Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

[SIGIL]

Just a little curious over the vehement rant from a couple of pages back over the use of female verbiage and where it comes from....

 

 

Just tired of pc-ness altogether. I swear to God it drives me absolutely bonkers. I have no problem what so ever with female verbiage used in the proper context; as in not just some literary auto-backpetting. If the subject of the text is female, great no problem. If the subject of the text is male, use male verbiage. If the subject of the text is implied use they or their, it or it's, not some stupid made up wishy-washy panderspeech meant specifically to confuse the issue. " Hir " sounds like a really cool name for an Elf, right next to Pat.

 

 

There are now 4 defenses - Armor, Reflex, Will, and Fortitude. Melee attacks usually attack Armor, although Rogues can attack your Reflex and Some classes have Maneuvers that attack Fortitude. Spells typically attack Will, Ref or Fort. So you *could* build a barbarian with a high Reflex Defense, but be aware that your AC will be attacked better than 50% of the time, if you are a melee fighter. Of course, Dexterity or Int (your choice, the higher of the two) still adds to your AC if you are wearing light or no armor, so a high Reflex Barbarian in light armor (leather, for example) would also have a similarly high AC.

 

 

Oi...........

 

 

Are there penaties? Not really - but when you reach a damage level of 50% of your HP, you become "bloodied". There are many maneuvers, spells, feats, and abilities that trigger off that condition. For example, Tieflings get +1 to all attack rolls against bloodied foes, because they as a race can sense your weakness. Some Monsters have powers that trigger when they become bloodied - Dragon breath goes off when the dragon becomes bloodied, to the extent of interrupting initiative order and allowing the Dragon an immediate breath attack at that instant. There are, of course, more examples.

 

 

Oi!.......... This was supposed to be less complicated than; Attack minus armour = success? Or Save vs spell??

 

And what was wrong with the old school classs roles?

 

Fighter - versatile combatant, all weapons all armour. he fights.

 

barbarian - High attack, low defense, hi durability, no magic, generally a lot of fun to be around and has a wench on either arm in the tavern after dragging the near dead lot of his " companions " back to town whilst singign a jaunty tune of how he singlehandedly slayed ( don't correct teh Barbarian's grammar ! ) the Orc Cheiftan, his ugly shaman, and all of his personal guard................... Sorry, rambling.........

 

magic user - uses magic. Duh!

 

Theif- does what the name implies and little else.

 

Ranger - woodsy fighter with a penchant for bows and dual weilding

 

Cleric - Prays, fights, drinks ale and chases hookers.................... Ok I made the last bit up............ Where was I?

 

Assassin - .............. OK that one was a little bit confusing and probably unneccessary

 

Bard - Likes to feel pretty, and sing songs about feeling pretty, and beyond using them to set off hallway traps are generally useless.

 

Duids-......... backpacking-tree-huging-granola-eating sissy boys who probably like to pal around with bards and fairies raising pretty flowers and chasing butterflies.......

 

All this minutia is what kills teh game for me. I understand teh rules are meant to facilitate certain in game actions and govern the results, but all that just sounds like a bunch of unneccessary drek.

 

 

Inhale- exhale..... Don't we all feel better now? :)

[chronoplasm]

Are there penaties? Not really - but when you reach a damage level of 50% of your HP, you become "bloodied". There are many maneuvers, spells, feats, and abilities that trigger off that condition. For example, Tieflings get +1 to all attack rolls against bloodied foes, because they as a race can sense your weakness. Some Monsters have powers that trigger when they become bloodied - Dragon breath goes off when the dragon becomes bloodied, to the extent of interrupting initiative order and allowing the Dragon an immediate breath attack at that instant. There are, of course, more examples.

 

 

Oi!.......... This was supposed to be less complicated than; Attack minus armour = success? Or Save vs spell??

Apples and oranges.

HP is a separate subsystem from defenses.

Defenses are just a simple matter of

 

iff d20 roll + modifier > target defense, then hit

else miss

 

Bloodied is part of the HP subsystem and is an example of 4E's exception based design.

You don't need to memorize all of that stuff to use the system. All you need to know is what is relevant to your character.

If your character gets a +1 to hit when bloodied, that's all you need to remember. You should write that on your character sheet to remember it.

 

And what was wrong with the old school classs roles?

 

Some have argued that there are only four true classes in 4E and that the things called classes are more like subclasses.

 

DEFENDER (Heavy armor, protects allies, basically Fighting Men under a different name)

Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Swordmage

 

STRIKER (Quick/ stealthy/long range, high damage, basically Thiefs under a different name)

Rogue, Ranger, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Warlock

 

CONTROLLER (Blasts everything, basically Magic-Users under a different name)

Wizard, Druid, Invoker

 

LEADER (Heals allies, basically Clerics under a different name)

Cleric, Bard, Artificer, Warlord, Shaman

 

You know in older editions where Druid was just a subset of Cleric, Bard was a subset of Rogue, and Ranger and Paladin were both subsets of Fighting Man?

Well, this is like that. Except now, all the classes we know are subsets of Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

It's not that complicated really.

[SIGIL]

I don't know chronoplasm....... Still sounds convoluted and a bit contrived to me. Defender, Controller ( probably the most contrived of the new " classes " ), Striker, Leader are all just titles which could be used to discribe any one of the classes not just the ones that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen.

 

What does a Barbarian have in common with a Thief?

 

What teh hell is an Artificier?

 

IS sounds to me like the people who came up with this system probably played very formulaicly in their own groups and then figured that was the best way for everyone else to play as well.

[sethohman]

Not convoluted at all, and niether is it contrived. When you play, it makes complete sense. You can play a Barbarian as a defender if you want, it is just the general 'role' of the class. The Barbarian abilities lend him to doing a pile of damage against 1 enemy - Striker. A cleric helps out other classes as a primary function - Leader. Just takes their old role in D&D and puts a name to it.

 

If you want to deal a ton of damage to 1 enemy, leader or controller isn't your best choice. That isn't to say you cannot, just that the class is better suited to that role.

 

As far as Barbarian have in common with a theif, they both usually have higher stealth type skills (as the theif specializes in it, and a barbarian is usually lightly armored and grew up in the woods). They both can also deal a high amount of damage - the Barbarian does it while raging, the thief does it with back stabbing. But both are targeted aginast a single enemy. So quite a bit in common is you look at it that way.

 

Artificer is something from Eberon - they help out peoples armor / weapons. Don't usually heal people, but their abilities help their allies win fights.

[Erion]

For what it's worth, the 4th edition bard is far more useful than in any previous edition of D&D.

[sethohman]

Oh - the heresy! By making the bard useful, true role players won't have a class to take in 4.0 now! That was the only reason to take them before - handicap yourself, and then use RP skills to compensate. Now that they are useful, too many people will probably complain about that.

 

Yes - the sarcasm meter is running up this morning on my desk.

[Erk]

I found the bard not so useless in 3.x either, all things considered. It was less useless than the fighter in the parties I played in. There was just no mechanical reason to play one over, say, a sorceror.

 

Another point to raise about 4e roles, and classes in general, is that the role mechanic is meant to describe almost exclusively the class' combat role. The only exception are controllers, who always seem to have some useful out-of-combat stuff from the start (rituals and cantrips/wildshape, etc). For the rest, skills are pretty loosely restricted and nobody's much better at them than anyone else. I find this a lot more similar to 2e, again, especially in that we're no longer expected to ask a player to roll a d20 to see how well s/he bakes a cake, nor are we told that only rogues can properly learn how to sneak around.

 

This has led to a lot of accusations of 4e being combat based, but I find what it actually means is that anyone can build a skillmonkey or a utility character, without being forced to be a sneak attacker at the same time. Some classes are a bit better suited, but not by too much, and that's as far as it goes.

[SIGIL]

Chitter chatter chitter chatter... Everyone knows bards are useles, always have been always will be... Outside of singing of the Barbarian's exploits when the barbarian loses his voice because he was strangled by an extraplanar Daemon King before slaying it by shoving the broken remnants of his ancestral broadsword through it's right eye, and then twisting it furoiusly around inside the Daemon's head making a nice little hollow space where it's brains were ( you know just to be sure it was dead ) from which the barbarian can drink his mead in the taverns whilst the bard sings the ballad of his great deeds........and springing hallway traps............And carrying sissy stuff, like healing potions.......... and maps.

 

The Barbarian abilities lend him to doing a pile of damage against 1 enemy - Striker.

 

Does the fighter not do the same thing? Also could not a spell also have the same effect? This is what I am gettign at when I say it all seems so contrived.

 

And what is the difference betwixt the Warlock and teh Magic User?

 

 

And what is a warlord? Wouldn't that just be a fighter of high level?

[chronoplasm]

I actually really like the forumulaic structure behind the classes in 4E, but I understand that it isn't for everybody.

You see, I'm one of those people who is most creative when confined to constraints.

If I am given to much creative freedom, I have a tendency to try and go in every direction at once and create something complicated and disorganized.

With the 4E class structure, I'm given a little bit of wiggle room and I have to try and do as much as I can within that space.

Within that little space, you find that the 4E classes are in fact quite nuanced. Even within their narrow range there really is a lot of options and possible directions to go in.

 

First of all, each class is optimized for working within its role. It is incredibly difficult to make an unoptimal character. You have to make a concerted effort to make an incompetent character.

My nine year old sister, with no prior knowledge of D&D, made up a perfectly good Dragonborn Cleric with very little help. I showed her how to do things, but she made all the decisions herself.

The fact that the game is simple enough for a little kid to grasp is not a flaw; it is a feature.

 

Second of all, each class is built with build options in mind. Many of the classes are effectively two or more classes wrapped up into one. One person's Ranger can turn out to be quite different from another person's Ranger while still keeping with the same role and themes.

 

Third, archetypes really make a good starting point for interesting characters. The classes give you an initial idea for the type of character you play, then it is up to you to build up layers of personality. The system supports this completely.

I told my brother about the Avenger class last night and he started reeling with possibilities. He came up with at least three distinct characters based on the same archetype.

 

 

I understand that a lot of people do not like class-based systems. If that is the case, then any edition of Dungeons & Dragons is not for you. Ever since OD&D this has been a game of fitting into archetypes. Some people enjoy that.

The fact that this game does not cater to the personal tastes of everybody does not make it an inferior game. It is a fantastic system when used by the people it was intended for.

[chronoplasm]

The Barbarian abilities lend him to doing a pile of damage against 1 enemy - Striker.

 

Does the fighter not do the same thing? Also could not a spell also have the same effect? This is what I am gettign at when I say it all seems so contrived.

The Fighters can have Striker as a sub-role, yes. They are primarily Defenders though.

Defenders protect allies using a mechanic called 'marking'. You might think of them as goalkeepers of sorts. You could say that they prevent opponents from scoring.

Strikers simply get huge bonuses to damage. They are made for going after the enemy goal. You could say that they focus entirely on scoring points against the opponent.

 

And what is the difference betwixt the Warlock and teh Magic User?

Again, it is a matter of role.

Warlocks are Strikers, but they have a little splash of Controller in them.

Wizards are just straight up Controllers.

 

Controllers disrupt enemy tactics. They are very similar to Defenders in that there is an emphasis on defense here.

Strikers, again, are purely offensive.

 

And what is a warlord? Wouldn't that just be a fighter of high level?

 

Again, roles.

 

Fighters, even at high levels, are Defenders with a little splash of Striker. They can do a lot of damage, but their aim is point defense.

Warlords are Leaders. They use their warcries to inspire allies. They make allies stronger and they can pick up fallen allies and inspire them to get back in the fight.

[sethohman]

Does the fighter not do the same thing? Also could not a spell also have the same effect? This is what I am gettign at when I say it all seems so contrived.

And what is the difference betwixt the Warlock and teh Magic User?

And what is a warlord? Wouldn't that just be a fighter of high level?

 

Fighter does not so the same thing any longer. He is about enemy control - he moves the enemy around, and forces attacks to come at him. He is not a tank so much as a wall - immovable and can suck up damage without dying. He gets into the enemy, and prevents the enemy from getting to the caster. Sure, he can deal a very good amount of damage, too.

 

Warlock - single target spells, above average damage. Wizard - Area of Effect spells, less damage in general. Yes, the Warlock has some AOE, and the Wizard has some single target stuff, but in general, they are more effective in theor roles. I have a Wizard, multiclassed into Warlock, though. He has great AOE, and access to a single Walrock power that targets a single enemy for better damage than any wizard spell of the same caliber. But, I can only use it once per encounter.

 

And a Warlord is a leader. OK combat ability, but he excells at helping other people. Some of his abilities are like 'hit the enemy for some basin damage, and then an ally gets an attack on the same enemy' - what he does is coordinate characters out of sequence. Yes, he can hit things on his own, but he is suited to a player who really wants to help out the group - the classic bard role, only more combat oriented.

[sethohman]

And what Chronoplasm said.

[Deguello]

For what it's worth, the 4th edition bard is far more useful than in any previous edition of D&D.

You are kidding right.. the 1st edition bard was the most useful adventurerer ever.

and had high high requirements.

[Deguello]

Does the fighter not do the same thing? Also could not a spell also have the same effect? This is what I am gettign at when I say it all seems so contrived.

And what is the difference betwixt the Warlock and teh Magic User?

And what is a warlord? Wouldn't that just be a fighter of high level?

 

Fighter does not so the same thing any longer. He is about enemy control - he moves the enemy around, and forces attacks to come at him. He is not a tank so much as a wall - immovable and can suck up damage without dying. He gets into the enemy, and prevents the enemy from getting to the caster. Sure, he can deal a very good amount of damage, too.

 

Warlock - single target spells, above average damage. Wizard - Area of Effect spells, less damage in general. Yes, the Warlock has some AOE, and the Wizard has some single target stuff, but in general, they are more effective in theor roles. I have a Wizard, multiclassed into Warlock, though. He has great AOE, and access to a single Walrock power that targets a single enemy for better damage than any wizard spell of the same caliber. But, I can only use it once per encounter.

 

And a Warlord is a leader. OK combat ability, but he excells at helping other people. Some of his abilities are like 'hit the enemy for some basin damage, and then an ally gets an attack on the same enemy' - what he does is coordinate characters out of sequence. Yes, he can hit things on his own, but he is suited to a player who really wants to help out the group - the classic bard role, only more combat oriented.

 

Depends on how you play the fighter I have seen some so damage oriented as to drop some foes. quickly. but they trade some of the tradional abilities in order to get that. With the defenses like they are AC Fort, Ref Will You will get hit.

It is a given. and some people choose to use that to thier advantage. Ok I am going to get hit, then what.

 

Warlock and now the sorceror are like glass jawed fighters..if they can stay out of range of things they can bring the hurt. Wizards are the real controllers. Sort of an indiana jones of D&D. they fill the gaps left by the other classes

[Erk]

One of the big hangups a lot of oldbies - myself included for a while - have with learning 4e is that class names no longer truly reflect the character. In 4e when you say your character is a 'warlord', that doesn't mean he's a 2e level 9+ fighter. It means his 'fighting style' follows a certain set of abilities. Likewise, if you want to make a weapons expert who does high damage and is mobile, in previous editions you could have gone with Fighter. In 4e, though, you'd be better off with a Ranger, not because Fighter is a bad class but because it means a specific thing: a heavily armoured, plodding tough-guy. Because noncombat stuff is mostly severed from the class, making a Ranger doesn't mean you have to be a friend to the forest and woodlands, lover of all things furry and green. It just means you are good with a bow or fighting with two weapons.

 

I, for one, kinda wish they'd dropped the sacred cow of the oldschool class names and given the classes titles more descriptive of what they do, and made the old class names into something like 'class groupings', so that "fighter" included a number of character classes - kinda like Warrior in 2e. However, the accusations of "this isn't D&D" would have been far louder had they done something that crazy.