D&D 4th Ed

[Night Ninja]

I was one of those who were going 'Oh noes!!111!! It's all over!!!1' when D&D 4th Ed was released. The rules were overly simplified, in my opinion, and the mechanics were almost like a MMORPG. Granted, some aspects showed a marked improvement over some of the ****ed-up bits of 3.5, but as a whole, I thought that it effectively heralded the end of the 'intellectual gaming' thing.

After 4 weeks of gaming in two separate campaigns, I'd like to revise that opinion. It's far more streamlined and the action generally proceeds at a much faster pace. The party is actually a party, not just 'uber-man', 'healer-of-uber-man', 'magic-item-creator-for-uber-man', and 'disabler-of-traps'. The game has been dumbed down a bit, but I've found that it's as complicated as you want to make it. Newbies can get into the game with crappy stat arrays and start swinging with the best of them, but veterans can also optimize their characters to their chosen roles and argue about whether Quick-Draw is better than Improved Initiative. D&D is no longer the exclusive dominion of nerds with too much time on their hands as there are no more encyclopaediac collections of expansions (WotC seems to be working on that though) and no more disgusting multiclass options; in short, it's become a party game rather than an individual game.

 

[Trooper5445]

An interesting and valid viewpoint. I like.

 

[Oktoberfest]

Well.. Fireball is a daily spell? ****ing hell dude.3.5rd Edition was the best one ever i think.

 

[Gundato]

It sounds strange, but keep in mind that you have a lot more at-will and per-encounter spells. Rather than just spamming Fireballs, it is more about tactically waiting for the opportune moment.

 

[CrazyEyes]

Noah Antwiler says that the "classes are too balanced", and I'm all too familiar with this problem. Also, fighters can't use full plate, what the ****?
It's already ordered for me, so I suppose I'll check it out (plus I could use some "beginner's work" as a DM) but I get the idea it's not my type of thing.

 

[Archonsod]

The classes are balanced, which is something they should have been in the first place

The plate thing kind of makes sense. Fighters were always supposed to be the unprofessional brawlers, if you wanted a dedicated warrior then you went for a barbarian or similar specialised class. They now need to spend a feat to be able to use plate, which differentiates them from the actual knightly class (Paladins). Then again, I always ditched armour feats as the setting demanded anyway.

The only real problem I have with the rules is that they're too intrusive. It really feels like they're trying to relegate the DM to being just another player.

 

[Mage246]

They balanced them, but it looks like they balanced them by making them less complex. That's a bit of a step backwards, don't you think?

 

[CrazyEyes]

The plate thing kind of makes sense. Fighters were always supposed to be the unprofessional brawlers, if you wanted a dedicated warrior then you went for a barbarian or similar specialised class. They now need to spend a feat to be able to use plate, which differentiates them from the actual knightly class (Paladins). Then again, I always ditched armour feats as the setting demanded anyway.

I was always under the impression that the Fighter was the more worldly, less religious professional fighter, such as a mercenary or robber knight, or even just a footsoldier. How could you be an "unprofessional fighter" if that's your main class? That's like getting a degree in criminal justice, and then working at Burger King. ****, if I was good at fighting, you'd better believe I'd sell my services, or join an army. Unless you wanna roleplay different, which is fine. Doesn't mean you have to cripple everyone else who wants to use plate, though. Paladins have SPELLS. That's differentiation enough.

 

[Archonsod]

They balanced them, but it looks like they balanced them by making them less complex. That's a bit of a step backwards, don't you think?

Not really. The base classes should be as simple as possible, they're basic templates.

I was always under the impression that the Fighter was the more worldly, less religious professional fighter, such as a mercenary or robber knight, or even just a footsoldier. How could you be an "unprofessional fighter" if that's your main class?

Therein lies the problem. Fighter ends up being the default class for everyone who can't do anything else.

Doesn't mean you have to cripple everyone else who wants to use plate, though. Paladins have SPELLS. That's differentiation enough.

Yup, the class which gets the most feats has to spend one to use plate. I'm sure that's just crippled every possible fighter character out there

Paladins are the guys who have risen from squires to become knights, fighters on the other hand could be anyone from the average street tough to an ex-soldier. Paladins therefore begin with far less options, and get far less options throughout their development. Fighters on the other hand begin with more options and get more options through their development. You can customise a fighter to represent anything from a professional soldier to someone who's handy with an axe, a Paladin on the other hand is somewhat more restricted.

 

[Night Ninja]

The feat progression is now the same for everybody; everyone now gets a buttload of them.

Basically, 4th Ed has been simplified, but in a good way. The powers make combat seem somewhat more heroic, as opposed to 3.5's, where the Fighter took a 5-foot step and started whaling on his opponent with a Full Attack while God stood in the back and churned out Fireballs. The bad thing about that, IMO, is that there's no more Base Attack Bonus, which means crowd control is of the utmost importance. Being a Wizard and running out of spells is not a good thing because you're the primary crowd controller, and minions are bloody annoying little turdfaces when there's a whole load of them.

I'm fine with the Fighter not having plate armour proficiency. In D&D, I'm guessing plate armour is not that common when compared to 'lesser' forms of armour. The Paladins, IMO, were more of the 'knightly order' sort, so it's appropriate to allow them to wear plate.

As usual, they've ****ed up the naming of armour and weapons (mail is chainmail, arming sword is longsword) and the penalties for wearing armour, and there's no one-handed falchion. It's a heroic fantasy system, so my expectations weren't that high in the first place.

 

[CrazyEyes]

Mail (or maille if you prefer) should be in there, whereas chainmail is incorrect. As is arming sword, since longsword, hand-and-a-half sword, and bastard sword are the same weapon. Or are you saying that they've kept the naming the same? Not sure.

Anyway, Arch, I see your point of view with the assloads of feats. Night Ninja, certain classes do get bonus feats. From what I've seen I think fighter still gets enough to drown in.

 

[Night Ninja]

Yeah, but they don't get that many, just enough to make a good build. IIRC, only the Rangers get a bonus feat built in at 1st level.

The Fighter in 3.5 used to be drowning in feats. A friend of mine advised me not to use a human for a fighter, since they already had so many feats that getting one more wasn't going to make a difference.

 

[Weaver]

imho, "fighter in plate armour" is just another old D&D stereotype, like "frail unarmored wizard", "divine caster, animal friendly ranger" or ''sneaky backstabbing rogue". that's the only reason why it disturbes some gamers. "wizard wearing chain armour and shield! omg hax!"

 

[Archonsod]

The Fighter in 3.5 used to be drowning in feats. A friend of mine advised me not to use a human for a fighter, since they already had so many feats that getting one more wasn't going to make a difference.

They still have the problem. It's really down more to the feat table though; if you want to focus on one or two areas, say maximising attacks and damage per attack, then other areas become redundant since you simply don't get enough feats to make the investment worthwhile, particularly not to keep up with your level. You still end up getting the odd feat or three which you really can't use in a worthwhile manner.

 

[Oktoberfest]

The "craft" and "perform" perks are gone. There is not smith or bard anymore. It ****ed my roleplay at all.

 

[Weaver]

The "craft" and "perform" perks are gone. There is not smith or bard anymore. It ****ed my roleplay at all.

that's strange. i had quite the opposite impression. now that craft and perform are not hardcoded into game mechanics i can actually "roleplay" them. 

 

[Oktoberfest]

At least they could put it on to the main rules

 

[Night Ninja]

Well, crafting is not exactly something you can do while adventuring.

IMO, if your GM doesn't allow it while travelling, he's being reasonable. If he doesn't allow it during your downtime, he's being an *******.

One of my GMs plays it like Diablo II: No items that don't drop can be interacted with. The other guy is fine with creativity, for example, he rewarded exp when my Ranger made a successful Nature check after fighting stormclaw scorpions and managed to extract their poison glands.

 

[CrazyEyes]

I laughed at the Diablo bit. Does he give you a choice of "Gossip", "shop", "identify items" and "leave" for NPCs?

 

[Weaver]

why, that would be pretty immersive.