance, like the +2 damage one and be done with it. In the end though, getting anywhere near the versatility of a normal fighter out of the knight will require understanding just as many rules as anything else. Different ones at that, which normally only rarely apply like stances and auras (especially in the case of PCs). Plus having to use and remember you have interrupt/free action powers to add to damage you've done is something new players frequently forget (As I often see with Furious Assault, even with experienced players!).




Yeah, I agree. I think saying "I use cleave" is really not all that much different from the player deciding not to change his stance (and effectively 'cleaving') and its just as likely the player will simply not want to bother with their 'kicker' as it is that they'll just decide not to use an encounter power instead of cleave. And then as you say there are the various subtleties of stances. Stances weren't really designed to be the main way you selected powers originally, they were more of an advanced thing actually that you could avoid if you didn't want to mess with them. I think it turns out to be basically about the same either way in the long run.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it _either way_. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.




Ha, I knew I wasn't going Crazy Mouseferatu as I found a direct quote to support what I was saying:



> "As fighters, the slayer and the knight can both take feats, powers, and abilities that require the fighter character class. However, they also have class features and unique powers that other fighters cannot take."




The quote is from this ampersand article. What powers they can take though will depend entirely on how the knight is made and how essentials "class features" will interact with the normal power structure (this remains to be seen). The fact they clearly listed being able to take "powers" suggests to me that Knights and Slayers, despite their different set up can in fact somehow trade or get Fighter powers (or that such things are allowed under essentials rules). But note that it specifically says "unique powers", so it won't always be the case a PHB/MP fighter can take Knight/Slayer powers.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 26, 2010)

But you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the knight has features/powers traits that other fighters can't take. But the knight also can't ditch those features/powers/traits for other fighter powers. Whereas, if the knight has a power that it _can_ trade, the other fighters can also gain _that_ power in trade for some of their own.

So as I said--a trade _either_ works both ways, or neither.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

For one thing, the preview Knight gets standard Fighter Utility powers at levels 2, 6 and 10. No need for speculation, the powers an Essentials Fighter can pick from PHB and Martial Power are right there.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure PHB fighters won't get Defender Aura or the first-level at-will stances, or any of the powers the Essentials Fighter gets at level 4, 5, 8 and 9.

The one question that's kind-of open is whether the Essentials Fighter can switch Power Strike for a different 1st level encounter power. As a DM, I'd allow it, but as a game designer I would probably not allow it to keep the writeup more clean and concise.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, all I can say is that AD&D character within the same class were VASTLY less differentiated. That changed somewhat with late 2e but it was nothing like as much of a difference as there is between a 4e Tempest fighter and a 4e FWT sword-n-board or polearm build.



 With 1E I would agree, but 2E and 3E my experience is different than yours - so we disagree. Perhaps it was the people you played with or the DM you had that caused characters from earlier editions to have a sameness.



			
				AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> There are some 4e classes that probably can seem SIMILAR to other ones, but is that really new? 2e fighters, cavaliers, barbarians, and rangers really weren't much different. You could drop one into a party in place of the other and not bat an eye. In 4e you could drop an Invoker in place of your wizard. You WILL notice some difference, though they'll also function pretty similarly and you could refluff one as the other without too much notice. Still, how much difference would you have in 3.5 between a wizard and a sorcerer? Not a heck of a lot.



IYE - again, I didn't have this experience previously. The sameness currently appears mostly with classes in the same roles - strikers seem like other strikers, defenders like other defenders, etc. However, again this could be the game style we are involved in - certain powers, rider conditions, and defensive options are just flat out better in our game - so people go for those. The changes in monster design have really driven that home.




			
				AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> Well, we don't know how many things knights will have to select from, probably a lot less, but in actual play I see NOTHING that indicates to me they'll be easier to play. The complexity of 4e combat is largely baked into the system and the knight player is still every turn deciding what stance to use, who to attack, and whether or not to toss on one of his encounter boosts. The 4e FWT fighter is choosing an at-will or an encounter or daily power to use. It seems like LESS choices needing to be made and about the same number of options to choose from.



You are correct - we don't know how many things they will select from. However, I get a different impression about the class - YMMV and apparently does.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> With 1E I would agree, but 2E and 3E my experience is different than yours - so we disagree. Perhaps it was the people you played with or the DM you had that caused characters from earlier editions to have a sameness.




We could say the same about what you're asserting about 4E to be honest on this point.

I will agree with you though that I feel some classes are a bit too similar to one another at times. My main complaint actually is that you tend to see some classes a lot and others very rarely. I can't say that the stance based dwarf fighter plays anywhere near the same as the dragonborn brawler fighter I've seen in play recently though. Other classes are not so good, Archmage Wizards invariably turn to spam the best daily with a stun or daze until end of next turn rider (Destructive Salutation and formerly Legion's Hold as an example). Even then, given some levels all the Wizards I've seen play immensely differently at paragon/epic - but at heroic feel very similar.

That's where I will put my agreement. At heroic tier, most classes can feel awfully similar because they don't have a lot that differentiates them. Combined with the directly similar power structure and it's easy to see why that is the case. I have not seen two classes play the same in 4E at paragon and above. Their concepts always differentiate fully by this point, their power selections and similar also naturally make them play different. Even with a bias to certain riders - another excellent point you make - I still have very different feeling games. 

One party is always better at X, my other party good at Y and my other party good at Z. I can't design the same encounter for X that I would Z - that inherently means something has to be playing differently. Personally I think it's the classes and players that do, not just one or the other. If everything was as similar as some people say, I should be able to take an encounter designed for a defender, striker, striker, controller and leader and dump that into my other campaign with the same characters. If you're right it should play out identically or pretty close because the PCs characters should all be similar.

Fortunately that doesn't happen, what I design for one group frequently proves too hard or too easy or similar for another. That's because even with the same party composition, the nuances of how those classes play really do impact significantly on how it plays.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> HaWhat powers they can take though will depend entirely on how the knight is made and how essentials "class features" will interact with the normal power structure (this remains to be seen). The fact they clearly listed being able to take "powers" suggests to me that Knights and Slayers, despite their different set up can in fact somehow trade or get Fighter powers (or that such things are allowed under essentials rules). But note that it specifically says "unique powers", so it won't always be the case a PHB/MP fighter can take Knight/Slayer powers.



You know, this really is nothing new. Even now, some feats and powers are unique to a particular class build. Greatweapon fighters can't take Mighty Battlerage. A regular ranger gets no benefit from powers with the Beast keyword. A Thaneborn barbarian can't take _swift charge_.

So, to summarize: it's a new build. It's going to get stuff that other builds can't get. Maybe it will get _more_ of such stuff. However, I'm still not seeing the problem.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> We could say the same about what you're asserting about 4E to be honest on this point.



I did say it - in my first post. Honestly, I believe play style has more to do with how the game feels than the actual rules.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

To be honest it also depends on tier in 4E. Early heroic tier games are basically identical to one another, as PCs don't have enough options to do unique things and are really a spread of stats. It's once paragon paths and epic destinies kick in that the true variation amongst classes and players absolutely kicks in.

I can't honestly remember many of the differences between parties from levels 1 to 3 or so.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Assuming you had the correct stance up at the beginning, which again is the entire point I'm trying to make here. If you're in one stance advantageous one round and then are dazed the next, you can end up in an entirely useless stance as you get cut off _from your at-will powers_.



You mean like a fighter who doesn't have the specific at-will that you're using?

There's always going to be situations where someone isn't at peak effectiveness. If you're worried that the knight doesn't perform well when he's chain dazed for an entire combat, starting on the first round... well noone is going to perform well in that situation.


> Also, not to be petty but the Knight doesn't mark adjacent foes whatsoever and has an aura with a -2 penalty, which doesn't interact with normal marks. This is important terminology, because the aura does not mark so won't interact with things that enhance or trigger off marks.



If the knight is in the game, and those things exist for regular marks in multiple incarnations, it's reasonable to assume that feat support will give the knight similar stuff.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> To be honest it also depends on tier in 4E. Early heroic tier games are basically identical to one another, as PCs don't have enough options to do unique things and are really a spread of stats. It's once paragon paths and epic destinies kick in that the true variation amongst classes and players absolutely kicks in.



That hasn't been my experience - YMOV


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> You mean like a fighter who doesn't have the specific at-will that you're using?




He has encounter and even daily powers that can be used on a charge. Lots of options means lots of ways around this.

Not that it's even relevant, because most fighters boost their MBAs due to combat challenge and combat superiority. Having a decent MBA is a basic effective decision for a regular fighter - so he's not going to be bad off. The knight will either have a small advantage or be worse off (not even benefiting from his at-will stances) in a similar position.



> If you're worried that the knight doesn't perform well when he's chain dazed for an entire combat, starting on the first round... well noone is going to perform well in that situation.




Yeah, but they aren't cut off from their at-will powers. That's the key point. Being dazed and losing access to powers (essentially) is a pretty big disadvantage. Every other class can always access all their at-wills. I will say this might not be too terrible if at high levels the knight has a lot more options - but then again this is a class built around using its melee basic attack all the time. 



> If the knight is in the game, and those things exist for regular marks in multiple incarnations, it's reasonable to assume that feat support will give the knight similar stuff.




Oddly, what people think is "reasonable" to assume about feat support for the knight can be quite different . I would actually agree with you, but again it's important that the distinction is made because it's _not_ a mark.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate.



Yep. That's how 4e cracked the problem of class imbalance that had plagued D&D from it's inception.  No longer did one class only get to shine when others sucked, everyone gets to have fun.  No longer does the DM have to finagle his story around to challenge and provide spotlight time to the wildly different talents of the unlimitted-use-abilities of the damage-grinding fighter or skill-heavy rogue vs the one-shot uberpower of spells and whacky brokenness of psionics.

Of course, while all classes face nearly-identical resource-management isuses (and are thus much, much easier to balance against eachother), they still do differ greatly in 'fluff,' and each role is quite distinct.  A fighter plays nothing like a rogue, even though they're both martial and both have the same number and useability of powers.  A fighter played like a rogue will be ineffective, a rogue played like a fighter will be ineffective, briedly, before he dies.  Wizards and Invokers play pretty similary, but Warlords and Clerics really don't.  If you can get past the universality of general mechanics like power progression and keywords, the classes become quite distinct in feel.  If you can't, then, yeah, Thunderwave and Tide of Iron will seem frustratingly similar to you.



When people used to whine endlessly about class balance if 'Fighter SUX' threads and CoDzilla rants, I'd point out that it could all be fixed - it just wouldn't really be D&D anymore.  I believe 4e proved my point.  4e has achieved class balance, and made the DM's task much easier.  It's done so with a bit of elegance and a bit of kludginess, but it hasn't been able to hold onto quite all of the D&D feel.  Far more than I expected, but not enough for everyone.


I'm afraid Essentials may be trying to get some of that back, by again giving us classes that feel different on a mechanical level - and, as a consequence, cannot be balanced with eachother save through heroic effort on the part of the DM.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 26, 2010)

Thing is, there's no such thing as _perfect_ balance.

No, really. There just isn't.

Even classes built on the same skeleton, like the "4E classic" characters, are only _almost_ balanced. There's simply no way to ensure that one class's combination of powers, class features, and available feats and weapons don't synergize a little bit better, under every circumstance, than another class's combination of powers, features, feats, etc.

All any game can do is strive to make them balanced _enough_.

And that's all I ask of the Essentials classes, too. I really and truly don't care if the knight is worse than the fighter if he's dazed for the entirety of the combat, or if the knight is better because a combination of feats give him a bonus to hit, in one particular stance, that's 1 point higher than what the other fighter can get.

As long as no class outshines the others on a regular basis--as long as the classes are all equal a _majority_ of the time--and as long as the class's feel and built are fun to play for _someone_, well, that's absolutely sufficient.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Thing is, there's no such thing as _perfect_ balance.
> 
> No, really. There just isn't.
> 
> ...



Quoted fur truth. 

And if you ask me, IMO, YMMV and all that, the base 4E engine is strong enough that a little more imbalance, at least, to the extent that we've seen with the Essentials line so far, isn't going to break it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Thing is, there's no such thing as _perfect_ balance.



No, there's not.  There's no such thing as 'perfectly safe,' either, but I'll still put on my seat belt.

The classes in AD&D (1&2) were hardly balanced at all, and some of the attempts at 'balance' were quite the opposite of what we tend to think of as balance, today (a class's superior features would be 'balanced' by higher stat requirements - yeah, right).

3.x a DM could get to balance if he ran multiple-encounter days with a wide variety of challenges and relatively little 'telegraphing' of what challenges might be like - and if the players didn't powergame too agressively.   It was very difficult, but possible.

4e is adequately balanced out of the box.  Encounters are reasonably balanced if you just follow the DMG guidelines - which are not hard to follow at all.  Classes are reasonably balanced if you're all powergaming at about the same level (from not at all, to fairly agressively), though, of course, talented optimizers /can/ and do break the system, there's little danger of sneaking such abominations past a DM.




> All any game can do is strive to make them balanced _enough_.



 Sure, and 4e has accomplished that handily, while 3.x was only potentially balanced, if the DM worked hard enough at it, and the players behaved themselves.



> And that's all I ask of the Essentials classes, too. I really and truly don't care if the knight is worse than the fighter if he's dazed for the entirety of the combat, or if the knight is better because a combination of feats give him a bonus to hit, in one particular stance, that's 1 point higher than what the other fighter can get.



The relative balance of the Knight is more fundamentally problematic than an odd corner case like that.  If it really turns out to have minimal daily resource-management issues, then it simply won't be balanced with the standard 4e classes.  It'll be overshadowed durring 'short' adventuring days, and could dominate in unusually 'long ones.'  It's more complex than that, of course.  

What it comes down to, though, is that when all classes share similar (not even identical) resource-management issues and have similarly-balanced sets of limitted- and unlimitted-use powers, the DM doesn't have to worry much about the number, variety, or predictability of his encounters.  He might through a too easy or too hard day at the party, or he might have a definite style that he tends towards (a lot of DMs like to have infrequent, but very tough, encounters, for instance), but it won't create class-balance issues, whatever he does.  When classes have very different resource-management issue, yes, they have been differentiated in a heavy-handed, mechanical way that is impossible to miss, but, they also become imbalanced relative to eachother if the DM deviates from a certain 'sweet spot' in terms of pacing and challenge.  If he deviates in a given direction consistently, it becomes problematic.  



> As long as no class outshines the others on a regular basis--as long as the classes are all equal a _majority_ of the time--and as long as the class's feel and built are fun to play for _someone_, well, that's absolutely sufficient.



That's actually what I'm saying.  You put a class like a 3.x Fighter and a class like a 3.x Wizard in the same party, and there's an excellent chance one will outshine the other on a regular basis.   No class in 4e is quite like the 3.x Wizard or CoDzilla - yet, the Mage only edges very slightly in that direction.  The Knight is treading dangerously close to being like the 3.x Fighter, having a small set of always-available abilities of apropriately modest power.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Thing is, there's no such thing as _perfect_ balance.
> 
> No, really. There just isn't.
> 
> ...




Absolutely! No argument. 

It just entirely puzzles me when I hear people say that because fighters and wizards both have 2 at-will powers, an encounter, and a daily at level 1 that there is ANY degree of 'sameness' at all beyond what's always existed in D&D. I literally find the assertion non-sensical. I don't even agree with Aegeri that characters are similar at level 1. There are a few classes that are FAIRLY similar. Wizards and Invokers are both AoE heavy controllers, so OK there's some similarity in how they play, mechanically, for a while. Still, drop those 2 characters into an encounter full of undead and the difference is night and day. They have quite different fluff too.

Now I really defy anyone to tell me that a 1st level brutal scoundrel rogue, a 1st level starlock, and a 1st level dragon sorcerer play ANYTHING alike. They simply don't. Nothing about the way those 3 classes approach an encounter is going to be similar. They are no more similar than analogous 3.5 classes.

And lets be clear, the entire point has been debated ENTIRELY in terms of combat, where the similarities in 4e are the largest. Outside of combat characters are quite distinct. The distinctions may fall a little less strictly in terms of class than in the old days but really probably not much more or less so than in 3.5.

Really, I think the knight will play fine. I'm not really convinced it brings as much new to the game as some people seem to believe but it I'm pretty sure the 4e devs are well able to handle making it work well enough.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 26, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> The relative balance of the Knight is more fundamentally problematic than an odd corner case like that.  If it really turns out to have minimal daily resource-management issues, then it simply won't be balanced with the standard 4e classes.  It'll be overshadowed durring 'short' adventuring days, and could dominate in unusually 'long ones.'  It's more complex than that, of course.



Indeed. The real crux of the issue is: overshadowed by how much? Dominating by how much? Will it be something noticeable by the average player, or will it take advanced number crunching to show that one will theoretically deal on average an additional hit point of damage per round? 

Don't forget that in 4E, the difference isn't between zero and forty or more daily powers. It's more like _possibly_ zero (if a paragon path without daily powers exists, and the knight has _absolutely_ no once-per-day type abilities) and four.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 26, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's actually what I'm saying.  You put a class like a 3.x Fighter and a class like a 3.x Wizard in the same party, and there's an excellent chance one will outshine the other on a regular basis.   No class in 4e is quite like the 3.x Wizard or CoDzilla - yet, the Mage only edges very slightly in that direction.  The Knight is treading dangerously close to being like the 3.x Fighter, having a small set of always-available abilities of apropriately modest power.




Seriously? Did you just say that the mage is gravitating towards 3.x wizard/CoDzilla status? 

Could you please explain which powers/abilities available to the mage made you say that?


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

You know, for the first time ever on this forum someone has managed to lose me with an acronym. What is "CoDzilla"?



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Even classes built on the same skeleton, like the "4E classic" characters, are only _almost_  balanced. There's simply no way to ensure that one class's combination  of powers, class features, and available feats and weapons don't  synergize a little bit better, under every circumstance, than another  class's combination of powers, features, feats, etc.




I agree, but the core point is that while there are peaks and valleys in this, there is nothing that spikes up so much that you need to design the game around it. There is also nothing in 4E, except maybe a beast master druid, that is so utterly terrible you cannot play it and contribute _at every level_. That's a true triumph of 4E as a system and I'd like to see that continue.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You know, for the first time ever on this forum someone has managed to lose me with an acronym. What is "CoDzilla"?



Cleric or Druid as Godzilla as I understand it.
Refers to the ability to design builds of these classes in 3.x that beats pretty much everything else into a cocked hat.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You know, for the first time ever on this forum someone has managed to lose me with an acronym. What is "CoDzilla"?



*C*leric *o*r *D*ruid God*zilla*

That's Charop-speak for a heavily optimized cleric or druid that dominates both melee and spells.

Curses, ninja'd by mere seconds...


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Okay I am with that. I have suffered the half-black dragon troll wereoctopus druid before. It isn't pretty. 

With Wildshape and a decent grasp of the MM I don't even think you need to be heavily optimized to make a decent melee druid.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

EDIT: _Doh, I knew I'd be ninja'd..._



Aegeri said:


> You know, for the first time ever on this forum someone has managed to lose me with an acronym. What is "CoDzilla"?




A common term on the WotC boards during 3rd editions heyday. A mixture of *C*leric *o*r *D*ruid and godzilla.

It alludes to the fact that from a certain level a Cleric or Druid can buff himself up with spells and class abilities to a point that he completely outshines every other class in the game.

4th edition avoided this effect with the simple measure that most leader buffs can only be used on allies instead of the PC himself.



Aegeri said:


> I agree, but the core point is that while there are peaks and valleys in this, there is nothing that spikes up so much that you need to design the game around it. There is also nothing in 4E, except maybe a beast master druid, that is so utterly terrible you cannot play it and contribute _at every level_. That's a true triumph of 4E as a system and I'd like to see that continue.



No need to worry here, the Essentials classes will be fine, unless the devs did some major blunders on their basic game maths (again )


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> To add to the above, stances and auras are arguably "up there" in complexity as far as 4E goes for new players. They are not inherently "simpler" to understand and have their own rules nuances.




You genuinely feel that "you make it harder for enemies next to you to hit your allies" is 'up there in complexity' compared to, "when you make an attack, declare that it marks an enemy, and if you do so, that enemy has a harder time hitting your allies until the end of your next turn"?

I know several adult players of fighters that regularly forget to mark when they attack. 

Are there levels of complexity that can build from stances and auras? Yes. Will the player who plays things as straightforward as possible not be as flexible as the player who is a master tactician with a great grasp of the rules? Absolutely!

But I think they are going a long way towards making something that can be built and played in a very simple fashion without losing a great deal of its capability. It fulfills its role just by getting near enemies. It doesn't need to make big decisions every round before attacking, it doesn't have to put a new player in the position of having to regularly retcon what they did because they forgot to announce something in advance. I think those elements will make a huge difference to new players, based on how I have seen many such players operate. 

I could be wrong, they could get really confused by stances and auras as well. But it seems very unlikely to me, and I definitely don't agree that an aura you always have up is "up there" in complexity compared to the standard marking mechanics of a PHB fighter.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> He has encounter and even daily powers that can be used on a charge. Lots of options means lots of ways around this.




What percentage of fighters do you genuinely believe have encounter and daily powers that can be used on a charge? How many fighters design their characters for the potential to spend a combat permadazed?

This hypothetical situation you keep returning to is both extremely unlikely to actually come up, and likely to be _more_ beneficial to the Knight than to _most_ fighters. Sure, a Fighter that you have specifically designed to work well in that situation will come out ahead. But that isn't a valid comparison nor a valid criticism of the Knight. 

As it is, while dazed and charging, the Knight will have access to whatever At-Will it last used, along with presumably all of its Encounter powers (which seem likely to be 'add-ons' is can use on a hit.) 

Almost every other melee character in the game, on a charge, will have access to neither At-Wills nor Encounter Powers. 

A very, very few will have one or two powers usable on a charge, but that leaves them still just _as_ limited as the Knight. 

I'm just not seeing any limitation here. Do you really think the Knight will often get perma-dazed, and that it will always happen when, for some reason, he has already started using a Stance that will be useless in that combat?


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 26, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Seriously? Did you just say that the mage is gravitating towards 3.x wizard/CoDzilla status?
> 
> Could you please explain which powers/abilities available to the mage made you say that?




I don't think he is saying that. I think he is saying the Essentials Mage edges only very slightly (ie, almost negligably) towards the 3.5 god-wizard, but that the Essentials Knight goes _very significantly _in the direction of the 3.5 fighter, and that is where the danger lies. 

I don't agree, myself - I think the Knight looks like it will be simple to play while remaining balanced against the other classes. I am a little worried that they will lack a Daily resource and break the balance paradigm in that fashion. But I'm willing to wait and see how it all comes together before coming to any real decisions.


----------



## Mengu (Jul 26, 2010)

This is just a new class. It doesn't look harder or easier to play, and whether it's less or more powerful is debatable, especially considering we don't even know what half the features are yet.

Say I'm a warlord player who hasn't even looked at Essentials, playing at the same table as a fighter from Essentials. I ask everyone at the table what they're playing. When I hear fighter, my immediate assumptions are, this guy can mark when I make him attack things, he can stop things with opportunity attacks, and takes a whack at anything shifting away from him. If I see he's got a shield, I'm also probably assuming he's got Tide of Iron to push things around when we need to. Suddenly, all these assumptions are out the window. We are not looking at a fighter here as we knew it. It's a different class, wearing the same name, sharing the same utility powers, and some of the same feats, but that's all.

It's not difficult to adjust tactics to work with the knight. As a more informed warlord player, I'll know that simply shifting the Knight adjacent to enemies, gets them into his aura so I can just Wolfpack Tactics him in there. Or if I want him to take out a couple minions that are tying him up, I can Knight's Move him into his Cleaving Assault stance, and Direct the Strike him to wipe out those two minions adjacent to him, freeing him to move where he needs to during his turn.

As a new class this doesn't look bad, I just wish it was called Knight, instead of Fighter. I can see where they want to reuse parts of the class like feats and utility powers, but they are already alienating a slew of feats by getting rid of at-will/encounter powers (most of MP2, arena style feats, etc), and feats with prerequisites such as combat challenge.

I would prefer to hear someone say "I'm playing a Knight" rather than "I'm playing a Fighter". I know it's just semantics, but the mechanics are different enough that I don't think it invokes the right picture. If they suddenly have rogues who don't deal sneak attack damage, rangers without hunter's quarry, and paladins without divine challenge, these differences will be even more pronounced. For me, Combat Challenge is what defined Fighter.

From a design perspective, reusing existing class powers and feats without making new classes is not a bad idea, as it keeps options plentiful. From the play perspective, this approach basically changes what we know as "class" from a set of features, to a keyword. So, if you play a Knight, you have the "Fighter" keyword.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 26, 2010)

Ok, I don't want to reinstate the classic flamebait, but I'll give you a few examples on how the old way induced cries of "sameyness". 

Assuming your non-human, you have 2 at wills, 2 encounters (one racial), and 1 daily power. Not counting basic attacks (or P42-inspired "stunts") you had four options in a given fight. Before I go any farther, I realized D&D always limited your options (fighters attack, mages have 1-3 spells, depending on edition, etc). However, the 4e power system creates an illusion of choice of sorts; OMG I have 4 cool options to use; which do I do? The problem is the options aren't all that different; the amount of weapon die (or spell die), the effect offered, and perhaps the defense targeted changed, but the difference between attacks wasn't as diverse as wizard spells nor as simple to adjudicate as fighters roll-n-forget. 

This was further compounded by the fact early in, "the Math" wasn't all that great. Some monsters (particularly soldiers) were very hard to hit. This meant most of the time your encounter power (which you relied on for big damage or battle-changing status effects) was wasted. And dailies were too precious to use willy-nilly, so most people spammed At-Wills because they were "reliable". 

Further add on that many powers were simply "X damage + Y effect" and you had a lot of powers that looked samey on paper (even if they weren't in play). Who cares if you use your shield to push your foe back or blast him with a bolt of arcane magic from your wand; your still just doing 1d8+3 damage and push 1...

Furthermore, classes within the same role ended up (for balance) having the same role-based mechanic. Every Leader got a X-Word power; it didn't matter if you were invoking the power of the Gawdz, yelling quotes of inspiration, or singing them a merry tune, the effect was similar. PHB1 had the same problem with strikers, warlocks and rangers call whose "it" and do extra d6s of damage. Rogues do an extra die of damage, but pay for it by setting up CA. Defenders mark; etc. While this was done to keep character's "viable" in there role, it also made them interchangable mechanically with one another. 

Lastly, there were plenty of cool "deviations" in flavor that didn't do much mechanically. Druids could shapechange, but it was so useless all it did was restrict what powers you could use in a given round (by restricting powers to human/beast form). Shaman's got a spirit pet, but it was nothing more than fancy spell-effect and did the same X dmg/Y effect thing; no OAs, no CA, etc. 

Oh, there's the "don't break your archetype" rule. It took Fighters till MP to fight two-weapon, and they still stuck at bows/missile weapons. On the other hand, a ranger can't be a decent sword-n-board fighter; grab two blades or a bow bow. And heaven forbid a rogue wants to fight with two short sword and a short bow. What were you thinking, get yourself a dagger and a crossbow like a REAL rogue!

And that doesn't begin to touch on how some early monsters were sinfully boring, magic items lacked anything "magical" about them, early modules was one show-piece fight after another with little rhyme or reason, etc. 

My feeling is almost 2 years later, they've learned from there mistakes. Even if its artificial, I get a feel from the warpriest, mage, and knight they are separate classes with different roles and different abilities. They don't use the same "pick 2/1/1" formula, they are unique against each other. Magic Missile is guaranteed damage. Cleric powers depend on their god. Fighters augment basic attacks. I can't WAIT to see what the rogue does! 

In short, for the first time these classes feel like separate CLASSES, not different fantasy tropes stapled to the same frame and called unique. I'll wait till Sept to see if I'm right...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 26, 2010)

Mengu said:
			
		

> As a new class this doesn't look bad, I just wish it was called Knight, instead of Fighter.




Mearls has been quoted as calling them "subclasses".


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

I really don't get the whole "sameness" discussion. I disagree on a very deep, very basic level:

*Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying*

Does it really make a PC more differnt from another that his ressources are distributed by day instead of by round?

What about... His name? His background? His backstory? The way his appearance is described? The way you describe his attacks? His battlecries? His small and big personality quirks? His beliefs and dreams, his goals in life, his philosophy? His way of speaking?

There is only one way that a Swordmage can play like a Shaman, and that is if you never treat your PC more than the numbers on his character sheets and he effects on his powers. Yes, you can play D&D (any edition) like a boardgame. But if that is the problem, don't blame the rules, change your playstyle.

Now, I can agree that 4th edition doesn't do enough to help you create evocative descriptions at the table. The tendency in the community to call this "fluff" is part of the problem. It's annoying if some rules bits come without any in-game description whatsoever (feats!!). It's annoying that important rules elements to help your character history (backgrounds) are included as an afterthought. It's even worse when their purpose are disregarded by players and they are only valued by their combat benefit (compared to the out-of-combat benefit).

But the problem of bland PCs has absolutely nothing to do with unified mechanics of martial and arcane characters. This deep misconception has to go. A good player can take two completely identical character sheets and create two completely different PCs.

If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same to you, you need to make them different by playing them different. No fiddling with the rules will change that.


----------



## mearls (Jul 26, 2010)

A quick word on balance: The roles go a long way to making sure that, even if classes have different types of powers, they all play an important and useful role in the game.

Regardless of how a wizard uses his powers, he can't duplicate the knight's ability to lock down monsters and hold them back. The real problems in terms of balance come up when class X is strictly better than class Y at almost everything, to the point that the "smart" move (in terms of overcoming obstacles) is to call on X whenever possible.

Putting everyone on the same schedule of powers can help, but it helps a lot more to give each role some area of expertise that the other roles don't intrude upon.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> *Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying*.




Ok, lets start with the obvious answer: Duh!

However, role-playing is a bit of a easy-out answer. For example...

Why have 25+ classes? Why not have four: Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller?

Why not have one "defender" class, and allow ME to decide if his marks work through arcane insight, martial prowess, or divine wrath? I can pretend my "defender" is a battle-heartened mercenary captain, a crusading champion of goodness from the City of Greyhawk, or heir to 1,000 years of study into the mind and its inner mysteries, right? Similarly, a "Controller" class could be done and allow ME to decide if I'm using divine light, arcane bolts, mind bullets, or the siphoned power of a demonic lord to fuel my 1d6+Stat and Stun power, right?

Heck, by that logic, why don't powers serve a unitary function? Since its all "roleplaying" why don't I just name all my powers and describe their function? Why call a power "Tide of Iron" when I could be using a shield, a wall of force, the power of Spirit Bear, or a really cleverly placed bananna peal to make my foe stumble backwards. Just call it "slde back" and be done.

...

Of course, that's not how D&D has EVER worked. Role-playing is great for describing your PC, who they are, what they think etc, but its NEVER replaced the need to diverse character classes that model your character mechanically. Its the reason even OD&D didn't make one supplement without introducing the Thief and Druid class. 

Is it too much to ask that not all characters use these cookie-cutter options and rely on the player to make them special snowflakes? Judging from PHB3 and Essentials, I think I know WotC's answer...


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 26, 2010)

mearls said:


> Putting everyone on the same schedule of powers can help, but it helps a lot more to give each role some area of expertise that the other roles don't intrude upon.




Mike, I would like to buy you that beer.

One of my greatest laments in 4e was how the roles pegged classes mechanically. Sure, there was some wiggle room (particularly in strikers, after PHB2) but I think giving characters unique ways of handling the same "niche" is a much better way of doing it than saying "How do you want to heal: faith, yelling, song, spirit-wolf, or alchemy? Don't matter, the mechanics are pretty much Interchangeable."

Diversity is good!


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Why have 25+ classes? Why not have four: Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller?




Well, I don't know what they're good for. If some people are to believed there is only one 4th edition class anyway, because they are all mechanically the same...

Maybe we need 25+ classes to trick people into buying more books?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Mike, I would like to buy you that beer.
> 
> One of my greatest laments in 4e was how the roles pegged classes mechanically. Sure, there was some wiggle room (particularly in strikers, after PHB2) but I think giving characters unique ways of handling the same "niche" is a much better way of doing it than saying "How do you want to heal: faith, yelling, song, spirit-wolf, or alchemy? Don't matter, the mechanics are pretty much Interchangeable."
> 
> Diversity is good!




Mechanics =/= diversity. I'd also point out that its just pretty much totally hyperbolic to claim that all powers are nearly identical. Sure, your basic at-will melee weapon attack powers are not all going to be vastly different, but there is still a pretty amazing amount of diversity. Cleave is different from Twin Strike is different from Piercing Strike. The thing is this isn't even the main dimension of diversity. You can't isolate a single specific mechanic of similar 4e classes as what makes them different, its the whole synergistic package. Sure, a bow ranger and a warlock may each have a d6 striker bonus, but they have different class features and different powers that make these things DIFFERENT. And lets not kid ourselves, really how many different ways were there for a melee combatant to work in 3.x? Not every fighter was the same, but neither is every 4e fighter the same. I just don't buy your argument AT ALL, nay I reject it lock, stock, and barrel.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 26, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Its the reason even OD&D didn't make one supplement without introducing the Thief and Druid class.



Druids appeared in supplement three. Just saying...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Indeed. The real crux of the issue is: overshadowed by how much? Dominating by how much?
> 
> Don't forget that in 4E, the difference isn't between zero and forty or more daily powers. It's more like _possibly_ zero (if a paragon path without daily powers exists, and the knight has _absolutely_ no once-per-day type abilities) and four.



Only time will tell.  The number of spells in 4e is less, but the phenomenon of the 30-second adventuring day was never about blowing all your spells, it was about blowing a couple of your most potent spells in an unstoppable combo.

You can 'nova' like that in 4e with a daily or two, just not quite as dramatically.  And, more importantly for class balance, everyone can do it to an extent.  


It does depend very much on how the limitted-use of dailies is balanced vs the unlimitted-use abilities of classes that lack them.  In 3.x, limitted use powers, even when you had a lot of 'em, were balance by being /very/ powerful compared to unlimitted-use ones.  Clearly, Visions of Avarice beats the holy heck out of Footwork Lure, but I don't think it's to quite the degree that Disentegrate outclassed Weapon Specialization.


The good news is that, even if the Knight is outclassed, we still have the Fighter.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 27, 2010)

Y'know, I was thinking today that there are quite a few monsters whose attack prevents characters from using anything but a basic attack, and the knight will be unaffected by them.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Mechanics =/= diversity. I'd also point out that its just pretty much totally hyperbolic to claim that all powers are nearly identical. Sure, your basic at-will melee weapon attack powers are not all going to be vastly different, but there is still a pretty amazing amount of diversity. Cleave is different from Twin Strike is different from Piercing Strike. The thing is this isn't even the main dimension of diversity. You can't isolate a single specific mechanic of similar 4e classes as what makes them different, its the whole synergistic package. Sure, a bow ranger and a warlock may each have a d6 striker bonus, but they have different class features and different powers that make these things DIFFERENT. And lets not kid ourselves, really how many different ways were there for a melee combatant to work in 3.x? Not every fighter was the same, but neither is every 4e fighter the same. I just don't buy your argument AT ALL, nay I reject it lock, stock, and barrel.




Cool, we'll agree to disagree. 

As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...
a.) Fought Sword and Board, defending allies.
b.) Went Two-handed, power-attack and massive damage.
c.) Spring-Attacked into-and-out-of combat.
d.) Dual-Wielded two blades.
e.) Dealt massive damage in exchange to lower-to hit and defense (rogue)
f.) Raged, improving his physical scores. (barbarian).
g.) Used Smites and Divine spells to boost combat ability (paladin).
h.) Used Hexes and debuffs to weaken foes (hexblade)
i.) Did extra damage when he moved around the battlefield (scout)
j.) Didn't need strength to be effective (swashbuckler/duelist and somewhat rogue)
k.) Could strike multiple times per day with his bare hands, dealing damage equal to steal weapons and perhaps stunning his foes while doing so (monk). 
l.) Could use a powers system like spellcasting to augment powerful attacks (Tome of Battle classes)
m.) Could quickly cast offensive spells while fighting in melee (duskblade)

Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e. 

A  different way to do things (in case I don't like the way one class does it) is all I'm asking, and it looks like I might be getting it.


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.



Do you seriously want to tell people that a 3rd edition Ranger and a 3rd edition Warlock are completely different, while a 4th edition Ranger and Warlock are pretty much the same class? If that's the case, I want my two-weapon Warlock and my Beastmaster Warlock and I want them NOW. And I want my ranger's pet landshark to shoot frickin laser Infernal beams!
Mearls, deliver!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Cool, we'll agree to disagree.
> 
> As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...
> a.) Fought Sword and Board, defending allies.
> ...




You're right there is an immeasurable gulf there, if the distinguishing feature of classes was how often they could use their best trick then indeed all 4e classes are identical! lol.

I note I can build every single one of the things you mention above in 4e. And if you come to the table and play your warlock like a bow ranger in my game he's likely to get his butt kicked. It doesn't even make sense, they have radically different powers even though they are both strikers.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

Hey, people wanted to know how people could view 4e's classes as "samey". I gave you examples. You have every right to reject my examples, but keep this in mind...

1.) PHB3 and Essentials BOTH show that there was some call for mechanical diversity between classes. Psionics was a test run, Essentials (so far) has let the cat out the bag.
2.) If everything was hunky-dory in will/encounter/daily-ville, I doubt we'd be seeing such a radical change for a basic set. Moreover, we'd probably just see a few predefined builds using the existing power-structure, so as to integrate better with the previous materials, Char Builder, etc.
3.) They wouldn't be trying to appeal not only to new players BUT ALSO to lapsed players such as myself who quit after PHB2 and is quite happy to be running Pathfinder. 

Essentials has me excited about D&D/4e for the first time since PHB2 (at which time, I found I was have less fun playing 4e than I was 3e). Still, if I'm wrong, I guess I can continue to give my money to Paizo...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I can't WAIT to see what the rogue does!




It's going to "do damage" with a sneak attack/backstab mechanic, and have a bunch of miscellaneous "thief" abilities to go along with that. It will be ruinously boring.


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> It's going to "do damage" with a sneak attack/backstab mechanic, and have a bunch of miscellaneous "thief" abilities to go along with that. It will be ruinously boring.




Some people judge classes based on how they play.
Some people judge classes by how they look when played by others.
Some people judge classes by what they look like on paper.
Some people judge classes by a half-baked preview.
You... well I don't know, I guess you're psychic or something, and probably regenerate unless you take fire and acid damage.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.



I liked your first couple of posts on this topic, but with this one I think you've overreached.

In a certain sense I can play a 3E wizard like a 3E fighter - engaging foes in close combat and trying to hit them with my staff - but as a strategy it will become obviously unsuccessful within the first couple of rounds of play.

The same is true for the archer ranger and the warlock. The archer ranger is (in my exprience) very easy to play just by pointing and shooting. The warlock, on the other hand, has to do all sorts of tricky stuff to make up for its poorer baseline damage, for example by taking advantage of the possibilities for mobility opened up by its shadowwalk, its Misty Step and Eyebite (in the case of a Feylock), etc. Played like an archer ranger a warlock will be obviously inferior.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2010)

mkill said:


> I*Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying*



Personally I'm not all that interested in this as the measure of PC difference. If the PCs are different, I want this reflected in the mechanics.

Now, there are all sorts of ways of reflecting this difference in the mechanics - 3E at-will fighter vs Vancian mage is one, 4e Tide of Iron vs Thunderwave is another - and as it happens I'm quite partial to the 4e approach. (Although there are other non-D&D ways of doing it that I also quite like, such as Rolemaster.)

One way of cashing out my desire for mechanics to matter is this example: if part of my PC's background is that I'm a grubby street urchin, then the rules of the game should reflect this when I attempt a skill challenge invovling infiltrating the Duke's castle (eg the mechanics should make it easier for me to infiltrate via the scullery than the throneroom - the game shouldn't simply rely on me to make that choice because it is consistent with my background). Conversely, if my PC is a titled member of the nobility, that should make it harder for my PC to successfully use Stealth in the same skill challenge.

And whether I infiltrate by using Stealth, or via the scullery, or via the throneroom, should in turn make a difference to how the encounter plays out.

Of games I'm familiar with, the ones that make this sort of mechanical differentiation most front-and-centre are 4e (in combat, and to a very high degree with both tactical and roleplaying ramifications), and HeroQuest and Hubris Games's Maelstrom (in the full range of encounters, but at a more abstract level of resolution than 4e combat). Outside of combat 4e can approximate to the approach that I like if skill challenges are used in a certain way, but the actual support for this approach from the skill challenge rules themselves is a bit underdeveloped, at least at this stage of the game's development. (Although I think it is better supported than many critics of skill challenges assert - especially post-DMG 2.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2010)

mearls said:


> Regardless of how a wizard uses his powers, he can't duplicate the knight's ability to lock down monsters and hold them back. The real problems in terms of balance come up when class X is strictly better than class Y at almost everything, to the point that the "smart" move (in terms of overcoming obstacles) is to call on X whenever possible.



Interesting.  That would explain how you can get away with giving Controllers such remarkable potent at-wills and versatile utilities compared, say to Defenders.  I'm still not sure I entirely see it, but it's interesting.

Still, you have to retain class balance within each role.  If the Knight isn't up to snuff, it'll be ignored and people will keep playing Fighters.  If the Knight is able to compete with Fighters, Swordmages and the like in circumstances where they get to make liberal use of their dailies, it'll overshadow them when the dailies run out or need to be conserved.  

You'll have balance like you had in 1e and 3e - balanced in the long run, on average, but with big situational and campaign-specific swings that can include one class or another sucking or dominating throughout a given campaign.  A much less robust sort of balance.



> Putting everyone on the same schedule of powers can help, but it helps a lot more to give each role some area of expertise that the other roles don't intrude upon.



The same 'schedule of powers' puts everyone on the same resource-management footing, which made the classes much better balanced and the DMs job much easier.  

Backsliding and giving different classes radically different resource-management issues would make the game harder for you to balance - and harder for each DM to keep balanced.

Hopefully, Essentials will be more along the lines of what we've seen of the Mage and Warpriest so far - edging a bit towards the classics, but mainly in feel - and the Knight's yet-to-be-detailed features will turn out to put it on more even footing with 4e classes like the Fighter, in terms of both overall effectiveness and resource-management.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...



Seems like these are all doable in 4e, too.

The main difference is that in 4e, there's generally a very clear build that lets you do something from level one on, while in 3.x you often had to craft an unintuitive build that only 'matured' at some later level.



> a.) Fought Sword and Board, defending allies.



Defender Fighter or Paladin.


> b.) Went Two-handed, power-attack and massive damage.



Greatweapon Fighter or Barbarian (or Avenger, for that matter).


> c.) Spring-Attacked into-and-out-of combat.



Rogue does quite a bit of this.


> d.) Dual-Wielded two blades.



TWF Ranger, Tempest Fighter.


> e.) Dealt massive damage in exchange to lower-to hit and defense (rogue)



OK, you got me, here, nothing sucks quite that hard in 4e.  You don't have to give up much to-hit to get in good damage.  Afterall, giving up to-hit to do 'more damage' can very easily do /less/ damage throughput.


> f.) Raged, improving his physical scores. (barbarian).



Well, barbarians do still rage.  And, there's Battlerager fighters.  


> g.) Used Smites and Divine spells to boost combat ability (paladin).



They're called 'prayers,' now, but aside from that Paladins, Clerics and Avengers can all do that.


> h.) Used Hexes and debuffs to weaken foes (hexblade)



The Warlock certainly curses & debuffs enemies pretty nastily.  A Scourge Warlock does so while weathering melee, and a pact blade can be a shortsword or rapier if you want the sword-wielding feel.


> i.) Did extra damage when he moved around the battlefield (scout)



Well, some /monsters/ do that now.     The Ranger does this indirectly.  With HQ going on the nearest target and Prime Shot, mobility to get in close and out again is a feature of the class.


> j.) Didn't need strength to be effective (swashbuckler/duelist and somewhat rogue)



Thanks to melee training, that's everyone.  Rogue, big time, if you like DEX, though.    


> k.) Could strike multiple times per day with his bare hands, dealing damage equal to steal weapons and perhaps stunning his foes while doing so (monk).



Monk's still beating on people with his bare hands.  The Brawling Fighter can do a bit of that, too, and some fun grappling moves.


> l.) Could use a powers system like spellcasting to augment powerful attacks (Tome of Battle classes)



  ToB was a warm-up to 4e, which has Stances, encounters and dailies to beef up melee performance quite nicely.


> m.) Could quickly cast offensive spells while fighting in melee (duskblade)



Heck, wizards can cast spells in melee (Close spells, like Thunderwave).  The Swordmage is the more obvious analog, though.

All the archetypes you mention are covered.  They're done with fewer, more flexible mechanics (like keywords), and with much better balance across classes.

One thing 3.x did well that 4e doesn't, on the melee front, though, is the 'tactical reach fighter' or 'battlefield control' build.  I'm surprised you missed that.  



> Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus.



 Which went a long way towards hopelessly breaking 3.x, too.  Each new mechanic potentially interacts with each prior mechanic to spawn broken combos and system breakdowns.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 27, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> All the archetypes you mention are covered.  They're done with fewer, more flexible mechanics (like keywords), and with much better balance across classes.
> 
> One thing 3.x did well that 4e doesn't, on the melee front, though, is the 'tactical reach fighter' or 'battlefield control' build.  I'm surprised you missed that.




Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape. Its a very cute build and despised by DMs the world over. Does take 10 levels to get fully baked though.



> Which went a long way towards hopelessly breaking 3.x, too.  Each new mechanic potentially interacts with each prior mechanic to spawn broken combos and system breakdowns.




THIS is the key really. 3.x certainly had PLENTY of 'mechanical diversity' but the problem was 80% of the stuff in the books either ended up being horribly broken or utterly ineffective. It was a system filled with bad choices and I honestly think the whole reason 4e HAD to come along and do what it has done is that 3.x just collapsed under its own weight. 4e is up to 30+ books and shows no sign of breaking down. I'm not trying to bash 3.x, but just saying it sort of inevitably failed in the end.

Ultimately all I know is that the dwarf greataxe fighter, the battle cleric, the brawny rogue, the starlock, and the human wizard in my game all play totally differently. In fact the players main challenge in combat I think has been figuring out just how different the melee types actually are. They spent months trying to play them all like they were pre-4e fighters before the players realized each class played totally differently. Likewise the wizard player and the warlock player had to learn just how totally different their powers were. I really don't think 2 'arcane' 3.x spellcasters would feel so different.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I liked your first couple of posts on this topic, but with this one I think you've overreached.
> 
> In a certain sense I can play a 3E wizard like a 3E fighter - engaging foes in close combat and trying to hit them with my staff - but as a strategy it will become obviously unsuccessful within the first couple of rounds of play.
> 
> The same is true for the archer ranger and the warlock. The archer ranger is (in my exprience) very easy to play just by pointing and shooting. The warlock, on the other hand, has to do all sorts of tricky stuff to make up for its poorer baseline damage, for example by taking advantage of the possibilities for mobility opened up by its shadowwalk, its Misty Step and Eyebite (in the case of a Feylock), etc. Played like an archer ranger a warlock will be obviously inferior.




Eh, you're probably right. When I said that, I didn't mean "use the exact same strategies" rather "target, shoot, move" which seemed to be the common thread when I saw an archer and a starlock in play. Granted, both were at low-levels (5th) and their were differences in subtle strategy (movement, reactions, melee backup, but mostly whether it was Twin Strike or Eldrich Blast being spammed).

And yes, its perfectly possible to play a paladin as a sub-opt fighter in 3e too.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 27, 2010)

mkill said:


> I really don't get the whole "sameness" discussion. I disagree on a very deep, very basic level:
> 
> *Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying*





That works and works well in rules light games.  In Dread, no two characters are mechanically different.  On the other hand, for rules heavy games at their focal points it sucks.



> Does it really make a PC more differnt from another that his ressources are distributed by day instead of by round?




Yes.  It means that he needs to play a resource management game and worry about what'll happen later in the day.



> What about... His name? His background? His backstory? The way his appearance is described? ...  His battlecries? His small and big personality quirks? His beliefs and dreams, his goals in life, his philosophy? His way of speaking?




These are all not hardcoded into the rule system and therefore fit the rules-light comment above.



> The way you describe his attacks?




In D&D combat is a focal point of the rules.  And it helps differentiate characters if they are mechanically different.  If your attacks move people around or smash them to their knees, of _course_ you describe them differently because they do fundamentally different things.  Conversely if they don't move people around, describing them as doing so is silly.



> There is only one way that a Swordmage can play like a Shaman, and that is if you never treat your PC more than the numbers on his character sheets and he effects on his powers.




And frankly those two are so incredibly different that I want to know how you are treating them the same way even under those conditions.  Fluff isn't the only way characters differ.



> Now, I can agree that 4th edition doesn't do enough to help you create evocative descriptions at the table.




It does more than most games, simply by having powers that _do_ things beyond damage.  Just describing the physical effect leads to evocative descriptions.



> If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same to you, you need to make them different by playing them different. No fiddling with the rules will change that.




If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same, I want to know _why_.  The swordmage is a magic using duellist - the shaman does almost everything through his spirit companion.  Not only will no fiddling with the rules change that, you need to be utterly ignoring the rules in order to make them feel the same.



Remathilis said:


> Cool, we'll agree to disagree.
> 
> As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...[snip]




And almost every single one of those can be done easily in 4e.  (The exception being your summary of the rogue).  On the other hand, the Shaman and Avenger (divine unarmoured assassin who swears to beat one target to a pulp and becomes lethally accurate when he gets to take that guy behind the woodshed) are incredibly hard to do in 3e.  For that matter, so's the Brawler Fighter (think Hercules from the Legendary Journeys - sword and fist and as likely to punch people out as hit them with his sword).



> Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.




You mean a different mechanic like Combat Challenge, Divine Sanction, Covenant of Wrath, Inspiring Word, Rage, Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attack, Shadow Walk, ...

4e isn't short of different mechanics that make the classes play very differently.  What it doesn't do much is different _structures_.  Because you don't actually need them to make things very different.  (And for the record, a Warlock who tries to play like a Ranger is going to do about as well as a 3e Paladin who tries to play like a Fighter).



> A different way to do things (in case I don't like the way one class does it) is all I'm asking, and it looks like I might be getting it.




There are different ways - every type of defender defends differently.  What you mean you want is different _structures_.  Which makes things far harder to balance and keep under control.  And requires much more design and playtesting.  (Looks as if you're getting your wish - and I don't object.  But exception based design is a common paradigm for a reason).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis, I can't give you any more XP, but most of your posts are well worth it. 



> The same is true for the archer ranger and the warlock. The archer ranger is (in my exprience) very easy to play just by pointing and shooting. The warlock, on the other hand, has to do all sorts of tricky stuff to make up for its poorer baseline damage, for example by taking advantage of the possibilities for mobility opened up by its shadowwalk, its Misty Step and Eyebite (in the case of a Feylock), etc. Played like an archer ranger a warlock will be obviously inferior.




I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.

The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."

The casual player just notices that whether I have a dark pact with unpleasant forces, or a bow, I'm doing the same "point and shoot and effect" mechanics.

I know I don't care about specific power strategies or inferiority or superiority or compensating for some comparative minor difference in damage or attack rolls or eking out every +1 or whatnot.

I care about whether my warlock will have to fight and kill the things she's sworn her soul to, and whether my ranger can help my party hide in the wilderness from the orc patrol. 

Some people see a +2 Damage and see a +2 on attack rolls and see a world of difference.

Some people just see that they're both bonuses to things that make killing easier, and which one to get is a toss-up.

Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.

It's not relevant to me. I am perhaps beginning to see how it could be relevant to others.



> Seems like these are all doable in 4e, too.




You miss the point. It's not about "doable." It's about where the difference happens.

It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape. Its a very cute build and despised by DMs the world over. Does take 10 levels to get fully baked though.




Actually such a build can effectively hold monsters adjacent, but only until he drops dead now that monsters are going to turn and thump him easily. With monsters doing effective damage, the ability of such builds to shut down an encounter easily is vastly reduced - especially with the clarification to marks that they end when you drop unconscious.

It's still a good build, but multiple mark fighter builds are nowhere near as effective as they were MM3. My epic come and get it fighter drops constantly if he pulls 3 or more monsters adjacent - often due to stacking aura damage finishing him off on his own turn.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently




I'm not sure how you get that, as the Ranger is either a dedicated melee/ranged striker that attacks twice a round and the Warlock is usually a short ranged spell based striker. I can say the last time I had a Ranger vs. anything in the party I noticed, as the Ranger is one of the most effective strikers in 4E. The ranger loads up on out of turn attacks and the warlock actually has some pretty decent controller effects - so they do play inherently differently. I can't really see how you get these confused sorry.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Remathilis, I can't give you any more XP, but most of your posts are well worth it.




Same here bud. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.
> 
> The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."
> 
> ...




My point exactly KM.

I played a Cleric, Artificer, and Warlord each for a few levels (1-3 each time). Each time, I barely noticed a real, tangible difference between my healing power. Each was a minor action, usable 2/encounter, and granted a Healing Surge plus some rider (1d6, or stat bonus, or both). There was some differences here and there as to what exactly my power did, but all three of them ended up doing the same thing, spamming at will attacks (occasionally using his encounter power) and using healing power when a ally got bloody.

My fault for playing a Battle Cleric, TacLord, and Tinker artificer I guess (since all three were melee based and liked run up with the fighter-types) but I saw little difference in how all three got played except for exchanging a slide for a +2 bonus, etc. I can certainly tell you my Cleric and Artificer in 3e didn't feel alike though!


----------



## MerricB (Jul 28, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I'm not sure how you get that, as the Ranger is either a dedicated melee/ranged striker that attacks twice a round and the Warlock is usually a short ranged spell based striker. I can say the last time I had a Ranger vs. anything in the party I noticed, as the Ranger is one of the most effective strikers in 4E. The ranger loads up on out of turn attacks and the warlock actually has some pretty decent controller effects - so they do play inherently differently. I can't really see how you get these confused sorry.




I have the same player playing a Warlock in one campaign and a Ranger in another. The two characters work entirely differently. Sure, they're both strikers, but the way they implement it feels very different. The Warlock has large doses of control - dominating opponents, slowing them down, or causing them to hang 30 feet in the air... or occasionally going on minion-destroying teleport jags - whilst the Ranger stays even further away and just hits things for lots.

Cheers!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape.



I wasn't impressed with Polearm Gamble, and it's Paragon level, like the two reach-focused PPs.  There's a feat to let your Close Weapon attacks use your weapon's reach, but it's Epic.  That's what I meant about the builds being late-maturing.  A 3e reach fighter could have some meaningful functionality from 1st level on.

Oh, and Tide of Iron: how does the galive-wielder get around the shield requirement?



> I honestly think the whole reason 4e HAD to come along and do what it has done is that 3.x just collapsed under its own weight. 4e is up to 30+ books and shows no sign of breaking down. I'm not trying to bash 3.x, but just saying it sort of inevitably failed in the end.



Yep.  I honestly think it's a natural life-cycle of RPGs.  Core rules sell well, suplements less so as time goes on.  Games start out with not enough material, quickly get enough, then start having unintended synergies and eventually collapse under their own weight.  

It happened to 3.x, 2e and BECMI, for that matter.  The only thing that saved 1e AD&D was the slow release of new books (what was it, maybe one or two a year?), but that has it's own problems - the system was notorious for variants, house ruled or from the pages of The Dragon, that made characters (and often players) from one campaign incompatible with those from others.

Anyway, some systems are resistant to the problem.  The more effects-based ones, like Hero, don't add many, if any, new rules in their suplements, just new aplications of existing ones.  Hero still puts out a new ed every 10 years, but I'm convinced it's solely to boost sales.  4e, with it's recyclable keywords and level progression scheme had some resistance to the rules-overload problem.  But, it seem Essentials may be out to change that.  

So, while Essentials may not be 4.5, it may well grease the rails to get us to 5e that much sooner...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I care about whether my warlock will have to fight and kill the things she's sworn her soul to, and whether my ranger can help my party hide in the wilderness from the orc patrol.



'Probably not,' and 'yes,' are the answers to those questions.  

The Warlock will have Arcana and maybe Thievery or Bluff or something like that, while the Ranger will tend to have Perception, Nature, and Stealth.  The ranger will likely have either Athletics or Acrobatics.  The Warlock will likely suck at both of those, but perhaps be able to Teleport. 

The Ranger will emphasize STR and/or DEX and WIS.  The Warlock, CON and/or CHA and INT.

If you just look at thier stats, they couldn't easily be more different.  One's strangely compelling and/or possessed of inhuman vitality, and cunning or even brilliant.  The other evinces cat-like grace or bear-like strength and the quiet awareness of the hunter or zen master.  

Then, one is an arcanist who makes freakish things happen to enemies he curses, while the other is a woodsy archer or warrior who tracks, stalks and kills like a predator at one with the wilderness.


So, /unless/ you're getting hung up on fairly specific mechanics, I don't see where you're getting samey from.




> Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.



Hey, if the mechanical differences aren't that important to you, then the mechanical similarities shouldn't be, either.  You should be focusing on the stuff, above, instead of the bland mechanical fact of being a ranged striker.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2010)

> The Warlock will have Arcana and maybe Thievery or Bluff or something like that, while the Ranger will tend to have Perception, Nature, and Stealth. The ranger will likely have either Athletics or Acrobatics. The Warlock will likely suck at both of those, but perhaps be able to Teleport.
> 
> If you just look at thier stats, they couldn't easily be more different. One's strangely compelling and/or possessed of inhuman vitality, and cunning or even brilliant. The other evinces cat-like grace or bear-like strength and the quiet awareness of the hunter or zen master.
> 
> Then, one is an arcanist who makes freakish things happen to enemies he curses, while the other is a woodsy archer or warrior who tracks, stalks and kills like a predator at one with the wilderness.




But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter. In play, the major difference is fiddly bits. Okay, my Warlock teleports 3 squares, and my Ranger shifts 3 squares, and the distinction between the two doesn't pop up often enough to be relevant. 



> Hey, if the mechanical differences aren't that important to you, then the mechanical similarities shouldn't be, either. You should be focusing on the stuff, above, instead of the bland mechanical fact of being a ranged striker.




Nah, the "casual player" approach that I'm coming from does care about mechanics.

It's just that the differences have to be greater than "shift 3" and "teleport 3."

A difference like "Every attack I make obliterates my foes" and "I use powerful spells, but can only use so many of them in a day before I'm spent."

The flavor needs to be backed up with big mechanical differences.

If I've got inhuman vitality, I should be able to persist in destroying my enemies even when my body is broken beyond recognition. This isn't an extra 5 hp. This is a character who can continue to battle even after 0 hp.

If I've got a hunter's awareness, I should be able to pierce an enemy's camouflage. This isn't an extra +2 to attack rolls, this is "you cannot hide from me."

Minor differences in numbers and effects aren't significant enough to be noticed by players whose style isn't so attentive to the subtle differences between shift and teleport, or attack bonus and damage bonus, or invisible and hidden.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter. In play, the major difference is fiddly bits. Okay, my Warlock teleports 3 squares, and my Ranger shifts 3 squares, and the distinction between the two doesn't pop up often enough to be relevant.




Teleportation is always better than a Shift. There are very few exceptions to this and the difference between teleporting and shifting is huge. If you can't see why shifting isn't as good as teleporting, try playing 4E on non-planet bowling ball? 



> It's just that the differences have to be greater than "shift 3" and "teleport 3."




That is a massive difference.



> The flavor needs to be backed up with big mechanical differences.




Not to pick on your example, but if you can't see teleporting is a massive mechanical advantage over shifting you're never going to be convinced of anything.



> If I've got inhuman vitality, I should be able to persist in destroying my enemies even when my body is broken beyond recognition. This isn't an extra 5 hp. This is a character who can continue to battle even after 0 hp.




Such characters exist, Revenants and Warforged I think can both get feats that let them continue doing this.

But again, this isn't something given to you for a free lunch, you need to pay for such advantages.



> If I've got a hunter's awareness, I should be able to pierce an enemy's camouflage. This isn't an extra +2 to attack rolls, this is "you cannot hide from me."




There are such abilities in 4E, but you pay for them.

We're not going back to the days where people got obscenely overpowered things and pretended "roleplaying" balanced them.



> subtle differences between shift and teleport




Every time you claim this, I die a little inside.

Do you play on planet bowling ball with no terrain? Monsters that do nothing to shifting or movement (like immobilize). Never seen a monster that restrains or grabs? I mean, this is the WORST possible example you could pick. The differences between teleporting and shifting are ginormous. When you throw terrain, monsters and effects into this it's nowhere near "subtle" in terms of differences.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.
> 
> The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."
> 
> ...



I haven't played enough 3E to have a really good sense of how a warlock and an archer ranger would compare in that system - but wouldn't both be making repeated ranged attacks in combat, doing damage and the occasional status effect?

Anyway, I don't think the difference between the 4e ranger and warlock is mythical. In combat, they played differently at my table. Out of combat they played differently also - as someone else posted, Perception and Nature for the ranger versus Arcana and Bluff for the warlock.

And as to whether the warlock's dark pace will become a focus of the game - neither 3E nor 4e has any mechanics to force this issue (contrast Sorcerer, for example). But I'd be surprised if a 3E GM who was able to bring those aspects of the PCs to life in the course of the game couldn't do the same in 4e - and I don't feel that I've had any trouble doing it in my game.

EDIT:



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter.



Our play experiences are quite different, then. In my game there is a big difference between a PC with Bluff and one with Nature - they take the lead in different circumstances, and approach challenges in quite different ways.

And in combat it is the same. Different PCs approach the challenge in quite different ways.

Maybe it's because my RPGing experiences for the past 20 years have been mostly with non-D&D games, but I don't feel that a difference has to be as marked as "longsword 1d8" vs "fireball 5d6" to be noticeable.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2010)

> Not to pick on your example, but if you can't see teleporting is a massive mechanical advantage over shifting you're never going to be convinced of anything.




The difference obvious to a gearhead is not obvious or even important to a casual player.

Let's tell a parable.

A woman is shopping for a shade of nail polish. She can choose between "pleasantly pink" and "bubblegum." The salesperson and her both recognize there is a big difference between the two colors, and talk about details like shine and shimmer and eggshell texture and youthful glow and dignified impressions, but when she asks her loutish husband for advice, he says "They're both friggin' pink." 

The loutish husband, later that night, is trying to figure out what TV show to watch. He's really interested in two shows, one called "Street Justice" and one called "Vigilante Squad." They're on opposite each other, and he, being a lout, hasn't figured out how to work his TiVo. He debates the two options in his head, and the ads try to sell it to him using words like "gritty" or "real" or "thrilling" or "suspenseful" and gunshot noises and pictures of tense-looking people staring at each other in poor lighting in cement buildings. When he asks his wife which one he should watch, she says, "I thought they were the same show."

The difference between a shift and a teleport is the difference between Pleasantly Pink and Bubblegum, or the difference between Street Justice and Vigilante Squad. A gearhead knows them, thinks they're obvious, is flummoxed by anybody who doesn't get it. But your casual participant has no idea, and, what's more, doesn't think it's worth it to get an idea, since it *doesn't frikkin' matter*. They're both pink. They're both shows about cops. They're both "I get to move." All the differences are situational blahbittyblah.



> But again, this isn't something given to you for a free lunch, you need to pay for such advantages.
> ...
> We're not going back to the days where people got obscenely overpowered things and pretended "roleplaying" balanced them.




Who asked to?

I'm asking for significant mechanical differences. Looks like Essentials is delivering. I now get to watch cop dramas, AND sitcoms. I now get to pick pink nail polish, AND red nail polish. 



> Do you play on planet bowling ball with no terrain? Monsters that do nothing to shifting or movement (like immobilize). Never seen a monster that restrains or grabs? I mean, this is the WORST possible example you could pick. The differences between teleporting and shifting are ginormous. When you throw terrain, monsters and effects into this it's nowhere near "subtle" in terms of differences.




I actually think it was one of the better ones, since it clearly illustrates that there's a *vast gulf* between what you think of as different, and what I think of as different (and what many people looking at D&D for the first time will see as different is probably even a few pegs up from what I do, since I'm kind of a gearhead about this game).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I actually think it was one of the better ones, since it clearly illustrates that there's a *vast gulf* between what you think of as different, and what I think of as different (and what many people looking at D&D for the first time will see as different is probably even a few pegs up from what I do, since I'm kind of a gearhead about this game).




I'm no gearhead, I'm a role player! Maybe its something that 3.x did that spoiled people but in OD&D/BECMI/AD&D the differences between characters were nada, zippo grande. You had 4 basic classes. They worked EXACTLY the same in melee and some of them cast spells, which were different spells but still spells. I think my point is we don't need mechanics to RP, and if you play OD&D you BETTER not need numbers to make your characters stand out cause you got mighty few of them to go on and most of them didn't do diddly mechanically.


----------



## mkill (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I played a Cleric, Artificer, and Warlord each for a few levels (1-3 each time). Each time, I barely noticed a real, tangible difference between my healing power. Each was a minor action, usable 2/encounter, and granted a Healing Surge plus some rider (1d6, or stat bonus, or both). There was some differences here and there as to what exactly my power did, but all three of them ended up doing the same thing, spamming at will attacks (occasionally using his encounter power) and using healing power when a ally got bloody.




Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway. 

The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I haven't played enough 3E to have a really good sense of how a warlock and an archer ranger would compare in that system - but wouldn't both be making repeated ranged attacks in combat, doing damage and the occasional status effect?
> .




A warlock had class features related to his eldricht lineage. A ranger had nature spells, a companion and track utilities.

Eldricht blast could become an area attack. Ranger could poison his arrows. Mechanics for this were different, kind of damage they dealt (physical, magic) was relevant. Monsters resistances and immunities, damage reduction made them more real, increased immersion. *Gameworld mechanics made them feel different. *

Be pinned to a wall by a ranged pin arrow from that complete warrior feat, be nauseated by the blast - it felt different. Warlocks were able to become a swarm of critters, rangers had heling spells. Warlock spell- likes caused attacks of opportunity.

Standard action and full attacks were different. And.. do you think that the two classes worked the same way in an Anti-Magic Field?

Seriously, that was really a bad example for an argumentation. The two classes felt really different, and mechanics were made to be sure their interaction with the gameworld assured this feel.

I'm quite surprised by the fact that people feel very different shift 3 and teleport 3 (indeed, they ARE) and feel same-y 3.5 ranged Ranger and Warlock


----------



## mkill (Jul 28, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> I'm quite surprised by the fact that people feel very different shift 3 and teleport 3




Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.

And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway.
> 
> The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?



Meh. Why exclude him from the entire discussion or edition? 

Remalithis played D&D 4. If he didn't see the difference between Ranger and Warlock, maybe he's just not the kind of person to give weight to the differences that you or me value. 
That doesn't mean that D&D Essentials could give him the type of differences that he gives weight to.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.
> 
> And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?




 you are right - teh internet tends to overreact .

Nevertheless, it's likely that people complaining about blink elves were not Kaiyanwang, or Remathillis. The latter EVEN said that jumped happily into 4th edition, at the beginning IIRC (Remathillis, correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is that yeah, classes in 4th are quite different, but in 3rd they were MORE. For most 4th edition players _the way_ they are different now is a feature, because of gamestyle and balance and other things they like of 4th edition.

But I explained above how in 3rd edition _the system _ and _the gameworld_ made them different. For someone this kind of attention  was not relevant, but for ME it was.

And WotC completeli FAILED to reproduce this kind of attention in 4th, or at least to put an accent on it. Of course, this is, again, a feature for most, but for me is not. 

So, you must accept that people can feel this sameness. So:

 Blink Elves ---> Good. 

 Samey Classes---- > Bad 

 Mechanics of the Gameworld not Helping  -----> Bad


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm no gearhead, I'm a role player! Maybe its something that 3.x did that spoiled people but in OD&D/BECMI/AD&D the differences between characters were nada, zippo grande. You had 4 basic classes. They worked EXACTLY the same in melee and some of them cast spells, which were different spells but still spells. I think my point is we don't need mechanics to RP, and if you play OD&D you BETTER not need numbers to make your characters stand out cause you got mighty few of them to go on and most of them didn't do diddly mechanically.



Sorry, can't give you xp but you said it brother.

Yeah, I think 3.x did ruin people and created the need for numbers for everything.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.
> 
> The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."
> 
> The casual player just notices that whether I have a dark pact with unpleasant forces, or a bow, I'm doing the same "point and shoot and effect" mechanics.




But this means that the casual player isn't just a casual player, he's an inattentive one.  So inattentive as to be unable to tell the difference between firing two arrows and _an attack that makes you invisible to the target_. (Or one that punishes them if you get hit, etc.)  Yes, Eldritch Blast is like a ranged basic and pretty similar to almost any other ranged basic.  But if you can't tell the fundamental difference between Eyebite and Twin Strike you aren't paying attention (or the DM isn't).  And that's without getting into the _other_ pact at wills which are even more different (other than the darkpact one).  And for a Darkpact Warlock, the matter of soul fragments swirling around the body and punishing people for hitting them is non-trivial.

This isn't +1 gearhead stuff.  It's fundamental.  It's near-ubiquitous.  And if casual players aren't picking up on even that much, I wonder what they _are_ picking up on.



> Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.




And even people who don't see numbers should be able to tell the difference between _invisibility_ and a second arrow.  Or between _automatically burning the enemy if he gets closer_ and a melee attack to provide a distraction to slip out of combat (to pick the only at will that really complements Twin Strike for an archer ranger).



> It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.
> 
> It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently




What the hell sort of Warlock did you have?  That said, for all the lovely fluff on a Warlock, it's a real gearhead class if you want to get much out of it.



Tony Vargas said:


> I wasn't impressed with Polearm Gamble, and it's Paragon level, like the two reach-focused PPs. There's a feat to let your Close Weapon attacks use your weapon's reach, but it's Epic. That's what I meant about the builds being late-maturing. A 3e reach fighter could have some meaningful functionality from 1st level on.
> 
> Oh, and Tide of Iron: how does the galive-wielder get around the shield requirement?




Reach controllers are mostly Paragon and there's much more than Polearm Gamble.  For a proper reach controller you need:

Longarm Student (Heroic tier feat - because you're right, you can't Tide of Iron with a polearm - but Longarm Student adds a push to cleave).
Polearm Gamble
Polearm Momentum - anyone you push 2 squares with a polearm is knocked prone
Heavy Blade Opportunity - Use an At Will (i.e. cleave for the push) on opportunity attacks
Spear Push (or just a ring of the ram) to add a square to the one square push on Cleave.

...  And the enemies go flying whenever they try to get anywhere near you.

But honestly, you don't _need_ this for a basic polearm controller.  Marking is a debuff.  Mark and push - and then move elsewhere.  Or lure the enemy in with a mark.  You have meaningful functionality from marking + reach alone.



Kaiyanwang said:


> My point is that yeah, classes in 4th are quite different, but in 3rd they were MORE. For most 4th edition players _the way_ they are different now is a feature, because of gamestyle and balance and other things they like of 4th edition.




Really?  So a sorceror was more different from a wizard in 3e than 4e when they had the exact same spell list?  And the wizard's memorised casting was functionally no different from clerical casting (other than the spontaneous heals and the almost irrelevant turns).  Did they feel different?  (If they did, then where's the 4e issue here?)

And before fifth level (and the Pokemount) I'll call the 3e Fighter, the Barbarian, and the Paladin less different than a brawler fighter, a battlerager fighter using daily stances, and a sword and board/tide of iron fighter with a warlord multiclass feat and whatever the L2 Endurance Skill Power is called.

Now I'll gladly accept that spellcasters were different from non-casters.  And some of the classes that showed up very late in the day (Warlocks, Artificers, Magic of Incarnum, Book of Nine Swords) were different again.



> But I explained above how in 3rd edition _the system _and _the gameworld_ made them different. For someone this kind of attention was not relevant, but for ME it was.




And for me there's far _more_ difference, precisely because you _don't_ have to look at the numbers.  You look at what's happening on the map.  Thunderwave is not Burning Hands and a single glance at the battlemat can show the difference in a way it can't between Burning Hands and Fireball.  And Tide of Iron is not Brash Assault - and both say a lot about how the person with them function.



> And WotC completeli FAILED to reproduce this kind of attention in 4th, or at least to put an accent on it. Of course, this is, again, a feature for most, but for me is not.
> 
> So, you must accept that people can feel this sameness. So:
> 
> ...




And I once again ask why you say the classes are the same and think that the magic users or the non-magic users in 3e are not.  (Or did you really expect 4e to come out with all the variety in 3e in the very first books?)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 28, 2010)

And for the difference between classes, I'm going to walk through my level 1 Warlord (now level 5).

Human.  Battlefront Leader, Bravura Presence
At Wills: Brash Assault, Commander's Strike, Direct the Strike
Encounter: Powerful Warning
Daily: Stand the Fallen?  (I forget the name - Immediate Reaction when an ally falls below 0HP, run over to them, attack, and they get to spend a surge).
Feats: Harlequin Style, Armoured Warlord

Martel loves the carnage of battle, and making sense of its rapid rhythms.  He's very seldom the first into the fray, preferring instead to analyse it and to point out weaknesses in the opponent's defences for his allies to exploit (Direct the Strike) or to actively create them by forcing the enemy's shield off its line (Commander's Strike).  And because he takes those seconds to analyse after the combat has started, he can see what the enemy is going to do before they do it, and knows his allies fighting styles well enough to not only warn them but tell what counter to use even before the enemy has launched the attack (Powerful Warning).

That's not to say he's remotely stand-offish in combat.  He knows that he who hesitates is lost and because he understands the way the enemy moves so well, when he himself attacks he takes seemingly insane risks calculated to expose flaws in the enemy's combat styles (Brash Assault/Harlequin Style), and enemies who try to exploit his seemingly poor defences quickly find themselves entirely out of position with respect to everyone else.  Ask Martel and he'll just say that combat is risky and that he who hesitates is lost, but there's one time when his seeming recklessness is in fact true recklessness.  He saw his elder brother cut down in front of him - and the sight of one of his allies about to fall causes him to break whatever his current battleplan is and rush to their aid, irrespective of what's in the way.

There's far more to his backstory - but he plays exactly in line with the cold calculating combatant who will buy time to understand the enemy, and beat them with his head - before risking his life on his understanding of them.

Your challenge for 10: Make me an artificer or a cleric who plays anything like that.  Or anything in any previous edition.  (Start with the idea of allies rather than the PC making the majority of his attack rolls).


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Really?  So a sorceror was more different from a wizard in 3e than 4e when they had the exact same spell list?  And the wizard's memorised casting was functionally no different from clerical casting (other than the spontaneous heals and the almost irrelevant turns).  Did they feel different?  (If they did, then where's the 4e issue here?)




Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at  SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another. 

And better not start with what Pathfinder did with sorcerers.

You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook? Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.

Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). *It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.
*


> And before fifth level (and the Pokemount) I'll call the 3e Fighter, the Barbarian, and the Paladin less different than a brawler fighter, a battlerager fighter using daily stances, and a sword and board/tide of iron fighter with a warlord multiclass feat and whatever the L2 Endurance Skill Power is called.



Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).

Sure, not every thing I talked about was effective, but, in this case, again, just think about what pathfinder did.



> Now I'll gladly accept that spellcasters were different from non-casters.  And some of the classes that showed up very late in the day (Warlocks, Artificers, Magic of Incarnum, Book of Nine Swords) were different again.



We agree here - and I re-state it: I explain above from where the sameness feeling, regardless it's justified or not, comes. IMO, of course.



> And for me there's far _more_ difference, precisely because you _don't_ have to look at the numbers.  You look at what's happening on the map.  Thunderwave is not Burning Hands and a single glance at the battlemat can show the difference in a way it can't between Burning Hands and Fireball.  And Tide of Iron is not Brash Assault - and both say a lot about how the person with them function.



Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.

A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.



> And I once again ask why you say the classes are the same and think that the magic users or the non-magic users in 3e are not.  (Or did you really expect 4e to come out with all the variety in 3e in the very first books?)



I suppose not. Is far  more convenient delay popular classes like bard or barbarian for the second PH, and continuously produce errata for the Insider.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). *It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.
> *
> A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.




And here is the nut of the difference, both between us and between 3.x and 4e. The 4e rules aren't primarily about instilling anything, they are about resolving situations in the game. Players are freed up to imagine how it works, how it looks, and how it fits into the story to a degree that just didn't really exist in 3.x where much of that was pre-ordained by the designers. I'm fine with imagining all the different cool ways that my warlock works. His pact is a great RP hook. There doesn't need to be a bunch of rules explaining that if I change my alignment someone eats my face or whatever. 

Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care. 

In other words a lot of the philosophy of 4e is that less is more. Being an old time D&D I'm used to doing with a LOT less. Its like having the best of OD&D (practically total freedom to make up anything and very few numbers) with the best of 3.x (lots of mechanics to help me model what I want to do). And really ultimately combat is not everything. Even if 4e characters fight more similarly in some ways than 3.x characters did there should be a ton of other ways they are different.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care.




I couldn´t disagree more here... Some meachanical differences are welcome, otherwise it is unnecessary to have different classes and races at all...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I couldn´t disagree more here... Some meachanical differences are welcome, otherwise it is unnecessary to have different classes and races at all...




Well, there is a fine line. Every mechanical rule puts roadblocks in the way of freely combining elements to make your character work the way you envisage it. OTOH obviously everything can't work exactly like everything else or there really would be no system at all. 

I tend to think 4e is somewhat caught in a bit of an in-between point between totally free-form narrative story telling mechanics and the 3.x simulationist sort of legacy of telling you exactly how every little detail of everything was supposed to work.


----------



## Njall (Jul 28, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> My point is that the fighting style specializations did make a difference in play, and I don't consider an additional shield attack that can be used to parry an enemy attack to be a passive benefit.
> And I should add that the Complete Fighter's Handbook also introduced several combat maneuvers like disarm, pull/trip, shield rush (which required you to use a shield, of course) etc.; it wasn't just the I-hit-him-with-my-sword routine over and over.




Sorry if it took me so long to respond, I'm pretty busy this week...
Anyway: my point is that the fighting style specializations gave you "more of the same", be it one more parry, one extra attack or a +1 here and there. They didn't change the way you played, they just made you better at what you would have done anyway; take stuff like 4e's Weapon Master's Strike or Grappling Strike instead: these aren't just options, they're character defining features that help turning unique, unviable concepts into playable, interesting archetypes. 
To me, that makes a huge difference; YMMV, obviously.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2010)

> Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.
> 
> And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?




That's sort of what I'm talking about, though. If they're both pink, but one is called "kewl stylez babi," and another is called "duchess's blush," and then the company phases out one for the other, whoever liked the other is going to feel like the new pink isn't what they want to have out of nail polish.

Or, in another parable, a dude uses a deodorant that he likes. In part, he likes it because, like every good consumer, he identifies with what he purchases, and the casing has a sort of "old wood" look, it's name is Deep Forest, or something else quietly masculine, and it smells a little musky and reminds him a bit of his father, while being distinct. Then, the company changes and starts to market their product like AXE, with XTREME SPORTS DUDES and idiot commercials about how women fall out of the sky for the scent and now they've changed the name of the deodorant to something like NIGHTSPIKE. It's the same scent, but it's not the same experience, and he doesn't identify with this new face at all. So he tells his friends he thinks the new commercials are dumb and that Deep Forest was fine the way it was. 

The fact that it's just some superficial terminology changes doesn't mean that the product -- that the rule -- reflects what they want. In fact, if they see the things as basically identical, it becomes a superficial difference for superficial reasons, they realize how superficial it is to them, and they become disenchanted with both options. Lady goes to get red nail polish. Dude buys some hippie Whole Foods brand instead (and then grows a beard, but that's neither here nor there). 



			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> But this means that the casual player isn't just a casual player, he's an inattentive one. So inattentive as to be unable to tell the difference between firing two arrows and an attack that makes you invisible to the target. (Or one that punishes them if you get hit, etc.) Yes, Eldritch Blast is like a ranged basic and pretty similar to almost any other ranged basic. But if you can't tell the fundamental difference between Eyebite and Twin Strike you aren't paying attention (or the DM isn't). And that's without getting into the other pact at wills which are even more different (other than the darkpact one). And for a Darkpact Warlock, the matter of soul fragments swirling around the body and punishing people for hitting them is non-trivial.




They may be paying attention to what interests them. What interests them just happens to not be the comparative differences between two powers. They can still be interested and engaged with in other elements of the game, such as the princess that needs savin' from the dragon.



> This isn't +1 gearhead stuff. It's fundamental. It's near-ubiquitous. And if casual players aren't picking up on even that much, I wonder what they are picking up on.




Different things for different players, but remember that classes are fantasy archetypes. They're picking up on the fact that the Ranger is Legolas and that the Warlock is basically like a mythical witch. They're playing one if they want to shoot arrows all over the place into everything, they're playing the other if they want to deceive and coerce. Then they see that, deception or arrows, it all comes down to "pew pew pew" on your chosen mark.

At least, that was more or less my path. 



> And even people who don't see numbers should be able to tell the difference between invisibility and a second arrow. Or between automatically burning the enemy if he gets closer and a melee attack to provide a distraction to slip out of combat (to pick the only at will that really complements Twin Strike for an archer ranger).




Sure. But that's still just on paper. What am I doing in play? "pew pew pew" in both cases.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And here is the nut of the difference, both between us and between 3.x and 4e. The 4e rules aren't primarily about instilling anything, they are about resolving situations in the game. Players are freed up to imagine how it works, how it looks, and how it fits into the story to a degree that just didn't really exist in 3.x where much of that was pre-ordained by the designers. I'm fine with imagining all the different cool ways that my warlock works. His pact is a great RP hook. There doesn't need to be a bunch of rules explaining that if I change my alignment someone eats my face or whatever.
> 
> Really if I have a complaint about 4e, and a complaint that people have often voiced, it is that it didn't go far enough. The rules should really let me say shoot my spells from a bow and just call it an implement or let me call my weapon a mace or a flail or a hammer or whatever and not care.
> 
> In other words a lot of the philosophy of 4e is that less is more. Being an old time D&D I'm used to doing with a LOT less. Its like having the best of OD&D (practically total freedom to make up anything and very few numbers) with the best of 3.x (lots of mechanics to help me model what I want to do). And really ultimately combat is not everything. Even if 4e characters fight more similarly in some ways than 3.x characters did there should be a ton of other ways they are different.




I of course realize, as I pointed out, that different people have different tastes: but, on the same way, what I said should (could?) explain why some other people feel the sameness.

I dare to go further: if the purpose of the essentials is to call back people like me, they fail. Hard. Because there is sort of a grave misunderstanding here: One can think that I don't like fighters with dailies but I could like the knight: the problem here is that there are basic assumptions in the design of the game tham make me run away. Is not just "fighter with dailies", that maybe, if well explained...

Of course, again this is a feature for many (good game everybody!). 

Moreover, we have seen just a preview..


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 28, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another.




And power, specialisation, skill, and ritual (where relevant) choices make it possible to roll members of _any_ class in 4e that are dramatically different from one another.



> You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook?




You mean the large clunky thing that meant that with preparation time Wizards could do _anything_?



> Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.




As a PC I do not expect to have a clue how dragons cast spells.  And in some worlds they become less magical if I do things the same way.  As for receiving spells, that was cut-scene background flavour text in my experience.



> Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). *It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.*





And 4e is one hell of a lot _better_ at the mechanics interacting with the game world at a local level.  Pushes, shifts, slides, marks.  Those things matter at a local and immediate level.  "Casts spells like a dragon" is an abstract.  "Slips through the combat like an eel, avoiding opportunity attacks" or "drives the enemy backwards" is concrete.



> Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).




OK.  I'll grant 4th.  (I forgot about the Animal Companion).  But other than archers that's less variety than is in 4e fighters.  (4e Ranger might be a better fit.)  Even smite evil is a 1/day stronger attack.  A pretty generic Daily (and the spellcasting's just utilities or rituals).



> Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.




What stimulates my imagination isn't what's on the long and complex character sheet.  It's what they _do_.  How they act.  And at this micro level, At Will powers kick the arse of 3e.



> A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.




In the running the gameworld?  Agreed.  4e makes no attempt to be simulationist.



> I suppose not. Is far more convenient delay popular classes like bard or barbarian for the second PH, and continuously produce errata for the Insider.




The Bard is now popular?  Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e?  (I used to like it.  But always thought that was a minority opinion).  And as for errata, any game needs it.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.
> 
> It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently




I can see some truth to this. At the same time, I often see the situation overstated. 

I mean, look at that list by Remathilis, and some of the things mentioned: 
-Sword and Board, Two-handed Weapon and Power Attack, Spring Attackers, Dual-Wielding, Raging Barbarians, Scouts that move around the battlefield...

... and these all exist in 4E. 

You can have someone running around with an Executioner's Axe and power attack who doesn't hit as often, but does serious damage on every hit, and occasional explosive crits. 

You can have someone with sword and shield whose attacks are effective, but not as high as most, but instead has enhanced defenses. 

You can have builds that are very much based around mobility, and moving into and out of combat every round. Now it is down through powers more than feats (though feats can help), rather than via a path of feats. It is mainly confined to several specific classes, though skill powers can help. But the same concept can be built. 

Dual-Wielding characters still exist, and typically get more attacks than others for smaller damage. This happens through powers rather than feats and core rules, but again - a tangible difference is there, mechanically. 

Barbarians still rage. Rather than giving some static numerical changes, it tends to give other big explosive powers for a combat. We do have some other classes with similar types of things - stances, warden forms, etc - but each feels distinct, and each helps define that class. 

We have plenty of builds that encourage movement in 4E. And we have at least one specific one, for the ranger, that gives specific bonuses for moving an attacking, in a similar theme to the scout. 

I can understand someone complaining that Healing Word and Inspiring Word are too similar. Sure. (Though, to be fair, Cure Light Wounds from a cleric and Cure Light Wounds from a bard or druid... was still Cure Light Wounds.) 

Most classes have something unique to them, but some fundamental differences that could be established - especially in the domain of spellcasting - are gone, and you can end up with conceptually different builds than can feel similar in actual play. 

But trying to say that everything feels identical - to say that there is no difference between a 4E character using two weapons, or a big axe with power attack, or a sword and shield - but that these all felt completely different in 3.5! - just doesn't feel right. 

I can't deny him his experiences, sure. But complaints like these absolutely feel like he is either overestimating how similar everything is in 4E, or underestimating how similar it could be in any edition. I'm more than willing to admit there are plenty of areas for improvement, and making strides on this front would be something I am all for - but I also don't feel like you can really engage in genuine discussion of this when claims this exaggerated are being made.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's sort of what I'm talking about, though. If they're both pink, but one is called "kewl stylez babi," and another is called "duchess's blush," and then the company phases out one for the other, whoever liked the other is going to feel like the new pink isn't what they want to have out of nail polish.




Quick question: Are they the same pink?  Would a Duchess's Blush by any other name look just as pink?

(I say yes).



> Or, in another parable, a dude uses a deodorant that he likes. In part, he likes it because, like every good consumer, he identifies with what he purchases, and the casing has a sort of "old wood" look, it's name is Deep Forest, or something else quietly masculine, and it smells a little musky and reminds him a bit of his father, while being distinct. ... So he tells his friends he thinks the new commercials are dumb and that Deep Forest was fine the way it was.




Apparently it's then not the deoderant he wanted at all.  It's the experience of the deoderant.  It's the hipster version of culture.



> They may be paying attention to what interests them. What interests them just happens to not be the comparative differences between two powers. They can still be interested and engaged with in other elements of the game, such as the princess that needs savin' from the dragon.




OK.  So it's the entire combat system they aren't interested in. 



> Different things for different players, but remember that classes are fantasy archetypes. They're picking up on the fact that the Ranger is Legolas and that the Warlock is basically like a mythical witch. They're playing one if they want to shoot arrows all over the place into everything, they're playing the other if they want to deceive and coerce. Then they see that, deception or arrows, it all comes down to "pew pew pew" on your chosen mark.




That's only if you aren't actually using deception.  The Feylock gives you invisibility as a rider to your eyebite - and if you don't use it _you aren't using your deception_.  How do you use it?  One obvious way is to draw your pact blade, run up to the artillery you've eyebitten and damn them whatever they do.  (If they attack you, good luck; you're invisible.  If they walk away from you, opportunity attack.  If they attack someone else, opportunity attack.  And if they shift away with luck you've a counter - and if not, you've pinned them down).  Otherwise the invisibility becomes like the guy in Mystery men - "I can turn invisible.  But only when no one is looking."



> What am I doing in play? "pew pew pew" in both cases.




There's a reason the Warlock's a hard class to play well.  If you're just going "pew pew pew" then Rangers do indeed do it better.  Warlocks have a nice bag of tricks to make the enemy's life living hell - but these all take work to use.  If all you're trying to do is go "pew pew pew" _you aren't using them_.  And so of course it feels bland.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 28, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at  SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another.




Class features of the sorcerer were non-existant.

And sorcerers could be made different from one another because of their limitations on how many spells they could take.



> And better not start with what Pathfinder did with sorcerers.




As irrelevant to the discussion as Hackmaster.



> You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook? Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.




The difference between the three:

Clerics chose one time a day they recovered.  Rest was not an issue.
Wizards, rest was an issue.
Sorcerers cast spells like bards with more spells.  This 'like a dragon' thing is fluff... most monsters cast spells like that.  In fact, the most boring thing to read in a monster description was 'cast spells like a sorcerer.'  Flavorless.  Bland.

So, to say that sorcerers gain flavor because monsters cast spells like them blandly?



> Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). *It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.
> *




This is what I don't get tho... how is being able to do all sorts of amazing things as riders to your attacks not interacting mechanics?  In fact, isn't the central design point behind every 4th edition attack worth a damn that it -does- interract beyond damage?

[quote[Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).[/quote]

And fourth edition doesn't do that?

In fact... compare a 1st level sword and board fighter.  

In 3d edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage... and is harder to hit.

In 4th edition, he can attack for 1d8 damage and push a foe away, or pull the foe into his spot, allowing a curbstomping, he can swing through and hit another enemy.... and he is harder to hit... and his allies are harder to hit... and he'll punch them for trying.

You're claiming differences in equipment made huge differences in 3rd edition while ignoring the fact those differences still exist and are compounded by the differences in characters and fighting styles that are inherent in merely uttering the words 'at-will attack power.'

Smite Evil?  That's an example of a flavorful attack, but does it -really- compare favorably to hitting your foe so hard that not only does he take massive damage from your piety, but the sheer holy energy then leaks out and heals one of your friends of his wounds.

You want to talk flavorful mechanics... compare -that-.

Bonus damage, or Bonus Damage that undoes your enemy's evil.

Seriously.  Compare.



> Sure, not every thing I talked about was effective, but, in this case, again, just think about what pathfinder did.




Some don't consider pathfinder to be the right direction to go.  If your complaint is '4th edition is not pathfinder' well... you're right it isn't.

It's also not Vampire: The Requiem.



> We agree here - and I re-state it: I explain above from where the sameness feeling, regardless it's justified or not, comes. IMO, of course.
> 
> Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.




That doesn't mean the differences do not exist... it means they don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees.  They have a feeling that four different game mechanics must exist for things to be different... that characters must be playing actual different games for them to be considered different.

That's an interesting viewpoint, but it's terribly myopic.



> A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.




4edition has everything one needs to run a gameworld.  Does it try to simulate every aspect of it?  No.  Why?  Because doing so is unnecessary.  Do you -need- rules to determine the economy in a town?  No.  Why?  Because you're making the town, make the economy what you need it to be.  No amount of 'simulationist' rules can do that accurately.

Seriously, ask yourself -why- you'd need a rule to randomly determine whether or not magical items are available in Slobadia... is it because you don't know?  How do you not know?  Are you not -making- Slobadia to fit the needs of your campaign?  Do you envision Slobadia being big enough to have magic item shops?  No?  Then why do you need a chart to tell you how to make your damn city for you?

Besides, simulationist rules in roleplaying games often end up being poor simulations, failing to explain how a villiage of peasents making 1 silver piece a month, paying 1 copper piece a day for food, can ever not end up in debt by 2 silver pieces a month, while simultaneously gathering up the 50 gold pieces the party is being offered to save the town mayor from kobold invasion... or how the kobolds manage to have coffers greater than any amount of business men in such an economy could ever hope to accumulate...

It's okay to want rules to simulate a game world... but please be sure they do not immediately fall apart and become unable to support such basic assumptions like 'At some point the PCs need to be paid.'  BAD simulationist rules are terrible.  And D&D's simulationism has NEVER been particularily good.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And power, specialisation, skill, and ritual (where relevant) choices make it possible to roll members of _any_ class in 4e that are dramatically different from one another.




You are pretty absolutist in your statements  Me, and other people, simply don't perceive them this way because our priorities are others.



> You mean the large clunky thing that meant that with preparation time Wizards could do _anything_?




I mean the  large clunky thing tham mad the wizard feel like a scholar. And what you adress is a spell mechanics problem, not a _spellbook_ mechanic problem. This is just another "baby with the bathwater" problem.



> As a PC I do not expect to have a clue how dragons cast spells.  And in some worlds they become less magical if I do things the same way.  As for receiving spells, that was cut-scene background flavour text in my experience.




As a 1st level PC? Sure. As a 20 level sorcerer that just dicovereed something on his ancestors? And has 23 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? See how all these things just SCREAM inspiring backstory?

Cut scene background? Divine spelcasters received spells in _specific moments of the day_ (say, good clerics are said to receive spell at dawn and so on). This could influence the whole adventure!



> And 4e is one hell of a lot _better_ at the mechanics interacting with the game world at a local level.  Pushes, shifts, slides, marks.  Those things matter at a local and immediate level.  "Casts spells like a dragon" is an abstract.  "Slips through the combat like an eel, avoiding opportunity attacks" or "drives the enemy backwards" is concrete.




All these things were present in former edition, *just without prepackaged rules.* Did you ever tumbled to backstab playing a Rogue? Or beaten a enemy with Standstill playing a fighter? Or cast a repel metal playing a druid? 

Now you have automatic "shift and hit" without a tumble check + hit roll, or a 6[w] without the need of a critical hit (but HP raised up to the wazoo, so a good old crit with a greataxe remains far more satisfying).

"Cast like a dragon" is non abstract. And my imagination is not stroke and stimulated only by things inherent combat - quite the opposite. I alway built interesting combats only with core skills and maneuvers, splats just added to it. I like interesting tools for combat, but just handwave the rest... is quite dismissive design.



> OK.  I'll grant 4th.  (I forgot about the Animal Companion).  But other than archers that's less variety than is in 4e fighters.  (4e Ranger might be a better fit.)  Even smite evil is a 1/day stronger attack.  A pretty generic Daily (and the spellcasting's just utilities or rituals).




You are completely overlooking the ranger skills, wild empathy and track. If they are out of combat (maybe) things, does not mean that are not interesting. " Archer" is not trivial.  Rituals... do you honestly think that can be used with the same frequency and reliability of detect poison, bless weapon, animal messenger, longstrider?

The classes actually were far more bland at level 1, but had the chance of differ a lot later. And were simpler AT LEVEL 1 to play for a newb.. just to remain in the theme of Essentials 



> What stimulates my imagination isn't what's on the long and complex character sheet.  It's what they _do_.  How they act.  And at this micro level, At Will powers kick the arse of 3e.




My examples about time for clerical prayers for spell didn't made the sheet more commplicated. Just the gameworld more interesting. IIRC, we discussed about it previously, and I remain of the opinion that the 3rd edition at wills (feats) are simple and dull in the beginning, but when you start to combine them with other ones (fighter mostly, but everybody) or with class features (paladin, ranger, barbarian, rogue) are far more satisfying.

This does not mean that some thing could be done better (mainly, in the way they scale) but this is another matter.



> In the running the gameworld?  Agreed.  4e makes no attempt to be simulationist.




Is not even a matter of simulationism. Is a matter of inspiration. if things are uninspiring, seem same-y.



> The Bard is now popular?  Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e?  (I used to like it.  But always thought that was a minority opinion).  And as for errata, any game needs it.




People tend to compare classes on raw numbers. I've seen it even in Pathfinder thread elsewhere.. "But Barbarian does not deals as much damages as the fighter at level 20! It suxx!1!!!!1". Ignoring the d12 + uncanny dodge, or things like a raw +20 on strenght checks each rage (or each round, just to be sure to take the Balor from the neck).

Barring the fact that the base CONCEPT of the bard is a blast if played by the right player, once you understood that you role is a face -support -jack of all trades, you love it. You want to pew pew? go sorcerer. Don't play a bard like a sorcerer. don't play a monk like a fighter. Better don't play a fighter like a fighter, sometimes! 

As a side note,  splatbooks added a lot of love for bards.


ERRATA: Any game needs it. Of course. Even better if you make it a continuous process, making books obsolete and a subscription to an updated charachter builder mandatory..


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 28, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Class features of the sorcerer were non-existant.
> 
> And sorcerers could be made different from one another because of their limitations on how many spells they could take.




Totally different from 4th edition characters! Wait, is actually different.. spells are vary more compared each other, and follow rules that make them feel different from swinging a sword (compnents, concentration..).



> As irrelevant to the discussion as Hackmaster.



A game that revamped an old system and take my money for gaming instead of WotC? In a thread about a class that looks backward? Totally irrelevant, my apologies 



> The difference between the three:
> 
> Clerics chose one time a day they recovered.  Rest was not an issue.
> Wizards, rest was an issue.
> ...



Yeah.. because we had, at time a class that cast like a monster. maybe with monster blood (concept expanded later both by wotc splats and by pathfinder). And again, in this case my example was not about the need of clumsy rules for diversity, but for the care about them: for the inspiration about the gameworld that can instill in me.



> This is what I don't get tho... how is being able to do all sorts of amazing things as riders to your attacks not interacting mechanics?  In fact, isn't the central design point behind every 4th edition attack worth a damn that it -does- interract beyond damage?



But interaction is not only push or shift! Is far beyond that! It's like the class, the character blends into the gameworld! I restate it: THE LACK OF CARE ABOUT THIS ASPECT, IMHO, REGARDLESS THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE, INSTILLS THE SENSE OF SAMENESS.




> And fourth edition doesn't do that?
> 
> In fact... compare a 1st level sword and board fighter.
> 
> ...



4th edition does indeed better at level 1st. because of the sweet spot stretching. Point for 4th edition. But former classes were maybe simplier at level 1.

If you go up by levels, I'm not sure that you can handle the comparison. And is not even a matter of that. I could say "just build a fighter that one-shots with a critical a reasonably strong enemy"). You can with a x4 weapon and a lucky crit in 3.5, you cannot in 4th but because 4th has been made that way.

And you are unfair in your comparison. a 1st level fighter has 2-3 feats, and just compare ranged damage between editions. Or the 1001 uses of a tower shield.

My point is the caps lock above. Unless you think that people that feel the sameness are all crazy/stupid/whatever. 

In addition, there was not the "tank" mindset at times. If you ant that, there is standstill.



> Some don't consider pathfinder to be the right direction to go.  If your complaint is '4th edition is not pathfinder' well... you're right it isn't.
> 
> It's also not Vampire: The Requiem.



It's indeed quite interesting see how the designer changed the classes in Essentials. I just want to see a newb buy the new red box.

"Let see.. the Wizard here has schools.. LIKE IN PATHFINDER!" 



> That doesn't mean the differences do not exist... it means they don't have the ability to see the forest for the trees.  They have a feeling that four different game mechanics must exist for things to be different... that characters must be playing actual different games for them to be considered different.
> 
> That's an interesting viewpoint, but it's terribly myopic.
> 
> ...



I don't always need to use the rules as they are, or to use them at all. But if needed, they are there, at least as suggestion.

Sell me a product with less things because "I don't need it" is myopia. Make the rule, and let me choose what I need. And once again, the problem is not a rule about minutiae, but rules that care with my immersion.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 28, 2010)

Apparently I need to spread experience points around before giving them to  DracoSuave.



Kaiyanwang said:


> You are pretty absolutist in your statements  Me, and other people, simply don't perceive them this way because our priorities are others.




That's because I'm right and you are wrong.  Skills.  Utility powers.  Feats.  Skill powers.  Multiclasses.  Rituals.  Ability to hide.  Massive differences.



> I mean the large clunky thing tham mad the wizard feel like a scholar. And what you adress is a spell mechanics problem, not a _spellbook_ mechanic problem. This is just another "baby with the bathwater" problem.




No.  The Batman Wizard is a _spellbook_ problem.  If you are going to add spells that do things with each supplement and the Wizard and Cleric have the power to use spells from every supplement then _every supplement adds power creep even if it is itself balanced._  That's because it adds options, flexibility, and ways for preparing for new challenges.



> As a 1st level PC? Sure. As a 20 level sorcerer that just dicovereed something on his ancestors? And has 23 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? See how all these things just SCREAM inspiring backstory?




23 ranks in Arcana, 20 levels in sorceror and he's only just found out how he casts?  And it's related to the most famous type of monster going?  That's inspiring as opposed to stupid?  (Unless Sorceror is a snowflake class and he's the only one).



> Cut scene background? Divine spelcasters received spells in _specific moments of the day_ (say, good clerics are said to receive spell at dawn and so on). This could influence the whole adventure!




Those specific moments of the day being the same moments the wizard was reading his spellbooks IME.  And my character's love of yodelling could influence the whole adventure.

As for it being a cut scene background, the rules state that the cleric needs to be meditating for that hour.  Which means it's only an issue if the DM decides to interrupt the meditation.  Or do you really RP meditating for an hour in your D&D sessions?



> All these things were present in former edition, *just without prepackaged rules.* Did you ever tumbled to backstab playing a Rogue?




You're saying _that_ wasn't prepackaged rules?  Merely clunkier ones and ones you have to dig harder for.



> Or beaten a enemy with Standstill playing a fighter? Or cast a repel metal playing a druid?




I'm saying that being unable to barge people as a fighter is _uninspiring_.  3e fighters need to reach 6th level (I think) to be able to fight with sword and board _the way I do_.  This is the _opposite_ of inspiring - when what is for me easy becomes something rare and outstanding for my powerful PC who is meant to be good at this sort of thing.



> "Cast like a dragon" is non abstract.




No.  It's meaningless when there are a very limited number of ways of casting spells and lots of monsters cast spells this way.  "Cast like a dragon" and "Cast like a sylph" are exactly the same thing.  You want fluff that way, 4e Dragon sorcerors have it in spades.  (As do PF bloodline ones).  Or try the 4e Invoker.  Who has a literal tiny fragment of his God's powers, unmediated through prayer.  Or the Warlock...



> You are completely overlooking the ranger skills, wild empathy and track. If they are out of combat (maybe) things, does not mean that are not interesting. " Archer" is not trivial. Rituals... do you honestly think that can be used with the same frequency and reliability of detect poison, bless weapon, animal messenger, longstrider?




1/day?  You're in the realm of Utility Powers here.



> My examples about time for clerical prayers for spell didn't made the sheet more commplicated.




No.  They just mean that a cleric needs to meditate an hour a day.  Cut scene time.



> Is not even a matter of simulationism. Is a matter of inspiration. if things are uninspiring, seem same-y.




And the simplistic at-wills in 3e are anti-inspiring.  They mean that a fighter is allowed less positional control and awareness in combat than _I_ have in real life.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 28, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> The Bard is now popular?  Rather than the red-headed step child of 3e?  (I used to like it.  But always thought that was a minority opinion).  And as for errata, any game needs it.



It's like how when someone dies, they retroactively become a paragon, even if during their life they kicked puppies and stole candy from babies.

When they were readily available, the majority opinion was that bards sucked.

But then Wizards had the gall to delay their availability for a few months, so they became the distilled essence of D&D.  And their exclusion was a SLAP IN THE FACE OF ALL TRUE GAMERS!!!1!


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway.
> 
> The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?




Glad you even noticed the Wizard and Invoker one. 

See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes. Nor did I ever noticed guff of difference that Scorching Burst and Vangard's Lightning has because, ya know, one does fire and the other lightning (oh, the latter deals Int mod damage to any foe making an OA. I guess that makes VL strictly better...)

I go take my unwashed self back to the Pathfinder forum and forget about this new Essentials line. I wouldn't get how awesome it was anyway...

Later, see you in General.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Glad you even noticed the Wizard and Invoker one.
> 
> See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes. Nor did I ever noticed guff of difference that Scorching Burst and Vangard's Lightning has because, ya know, one does fire and the other lightning (oh, the latter deals Int mod damage to any foe making an OA. I guess that makes VL strictly better...)
> 
> ...



I notice you are running away without dealing with my Warlord who is decidedly a Warlord and not a Cleric or Artificer.  The blandest builds overlap, I agree.  But only the blandest ones.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> That's because I'm right and you are wrong.  Skills.  Utility powers.  Feats.  Skill powers.  Multiclasses.  Rituals.  Ability to hide.  Massive differences.




Skills matter less because of the 1/2 level thing. Noncombat utility is rare. Feats.. I concede, when you are not forced to take "fixes". You know what I mean. Multiclass is laughable. And one thing is utility spell I can change every day, one thing is long rituals I have to pay. We are miles away here.



> No.  The Batman Wizard is a _spellbook_ problem.  If you are going to add spells that do things with each supplement and the Wizard and Cleric have the power to use spells from every supplement then _every supplement adds power creep even if it is itself balanced._  That's because it adds options, flexibility, and ways for preparing for new challenges.



You know, is not mandatory add spells that break your game. And most problems came from core. Options are options, Use what is good for the campaing. They add diversity.

FYI, the batman wizard is the "good" way to play the wizard. The Wiz that makes the party powerful. The term is not derogatory originally.



> 23 ranks in Arcana, 20 levels in sorceror and he's only just found out how he casts?  And it's related to the most famous type of monster going?  That's inspiring as opposed to stupid?  (Unless Sorceror is a snowflake class and he's the only one).




 I just meant that was not a thing to discover as a level 1 PC, but cool for a quest or a side quest for a high level sorceror. Where did you took all the other things?



> Those specific moments of the day being the same moments the wizard was reading his spellbooks IME.  And my character's love of yodelling could influence the whole adventure.
> 
> As for it being a cut scene background, the rules state that the cleric needs to be meditating for that hour.  Which means it's only an issue if the DM decides to interrupt the meditation.  Or do you really RP meditating for an hour in your D&D sessions?




These little things (like the spell components, the concentration and the like) make the magic more.. magic. more special and different. And increase my immersion. Can you accept that I would miss them?



> You're saying _that_ wasn't prepackaged rules?  Merely clunkier ones and ones you have to dig harder for.




Not sure what you meant here, but I meant the combat maneuvers. Instead of say to the DM "I slip through 3 enemies with tumble and strike the ogre" there is a cool power with a cool name that makes the same. And suddenly rogues are no longer boring. I meant this for "pre packaged".



> I'm saying that being unable to barge people as a fighter is _uninspiring_.  3e fighters need to reach 6th level (I think) to be able to fight with sword and board _the way I do_.  This is the _opposite_ of inspiring - when what is for me easy becomes something rare and outstanding for my powerful PC who is meant to be good at this sort of thing.




In the meanwhile, they use all the feats to reach this point in other way. And use them to similar effect until the optimum. And this will improve later, when they will use the bash on a whirlwind attack and you will push an enemy at time.. barring using a specific power.

See, my vision is maybe idealized. Some feat scale badly, and so on. But then THAT should be fixed, nothing else.



> No.  It's meaningless when there are a very limited number of ways of casting spells and lots of monsters cast spells this way.  "Cast like a dragon" and "Cast like a sylph" are exactly the same thing.  You want fluff that way, 4e Dragon sorcerors have it in spades.  (As do PF bloodline ones).  Or try the 4e Invoker.  Who has a literal tiny fragment of his God's powers, unmediated through prayer.  Or the Warlock...




And the mechanics behind that fluff are...?? (barring PF sorcerer). Moreover, that was an example to explain what I meant (see above).



> 1/day?  You're in the realm of Utility Powers here.




1/day NOW. In a level range that makes the two version of the class comparable. And are nevertheless spells I can change very day. In a scenario when this class has spells the other talents the other rage powers..



> No.  They just mean that a cleric needs to meditate an hour a day.  Cut scene time.




Se above (the "little things"). And if something is cut scene time 90% of times, fun things happen in the 10%. 



> And the simplistic at-wills in 3e are anti-inspiring.  They mean that a fighter is allowed less positional control and awareness in combat than _I_ have in real life.




We didn't play meleers the same way. But you have a point here, becaus ein this case, is maybe a failure by aythors part in develop this part of the game (otherwise, I would use 2 different judgements for mine impressions and for yours, and that would be simply unfair).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Skills matter less because of the 1/2 level thing.




False.  +-10 is a pretty huge swing.  What happens in 3e beyond level 5 or so is that there are effectively two levels of skill.  Trained well and don't bother.  The 1/2 level thing doesn't make skills matter less.  It means that skills remain relevant rather than a binary switch.



> Multiclass is laughable.




Only if by Multiclass you mean massively so rather than picking up some skills along the way.  In which case you want Hybrid rather than Multiclass.



> And one thing is utility spell I can change every day, one thing is long rituals I have to pay. We are miles away here.




Yes.  You don't have to pay for spellcasting in 3e.  You do for big spells in 4e.  Huge difference.



> You know, is not mandatory add spells that break your game. And most problems came from core. Options are options, Use what is good for the campaing. They add diversity.




It depends where you add diversity whether it's a problem.  Adding options that can be chosen for a character is good.  Adding options that get added to a character without meaningful penalty is power creep, pure and simple.



> FYI, the batman wizard is the "good" way to play the wizard. The Wiz that makes the party powerful. The term is not derogatory originally.




Yes.  The Batman Wizard makes the rogue irrelevant and means that all most other people need to do is a mopping up operation.  That's damn well played.  It also breaks the game.  The two are not opposites.  The making the other PCs irrelevant is precisely _because_ the Batman Wizard is played so well.



> I just meant that was not a thing to discover as a level 1 PC, but cool for a quest or a side quest for a high level sorceror. Where did you took all the other things?




The bit about the L20 Sorceror with 23 ranks in Knowledge(Arcana)?  It's what you wrote.  And given the ties to power sources in 4e, claiming this as a 3e fluff advantage is silly.



> These little things (like the spell components, the concentration and the like) make the magic more.. magic. more special and different. And increase my immersion. Can you accept that I would miss them?




THEY ARE IN 4E.  Components, cost, time to cast.  It's called Ritual Casting.  And the components there actually _matter_.  As does the skill you use to cast them (and not just whether you can maintain your concentration).

The only time when spellcasting you don't need components and time is for specialised combat magic (OK, Bards and Invokers have no cost for a couple of rituals per day.)  Combat magic needs to happen under pressure.  The rest of the time the magic is more the way you claim to want it than 3e is.



> Not sure what you meant here, but I meant the combat maneuvers. Instead of say to the DM "I slip through 3 enemies with tumble and strike the ogre" there is a cool power with a cool name that makes the same. And suddenly rogues are no longer boring. I meant this for "pre packaged".




Rogues shouldn't be boring in 3e.  Or any edition.  They excel out of combat.  It's the poor fighter in 3e that's tedious at low levels.



> In the meanwhile, they use all the feats to reach this point in other way.




You assume 4e has no feats.



> And use them to similar effect until the optimum.




Where optimum = forced min-maxing?  With feat chains, your feats cease to be so many choices because it's best to run the chains.



> And this will improve later, when they will use the bash on a whirlwind attack and you will push an enemy at time.. barring using a specific power.




So.  That's dodge, mobility, spring attack, whirlwind attack, Improved Shield defence, two weapon fighting, shield bash?  8 feats to get an attack mode they do every time?  This isn't options you're looking for.  It's replacements.



> And the mechanics behind that fluff are...?? (barring PF sorcerer).




Have you even read the PHB2?  Or know a thing about 4e Sorcerors?  There are currently four power sources for sorcerors (Dragon, Cosmic, Chaos, Storm).  Each has its own pattern of bonusses and resistances (with resistance being to one of the types that matches a breath type) - and has certain powers with riders if it has that power source.  Invokers can directly commune (if weakly) with their God (Hand of Fate free 1/day).  And that's before getting into Wrath, Protection, and Malediction aspects and the backlash for malediction.

The PHB 1 classes are the simplest and often blandest (Warlocks are an exception, granted).  But if you're going to assume that's all that exists in 4e, I'm going to take you back to 3.0 core.  Except with exception based design it's easier to add things to 4e without breaking the game.



> 1/day NOW. In a level range that makes the two version of the class comparable. And are nevertheless spells I can change very day. In a scenario when this class has spells the other talents the other rage powers..




And if you want the obscure stuff, you take ritual casting as a feat.



> Se above (the "little things"). And if something is cut scene time 90% of times, fun things happen in the 10%.




 Say 99%.  At least.  All it does is say "The cleric must be nailed down for 1 hour/day along with the wizard".


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Your challenge for 10: Make me an artificer or a cleric who plays anything like that.  Or anything in any previous edition.  (Start with the idea of allies rather than the PC making the majority of his attack rolls).




While I HATE to miss out on a challenge, I'm going to for one reason; I have no idea what 1/2 those things DO anymore!

See, I quit sometime last summer. My warlord was 95% PHB1 (with one MP power, I think it was his 3rd level encounter power), my cleric was 100% PHB (plus Selune's Channel Divinity) and the Artificer was 100% Eberron Players Guide. No domain powers, no skill swap utility powers, no Style Feats (except for a few in Dragon) no hybrid classes, etc. 

Based on the handful of abilities that were in PHB1, MP, and EPG, I found the three classes didn't feel diverse enough. If, by the time of paragon levels with a full DDi subscription and 2 years of books this doesn't hold water, I simply claim to be behind the times.

Almost all of my comparisons have assumed the default 2 builds in their core book introduction without a giant influx of supplemental material. I'm well aware a tempest fighter is different than a greatweapon one, a beastmaster ranger doesn't play like a archer, and summoning went a long way to making the wizard stand out against the invoker and druid. Yet when I played in those early days (When the PHB and a couple of dragons was it) I didn't see any quantifiable difference in those classes. Apparently WotC has gone a long way to making those distinctions more pronounced, at the cost of $30 a hardback and $10 per month.

Anyway, I said I was done and I am.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The difference obvious to a gearhead is not obvious or even important to a casual player.




I'm sorry but this argument is so massively hollow I cannot accept your premise to begin with. Everyone that I have ever played 4E with understands the difference between teleporting and shifting. Everyone I've ever played with rapidly understands why teleporting is better than shifting. It is not a subtle difference just to "gearheads". Unless you're playing on planet featureless bowling ball, where immobilize, grab, restrained, line of sight and terrain are irrelevant the difference is _inherently_ obvious.

Anyone who plays in my games for one session soon appreciates why teleport is far superior to shifting. They also soon appreciate why forced movement based teleportation powers are superior to standard forced movement in many cases. I absolutely hate saying this, but if someone can't see why one is different than the other, you need a DM who uses terrain better.



mkill said:


> Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.
> 
> And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?




I am having the same feeling right now. People were up in arms about Eladrin being able to teleport and now apparently everyone suddenly forgot this was a major thing and that it's just the same as a shift 5 (which it isn't btw). I mean, whut?


----------



## mkill (Jul 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes.




Cure Light Wounds :: d20srd.org

Cure Light Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
*Level:     Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2*
Components:     V, S
Casting Time:     1 standard action
Range:     Touch
Target:     Creature touched
Duration:     Instantaneous
Saving Throw:     Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance:     Yes (harmless); see text

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage. 

Wow, so Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric and Druid are the same class, because they use the same healing spells. How could Monte Cook ever do this to us.



Remathilis said:


> I go take my unwashed self back to the Pathfinder forum and forget about this new Essentials line. I wouldn't get how awesome it was anyway...



Yeah, you don't.

See ya.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Skills matter less because of the 1/2 level thing. Noncombat utility is rare.




Skills certainly matter no less.  All the 1/2 level thing does is add in a  "seasoned adventurer" bonus, for all intents and purposes.  A 12th level fighter, for example, has a better chance of sneaking up on a camp of 1st level kobolds than a 1st level fighter.  He's worked in armor a lot more often, he's picked up tips from his companions, he's seen what has and hasn't worked, etc.

On the other hand, a 12th level fighter in heavy armor still has an absolutely horrible chance to sneak up on some 12th level trolls with high perception bonuses, certainly when compared to a 12th level rogue.  We're talking about anywhere between a +5 to +14 bonus for the rogue, with the lower boundary comparing a fighter who is built based on dexterity compared to a rogue who doesn't emphasize stealth.  A +8 bonus built on top of a moderate DC takes the chance of success from pretty poor to excellent.



> Feats.. I concede, when you are not forced to take "fixes". You know what I mean.




Depending on who you talk to, there are anywhere between one and three tax feats, which must be deducted from a pool of 18 feats.  Since 3.x is based on a pool of 7 feats, the taxes don't bring them down to 3.5's level



> Multiclass is laughable. And one thing is utility spell I can change every day




You can also argue that most multiclass combinations in 3.x were pretty laughable too, but the fundamental point here is that multiclass has a different connotation in 4e than it did in 3.x.  Multiclassing in 4e is more like "splashing" a single level of another class in 3.x, with the difference being that most combinations in 4e turn out to be pretty useful, whereas whole classes of combinations in 3.x turned out quite badly for the character.

If you want to take a much more melded combination of classes, you can go hybrid, which truly mixes the classes.  Or you can do paragon multiclassing, which mixes things up quite nicely too.



> one thing is long rituals I have to pay. We are miles away here.




  .... until you progress a few levels past the minimum level of the ritual, at which point it basically becomes free.  a 10th level wizard can have floating disc permacast for an absolute pittance.  And he doesn't even need to switch out spells.



> FYI, the batman wizard is the "good" way to play the wizard. The Wiz that makes the party powerful. The term is not derogatory originally.




The batman wizard has evolved into a derogatory phrase because that style of wizard wasn't just good, he was _too_ good.




> These little things (like the spell components, the concentration and the like) make the magic more.. magic. more special and different. And increase my immersion. Can you accept that I would miss them?




The same thing happened in 40k during the 2nd->3rd edition transition.  Fundamentally, people wanted different trappings, even if it added complexity to a system that could function perfectly well without it.

In this case, concentration simply became a non-issue after 6th level or so- in some ways, it was a "skill tax"- you really needed to take it, regardless of which spellcasting class you were.  And once you took it for a certain number of levels, it was an auto-success, for all intents and purposes.

However, I, for one, understand why you miss it.



> Not sure what you meant here, but I meant the combat maneuvers. Instead of say to the DM "I slip through 3 enemies with tumble and strike the ogre" there is a cool power with a cool name that makes the same. And suddenly rogues are no longer boring. I meant this for "pre packaged"




What is the fundamental difference between choosing a skill which allows you to do this and choosing a power which allows you to do this?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Glad you even noticed the Wizard and Invoker one.
> 
> See, I guess as a dirty old grognard I never groked to the uber-kewlnezz that 4e was. I was unable in grasp the subtle, game-alternating uniqueness of HS+1d6+Wis 2/encounter and HS+Wis 2/encounter makes.




Actually, a better comparison would be:

HS+1d6+Wis+1d6+Cha 2/encounter vs HS+1d6+saving throw+temporary hit points.

Cause, you know, classes don't -stop- at level 1 at-will powers.  Feats and such kinda jump in there as well, particularily the class-specific ones.



> Nor did I ever noticed guff of difference that Scorching Burst and Vangard's Lightning has because, ya know, one does fire and the other lightning (oh, the latter deals Int mod damage to any foe making an OA. I guess that makes VL strictly better...)




If you can't find a difference between 1d6 in a distant area of effect vs 1d6 up close area that pushes a few squares vs 1d6 that sets a minefield that does more damage if they stay vs 1d6 that makes their movement slow so they cannot approach vs 2d4 with a range of 20 than honestly, I don't understand how you grokked the difference between chill touch and shocking grasp, or fire ball and cone of cold, or implosion and finger of death... cause the differences there are about as equivalent.



> I go take my unwashed self back to the Pathfinder forum and forget about this new Essentials line. I wouldn't get how awesome it was anyway...
> 
> Later, see you in General.




No big.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 29, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> I don't understand how you grokked the difference between chill touch and shocking grasp, or fire ball and cone of cold, or implosion and finger of death... cause the differences there are about as equivalent.



There might indeed be no relevant distinction from Remathilis perspective. 

But they have all one in common -they are all Wizard spells. Cleric don't get Cone of Cold and Fireball. Bards don't get it. 

But those Healing Powers that were mentioned - they are similar and belong to classes that are supposed to be different.

I think the most unique healing powers are limited to the Shaman and the Artificicer. None of them exactly PHB 1 material. 
The Bard adds a tiny difference (it also slides the target 1 square), but not sure that's enough difference to count.)

For Remalithis' education : Shamans have a Spirit Companion. Their healing power grants one ally to spend a healing surge, and someone adjacent to the Spirit Companion gets a few d6. Still pretty close to what we already got, but I think the tidbit with the companion makes it notable different. THe Artificier basically creates "Infusions" from healing surges. He has two types, and one grants temporary hit points and can be used preventively, basically. So it is notable different from those Heal + d6 healing.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> False.  +-10 is a pretty huge swing.  What happens in 3e beyond level 5 or so is that there are effectively two levels of skill.  Trained well and don't bother.  The 1/2 level thing doesn't make skills matter less.  It means that skills remain relevant rather than a binary switch.




Maybe you are right. (IMO, even if some class has too few, you customize better with skill points but whatever).



> Only if by Multiclass you mean massively so rather than picking up some skills along the way.  In which case you want Hybrid rather than Multiclass.



For multiclass I mean the freedom of build a fighter dipping rogue, vice versa, or a 50:50 fighter/rogue. Puggins indeed raised a good point (see below).




> Yes.  You don't have to pay for spellcasting in 3e.  You do for big spells in 4e.  Huge difference.



Well, another generaization here. Sometimes you have to pay for spellcasting in 3.5 and Pathfinder, too. But my point was that each day thay utility for the Ranger would change, raising in number at higher level and increasinglt hugely the flexibility.



> It depends where you add diversity whether it's a problem.  Adding options that can be chosen for a character is good.  Adding options that get added to a character without meaningful penalty is power creep, pure and simple.



Once you open a splatbook, you are not forced to add everything it contains to your campaing. One could even ban core spells, and switch them with non core ones. In that case the splat saves you.. or just allows you to built a different world.



> Yes.  The Batman Wizard makes the rogue irrelevant and means that all most other people need to do is a mopping up operation.  That's damn well played.  It also breaks the game.  The two are not opposites.  The making the other PCs irrelevant is precisely _because_ the Batman Wizard is played so well.



No. The true Batman makes everyone great. if this can be degenerated, I concede. but the fact that several spells in 3.5 needed reworkind, does not mean that I cannot make a spellbook mechanic intersting and flavourful. See, in AD&D IIRC there was a rule about known spells and int score (the wiz int score put a limit). That was a limitation like in 4th, but didn't seem the same way arbitrary.



> The bit about the L20 Sorceror with 23 ranks in Knowledge(Arcana)?  It's what you wrote.  And given the ties to power sources in 4e, claiming this as a 3e fluff advantage is silly.



That started as an example of diversity (how they cast spell and this mechanics make them differen from Wizard and is reflected in monsters).. I don't follow you anymore here 



> THEY ARE IN 4E.  Components, cost, time to cast.  It's called Ritual Casting.  And the components there actually _matter_.  As does the skill you use to cast them (and not just whether you can maintain your concentration).
> 
> The only time when spellcasting you don't need components and time is for specialised combat magic (OK, Bards and Invokers have no cost for a couple of rituals per day.)  Combat magic needs to happen under pressure.  The rest of the time the magic is more the way you claim to want it than 3e is.



Components didn't matter before? And the fact that there is not recognizable analogy between rituals and combat magic (combat magic is more similar to the fighter swinging a sword) increases the disconnect for someone. 

*I want to remind you that our discussion started from this - I was wondering about  what make people feel the sameness starting from what I miss from previous edition.. my observations started from the essentials and their "look back" style.. or at least attempt.*




> Rogues shouldn't be boring in 3e.  Or any edition.  They excel out of combat.  It's the poor fighter in 3e that's tedious at low levels.



I was just joking about the fact that some people (not you, reading the sentence above) finds the rogue very boring in 3rd edition, while two same maneuver (move tumbling and stab) has been merged in one, given a fancy name and WHAM! is suddenly cool.

Again, we played the Fighter class very differently, I'm sure of it. For sure could have been done far better (how feats scale, dead levels), but nevertheless...

(Unless you are talking about class skills amd skill points.. in this case you are right )



> You assume 4e has no feats.



Feats in 4th are less a class feature for fighter (barring Essentials ). The real maneuvers fighter performs are in the powers. Am I wrong?



> Where optimum = forced min-maxing?  With feat chains, your feats cease to be so many choices because it's best to run the chains.
> So.  That's dodge, mobility, spring attack, whirlwind attack, Improved Shield defence, two weapon fighting, shield bash?  8 feats to get an attack mode they do every time?  This isn't options you're looking for.  It's replacements.



I meant the capstone feat. My bad. And I'm pretty sure that they are even more(out shield defence, add shield slam, power attack, improved bull rush, and maybe improved trip) but is not the point.

But the point is here: the fighter will push people from level 1 with power attack and improved bull rush. And don't start with the argumentation that tide of iron deals dmage - 1st level enemies in 3rd have not the same HP than in 4th, you will bash their skull the round later, _for now_.

The point is that the way the fighter will play will change dramatically each feat he takes. And the weapon used. The whirliwind above will be very different if using a shield and bull rushes, or a glaive and trip. The glaive itself will switch from control to damage basing on power attack.

And the feats you took to reach this point have a great versatility, too (you can use improved trip with the glaive above, but with the bolas too).

Now, I concede that some feat was lame and remains that way (mobility) 



> Have you even read the PHB2?  Or know a thing about 4e Sorcerors?  There are currently four power sources for sorcerors (Dragon, Cosmic, Chaos, Storm).  Each has its own pattern of bonusses and resistances (with resistance being to one of the types that matches a breath type) - and has certain powers with riders if it has that power source.  Invokers can directly commune (if weakly) with their God (Hand of Fate free 1/day).  And that's before getting into Wrath, Protection, and Malediction aspects and the backlash for malediction.
> 
> The PHB 1 classes are the simplest and often blandest (Warlocks are an exception, granted).  But if you're going to assume that's all that exists in 4e, I'm going to take you back to 3.0 core.  Except with exception based design it's easier to add things to 4e without breaking the game.



Point being that breaking the game is the least of my concerns. I prefer diversity. But I will take a look, because I trust your knowledge of the game.

For sure, make the fisrt core so bland has not been a smart move by WotC part..



> And if you want the obscure stuff, you take ritual casting as a feat.



and spend 10 minutes to cast a silence! 



> Say 99%.  At least.  All it does is say "The cleric must be nailed down for 1 hour/day along with the wizard".



Different gamestyles: Not surprised we look at the game with different eyes.. 

Well, let see what these essentials will do for me or you


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Seriously, that was really a bad example for an argumentation.



You may have misunderstood my post - I didn't make an argument, I asked a question. Thanks for the answer.




Kaiyanwang said:


> A warlock had class features related to his eldricht lineage. A ranger had nature spells, a companion and track utilities.
> 
> Eldricht blast could become an area attack. Ranger could poison his arrows. Mechanics for this were different, kind of damage they dealt (physical, magic) was relevant. Monsters resistances and immunities, damage reduction made them more real, increased immersion. *Gameworld mechanics made them feel different. *
> 
> Be pinned to a wall by a ranged pin arrow from that complete warrior feat, be nauseated by the blast - it felt different. Warlocks were able to become a swarm of critters, rangers had heling spells. Warlock spell- likes caused attacks of opportunity.



This is all interesting stuff (although was PCs poisoining arrows much more common in 3E than in AD&D?). But most of these differences are the same in 4e - resistances, poison, area attacks, pinning (= immobilisation) etc are all part of the game, and warlocks and rangers interact with them reasonably differently. It puzzle me that someone would notice all this stuff in 3E but not notice it in 4e. Conversely, why would someone who doesn't notice it in 4e notice in 3E?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I tend to think 4e is somewhat caught in a bit of an in-between point between totally free-form narrative story telling mechanics and the 3.x simulationist sort of legacy of telling you exactly how every little detail of everything was supposed to work.



Now this I love, but unfortunatly still can't XP you at this time!

Only instead of a tension, I like to see it as a synergy - 4e is the narrativist game for those who also love crunchy tactics and character build in their RPG (that's me and my players)!


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Puggins said:


> Skills certainly matter no less.  All the 1/2 level thing does is add in a  "seasoned adventurer" bonus, for all intents and purposes.  A 12th level fighter, for example, has a better chance of sneaking up on a camp of 1st level kobolds than a 1st level fighter.  He's worked in armor a lot more often, he's picked up tips from his companions, he's seen what has and hasn't worked, etc.




Reading Neochameleon post and yours, I start to see your point of view. But, expanding what I said before, we were talking about customization. I concede that for some gamestyle is more functional, but the 1/2 level could make you knowledgeable of things you never met. 



> On the other hand, a 12th level fighter in heavy armor still has an absolutely horrible chance to sneak up on some 12th level trolls with high perception bonuses, certainly when compared to a 12th level rogue.  We're talking about anywhere between a +5 to +14 bonus for the rogue, with the lower boundary comparing a fighter who is built based on dexterity compared to a rogue who doesn't emphasize stealth.  A +8 bonus built on top of a moderate DC takes the chance of success from pretty poor to excellent.



See above. But compared with 3.5 is indeed a give and take, because cross class skills (2 points per rank) were really bad. Indeed, UA and SRD had few variants.



> Depending on who you talk to, there are anywhere between one and three tax feats, which must be deducted from a pool of 18 feats.  Since 3.x is based on a pool of 7 feats, the taxes don't bring them down to 3.5's level



18 feats on 30 levels vs 11 on 20. 



> *You can also argue that most multiclass combinations in 3.x were pretty laughable too*, but the fundamental point here is that multiclass has a different connotation in 4e than it did in 3.x.  Multiclassing in 4e is more like "splashing" a single level of another class in 3.x, with the difference being that most combinations in 4e turn out to be pretty useful, whereas whole classes of combinations in 3.x turned out quite badly for the character.



The bolded one is a good point. Expecially regarding gishes. But see, as an example, how Tome of battle managed multiclassing in 3.5 (Warblade/Fighter  initiator level = (level in Warblade class + 1/2 Fighter levels). That was a big improvement and let free multiclassing anyway.

(I mean, to be clear, that can be a way to improve multiclass on the 3.5 basis).



> If you want to take a much more melded combination of classes, you can go hybrid, which truly mixes the classes.  Or you can do paragon multiclassing, which mixes things up quite nicely too.



Not by PH1 (IIRC). And there is not an SRD where I can, say, look for Gestalt rules.



> .... until you progress a few levels past the minimum level of the ritual, at which point it basically becomes free.  a 10th level wizard can have floating disc permacast for an absolute pittance.  And he doesn't even need to switch out spells.



Fair, but the point was comparing the ranger spells in 3.5 with utilities, and how they mad it "different".  *I want to remind that mine is not free bashing, it started form a concern, see my last post, bolded part.* 



> The batman wizard has evolved into a derogatory phrase because that style of wizard wasn't just good, he was _too_ good.



See above my answer to Neochameleon.



> The same thing happened in 40k during the 2nd->3rd edition transition.  Fundamentally, people wanted different trappings, even if it added complexity to a system that could function perfectly well without it.



I'm not sure priorities in a boardgame are the same of a RPG.



> In this case, concentration simply became a non-issue after 6th level or so- in some ways, it was a "skill tax"- you really needed to take it, regardless of which spellcasting class you were.  And once you took it for a certain number of levels, it was an auto-success, for all intents and purposes.
> 
> However, I, for one, understand why you miss it.



Well, in that case, fix how concentration work, don't throw the baby with the bathwater*! And I found some ideas behind the ritual very good (see incantations in SRD) but one thing is 10 minutes for a teleport, another for a silence!

* BTW, pathfinder did something about it, but at high level is not enough IMO.




> What is the fundamental difference between choosing a skill which allows you to do this and choosing a power which allows you to do this?



This is my point! But if the same maneuvers has a fancy name, suddenly is no longer boring! I was ironic, above (see my answer, on the same topic, to Neochameleon).


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This is all interesting stuff (although was PCs poisoining arrows much more common in 3E than in AD&D?). But most of these differences are the same in 4e - resistances, poison, area attacks, pinning (= immobilisation) etc are all part of the game, and warlocks and rangers interact with them reasonably differently. It puzzle me that someone would notice all this stuff in 3E but not notice it in 4e. Conversely, why would someone who doesn't notice it in 4e notice in 3E?




I restate it again - is not the point of of absence or presence (there are things missing here or there, but is another topic).

In 4th edition, the way powers are conceived and shown is not the same. 
My point is that since, just to say, eldricht blast is a spell-like, and the arrow is not, _interacts with the gameworld_, in both ways (AOO, damage reduction, energy resistance) in a different manner.

Such interaction remains in 4th edition, even if tuned down (cast spells in combat does not cause AOO, but there are monsters with, say, resist fire 10).

The "tuning down" of these mechanics can cause a disconnect from some player like me, that can induce sameness. I was wondering if for someone else is the same.

Expecially seeing the Knight Essentials preview and the Magic Missile retcon, because both seem to "look back".

My question is directly linked to the observation to the Knight preview: but one could even fork the thread if needed, I guess.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Such interaction remains in 4th edition, even if tuned down (cast spells in combat does not cause AOO, but there are monsters with, say, resist fire 10).




Sure they do. Most of them anyway. Well, they provoke an OA, which is basically the same as the AoO from the last edition.


----------



## mkill (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Such interaction remains in 4th edition, even if tuned down (cast spells in combat does not cause AOO, but there are monsters with, say, resist fire 10).



Spells still provoke OAs, if they are a ranged or area attack. So the result is still the same, it's just that the steps there are a bit different.

As for why close attack spells don't provoke, think about it. If you're about to get Thunderwaved in the face, you're too busy dodging.

In 3rd edition, it was quite a big deal if an ability was a spell, a spell-like ability, a supernatural ability, an extraordinary ability, or just an ability. 4th edition did away with that distinction, and the game still works. I like simplicity in my games.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Sure they do. Most of them anyway. Well, they provoke an OA, which is basically the same as the AoO from the last edition.




But they trigger because are ranged, area attacks, or because they are magic and need concentration?

Pay attention - my point is not to praise or bash the goodness of the simplification, because has several good sides.

My point is find the source of the sense of disconnect and of the sense of sameness. I want to be sure that this is a clear thing, no intention of make a self-feeding rant.

EDIT: same answer for mkill. BTW, thanks both for the answer - in this way we caught the core of the question.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 29, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> While I HATE to miss out on a challenge, I'm going to for one reason; I have no idea what 1/2 those things DO anymore!




I pretty much described them in the post.  Commander's Strike and Direct The Strike both mean that an ally makes a basic attack instead of me making an at will (useful when the ally in question is normally an Avenger with a fullblade or a Str 20 Fighter with an axe and I've just got a longsword and Str 18).  Brash assault is a gamble - I attack my foe and he can choose to attack me with combat advantage (and a basic attack).  If he does, one of my allies can attack him with combat advantage and a basic attack.  Powerful Warning is an encounter power - an interrupt giving the triggering attack -2 to hit (meaning I can convert a hit to a miss on an ally) and giving the targetted ally a free melee basic attack.  And my daily allows me to as an interrupt run over to a fallen ally, attack the person who hit them and shield them so they can get back up.

Are you going to tell me that _any_ of that sounds like a cleric?



> Based on the handful of abilities that were in PHB1, MP, and EPG, I found the three classes didn't feel diverse enough. If, by the time of paragon levels with a full DDi subscription and 2 years of books this doesn't hold water, I simply claim to be behind the times.




The build I presented was up to date - but was a build for _a first level character_.



> See, I quit sometime last summer. My warlord was 95% PHB1 (with one MP power, I think it was his 3rd level encounter power), my cleric was 100% PHB (plus Selune's Channel Divinity) and the Artificer was 100% Eberron Players Guide. No domain powers, no skill swap utility powers, no Style Feats (except for a few in Dragon) no hybrid classes, etc.
> 
> Almost all of my comparisons have assumed the default 2 builds in their core book introduction without a giant influx of supplemental material. I'm well aware a tempest fighter is different than a greatweapon one, a beastmaster ranger doesn't play like a archer, and summoning went a long way to making the wizard stand out against the invoker and druid. Yet when I played in those early days (When the PHB and a couple of dragons was it) I didn't see any quantifiable difference in those classes. Apparently WotC has gone a long way to making those distinctions more pronounced, at the cost of $30 a hardback and $10 per month.




One thing that's been fascinating to watch is how much the game design has improved over the two years 4e has been out.  The classes in the PHB2 are generally a lot more distinct and interesting than those in the PHB1 (that said, the PHB1 classes have had a lot done to them with the splatbooks whereas the PHB2 classes need it less).   And for the record just buy a 1 month DDI subscription and download the character builder.



Kaiyanwang said:


> For multiclass I mean the freedom of build a fighter dipping rogue, vice versa, or a 50:50 fighter/rogue. Puggins indeed raised a good point (see below).




Small dip = multiclassing (which works for that), 50/50 = hybrid (or paragon multiclass).  What you can't do easily is 60/30.



> Well, another generaization here. Sometimes you have to pay for spellcasting in 3.5 and Pathfinder, too. But my point was that each day thay utility for the Ranger would change, raising in number at higher level and increasinglt hugely the flexibility.




There is a point there.  And a spellcaster busy really taking off in power level at the same time.



> No. The true Batman makes everyone great. if this can be degenerated, I concede. but the fact that several spells in 3.5 needed reworkind, does not mean that I cannot make a spellbook mechanic intersting and flavourful. See, in AD&D IIRC there was a rule about known spells and int score (the wiz int score put a limit). That was a limitation like in 4th, but didn't seem the same way arbitrary.




The limitation is different.  In 4e, I expect most paragon wizards to be able to cast _every_ wizard at will and most of the encounter powers.  However, what it will take is scrabbling through his/her spellbook and going through the casting ritual.  The powers listed aren't the limit to his/her casting - they are simply the spells he/she focussed on and practiced enough to memorise all the complex movements and then train them down to be cast in a matter of seconds.  If it takes you 30 seconds to look up the ritual, it's not a combat ability.



> That started as an example of diversity (how they cast spell and this mechanics make them differen from Wizard and is reflected in monsters).. I don't follow you anymore here




That how you cast spells and the mechanics are more different in 4e.  (And besides, "Cast spells like a dragon" is one thing - "Cast spells like a dragon, a sylph, and two dozen other unrelated monsters" is another).  You're changing the game for flavour.  Which is fine.  But not a 3e specific advantage or 4e specific disadvantage.



> Components didn't matter before? And the fact that there is not recognizable analogy between rituals and combat magic (combat magic is more similar to the fighter swinging a sword) increases the disconnect for someone.




If you want combat magic to seem magical, don't do it in combat.  Combat magic all needs to be fast and almost reflexive or you end up _dead_ because it will take the fighter seconds to slit your throat.



> I was just joking about the fact that some people (not you, reading the sentence above) finds the rogue very boring in 3rd edition, while two same maneuver (move tumbling and stab) has been merged in one, given a fancy name and WHAM! is suddenly cool.




You have a point there 



> Feats in 4th are less a class feature for fighter (barring Essentials ). The real maneuvers fighter performs are in the powers. Am I wrong?




Feats are modifiers, yes.



> I meant the capstone feat. My bad. And I'm pretty sure that they are even more(out shield defence, add shield slam, power attack, improved bull rush, and maybe improved trip) but is not the point.
> 
> But the point is here: the fighter will push people from level 1 with power attack and improved bull rush. And don't start with the argumentation that tide of iron deals dmage - 1st level enemies in 3rd have not the same HP than in 4th, you will bash their skull the round later, _for now_.




Um... yeah.  Which means that for now, any attempt at pushing with bull rush is _strictly inferior_ to simply bashing their heads in.  It's an _option_ for a fighter to jump around the battlefield on a pogo stick.  But it's not worth listing because it isn't a good one.  Likewise the capstone feats being powerful vastly _restrict_ what's worth doing.



> The point is that the way the fighter will play will change dramatically each feat he takes. And the weapon used. The whirliwind above will be very different if using a shield and bull rushes, or a glaive and trip.




_When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. - D20 SRD_

How will it be different?  Given that you're not allowed to use bonus or extra attacks on the Whirlwind Attack.  No cleave.  No bonus from Bull Rush or Improved Trip - and a Bull Rush is a standard action, a Whirlwind Attack is a full round attack and the two do not combine.  Likewise on the Improved Trip with the glaive, you do not get the +4 bonus and you do not get the extra attack from improved trip (having forfeited both for the Whirlwind Attack).



> Now, I concede that some feat was lame and remains that way (mobility)




Throw in dodge.  And you can't spring attack and take a full round attack meaning that it's situational at best above fifth level.  (Which is to me damning on how fun 3e is - once full round attacks become worthwhile the fighter's best plan is to stay in position).



> Point being that breaking the game is the least of my concerns. I prefer diversity. But I will take a look, because I trust your knowledge of the game.
> 
> For sure, make the fisrt core so bland has not been a smart move by WotC part.




Thanks and point   WoTC have learned what they can do over time with 4e.  PHB2>PHB1 (And the Seeker and Monk from the PHB3 are great - I'm just not a fan of psionics).  MM3>MM2>MM1.  MP2>MP1 (Didn't think I'd like Martial Power 2 - but the Brawler Fighter, the Hunter Ranger, the Battlefront Leader Warlord and the Archery Warlords are all great).



> and spend 10 minutes to cast a silence!




Same name, different spell.  Silence in 4e is social intrigue/anti-eavesdropping.  In 3e my bard used to use it as a counterspell/mage-killer.  (Ready Silence, throw it at the wizard's feet).



Kaiyanwang said:


> I restate it again - is not the point of of absence or presence (there are things missing here or there, but is another topic).
> 
> In 4th edition, the way powers are conceived and shown is not the same.
> My point is that since, just to say, eldricht blast is a spell-like, and the arrow is not, _interacts with the gameworld_, in both ways (AOO, damage reduction, energy resistance) in a different manner.




They do in 4e - and even have differently based to hit rolls.  (Eldritch Blast isn't stopped by armour which is why it attacks reflex).



> Such interaction remains in 4th edition, even if tuned down (cast spells in combat does not cause AOO, but there are monsters with, say, resist fire 10).




Casting close combat spells in combat doesn't cause AoO.  Trying to shoot a bow in combat does.  Just means Wizards have got smarter about their spells.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 29, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But those Healing Powers that were mentioned - they are similar and belong to classes that are supposed to be different.
> 
> I think the most unique healing powers are limited to the Shaman and the Artificicer. None of them exactly PHB 1 material.
> The Bard adds a tiny difference (it also slides the target 1 square), but not sure that's enough difference to count.)




Each leader class has feats that modify its healing power in unique ways. Sure, they do start similar to each other for PH1 classes, but that doesn't mean they have to stay that way. (And flavor-wise they're very different.)

Also, that slide 1 makes a "tiny" difference that can save your character's butt. It once did for my ardent/bard.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2010)

A slide 1 is very powerful... it can easily get someone out of a grab.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> But they trigger because are ranged, area attacks, or because they are magic and need concentration?
> 
> Pay attention - my point is not to praise or bash the goodness of the simplification, because has several good sides.
> 
> ...




What might be a disconnect for you, just makes more sense to others. For  me, it is only logical that some spells (those that have been "invented" to be used up close and personal) do not provoke OA's, instead of some rule that states that all magic provokes OA's. I mean, you would think that those wizards, who tend to be pretty smart, could come up with ways of casting magic without getting hit on the head constantly. I can't see either why spells that are cast so quick that they can stop an attack (Shield for example) should provoke an attack. 

But that's just me. You obviously see things differently, which is fine. To each his own.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 29, 2010)

mkill said:


> Spells still provoke OAs, if they are a ranged or area attack. So the result is still the same, it's just that the steps there are a bit different.
> 
> As for why close attack spells don't provoke, think about it. If you're about to get Thunderwaved in the face, you're too busy dodging.




Also to me Thunderwave is about as uncontrolled a wizard power as you get.  No subtlety.  No tracing arcane symbols.  Just *Blam!* - a raw discharge of uncontrolled power to throw people away from you.  Doesn't take long or require you to take your eyes off anyone.  So there's no reason it should give an AoO.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 29, 2010)

I thought this was about essentials and the rest of 4e. Why is there a discussion about 3e vs 4e?


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> I thought this was about essentials and the rest of 4e. Why is there a discussion about 3e vs 4e?




Some people think essentials is going to turn 4E into 3E or some nonsense (which it won't). Some of the mechanics of essentials are a bit more like older editions, like Magic Missile being a low damage automatic hit power and the Knight being focused around making basic attacks without dailies like a regular fighter. What I've seen of essentials thus far is still basically 4th edition DnD mechanics, but some different interpretations for better (I think the Cleric/Mage sound pretty awesome) and worse (I think the Knight sounds like crap on a stick). The core concepts here are unmistakably the same as the rest of 4th edition though.

Additionally it doesn't actually change anything that's already out in 4E or make it irrelevant though. So if you like some aspects of essentials you can easily take it and ignore what you don't like. Now how essentials design will influence the future of the game will remain to be seen. I for one am only going to relax when I see a release schedule with more awesome hardcover books in the lines of Draconomicons, Demonomicon, Open Grave and similar coming back. If these disappear then I'm going to get upset.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Small dip = multiclassing (which works for that), 50/50 = hybrid (or paragon multiclass).  What you can't do easily is 60/30.




This is why I cited ToB. Of course is a case of take and give.



> There is a point there.  And a spellcaster busy really taking off in power level at the same time.




I just don't play that way. I of course recognize the issue - just don't agree with the cure.



> The limitation is different.  In 4e, I expect most paragon wizards to be able to cast _every_ wizard at will and most of the encounter powers.  However, what it will take is scrabbling through his/her spellbook and going through the casting ritual.  The powers listed aren't the limit to his/her casting - they are simply the spells he/she focussed on and practiced enough to memorise all the complex movements and then train them down to be cast in a matter of seconds.  If it takes you 30 seconds to look up the ritual, it's not a combat ability.




Ok, but it seems to me that you are fitting the gameworld to explain the mechanics. I like the explanation, though.



> That how you cast spells and the mechanics are more different in 4e.  (And besides, "Cast spells like a dragon" is one thing - "Cast spells like a dragon, a sylph, and two dozen other unrelated monsters" is another).  You're changing the game for flavour.  Which is fine.  But not a 3e specific advantage or 4e specific disadvantage.




I see. Well, that was an example - I hope the "bolded part" thing and my answer to Jack99 will make things more clear.



> If you want combat magic to seem magical, don't do it in combat.  Combat magic all needs to be fast and almost reflexive or you end up _dead_ because it will take the fighter seconds to slit your throat.




Maybe, but then one could explain the "sameness" feel of the power, because "walks and quacks" like a martial one.



> Um... yeah.  Which means that for now, any attempt at pushing with bull rush is _strictly inferior_ to simply bashing their heads in.  It's an _option_ for a fighter to jump around the battlefield on a pogo stick.  But it's not worth listing because it isn't a good one.  Likewise the capstone feats being powerful vastly _restrict_ what's worth doing.




Environment matters. Pits, traps. And one could just push to pull the ogre away from the rogue and put it in the mouth of the barbarian. Or is needed to put him away harmlessly. 



> _When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. - D20 SRD_
> 
> How will it be different?  Given that you're not allowed to use bonus or extra attacks on the Whirlwind Attack.  No cleave.  No bonus from Bull Rush or Improved Trip - and a Bull Rush is a standard action, a Whirlwind Attack is a full round attack and the two do not combine.  Likewise on the Improved Trip with the glaive, you do not get the +4 bonus and you do not get the extra attack from improved trip (having forfeited both for the Whirlwind Attack).




The "bonus" word counts  for extra attacks. Not for bonus from feats. And are anyway extra attacks from haste and such. I keep the doubt on AOOs, but a recent discussion in the Paizo board convinced me that are allowed.

BTW, since now trip is a mere attack, you can combine it without doubts with a whirlwind.



> Throw in dodge.  And you can't spring attack and take a full round attack meaning that it's situational at best above fifth level.  (Which is to me damning on how fun 3e is - once full round attacks become worthwhile the fighter's best plan is to stay in position).




3.5 dodge was lame, point. PF one is better (because of CMD) even if not great - and mobility remains lame. Point. And yeah, a standard action whirlwindwould not be game breaking that much, at least at high levels. I disagree on full attacks, but would need a whole thread on old fighter builds!

Regardless, above I meant is that you could use all the feats to reach that maneuver (WA) before you take it (you don't use bull rush or trip only with shields and whirlwind). You can use the same weapon for different things (what I said about power attack/trip and glaive). And the same move (WA) is VERY different if used with standard attacks, trips, or a cinematic AOE shield bash.



> Thanks and point   WoTC have learned what they can do over time with 4e.  PHB2>PHB1 (And the Seeker and Monk from the PHB3 are great - I'm just not a fan of psionics).  MM3>MM2>MM1.  MP2>MP1 (Didn't think I'd like Martial Power 2 - but the Brawler Fighter, the Hunter Ranger, the Battlefront Leader Warlord and the Archery Warlords are all great).




I actually apreciated a lot the idea of the psionic monk, by fluff. Let see.



> Same name, different spell.  Silence in 4e is social intrigue/anti-eavesdropping.  In 3e my bard used to use it as a counterspell/mage-killer.  (Ready Silence, throw it at the wizard's feet).




 yeah, was good to skip encounter too (cfr: noisy clerics) or to shut down monsters calling for reinforcements. But good for some social intrigue too. 6 seconds are less than 10 minutes!



> They do in 4e - and even have differently based to hit rolls.  (Eldritch Blast isn't stopped by armour which is why it attacks reflex).




 Point. We need MOAR of this!



> Casting close combat spells in combat doesn't cause AoO.  Trying to shoot a bow in combat does.  Just means Wizards have got smarter about their spells.




Let's agree to disagree on a lot of things once again ?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 29, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Ok, but it seems to me that you are fitting the gameworld to explain the mechanics. I like the explanation, though.




4e is two systems mashed together - a rules light narrative system and a high crunch combat system.  There's a lot of flexing of gameworlds allowed in rules light systems either by the DM, the players, or both.



> Maybe, but then one could explain the "sameness" feel of the power, because "walks and quacks" like a martial one.




Both are very simple and vanilla and it's simpler to think about a martial power.



> Environment matters. Pits, traps. And one could just push to pull the ogre away from the rogue and put it in the mouth of the barbarian. Or is needed to put him away harmlessly.




OK.  It's not useless (especially with 4e maps that play to the greater mobility and forced movement that normally appears in 4e).  Just very edge case if you don't do damage.



> The "bonus" word counts for extra attacks. Not for bonus from feats.




"_bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats"_  It's a bonus _or_ extra attacks - both are stopped from any of the named sources as I read it.  (I might be wrong about the +4).



> BTW, since now trip is a mere attack, you can combine it without doubts with a whirlwind.




Yes.  What you can't then do is get a bonus or extra attack granted by another feat.  No trip and stab from improved trip.



> Regardless, above I meant is that you could use all the feats to reach that maneuver (WA) before you take it (you don't use bull rush or trip only with shields and whirlwind). You can use the same weapon for different things (what I said about power attack/trip and glaive). And the same move (WA) is VERY different if used with standard attacks, trips, or a cinematic AOE shield bash.




Yes, you can vary it, granted.



> I actually apreciated a lot the idea of the psionic monk, by fluff. Let see.




Oh, the monk is good.  The Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind?  Not so much.



> Point. We need MOAR of this!




That sort of thing is laced throughout 4e.  One of the biggest problems is that in 4e you need to be able to read and interpret the mechanics to get at the fluff - and no one ever explains half of it.  Which means most of the gearheads I know of (including Logic Ninja of the Batman Wizard fame) have moved over to 4e because we can see what it's doing.



> Let's agree to disagree on a lot of things once again ?




Probably sense.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2010)

Silence was probably the most broken spell in 3e. It completely ruined every encounter with a spellcaster as an enemy. Seriously broken. I mean seriously broken. Really. Not even a chance for the spellcaster to save or escape if you know how to use it:

- barbarian with a silenced stone in hand following the spellcaster...

- an arrow with silence and trueshot fired into the spellcaster...

- a silenced tanglefootbag

but actually, what does it all have to do with the essential knight/fighter?


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 29, 2010)

Why has this thread become a comparison between 3.5E and 4E? Can't we all just agree that the future is now?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Why has this thread become a comparison between 3.5E and 4E? Can't we all just agree that the future is now?




Quit livin in the past man!


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jul 29, 2010)

Neochameleon and I discussed aspects of the edition because are connected with my toughts about the essentials (why this look back, and if is effectively this aspect - the class diversity) to take people away from 4th.

From there, a discussion about WHAT diversity is, and where lies, rises.

I admit that now derailed a bit, but the intention were good - just took a bit to catch the core of the question (see Jack99 posts).

I promise I will be a good boy from now!


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 29, 2010)

Let me start with the disclaimer.  I like 4e and don't feel that "sameness" that some people complain about, BUT, I can see that some people feel that way and here is the best way I can describe it based on one of my players who bitches about it frequently.  Note:  This explanation only works if you're familiar with Champions/Hero game system.

Every at-will power in 4e is a 15 point power
Every encounter power in 4e is a 30 point power
Every daily power in 4e is a 45 point power

Further descriptions:

The advent of Minor/Move/Standard for every PC has gotten rid of the difference between magic and weapon users.  Since every attack is now a standard action, the only difference between attacks is the "special effect".  To further explain this:  Your melee basic attack is a 15 point [strength attack] with the "special effect" that you're using a sword.  Your wizards magic missile is a 15 point [energy attack] with the "special effect" of "force daggers".  In Hero terms both of these attacks are 3d6 (please don't try to compare the damage) or perhaps the magic missile is a 2d6 attack with extended range.

Ultimately my player described 4e characters as "cookie cutter" and while I get that from the unified experience chart/power advancement table such that "all characters are the same" I just don't agree with him that they are because they all DO different things.

You can't pay me enough money to go back to an action system that is different for casters vs. weapon users.  I think that the Minor/Move/Standard is an excellent step forward, but if that is the kind of "game world" mechanics difference that some here are looking for then I won't agree with anything you have to say.  At a certain point you have to give up simulation for balance or no one wants to play the 1st level wizard and no one wants to play the 20th level fighter or rogue because the wizard makes both of them unneeded.  If WotC has somehow come up with a way to give out abilities  in a different way, but maintain that balance (at-will/encounter/daily unified advancement chart) I will happily applaud the achievement, but I'm not convinced that that by itself will satisfy those here looking for 4e to have "differing mechanics".

Who wants to play the Rogue in a world of nothing but undead and constructs in 3.5?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 30, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> Quick question: Are they the same pink? Would a Duchess's Blush by any other name look just as pink?
> 
> (I say yes).




That's the point of the stories: the difference is clear to some people, and not to others. To the wife, the shows are indistinguishable, but the pinks are very different. To the husband, the pinks are just pink, and the shows hold a wealth of differences.

They each have their zones of specialized knowledge of which the other is ignorant. The specialized knowledge reveals details the the others don't know about (and don't necessarily care about). 



			
				Aegeri said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but this argument is so massively hollow I cannot accept your premise to begin with. I'm sorry but this argument is so massively hollow I cannot accept your premise to begin with. Everyone that I have ever played 4E with understands the difference between teleporting and shifting. Everyone I've ever played with rapidly understands why teleporting is better than shifting. It is not a subtle difference just to "gearheads". Unless you're playing on planet featureless bowling ball, where immobilize, grab, restrained, line of sight and terrain are irrelevant the difference is inherently obvious.




I get that experiences differ.

But that doesn't make my experiences (or experiences other than your own) somehow invalid.

Clearly, WotC realizes that not everyone who plays D&D wants to study the books like they're physics textbooks, in order to maximize their combat superiority. The distinctions need to be bigger for players who don't care about those differences. There needs to be red nail polish for those who don't care about the subtle differences between two shades of friggin' pink.



> Ultimately my player described 4e characters as "cookie cutter"




That's a pretty good term. Whatever frosting you put on them, all the gingerbread cookies are cut from the same mold. That's not enough variety for some people -- especially people that aren't that fond of gingerbread cookies in the first place.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 30, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's the point of the stories: the difference is clear to some people, and not to others. To the wife, the shows are indistinguishable, but the pinks are very different. To the husband, the pinks are just pink, and the shows hold a wealth of differences.
> 
> They each have their zones of specialized knowledge of which the other is ignorant. The specialized knowledge reveals details the the others don't know about (and don't necessarily care about).




Yes.  But in one of your examples, the product was exactly the same and it was just the bottle that changed.  That's not specialised knowledge - quite the reverse.



> But that doesn't make my experiences (or experiences other than your own) somehow invalid.
> 
> Clearly, WotC realizes that not everyone who plays D&D wants to study the books like they're physics textbooks, in order to maximize their combat superiority. The distinctions need to be bigger for players who don't care about those differences. There needs to be red nail polish for those who don't care about the subtle differences between two shades of friggin' pink.




On the other hand, let's look at what's being talked about.  The difference between moving carefully (shifting) and suddenly being in another place in the blink of an eye, missing all the intervening space (teleporting).

If they are visualising the situation at all, the two are substantially different.  In one the person moves, in the other he vanishes and reappears.  If they are looking at the tactical situation at all, the advantages of not having to move round things in the way are clearly huge some of the time.  If you're trying to problem solve, the ability to get past bars or over pits or gaps (or just teleport straight up to the second floor, missing the broken stairs) is useful.

If you can't tell the difference, you are therefore neither visualising the situation and immersing yourself in your character, paying attention to the tactical situation, nor solving problems.  So what are you doing at the table?  Hanging out, drinking a few beers and having fun with your mates?  Nothing wrong with that - but if that's all you are doing then you need an interesting set of rules.  Or none at all.

Apparently what you want isn't the difference between pink and red nail polish - this is the difference between pink and black nail polish.  You want the difference between pink nail polish and green wallpaper.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I get that experiences differ.
> 
> But that doesn't make my experiences (or experiences other than your own) somehow invalid.




The only way I can possibly see this being a valid argument is if your DM put you on a blank battlemap with no terrain and the monsters did not grab, restrain or immobilize on any of their powers. There is no other way of visualizing how this could be valid _for this specific example_, which makes your logic coherent that shifting and teleporting are the same to someone new. If you don't see the difference between a shift and a teleport nothing can convince you why things in 4E are mechanically different.

Shifting requires line of effect (you have to be able to move into and occupy the square you are shifting into).
It can provoke attacks from creatures with immediate actions to shifting (or marks, eg Fighter).
You can't shift while prone. 
Shifting still costs 2 squares of movement in difficult terrain (unless you're an Elf). 
It doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity normally (but can do in some circumstances).
You can't shift while grabbed, immobilized or restrained.

Let's compare:

Teleporting requires line of sight - but doesn't require line of effect. You can teleport through a window, a keyhole or a portcullis. So long as you can see the destination.
Teleportation is instant, provoking no attacks of opportunity or other abilities. Monsters that attack teleporting characters are _immensely rare_.
Telportation does not care about the intervening terrain, so you can teleport over hazards, difficult terrain and on top of objects. A 15 ft elevation for example can be easily teleported onto with a teleport 3. Shifting cannot do this period or takes a longer shift.
Teleportation can be performed while prone, you can do it while grabbed, immobilized or restrained. 
Teleportation is prevented by being blind, if you can't see where you are going you cannot teleport anywhere.

You are telling me, honestly, that shifting is effectively the same as teleporting _and_ that it is hard to tell the difference?

_Really?_

Because anyone should be instantly able to tell of those two modes of movement, which is superior in a wider variety of situations. One of these is mechanically _immensely_ distinct from the other. Four total conditions completely stop a PC from shifting, terrain can prevent you from shifting while teleporting is blocked by ONE condition. Teleporting requires only line of sight, so can navigate difficult and hindering terrain (and multiple elevations) in a combat far more easily than a shift - which has nowhere near the mobility.

If you have a DM who uses terrain the difference between shifting and teleporting is night and day.



> There needs to be red nail polish for those who don't care about the subtle differences between two shades of friggin' pink.




It's not subtle. This argument you've been using is just not correct and demonstrably so, which is why I just can't fathom why you're clinging to it. 

Your example is just plain wrong. This isn't to say you don't have a valid point about other things in 4E, for example the similarity between at-wills of some classes - like a Warlocks Eldritch strike doesn't seem more "Warlocky" than any other Wizard power would seem similar "Warlocky" if you just changed the names around. That's a perfectly valid and reasoned comparison. Claiming that shifting and teleporting are too hard to tell apart though is just unfathomable to me if someone even has a cursory understanding of the two modes of movement. All of my players - the first in real life group I had was four people who had never played any kind of DnD before and 2 from 3rd. Not one would wonder why they would want to teleport (if they could) over shifting, especially because I use a lot of difficult terrain, terrain elevations, hindering terrain and monsters that impose conditions like grab/immobilize/restrained. I mean if the difference here isn't obvious on a cursory reading, it should become *immediately apparent* after a single session.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You're just wrong and I'm going to say your experience is absolutely invalid because it's just impossible for me to believe it's anywhere near true.




I know its hard to believe that people have experiences that differ from yours, but its okay, we're all different. I get sick on rollercoasters, my best friend loves them. We both tried them and had differing opinions on their outcome. 

Some people look at a piece of art and see an expression of man's place in the dystopic modern world; others see a black dot on a white canvas. Its okay, both are valid opinions.

I don't get how anyone could EVER play AD&D 1st edition with its screwed up initiative system, ridiculous level limits, and some of the most broken rules available (hello psionics!) but I understand why some people refuse to play anything but.

Two people can come to any experience and leave with different opinions of what took place. This is true about games, art, or rollercoasters. But to belittle someone for having a differing opinion, or to assume the person is lying, stupid or unworthy of recognition because they disagree is a height of arrogance I usually only see reserved for Politics and Religion (and D&D is neither). I suggest taking a breath and realize what, exactly, you are fighting about. Yes, I include myself in that time-out.

The beauty of Essentials is that is sounds like WotC is addressing the issue of differing experience and granting some of us disenfranchised players a new way to approach 4e; the Knight (so far) sounds much more up my alley than any of the previous defenders so far. Depending on how good these books are, I might actually be tempted to run a 4e game; just to see if the changes fix many of my problems. 

We had different experiences, that doesn't make us wrong.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I don't get how anyone could EVER play AD&D 1st edition with its screwed up initiative system, ridiculous level limits, and some of the most broken rules available (hello psionics!) but I understand why some people refuse to play anything but.




But it's not hard to see why it's mechanically different from 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition for those reasons.



> But to belittle someone for having a differing opinion, or to assume the person is lying, stupid or unworthy of recognition because they disagree is a height of arrogance I usually only see reserved for Politics and Religion (and D&D is neither). I suggest taking a breath and realize what, exactly, you are fighting about. Yes, I include myself in that time-out.




Wow, I love how you take a single sentence of my argument out of context and then completely ignore every single argument I made. That is totally all I wrote in response to him and didn't give clear reasoning. All I did was declare him wrong and walk away from the debate!

Oh wait.

The only way shifting and telporting are the same is if we have a featureless, terrainless bowling ball with monsters that don't do anything except a melee basic attack. In "real DnD" the obvious distinction between a teleport and a shift is readily apparent - he is trying to claim this is a subtle distinction that is hard to pick up on. I have an immensely hard time swallowing that argument.



> The beauty of Essentials is that is sounds like WotC is addressing the issue of differing experience and granting some of us disenfranchised players a new way to approach 4e




I don't really think it's entirely aimed at disenfranchised players. I liked the change to magic missile not because it was restoring it to a "classic" form, but because it was making it a more unique and semi-interesting at-will. Granting it as a class feature for the mage was just a brilliant idea and one I firmly approved of (I extended it to all wizards). I think essentials is aimed at a lot of people, but in general it's not going to rewrite 4th edition as a system into something that isn't 4th edition. The Knight for example is a class that has a good deal of hidden complexity to it (stances) that is going to throw people more curve balls than they expect - but unlike a "4.5" it's not going to eliminate the older classes that people so much disapprove of from 4E.

Now how that informs the design of 4E going forward post-essentials remains to be seen. 

Be aware that on a core level I agree with both you and Kamikaze Midget that 4E has very similar feeling mechanics between classes in many cases. This doesn't mean that suddenly everything is the same and there are clear differences between many mechanics. Teleporting, shifting and flight are all modes of movement with very different connotations. Certain core rules like this are not where 4E has failed to make distinct mechanics at all. Compare the discussion between Kaiyanwang and others earlier. All ranged and area attacks provoke opportunity actions because they are ranged and area attacks. In previous editions, using magic in close combat provoked an attack of opportunity _because it was magic and no other distinction_. One of these aspects produces a clear distinction between a magical effect and a normal mundane one. In 4E because the only thing that matters is if its a ranged/area attack, the argument was that it meant the distinction between a complex magical incantation being used and trying to throw an axe at someone was blurred by the system.

I can see that argument, but I will absolutely vehemently disagree that such an incredibly distinct mechanic like teleporting is anywhere near similar to a distinct mechanic like shifting.



> We had different experiences, that doesn't make us wrong.




Except in the case of the _specific_ argument it's easily and demonstrably shown to be incorrect. There are massive and inherent mechanical differences between shifting and teleporting. There are numerous completely valid arguments about 4Es power structure making classes often "feel" very similar - but on this _specific_ point the argument is wrong.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 30, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I don't get how anyone could EVER play AD&D 1st edition with its screwed up initiative system, ridiculous level limits, and some of the most broken rules available (hello psionics!) but I understand why some people refuse to play anything but.



I did play 1e, and I had a lot of fun with it.  Even back in the day, there were better systems, but D&D was the first and the most well-known, so you could always find D&Ders.  Even with 4e, it's still prettymuch the same situation. 



Aegeri said:


> I don't really think it's entirely aimed at disenfranchised players. ..I think essentials is aimed at a lot of people, but in general it's not going to rewrite 4th edition as a system into something that isn't 4th edition. The Knight for example is a class that has a good deal of hidden complexity to it (stances) that is going to throw people more curve balls than they expect - but unlike a "4.5" it's not going to eliminate the older classes that people so much disapprove of from 4E.



 4e is a pretty good system, clearly better than any previous version, but there are still better systems out there.  It's still the D&D franchise that makes it popular.  And, it did make a lot of sacred cows into tasty hamburgers.  There are those who want to feed the burgers back through the grinder on reverse and get back vancian casting and fighters who can do nothing but swing a sword once per minute.

It looks like WotC's willing to at least try to mold the ground beef back into cow-like shapes for them.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> The only way shifting and telporting are the same is if we have a featureless, terrainless bowling ball with monsters that don't do anything except a melee basic attack.



 This is hyperbole and not terribly helpful IMO.


Aegeri said:


> In "real DnD" the obvious distinction between a teleport and a shift is readily apparent - he is trying to claim this is a subtle distinction that is hard to pick up on. I have an immensely hard time swallowing that argument.



While they are not the same, it really depends on the game whether or not the differences have much effect. We have a ranger with both shift and teleport powers - often it really wouldn't matter which he uses - he stays out of melee and most often just uses the powers to position himself. That doesn't mean we aren't playing "real DnD". It also doesn't mean our DM sucks. Given that his attacks have a range of 20 squares hindering terrain rarely affect his character. He also doesn't seem to get immobilized, restrained, or slowed that much - on the other hand he attracts dazed, stunned and dominated conditions like a bug zapper attracts moths. Hell I don't believe he even really thinks about which he is using - his choice seems to be dictated by distance and triggers



Aegeri said:


> Except in the case of the _specific_ argument it's easily and demonstrably shown to be incorrect. There are massive and inherent mechanical differences between shifting and teleporting. There are numerous completely valid arguments about 4Es power structure making classes often "feel" very similar - but on this _specific_ point the argument is wrong.



Not for our ranger - as always YMMV and apparently does.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> This is hyperbole and not terribly helpful IMO.




It's not hyperbole, because terrain shows the differences between modes of movement the best. In fact, terrain is why different modes of movement exist and makes the biggest difference in any battle in 4E.  

Do you think flight is the same as walking?



> While they are not the same, it really depends on the game whether or not the differences have much effect. We have a ranger with both shift and teleport powers - often it really wouldn't matter which he uses - he stays out of melee and most often just uses the powers to position himself.




Which is true, but ultimately misses the entire point. He would be thankful for having a power that teleports when grabbed for example. If he is staying very far back though, he can avoid attacks in that manner and may not need to use specialized movement powers anyway.



> That doesn't mean we aren't playing "real DnD". It also doesn't mean our DM sucks. Given that his attacks have a range of 20 squares hindering terrain rarely affect his character.




Ranged attacks aren't bothered by hindering terrain much, I don't think I ever argued otherwise. This was not the argument. Also, how is it that he's always in areas with enough room to use a range of 20 effectively consistently? I mix up distances and areas constantly, sometimes wide open terrain, sometimes narrow corridors with murder holes and all manner of different architecture. I cannot think of any consistent day though where terrain was irrelevant due to a character having a long range. Heck, on the other side of the terrain coin is obscuring terrain - which utterly prevents teleportation because you can't see through it but you can shift in it. In one combat I ran in a volcano, all the "sides" of the terrain were covered with obscuring smoke, meaning that despite being a large open area, PCs line of sight was blocked consistently. This meant that the PCs with very long ranged powers actually have to stay close to the enemies, otherwise they couldn't see them and suffered considerable penalties to hit. Not to mention it prevented many teleportation powers from working because they simply couldn't see where they were going.

But again, terrain is the biggest and single most important aspect of a 4E combat - especially when it comes to how powers will interact. I make this argument because the *inherent mechanical differences* between shifting and teleporting make their interactions with terrain unique and interesting. Even without this, teleporting and shifting are still inherently different due to their frequent interactions with powers monsters have.



> He also doesn't seem to get immobilized, restrained, or slowed that much - on the other hand he attracts dazed, stunned and dominated conditions like a bug zapper attracts moths. Hell I don't believe he even really thinks about which he is using - his choice seems to be dictated by distance and triggers




Probably due to the distance he is standing, but this is largely ignoring the points I actually made that there are significant differences between teleporting and shifting. If your ranger gets grabbed by a monster the difference will immediately be significant: His teleport powers instantly get him out of trouble while shifting is worthless. Also with a ranger being what they are, you usually aim to dominate them to turn twin strike upon the other PCs or you want to stun them so they can't use twin strike. Pretty much that actually 



> Not for our ranger - as always YMMV and apparently does.




It's irrelevant what your ranger does or does not do actually. The only relevant argument is _what is the mechanical difference between teleporting and shifting_. When you actually compare them, the mechanical differences are massive and inherently obvious. That is my core point.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 30, 2010)

On the shift/teleport thing, it's not that they're the same, it's just that they feel similar.  Once per encounter, the Eladrin can get out of a sticky situation by teleporting 5.  Once per encounter the Elven Ranger can get out of a sticky situation by shifting 5.  The key is not 'shift' vs 'teleport,' the key is 1/encounter, and 'get out of a sticky situation.'

At the heart of the 'saminess' issue is the re-use of keywords and rules.  4e makes extensive use of keywords, letting the designers aply consistent, balanced mechanics to a large number and wide variety of powers.  This makes the game /better/ in terms of what it can offer while remaining balanced and playable.  But, the players have to do their bit in filling in the non-mechanical differences.  

The alternative is to introduce a new mechanic to simulate each new power.  That's pretty nearly what D&D has always done, and, D&D has always had balance issues that get worse the more new material is released for a given ed.  4e found a way around that.  Some people hate the slightly more generic feel of the rules required to do that - others really just hate having to play a system that doesn't break quite as dramatically or easily.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 30, 2010)

I understand that the types of movement are different - all I'm saying is that if those the situations in which those differences have a real effect don't come up often the powers can feel the same. Can you really not see how someone could feel that they have a sameness even if they are different in mechanics?

Even if you can't, that doesn't mean others don't - and it doesn't mean the way they feel is wrong.

Just like how you feel the essentials fighter is going to play out isn't wrong (yet - you may change your mind when all the rules are out). But who knows - you may still feel the same after all the rules are known and I may still feel it is easier to teach to a new player than the PHB fighter. Feelings are funny that way.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 30, 2010)

Dudes and dudettes, this thread is so far off topic -- not to mention becoming increasingly hostile -- that I'm pretty sure a lock is imminent, unless we get back to discussing the Knight.

Would someone give me the short answer to the following question, please? What is the reasoning behind the argument that the Knight is more complicated than the PH1 Fighter? (I've seen people suggest that it is.) I'd appreciate a clear and concise answer, if possible. Thanks, team!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 30, 2010)

doctorhook said:
			
		

> What is the reasoning behind the argument that the Knight is more complicated than the PH1 Fighter?




I'll take a shot at this, although I disagree with some conclusions.

The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.
The knight is constantly deciding after the fact whether to apply extra damage and what not.

I happen to feel that the knight is at least equal in complexity in play, it is a good fit for new players because it is simpler to roll up a PC.


----------



## KidSnide (Jul 30, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.
> The knight is constantly deciding after the fact whether to apply extra damage and what not.
> 
> I happen to feel that the knight is at least equal in complexity in play, it is a good fit for new players because it is simpler to roll up a PC.




I agree that much of the essentials benefit is making it simpler to roll up a PC.  However, I think the knight is easier to play because the knight's aura power does not require the knight's player to keep track of which enemies the knight attacked on the previous turn.  From what I'm told, remember who you attacked when can be a significant source of cognative load when the system is new.

The stances have a (smaller) benefit over at-will powers because once the knight activates the right stance for the battle, the knight's can just say "I attack X" without having to re-make the same decision.  Of course, the knight _can_ change the stance every turn (provided he has the necessary minor actions), but now it's plausible for the knight to choose once and spam basic attacks for the rest of the battle.  A PH1 fighter who does that loses a great deal of effectiveness.

As several folks have noted, the knight has access to a level of tactical complexity equal to the PH1 fighter.  The difference is that the knight's mechanics are more forgiving to a less tactical player.  That seems like a benefit to me.

-KS


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 30, 2010)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> Each leader class has feats that modify its healing power in unique ways. Sure, they do start similar to each other for PH1 classes, but that doesn't mean they have to stay that way. (And flavor-wise they're very different.)
> 
> Also, that slide 1 makes a "tiny" difference that can save your character's butt. It once did for my ardent/bard.






UngeheuerLich said:


> A slide 1 is very powerful... it can easily get someone out of a grab.



I know that it is different and that the slide is powerful. 

But... that doesn't mean it has the same relevance to the perception of the player reading or using the rules. All he sees is "okay, healing powers are basically all surge + bonus d6 in healing + some gimmicky thing". The gimmicky thing is tactically important. But it doesn't look that different.

3E (core at least) doesn't offer any real alternatives to healers (some classes have healing spells, but they are not the same.)
If there are examples, the difference would probably be more like the difference between the Paladin's lay on Hands and Clerics Inspiring Word (4E) powers. It would be a lot harder to balance, but it would be clearly different in more than just "gimmicky yet tactically important way". Pre 4, different flavour generally implies a different resolution mechanic, too.

A 3E Warlord would probably have an "Inspiring Words" power that grants all allies temporary hit points. And maybe an "Essentialized" Warlord would do so, too.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Would someone give me the short answer to the following question, please? What is the reasoning behind the argument that the Knight is more complicated than the PH1 Fighter? (I've seen people suggest that it is.) I'd appreciate a clear and concise answer, if possible.



There really is none. There are three main reasons the PHB fighter is complicated:

1. You need to fiddle around with tokens or some other way to remember which monster you marked and which you didn't. You also need to remark every round.

2. There is a very subtle but significant difference between combat superiority and combat challenge, which is only apparent once you fully understood the difference between opportunity action and immediate action, shift and move etc. In my eyes the difference is complicated enough that a significant number of groups out there misunderstood these rules. I know I did.

3. You have your at-will attack powers, but despite the "at-will" moniker you can't use them in a number of common situations, which are charge, opportunity attack, combat challenge attack and attacks granted by Warlords.

Now, it looks like the Knight will have none of these issues. The Knight might get fiddly with the stances, but only a playtest will tell.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 30, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.




If the battlefield is changing meaningfully in the time between taking a minor action and a standard action on the same turn... the knight has a lot more complex problems on his hands than which stance to choose.

Sure, it affects OAs, and such that occur off his turn, but in practice, the most complex decision is what stance to have for -that- turn.

That decision isn't -that- complex:

If your stance is more appropriate, you stay in it.
If your stance is less appropriate, you change to your other stance.
If it doesn't mattter, you stay in it.


It's less like a complex game and cat and mouse, but more like a version of the runepriest's Rune Mastery where you don't need to bother to tell other people what their bonus is, or even care what they do.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> There really is none. There are three main reasons the PHB fighter is complicated:
> 
> 1. You need to fiddle around with tokens or some other way to remember which monster you marked and which you didn't. You also need to remark every round.
> 
> ...




A good summary. I will also throw another vote on number 2 up there. Even to this day I have to check myself on teh difference between combat challenge and superiority. The difference is unintuitive, and I think for the most part unnecessary.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 30, 2010)

Combat Challenge: The fighter can sometimes make opportunities out of very little.
Combat Superiority: Where anyone would be given a free opportunity, the fighter is _better_.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 30, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> I'll take a shot at this, although I disagree with some conclusions.
> 
> The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.
> The knight is constantly deciding after the fact whether to apply extra damage and what not.
> ...



This is more or less how I felt.  Simpler to create, simple to run if you don't care if you're effective.  Possibly less simple than a Fighter if you actually want to be good.  IMO, of course.  We'll see how the actual running of it bears out over time.

To attack with a Fighter, you make one decision, albeit from many options.  Some, like myself, think this is very much a feature, but others consider it a bug.  To attack with a Knight, you make at least 3 decisions, possibly more than that at higher level, with fewer options per decision point.  Some people think this is a feature, whereas others, like myself, think it's a bug.

Most likely it's simply going to be a feature for some and a bug for others, but this seems to be a fundamental divide in how they think about gameplay.  The people on one side of it are speaking Greek and the people on the other side are speaking Klingon.  They can't actually communicate in any way other than to irritate each other.

I hadn't thought much about the combat challenge and superiority issue, but then I never had trouble with that.  On this axis, the Knight is definitely simpler, on reflection.  But again, is that a bug or a feature?

And am I speaking Greek, Klingon, or actual English?  I may never know.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> And am I speaking Greek, Klingon, or actual English?  I may never know.




It doesn't matter; the TARDIS translates it all into standard British English anyway...


----------



## mkill (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> To attack with a Fighter, you make one decision, albeit from many options.  To attack with a Knight, you make at least 3 decisions, possibly more than that at higher level, with fewer options per decision point.



Can you please explain which decision points you are referring to?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 31, 2010)

mkill said:


> Can you please explain which decision points you are referring to?



Now that I think about it, the functional difference is only one extra decision.

"Do I need to change my aura?" is functionally equivalent to choosing a power.
And the only actual new decision is "Is this a good time to apply Power Strike?"

Presumably, to scale in power as it levels, you'll get either additional uses of Power Strike or additional powers that supplement the MBA.  Depending on how those operate, they may introduce additional decision points, like with the Thief's Backstab power.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> Now that I think about it, the functional difference is only one extra decision.
> 
> "Do I need to change my aura?" is functionally equivalent to choosing a power.
> And the only actual new decision is "Is this a good time to apply Power Strike?"
> ...



Which aura do I use = which at-will attack do I use.
I hit! Do I use Power Attack = which encounter power do I use?
N/A = Do I keep this mark or mark someone else?
N/A = Is this an opportunity attack or an immediate interrupt attack?

From what I see, two fewer decision points.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 31, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Which aura do I use = which at-will attack do I use.
> I hit! Do I use Power Attack = which encounter power do I use?



But, that was one decision before, not two decisions in the same turn.



> N/A = Do I keep this mark or mark someone else?
> N/A = Is this an opportunity attack or an immediate interrupt attack?



I keep forgetting about the alleged problem there.   Conceded again, though that's really an entirely separate decision space.  In that space, the Knight is definitely simpler.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> But, that was one decision before, not two decisions in the same turn.
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting about the alleged problem there.   Conceded again, though that's really an entirely separate decision space.  In that space, the Knight is definitely simpler.



Re: at-will vs. stance: Once you get a good aura up, you no longe have that decision point to worry about.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 31, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Re: at-will vs. stance: Once you get a good aura up, you no longe have that decision point to worry about.



Nonsense.  One of them is a Cleave aura, for example.  Great when you are adjacent to two things, useless when not.  If you move, or the enemies do, or some of them die, which aura you want up is suddenly relevant again.  Functionally, this is no different from choosing between "Cleave" and "Reaping Strike" every round.  The difference is largely semantic.

Honestly, a great deal of the changes in Essentials break down to semantics more than syntax.  AFAICT they could have avoided needing new "builds" to regain lapsed players if they had used different semantics at the outset, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

In any case, if you play dynamic combats with lots of motion, the optimal aura will change more often than if you tend to bunch up in a scrum and whale on each other.  IME, 4e is really good at dynamic and mobile, and kinda pointless in a scrum.  You could just use a different system that isn't so dependent on movement and control of movement.  One that doesn't use movement so often or so well.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes, but given how obvious the choice of whether to power strike (and backstab to a somewhat lesser degree) is, it's a non-trivial distinction that the only real decision point is "Of the stances/tricks I know, which one do I use?"

That means every round, you face a choice between 2 pre-selected (and probably very different) stances/tricks, or maybe 3 if you're human and that's the human benefit. By contrast, which attack power to use is a choice between at least 4 choices (at level 1) and as many as 10 (at Level 20). Some characters can add another power (or few) to that list. Granted, some of those are dailies, and the encounters each go away after they're used, slowly whittling down your options, but it would take a long time to get down to a simple choice between your at-will powers.

I imagine there will probably be feats and so forth that add to your basic attacks. But those are probably "always on" - things you can just do "whenever." And frankly, whether you want to slow/trip/stun/daze a particular opponent is another pretty easy (and like _Power Strike_, reasonably intuitive) choice to make.

That's where the reduction in complexity arises, as I see it. The choices are pretty straight-forward, and non-dependent on one another. Let's say I'm out of position for combat advantage - I don't have to choose between using an at-will power that lets me shift a few squares (like _Deft Strike_) and an encounter one that lets me do more damage (like _Torturous Strike_). I can just shift 3 squares using _Tumbling Trick_ and use Backstab. Although realistically, I'll probably be saving that backstab to use on a seriously threatening opponent.

The only advantage to _Torturous Strike_ is that you don't have to have combat advantage to use it. But in my opinion, a rogue who willfully gives up sneak attack damage (if he can avoid it) is just dumb.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 2, 2010)

mkill said:


> There really is none. There are three main reasons the PHB fighter is complicated:
> 
> 1. You need to fiddle around with tokens or some other way to remember which monster you marked and which you didn't. You also need to remark every round.



There's /lots/ of condition tracking in 4e.  This comes down to remembering who you attacked last round.  Not a huge challenge.



> 2. There is a very subtle but significant difference between combat superiority and combat challenge, which is only apparent once you fully understood the difference between opportunity action and immediate action, shift and move etc. In my eyes the difference is complicated enough that a significant number of groups out there misunderstood these rules. I know I did.



This is quite true, but not a matter of complexity.  It's a matter of confusion because (a) the names of the features are too similar and (b) because they both involve MBAs (which makes them /less/ complex, but more ambiguous and confusing).



> 3. You have your at-will attack powers, but despite the "at-will" moniker you can't use them in a number of common situations, which are charge, opportunity attack, combat challenge attack and attacks granted by Warlords.



I find 'at-will' only confuses old-school players who remember when it meant aproximately what 'free action' means now.  But, again, this is not complexity so much as confusion over a term.

The 4e Fighter's /role/ makes it a bit more complex to play effectively within that role, compared to the simplest role, Striker.  That's really about it.  Most classes in 4e are of about the same level of complexity.  The Controller role, and some controller classes, like the Wizard, are more complex.  Some Strikers, like the Barbarian, are a bit less complex.  The Fighter wasn't exactly the simplest class in 3.x, either (the Barbarian, again, probably was).   The Fighter = Simple presumption is old-school, 2e and before.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 2, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Fighter wasn't exactly the simplest class in 3.x, either (the Barbarian, again, probably was).   The Fighter = Simple presumption is old-school, 2e and before.




QFT. People keep saying 3.x fighter was simple, but it wasn't. You had to be very careful in your choices both in the build, and on the battlefield.

The "just hit him with my axe" class was indeed the barbarian, and the more the edition expanded, the more his characteristic of being a forgiving class increased (alternative class features for combat maneuvers withou prerequisites, pounce, and so on).


----------



## MerricB (Aug 4, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> This is quite true, but not a matter of complexity.  It's a matter of confusion because (a) the names of the features are too similar and (b) because they both involve MBAs (which makes them /less/ complex, but more ambiguous and confusing).




It's not a problem because of basic attacks. Those are (relatively) easy.

No, it's a problem because all of these are true:

* An opponent moves, and I can't attack him.
* An opponent moves, and I can attack him.
* An opponent moves, and I can attack him, with a bonus to hit, and he stops when I hit.

It gets worse because *why* he can't attack him is confusing:

* An opponent moves, and I can't attack him...
...because he is shifting and I haven't marked him
...because he is shifting, and though I've marked him I've already attacked a marked opponent / used an immediate action this round.

To play the 4E fighter properly, you need to understand:
* Opportunity Attacks
* Shifting and Movement (as performed by the DM)
* Immediate Actions

Cheers!


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 4, 2010)

Battle guardian
Trigger: An enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura.

Effect: You make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy. If the attack misses, the enemy still takes damage equal to your Strength modifier.

That should work.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> To play the 4E fighter properly, you need to understand:
> * Opportunity Attacks
> * Shifting and Movement (as performed by the DM)
> * Immediate Actions



To play /any/ 4e character properly you need to understand shifting & movement and OAs.  Either because you might be making OAs, or because you might need to avoid provoking them.  

OTOH, to play a 4e fighter well, you hardly need any clue about minor actions, calculating cover for ranged attacks, or targeting with Area attacks, among many other things.


I've seen the problem people have with Combat Challenge vs Combat Superiority, and it's very much a matter of confusion, not complexity.  Once you sort out the terms - or figure out to ignore them - you're fine.

If one was called Combat Challenge and the other was called Superior Oportunist, and each had their own attack of that name associated with them instead of invoking the MBA mechanic, there's be no confusion.  

But, more complexity.  Sometimes simple isn't so simple.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 4, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> If one was called Combat Challenge and the other was called Superior Oportunist, and each had their own attack of that name associated with them instead of invoking the MBA mechanic, there's be no confusion.



This.

The problem is that they failed to leverage their best asset in 4e.  Make these into powers rather than class features.  Put them on power cards and hang the interactions on the power system, which is clean and intuitive in addition to being _always in front of you_ in a reasonably concise way.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 5, 2010)

Canis said:


> This.
> 
> The problem is that they failed to leverage their best asset in 4e.  Make these into powers rather than class features.  Put them on power cards and hang the interactions on the power system, which is clean and intuitive in addition to being _always in front of you_ in a reasonably concise way.




Agreed. Whenever I see things that are written up in paragraph format, but are basically a power for all intents and purposes, it frustrates me. They did it with Warlock's Curse in the PHB, but actually created a power writeup for it on the Compendium warlock writeup (which really.

I've taken various skill actions from different books and written them up in power format and skills see use far more often in our games because of it. The same applies to basic actions like Bull Rush. Combat Challenge/Superiority definitely need it and I agree that these need to have more distinct names, as my players still call one the other. I'd probably have gone with Battle Challenge and kept Combat Superiority. I'd probably also separate the +Wis component of CS out into its own feature name.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't know if it has already been posted somewhere, but here we go; Shield Finesse:

Ritkus's mini and character sheet. on Twitpic

-YRUSirius


----------



## bpkri (Aug 10, 2010)

By the way: the whole discussion (a few pages back) about 4e classes / powers being all the same is not valid from a conceptual point of view.

I (over)simplify:
Looking at a magic missle and saying: "This is no different than shooting an arrow, so what the hell? The mechanics behind classes is all the same, it doesn't matter what you play!" 

That is just wrong from a conceptual point of view.

You look at a power or a specific partial mechanic, which means you don't see the whole picture. But the whole picture is something that you can only grasp as a combination of everything.

It is almost as if you say: You draw a line on paper, I draw a line on paper. It's all the same, right? Maybe it is in this case, but:
You draw a picture, I draw a picture. Even if we both draw the same subject, the whole thing is gonna look very different. And that's how 4e classes differ.

And the essentials will introduce even more diversity.


----------

