Did they fix this yet?

1052 posts / 0 new
Last post

Me and my group tried out 4e back when it was released and had a fair few problems, and I'm curious as to whether or not they've been fixed yet.


 


1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?


 


2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?


 


3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?


 


4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.


5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?


6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?


Cheers in Advance, comrades.

Yes, yes, DS is coming, yes, PHB3, and no.

Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).

 


Im not exactly sure what your issues are, I mean most of them seem to stem from your own inability to play the game.


1. you dont have to use the Default Cosmology.  Are you saying that settings are also set in stone?  Can no originality be used unless it is handed to us?


2. Im pretty sure 4.0 is more flexable with its weapons and armors then 3.5.  I dont see why your rogue couldnt dualwield cutlasses, since there is no such weapon in the game, just reflavor a short sword, which is a light blade and the rogue gets all its abilities.


3. no, not yet.   Or what have you.


4. Define proper wizard.  Who says this isnt a "proper" wizard.


5. coming out in the PHB 3.  Also define missing?  do you mean "Missing from the original release"?  or "OMG THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE IT EVAR!!"?  Give it time, eventually im sure everything that you loved from older editions will resurface.


6. No, What have you.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.


1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?




Sygic is supose ot be in DMG 2 IIRC, but the cosmology is really just fluff, and as such changable anyway.



2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?




The multiclassing system is better then previous editions, as with 3.5 you go to much for to little cost.  and hybrids characters are coming out in PHB3. but a rogue with 2 cutlasses would be a rogue with the 2 weapon feat chains, and/or multied to fighter or ranger for some 2 weapon powers.


Also character concepts are more limited by the player, as classes are basically a combination of power source and tactic, and do not define the character in the same way they did in previous editions.



3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?




Yes, stuff from Planescape, Darksun, Ravenloft, and probabily a few others have appeared in Dragon mag issues.



4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.




Dragon Mag article with some necromancy, and issusions are in arcane power.


Also, summons are in Arcane power.



5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?




Please check the PHB2 class list, but psionics are in PHB3



6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?




Outside of Divine power just Bane, and possibly the Raven Queen Wink, divine power has info on domains and I think there iare evil ones, not 100% as I did not have the cash to spare, yet.


But D&D is about playing heroic characters, so the focus is on the heroic, and the majority of published adventurers for any system do not work with evil PCs anyway, which is the only real place with the "goody-goody" focus as you call it, as all that is missing for a villain character otherwise is channel divinity feats.


 

Me and my group tried out 4e back when it was released and had a fair few problems, and I'm curious as to whether or not they've been fixed yet.

1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?


2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?


3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?


4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.


5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?


6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?


Cheers in Advance, comrades.



  1. Not that I know of. Personally, I don't think the cosmology sucks, and it seems that neither does WotC. Don't expect them to rollback it to the Great Wheel. My guess is that when Planescape comes out (it's not been announced yet, but there's a good chance it will), it will be redone for the new cosmology.
     

  2. There will be an additional multiclassing system, called Hybrid Classes, in the PHB III. If you're a D&D Insider, you can have access to it now as it has been previewed in Dragon magazine a few months ago. It allows you to pick 2 classes instead of just one (with about half the features/powers of each one), and you can still multiclass the PHB I way on top of it. It does allow for more options.
     

  3. None of these yet. Forgotten Realms and Eberron are out, and Darksun is coming out next year. WotC plans to release one setting a year until they don't feel like doing it anymore. We hear that Greyhawk and Dragonlance have a good chance to make the list.
     

  4. There was a new book, Arcane Power, with more options for the arcane classes that were out at the time (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Bard). It did boost the wizard a bit, added illusion, summoning spells and rules for familiars, but I don't think we'll see a wizard as versatile as before.
     

  5. They're coming out in PHB III. Monk (yes, he's now psionic) and Psion have been previewed in Dragon magazine.
     

  6. Not yet.

Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"

Personally, I didn't think it needed fixing.. It might have needed more options (We have been spoilt by the amount of options in previous editions of the games), which have come with the newer books (As we all knew they would).


As for things like cosmology, no, they haven't been changed, and I really, really doubt they will be. But it is just fluff.. if you like the old fluff, use it, nothing says you have to use the official cosmology, unless you are playing RPGA stuff..

If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters

1) It's just fluff. It's perfectly doable to run 4th with ANY cosmology you so choose.


 


2) One thing I feel the need to point out is that with 4e the amount of concepts available is alot greater once you realise that the name of the class doesn't set the nessarcary fluff in stone. If you insist that cutlass wielding character (assuming refluffed short-sword as mentioned above isn't satifactory for you) has to have the word "rogue" on your character sheet then yes you'll feel limited. That concept would work better mechanically as a ranger. Just choose dungeoneering rather than nature and use backgrounds to get thievery and take stealth too. Hey presto you have a sneaky character with a knack for plundering tombs and picking pockets who likes to get upclose and wail on enemies with multiple attacks. You class name is purely mechanics and not tied to fluff.


 


As for Gish types, the Forgotten Realms players guide gave us the swordmage which is as gishy as they get. A few other classes have builds that can be gish-like as well now (Bards for example).


 


4)Arcane power has as said vastly expanded wizards. Also my advice on the rogue/ranger thing above counts here to. Some Wizard concepts can be filled by the Warlock and Sorcerer instead. The pacts and inborn talent can easily be reflavoured as learned knowledge.


 


6) Evil campaigns and characters can be great when done right but horrible done wrong. Fear of the latter means most avoid it (I've rarely seen it done and only once seen it done right) in the name of caution. This makes it kinda niche. With the Assassin coming to D&Di we me see more support for shadier characters over time. Just be patient.

2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?

How much you'll like the "fix"(?) depends on how big a problem it was to start. Rogues already can use two cutlasses competently, though a Ranger or Tempest Fighter better represents a multi-attacking melee character. To this extent they've added in support for some additional weapons outside of restriction, more exotic combat styles, and such, but at the root 4e still stands on the idea of a strong class identity and that the player should find the class that matches their concept rather than the strictly-3e method of "I'm a {class/class/class/PrC} that does {stuff}."

To use the Gish as an example, the Swordmage, Bard, and Artificer are already Gish-ready out of the book.


Additionally the PHB3 will feature Hybrid class rules (currently they're in playtesting, so Insider members have access to the current rules) which are a more complex take on multiclassing that combines class features in a variety of ways to achieve a character that's basically a 50/50 split, but potentially MAD as hell.


4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.


Summoning was heavily supported for the Wizard in Arcane Power and the Invoker (PHB2) is a divine controller with a lot of Summoning powers available.


Lassaize Faire illusions are still not in the game, nor do I anticipate them to ever be given their wildly disparate power levels being based entirely on the creativity (or lack thereof) of the player and the tolerance of the DM.


6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?


"Proper support" for cartoon evil characters is still not there, but characters are still free to kick puppies and eat children fearing only the limits of their DM and fellow players since almost none of the existing material relies on the characters actually being good.


Divine Power, though, has the full range of domains for good and evil deities. Channel Divinity feats are still absent, though no one has noticed since Tempus is the only god worth spending a Feat on.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

5. coming out in the PHB 3.  Also define missing?  do you mean "Missing from the original release"?  or "OMG THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE IT EVAR!!"?  Give it time, eventually im sure everything that you loved from older editions will resurface.


I meant missing as in missing at the start of the edition.


 



The multiclassing system is better then previous editions, as with 3.5 you go to much for to little cost.  and hybrids characters are coming out in PHB3. but a rogue with 2 cutlasses would be a rogue with the 2 weapon feat chains, and/or multied to fighter or ranger for some 2 weapon powers.


Also character concepts are more limited by the player, as classes are basically a combination of power source and tactic, and do not define the character in the same way they did in previous editions.




I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.


 



Yes, stuff from Planescape, Darksun, Ravenloft, and probabily a few others have appeared in Dragon mag issues.




That's good.



Outside of Divine power just Bane, and possibly the Raven Queen , divine power has info on domains and I think there iare evil ones, not 100% as I did not have the cash to spare, yet.


But D&D is about playing heroic characters, so the focus is on the heroic, and the majority of published adventurers for any system do not work with evil PCs anyway, which is the only real place with the "goody-goody" focus as you call it, as all that is missing for a villain character otherwise is channel divinity feats.




Personally, I prefer morally grey characters, which is why most of them are Neutral, but limiting it to goody-goody characters is bad because it reduces options, and less options is bad.



  1. Not that I know of. Personally, I don't think the cosmology sucks, and it seems that neither does WotC. Don't expect them to rollback it to the Great Wheel. My guess is that when Planescape comes out (it's not been announced yet, but there's a good chance it will), it will be redone for the new cosmology. 

  2. There will be an additional multiclassing system, called Hybrid Classes, in the PHB III. If you're a D&D Insider, you can have access to it now as it has been previewed in Dragon magazine a few months ago. It allows you to pick 2 classes instead of just one (with about half the features/powers of each one), and you can still multiclass the PHB I way on top of it. It does allow for more options. 

  3. None of these yet. Forgotten Realms and Eberron are out, and Darksun is coming out next year. WotC plans to release one setting a year until they don't feel like doing it anymore. We hear that Greyhawk and Dragonlance have a good chance to make the list. 

  4. There was a new book, Arcane Power, with more options for the arcane classes that were out at the time (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Bard). It did boost the wizard a bit, added illusion, summoning spells and rules for familiars, but I don't think we'll see a wizard as versatile as before. 

  5. They're coming out in PHB III. Monk (yes, he's now psionic) and Psion have been previewed in Dragon magazine.



1) In that case, I hope they don't do it, because the new cosmology is dumbed down to hell.


2) This sounds better than the original one.


3) Sounds good.


4) How freeform are summons? Is it like 3.5e where you pick from a list, or does each spell summon the same creature each time.


5) Monk sorta makes sense as Psionic if they're not going to add a Ki power source.


 



2) One thing I feel the need to point out is that with 4e the amount of concepts available is alot greater once you realise that the name of the class doesn't set the nessarcary fluff in stone. If you insist that cutlass wielding character (assuming refluffed short-sword as mentioned above isn't satifactory for you) has to have the word "rogue" on your character sheet then yes you'll feel limited. That concept would work better mechanically as a ranger. Just choose dungeoneering rather than nature and use backgrounds to get thievery and take stealth too. Hey presto you have a sneaky character with a knack for plundering tombs and picking pockets who likes to get upclose and wail on enemies with multiple attacks. You class name is purely mechanics and not tied to fluff.


 


As for Gish types, the Forgotten Realms players guide gave us the swordmage which is as gishy as they get. A few other classes have builds that can be gish-like as well now (Bards for example).




Cutlasses were just slashing short swords anyway. Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking). Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.


Also, from what I hear, the Swordmage is another example of a class with arbitary limits in that you MUST use a sword as one. So you cannot, say, use a halberd or a greataxe.


 

It does not seem that 4e is your cup of tea.  Why not stick with what you like?


(please note I do not agree with your evaluations but I've learned to not try to convince folks who feel as you do)



 


Then you want to play as a Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer etc. Of course you could just be lazy and be a Swordmage with Stealth training. *shrugs*  Classes are supposed to have a point. Not just be something to be mitigated completely. That is why they are Classes. I had a similar character in 3e, and frankly he's been a breeze to bring over to 4th. (he had arcane strike to go with it too) Mine's a Sorcerer. With Stealth skill training, and daggerspell mage. It doesn't get much more blend the arcane and skirmisher than that. Before that, he was a Rogue with Warlock multiclassing. (I was allowed to rebuild the character)


Hybrid Classing being out already (it's a DDI thing) means you could do a perfect split if you wanted to. But I've found most characters in previous editions wound up leaning more on one class than the other anyway. (such as the Arcane Trickster you mentioned honestly leaned on being a Rogue more than Caster conceptually speaking so the default multiclassing rules work well.) I have yet to see a "perfect split" from 3e characters because frankly being a Perfect Split in 3e meant you had a Suck and Failure of a character.


What is limited to Good only? Last I checked Paladins can be any alignment now. And alignment based Screw Yous have been stripped out of the game.


Then why not just multiclass into Ranger if you are that hard up for TWF? Seriously? Also, character classes aren't concrete concepts. They are open to refluffing. If you're a lightly armored, dual wielding warrior type. Chances are you are a Ranger not a Fighter. No matter what your 3e character sheet tells you otherwise.


 


 

http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.


 



The multiclassing system is better then previous editions, as with 3.5 you go to much for to little cost.  and hybrids characters are coming out in PHB3. but a rogue with 2 cutlasses would be a rogue with the 2 weapon feat chains, and/or multied to fighter or ranger for some 2 weapon powers.


Also character concepts are more limited by the player, as classes are basically a combination of power source and tactic, and do not define the character in the same way they did in previous editions.




I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.



 


Or you play a fey-pact warlock with theivery and skill training(stealth) that has all the tricksy flavor you could ask for, and spells, all in one class.



4) How freeform are summons? Is it like 3.5e where you pick from a list, or does each spell summon the same creature each time.




 


Same abilities package every time. If you want to refluff the Summon Fire Warrior spell to instead summon a flaming dire badger, that's all you.




2) One thing I feel the need to point out is that with 4e the amount of concepts available is alot greater once you realise that the name of the class doesn't set the nessarcary fluff in stone. If you insist that cutlass wielding character (assuming refluffed short-sword as mentioned above isn't satifactory for you) has to have the word "rogue" on your character sheet then yes you'll feel limited. That concept would work better mechanically as a ranger. Just choose dungeoneering rather than nature and use backgrounds to get thievery and take stealth too. Hey presto you have a sneaky character with a knack for plundering tombs and picking pockets who likes to get upclose and wail on enemies with multiple attacks. You class name is purely mechanics and not tied to fluff.


 


As for Gish types, the Forgotten Realms players guide gave us the swordmage which is as gishy as they get. A few other classes have builds that can be gish-like as well now (Bards for example).




Cutlasses were just slashing short swords anyway. Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking). Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.


Also, from what I hear, the Swordmage is another example of a class with arbitary limits in that you MUST use a sword as one. So you cannot, say, use a halberd or a greataxe.


 




 


This just looks like whining. If it looks like a rogue, has rogue skills, feels like a rogue to everyone else... then you're just getting hung up on the fact that it says "ranger" instead of "rogue."


 


And swordmages don't have to use swords. They just don't get their bonus to AC (which if you're using a greatax is only a -1 penalty vice, say, a fullblade) and can't use anything other than swords as implements. So a big, two handed weapon and all weapon-powers puts you not too far behind a sword using swordmage.

All I have to say with the so called "Stuff is missing" argument is that its not "missing", it is just not published yet.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

If you want a swordmage that uses an axe, talk to your dm about an axemage. It's a quick substitute.

IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c8316b3bd9938ec0266b27a0cd8d77e8.jpg?v=90000) Thanks to Blitzschnell for the banner IMAGE(http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/images/2/23/Phyrexian_Loyalty.png) Thanks to gamma-mage for the banner. You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator. Come see the Expanded Multiverse Project


Me and my group tried out 4e back when it was released and had a fair few problems, and I'm curious as to whether or not they've been fixed yet.


 


1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?



I think the cosmology is fine, but there's nothing stopping you using an older version of a D&D universe, since most of it will just be flavour anyway.


2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?


Swordmages make amazing gishes. But before that, it was entirely possible to make a "true gish".


3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?


They're releasing Dark Sun some time next year, and maybe Dragonlance the year after that (although that hasn't been confirmed yet, to my knowledge).


4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.


Just because they didn't break the spells down into "Illusion, Conjuration" etc, and spell it out for you does not mean that they aren't there. They are. They were never missing. You can say your illusion looks like whatever you want it to look like.


5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?


Psions are being added.

If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.


This just looks like whining. If it looks like a rogue, has rogue skills, feels like a rogue to everyone else... then you're just getting hung up on the fact that it says "ranger" instead of "rogue."


 


And swordmages don't have to use swords. They just don't get their bonus to AC (which if you're using a greatax is only a -1 penalty vice, say, a fullblade) and can't use anything other than swords as implements. So a big, two handed weapon and all weapon-powers puts you not too far behind a sword using swordmage.




It's not. I'm talking about a specific 3.5e character here, and his skills could not be covered by a ranger, so, while his specific style of fighting (that of a pirate who stabbed people in the back with two cutlasses) might be covered under a ranger, his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.


Now, for all I know, in one of the later books there's an Urban Ranger variant that gets these skills and drops the more nature-ish ones like Nature and Heal in exchange, in which case it would be fine and I withdraw the criticism.


Also, that's exactly what I was talking about with regard to arbitrary restrictions - you're penalized for choosing something that isn't one specific type weapon.


EDIT: Another question - are the subscriptions from the old forum going to be restored, because I had a ton that I used as reference materials, and it's kinda irksome that they're all just gone.


 

1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?

That's purely opinion. I love the new cosmology, it's much more believable.

2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?

The classes are not arbitarily strict, however, they are made to represent different fighting styles rather than different kinds of people. Rogue becomes more "Cloak and Dagger Fighter, or Swashbuckler" Wizards becomes more "Evoker, with some conjuration." Fighter becomes more "Tough person who's a master of melee weapons" And stuff like that. The concept has been narrowed down. 

3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?

It has some, but no more than 3.5e did at it's time of development. Dragonlance is likely to return as a full campaign setting. Planescape less so, but possible.

4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.

Wizard is defined differently than it was in 3e. For instance, a 3.5e Evoker (with no Conjuration Prohibitation) is closer to what a 4e Wizard is. Illusionist and Necromancer are supposed to be different classes, and supossedly Psions will be a fusion of a Telepath and an Enchanter.

5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?

A class cannot be missing from an edition, it is simply not included, however this is not the case as Psionic classes will be in the PHB3 of 4e.

6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?

The game is build around Heroic characters. However, you'll notice a fair bit of moral ambiguity is added to the orginal release to counter this (Tieflings, Warlocks, Evil Paladins). The rules of evil deities are in the DMG. There are no alignment restrictions to Paragon Paths or Feats, so there are no evil (or good) versions of those.

Cheers in Advance, comrades.

Be well.

 


Disclaimer for all who want to start an edition war: I like and play 4e, and 3.5e. Don't come yelling to me about either one of them.


 

1) Some of us like the new (simpler) cosmology, but if you prefer an older version of the cosmology there's not really anything stopping you from using it. They've worked hard to disconnect crunch from fluff in 4e, so not much is going to break if you use the old 3e cosmology instead.


2) Hybrid multi-classing is coming in PH3, and should help. There are now several strong gish builds (see the CharOp subforum for more info). Regarding the cutlass-wielding rogue, since cutlasses aren't in the game (they're trying to avoid adding tons of more or less mechanically identical weapons), you could use the stats for rapiers and call them cutlasses, then pick up the various Two Weapon feats. Alternately you could go with a ranger, take the rogue multiclass feat, and pick up some other skills. You might also consider a rogue|ranger hybrid. Remember that classes in 4e are really just mechanics for how your character does things; using the ranger class doesn't force you to act ranger-y, it just represents your skill at dual-wielding.


3) Forgotten Realms and Eberron are the two settings they've released 4e material for so far. Dark Sun is coming next year, and it's been hinted that DragonLance might be coming in 2011. Other settings have arguably been folded into the core setting as sub-regions of various planes (Ravenloft in the Shadowfell, Planescape/Spelljammer in the Astral Sea).


4) The Arcane Power supplement added a lot more support for summoners and illusions (including the awesome Illusionary Wall). It's generally felt that necromancy will no longer be a wizard thing, and will instead be folded into the shadow power source (coming late 2010?).


5) Psionics is coming soon, in PH3. Remember how long 3e had to put all those classes out, and think about the comparatively short amount of time that 4e has been around.


6) The near total removal of the alignment system means that being evil doesn't affect your stats much any more. Most of the available content works just as well for evil characters as it does for the good guys. Wizards has said they're trying to play up the heroic aspect in 4e, which means minimal support for evil characters; probably because most evil campaigns fail horribly (not saying it can't be done, just that it doesn't work for most groups and is thus a relatively small niche). That said, the domain feats added in the Divine Power supplement include the various domains of the evil gods, so if you want evil-specific crunch that's the place to look.

It's not. I'm talking about a specific 3.5e character here

Then you're screwed.

 

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

Running a 4E Planescape game using a mix of 2E and 4E cosmologies with no much trouble.


 

It's not. I'm talking about a specific 3.5e character here, and his skills could not be covered by a ranger, so, while his specific style of fighting (that of a pirate who stabbed people in the back with two cutlasses) might be covered under a ranger, his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.

Now, for all I know, in one of the later books there's an Urban Ranger variant that gets these skills and drops the more nature-ish ones like Nature and Heal in exchange, in which case it would be fine and I withdraw the criticism.


Also, that's exactly what I was talking about with regard to arbitrary restrictions - you're penalized for choosing something that isn't one specific type weapon.


EDIT: Another question - are the subscriptions from the old forum going to be restored, because I had a ton that I used as reference materials, and it's kinda irksome that they're all just gone.


This character concept can be done in 4e too, and there are more than one way to do it. Here is Steve the Pirate (Arrr!), done in two different ways.

First, with a multiclass feat. In order to get the skills you want, I used a background, a rogue multiclass feat, and one skill training feat.


====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Steve the Pirate, level 1
Human, Ranger
Build: Two-Blade Ranger
Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style
Background: Saved from the Noose (for Bluff class skill), Luskan, Occupation - Criminal


FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.


STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.



AC: 16 Fort: 16 Reflex: 15 Will: 12
HP: 28 Surges: 6 Surge Value: 7


TRAINED SKILLS
Thievery +7, Perception +4, Nature +4, Endurance +4, Acrobatics +7, Bluff +6, Stealth +7, Intimidate +6


UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana, Diplomacy +1, Dungeoneering -1, Heal -1, History, Insight -1, Religion, Streetwise +1, Athletics +3


FEATS
Human: Sneak of Shadows (for Thievery class skill)
Level 1: Skill Training (Intimidate)


POWERS (all ranger powers that work well with two blades)
Bonus At-Will Power: Shield of Blades
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Nimble Strike
Ranger encounter 1: Off-Hand Strike
Ranger daily 1: Jaws of the Wolf


ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Hide Armor, Longsword (2) (just call them Cutlasses)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


Then, with Hybrid Classes. This works even better as you don't have to spend a single feat on skills. Only one concession: he uses a longsword and a parrying dagger, because he must weild a light blade for most rogue powers. But that's piratey also. Alternately, you could weild two shortswords and call them "shorter cutlasses":


====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Steve the Pirate, level 1
Human, Ranger|Rogue
Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Reflex
Hybrid Talent: Ranger Fighting Style
Ranger Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style
Background: Brash Duelist (for +2 to Bluff), Luskan, Occupation - Criminal


FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.


STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.



AC: 16 Fort: 15 Reflex: 16 Will: 12
HP: 28 Surges: 6 Surge Value: 7


TRAINED SKILLS
Endurance +5, Stealth +8, Bluff +8, Acrobatics +8, Thievery +8, Streetwise +6, Intimidate +6


UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana, Diplomacy +1, Dungeoneering -1, Heal -1, History, Insight -1, Nature -1, Perception -1, Religion, Athletics +4


FEATS
Human: Hybrid Talent (for ranger's two-weapon fighting style)
Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Parrying dagger)


POWERS
Bonus At-Will Power: Shield of Blades
Hybrid Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Hybrid Rogue at-will 1: Piercing Strike
Hybrid encounter 1: Off-Hand Strike
Hybrid daily 1: Precise Incision


ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Leather Armor, Longsword, Parrying dagger, Dagger (5)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


What is nice is that you can do the concept you want from level 1. You don't have work at it for 5-6 levels like before.

Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"


 I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.




Taking three skill trainings in 4e is also not such a big deal.


Although a 3rd method (if you don't care about race too much) might be to make an Eladrin rogue and take longsword finesse and two-blade warrior.



 I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.




Taking three skill trainings in 4e is also not such a big deal.


Although a 3rd method (if you don't care about race too much) might be to make an Eladrin rogue and take longsword finesse and two-blade warrior.



Or using the Hybrid Steve the Pirate from my previous post, take Weapon Proficiency (Rapier) instead of Weapon Proficiency (Parrying Dagger), and use two rapiers (erm, thinner cutlasses).

There are many ways to skin this rabbit.


But as you can see, Chrisasmadi, doing this guy does not require 3 feats. It's doable with 1 or 2.

Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"

I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.



Bad example, an arcane trickster blending thievery and magic is covered without multi-classing. You could get the concept, without spending a single feat, in PHB1. Check out the book again, as you are looking at it wrong.


Personally, I prefer morally grey characters, which is why most of them are Neutral, but limiting it to goody-goody characters is bad because it reduces options, and less options is bad.



Umm, neutral characters are already covered under the system as is, they are Unaligned. also all the neutral deities are covered as well.


The only thing that was not covered for the range of character alignments was evil deities channel divinity feats, so an divine character of a evil deity is left out a little. Everything else is covered. The game is not focused on "goody-goody" character as you keep calling it, it even states that most people are unaligned. it is light on evil priests, and all you need for them is a single home brew feat per priest.


Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking).



So you are defining a character concept entirely on one class feature, and you can not get the concept without that class feature. you are stuck in a mind set that the designers of 4E decided to get rid of for the game. Class does not define character concept.


Hers is the thing, the class names are just placeholders put on a set of combat tricks. they in no way define the character personality. Associating a concept with one single ability is bad as it limits your options in playing a character based game.


Also, you get get the concept of a dual wielding rogue through the 2-weapon feats, and be getting bonuses for doing so, you just do not get multiple attacks without multi-classing to ranger or fighter, unless you are a half elf, who can get twin strike as an at will in paragon tier (encounter before that)


Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.



Actually it does work, if you use quarry every turn before you attack, especially since you have to quarry the closest enemy. plus it works on its own, which is better for your opportunity rogue, as he can keep it up longer since he does not need to continually generate combat advantage, and the ranger hits more ofter.


 


If you are looking at it from the point of view of someone who is trying to kill his target as fast as possible, a ranger with rogue multi-classing is actually a very good fit for this as you should only need sneak attack once, at the start of the encounter, and quarry is better over the duration of the encounter.


 


his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.


Actually ony one feat is required, take eledrin for race and get the other through a background from PHB2

1. The 4e core cosmology has not been changed, and I don't at all agree that it sucks. It provides nearly every sort of plane or planar location you could want for an actual adventure, in an interesting and logical setup. It was designed with more of an eye for actual adventures than 3rd edition's Planescape-inspired cosmology, which was fun to think about but not nearly as functional (IE: here's a kewl plane where you explode with positive energy after a while, and here's a kewl plane where you explode with negative energy after a while, and here's a plane that's nothing more than a giant metal cube with constructs constantly fighting on it).


No planescape supplement has been announced, and it's unlikely that one will be since so many elements of planescape have been cherry-picked for the core cosmology. It's still a possibility, though.


2. Nearly every character concept imaginable is playable in 4th edition (occasionally requiring minimal reflavoring work), even with just the core 3 books. Possible exceptions include summoners and minion-heavy character concepts, since 4th edition doesn't really encourage or support a single player controlling many individual combatants, and so, taking a very long turn each round.


Gishes in particular have been possible from the beginning, with effective combinations like warlord/wizard available since release. A specific gish class, the swordmage, is also now available.


3. Forgotten Realms and Ebberon are currently supported with supplements, and Dark Sun will be next year. On Planescape, see my comment above. Updates of other older settings are possible in 2011 and beyond, but nothing has been confirmed.


4. The wizard in 4th edition is a proper and complete wizard because it is subject to 4th edition's definition of "wizard," not 3rd edition's. There are no schools of magic in 4th edition, and necromancers are separate from wizards in 4th edition. I'm honestly not sure what news we have about a specific necromancer class coming in the future. As for summoning-heavy character concepts, characters with one or two companions following them around are now possible, but characters with a whole squad of minions are still unsupported, for the reason mentioned above.


5. Psionic classes are coming in the Player's Handbook 3; several classes that were in 3rd edition were in 4th edition's Player's Handbook 2 as well.


6. 4th edition does not and never has had a focus on "goody-goody" characters. It does provide more support for lawful good, good, and unaligned characters, since campaigns with such characters are much more common than evil campaigns, and evil campaigns are often fraught with problems like player characters betraying one another. No more specific support for evil characters has been announced yet; an "evil" supplement is a possibility some time in the future.


-Pirate Stuff-




Uhh...



I can already see one gaping flaw with both of those. Neither one has Athletics as a trained skill, and I would say that, well, swimming is kinda important as a pirate.


Otherwise, colour me surprised, I guess it is possible.


Using backgrounds sounds kinda dodgy, though. How widely used are they in games (or are they just variant stuff the odd person uses, like they were in 3.5e)?


 



6. 4th edition does not and never has had a focus on "goody-goody" characters. It does provide more support for lawful good, good, and unaligned characters, since campaigns with such characters are much more common than evil campaigns, and evil campaigns are often fraught with problems like player characters betraying one another. No more specific support for evil characters has been announced yet; an "evil" supplement is a possibility some time in the future.




A while back, I was reading a preview of the Lich epic destiny on the site, and, well, it had the flavour of "stayin' alive no matter the odds to keep fighting evil", from what I recall. This, to me, is rediculously goody-goody. It's A LICH. It's supposed to be Evil, for gods sake.

Backgrounds are used in LFR, the official Wizards-run games. They weren't in the PH so some people may not be using them, but they're very much core.


As I mentioned earlier, Divine Power has domain feats for the domains of the evil gods as well as the good and neutral gods.

swimming important for a pirate? yes but it's not required on your resume.


it was, and still is, common for people who work on ships to not know how to swim. my father owns a fishing boat and his helper, the guy who spends most of the time on deck handling the traps, lines & netting depending on season while my dad drives & navigates, doesn't know how to swim. several others down at the wharf can't either, and a lot of them have 30-40 years expericence, starting when they were younger on their own dad's boat.


fishing (and pirating) was a job like any other. swimming was beneficial, but in the open seas without a life jacket, knowing how to swim won't always help. when you have have waves tall, or taller, as your ship, your best bet is to tie yourself to the rigging and hope the knot doesn't let go. if it does, hope your buddies come back and throw you a line.


my dad enforces a strict lifejacket policy on anyone in his boat. it's a small and easy enough to turn around boad so he can fish you quickly enough from the ocean should you fall in, but back when boats were less maneuverable in the waters (no motors and such), especially when it was rough, falling overboard is essentially handing your life to Dagon to do as he pleases.


EDIT:


the lich you're thinking of the archlich, basically the "good lich", was presented as an additional Epic Destiny


wikipedia also has a bit more information

3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2


I can already see one gaping flaw with both of those. Neither one has Athletics as a trained skill, and I would say that, well, swimming is kinda important as a pirate.




Uhh... so train athletics?  It's extremely easy to train skills.  It's actually a very good use of feats.  Skill checks in many styles of game will arise a lot more often than many of the other uses of feats.


Regardless, swimming is not something you need to be trained in in order to swim, nor is it necessary for a pirate to be an especially strong swimmer.  Staying afloat and swimming half your speed is a DC 10, which you hardly need training for.  Besides, that wasn't part of the original criteria.  If somebody makes a build with athletics, somebody else will just pop in here and say, "But he doesn't have the pirate training feat, or the funny hat class feature, or the wooden leg flaw!"

A while back, I was reading a preview of the Lich epic destiny on the site, and, well, it had the flavour of "stayin' alive no matter the odds to keep fighting evil", from what I recall. This, to me, is rediculously goody-goody. It's A LICH. It's supposed to be Evil, for gods sake.


  1. That is just fluff, one of the cornerstones of the edition is it is completly seperate from the rules.

  2. It is only present in the EDs tagline

  3. defending against evil does not make you good. 

  4. The Ed is really someone who took the power of a lich without using Orcus as a shortcut, you can easily use that with an evil PC, who does not want to be subservent to anyone.

  5. The ED is primarially makeing you an enemie of orcus, guess what alignment his biggest enemy is. Hint: it starts with U. 

  6. the primary method of playing it against evil threats, this is just suporting that.

  7. PLease stop using "goody-goody" the game is not, and the term is actually a bit too imature for use in these discussions. 

  8. Liches do not have to be evil, it is only fluff that says they do. Get over it.

Are you so stuck on 4E being "goody-goody" because of the lack of rules for evil or vilanous NPCs? If so, they do not exist because of the seperate rules for PCs and NPCs (to somplify the DMs job) and if you want an evil game you just need to change fluff and presto, it works.

2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?


Some of the weapons restriction are designed for balance.  You seem to want to be able to use one of the best damaging abilities (Sneak Attack) with a high damaging weapon.  The rogue class allows you to use a low damaging weapon (dagger or short sword) with a high damaging ability.  If you want to use a higher damaging weapon, you'll have to settle for a lower damaging ability like Hunter's Quarry of the ranger.  The 3.5 days of monkey gripping twin great swords doing 7 attacks per round and adding 10d6 points of damage per attack are over.


I'm not sure what you mean by true gish.  There is a feat that allow you to use any arcane implement you want.


4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.


There are more spells in arcane power that deal with illusions and summoning.


5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?

I meant missing as in missing at the start of the edition.



You're being unfair with this comment about 4E considering Psionic classes were also missing at the start of 3E as well.  You should expect that over time, more and more classes will be available exactly as the did in 3E and 3.5.  Psionic classes will be available when PH3 comes out.  If you have DDI, you already have one build of the psion class.


I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.


3E multiclassing is just as bad.  It is masked by the presence of prestige classes.  You pretty much had to have a prestige class for every single class combination.  If you try to multiclass a wizard/rogue without using prestige classes in 3E, it becomes much worse than 4E multiclassing.  Try playing a cleric/wizard in 3E (not 3.5 where they had the mystic theurge) and you will understand.


4E multiclassing allows you to add a second class's abilities without nerfing your character.  A 3E/3.5 wizard/rogue is a nerfed wizard and/or a nerfed rogue or both.  A 4E multiclassed wizard/rogue gives you thieving ability which you can do using the Mage Hand cantrip at-will.  A multiclassed rogue/wizard gives you access to wizard powers.  There are some very useful wizard utility spells for a rogue that you can get access to via multiclassing a the power swap feat.


There is no Arcane Trickster prestige class in 4E because it is not needed to make a multiclassed rogue/wizard or wizard/rogue be viable.  If you do not like the multiclassed combinations, there is the hybrid character rules that allows you to combine two classes differently.  Hybrid characters will be available in PH3.


Personally, I prefer morally grey characters, which is why most of them are Neutral, but limiting it to goody-goody characters is bad because it reduces options, and less options is bad.


There is nothing in 4E that prevents you from playing morally grey or evil characters.


How freeform are summons? Is it like 3.5e where you pick from a list, or does each spell summon the same creature each time.


Summon spells are specific to the spell.  The reason for this is you don't want the summoner player to have to do an afternoon of research to pick the perfect creature to deal with the encounter at hand.  Summons usually have the information of what the summoned creature does.  If you want the summonned creature to look different, there's no reason why you cannot reflavour a summonned wolf to a summonned panther.  All of the stats will just be the same.


Cutlasses were just slashing short swords anyway. Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking). Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.


If cutlasses are just slashing short swords, just use short swords and call them cutlasses.  That way you can sneak attack.  Take the two-weapon fighting feat to add extra damage.  If you want Twin Strike, you will have to paragon multiclass to a ranger.  Alternatively, you can be a ranger and multiclass to a rogue to get Sneak Attack.  You'll only get Sneak Attack once per encounter.


Note that multiple attack abilities are very, very powerful.  Sneak Attack is the the most damaging class feature.  If you want an at-will multiple attack power like Twin Strike and the ability to use Sneak Attack with that power at-will, you will need to paragon multiclass.


It's not. I'm talking about a specific 3.5e character here, and his skills could not be covered by a ranger, so, while his specific style of fighting (that of a pirate who stabbed people in the back with two cutlasses) might be covered under a ranger, his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.


Keep in mind that there is no perfect conversion from 3.5 characters to 4E.  If your expectation is to be able to create a character in 4E exactly like your 3.5 character, you will be disappointed.  There are a variety of reasons for this.  4E is very different than 3.5.


Still you should be able to create a similar character with proper class/multiclass combinations and the use of a few feats and certain backgrounds for your character.  Isn't making a character that fits your character concept worth spending a few feats?


Using backgrounds sounds kinda dodgy, though. How widely used are they in games (or are they just variant stuff the odd person uses, like they were in 3.5e)?


We use them in our games.  It gives you either a skill bonus or allows you to choose trained skills not normally associated with your class.  I think it is very good at adding some depth to your character and gives players some additional flexibility in building their characters.  By no means are they overpowered.

<\ \>tuntman

Uhh...

I can already see one gaping flaw with both of those. Neither one has Athletics as a trained skill, and I would say that, well, swimming is kinda important as a pirate.


Otherwise, colour me surprised, I guess it is possible.


Using backgrounds sounds kinda dodgy, though. How widely used are they in games (or are they just variant stuff the odd person uses, like they were in 3.5e)?




Oh, easy enough. Athletics is a class skill for rangers, so I could have picked it in place of, say, Acrobatics.

Backgrounds are not a way to cheese out some mechanical advantage out of the game (well, the PHB 2 ones anyway. Some of the FR ones are iffy). They're a way to complete the character concept you want. For Steve the Pirate, I looked at some shady backgrounds, and I picked one that both fits the character and gives the class skill I wanted.

Sebby
"I'm a bonster. Rawr!"

As far as cosmology, they did publish a Manual of the Planes that you might want to check out.  Also, you may want to go back to the preview book Worlds and Monsters. IIRC, that had some info on the planes.  Neither of these will add new planes, but they do flesh out the ones there are more.


Don't expect too much detailed information though. The default D&D world in 4e is supposed to be basically a skeleton with few set features and not even really a name (commonly referred to as points of light, but that's more a concept than an actual name for the world). 


Also, I don't have them, but the various setting books may have more info on the planes in their respective campaign settings.


5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?

I meant missing as in missing at the start of the edition.



You're being unfair with this comment about 4E considering Psionic classes were also missing at the start of 3E as well.  You should expect that over time, more and more classes will be available exactly as the did in 3E and 3.5.  Psionic classes will be available when PH3 comes out.  If you have DDI, you already have one build of the psion class.




It took less than a year for 3.5e Psionics to be released.


My main issue with the lack of classes is that, as well as the PHB having less classes, the sourcebooks themeselves have no classes at all.


Take, for example, Arcane Power (which I have seen a friend's copy of) -


Overall, it appeared to have a few variant class features, some prestige paths for each class and  some epic destinies, some new feats and a big new list of spells and a few new items and backgrounds.


Now, compare this to Complete Arcane, which had three new classes,  ninteen prestige classes, and then a list of feats, spells, items and background stuff.


This seems like overall less value to me, but there you go.


If the intention is to keep new classes entirely within setting books and Player's Handbooks, then they should really have released a Psionic Player's Handbook or something already.

It took less than a year for 3.5e Psionics to be released.

My main issue with the lack of classes is that, as well as the PHB having less classes, the sourcebooks themeselves have no classes at all.


Take, for example, Arcane Power (which I have seen a friend's copy of) -


Overall, it appeared to have a few variant class features, some prestige paths for each class and  some epic destinies, some new feats and a big new list of spells and a few new items and backgrounds.


Now, compare this to Complete Arcane, which had three new classes,  ninteen prestige classes, and then a list of feats, spells, items and background stuff.


This seems like overall less value to me, but there you go.


If the intention is to keep new classes entirely within setting books and Player's Handbooks, then they should really have released a Psionic Player's Handbook or something already.




3.5 and 4e are different systems. Either you can accept that, and play 4e, accept that and play 3.5, not accept that and waste your time posting on the 4e boards, or not accept that and post on the 3.5 boards. Simple as that.

If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.


As others have mentioned, it is currently being cooked up for early next year, PHB3. Maybe you want to make a fair comparison and compare it with the original Psionic Handbook for 3rd Edition, not the remake that already had most of the groundwork done.



A quick bit of Googling gives a time between the 3.0 PHB and the 3.0 Psionics Handbook at about eight months (Aug 00 to March 01).

Personally I don't care if it take two more years for Psionics to come out, as long as when it does come out, it is done right and doesn't break the game.. unlike most of the previous incarnations of psionics.. same goes for any class/race/spell/feat/ritual/monster or whatever. I would much rather they took the time to get it right (which is apparently why we didn't see things like the bard, sorcerer and barbarian earlier), than to release something that is half assed, broken as hell and generally a nightmare for DM's everywhere.

If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters

Hey, if you want to see what is going on with psionics, just get a DDI subscription, they have already shown it to those people. It's pretty interesting.


Hey, if you want to see what is going on with psionics, just get a DDI subscription, they have already shown it to those people. It's pretty interesting.





Yep the Psion and the Monk, I got them before my subscription ended. The Psion was interesting, i like the new mechanic with power points, I thought that was interesting. I like the idea of the Monk being psionic, but I don't like it at the same time, but I do think once I see the full class I will like it some more.
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters

Chrisasmadi, as far as psionics goes, consider how much page space the fighter class got in the 3.5 PH. Now look at how much page space it got in the 4e PH. The new format limits them to 8 or so classes per book, which meant that some fan favorites like the barbarian, bard, druid, and sorceror didn't make it into the PH1. As there was more demand for those than for psionics, they came in PH2 and psionics is having to wait for PH3.


You might ask, well then why are we having to wait so long for the PH3? Simple: WotC actually gives a -censored- about balance now. That means new classes take more time to put out because they take longer to develop and longer to test.


You might ask, well then why are we having to wait so long for the PH3? Simple: WotC actually gives a -censored- about balance now. That means new classes take more time to put out because they take longer to develop and longer to test.




Actually I found the Psion to be very well balanced in play.

I was a d8: Deep, Dark and Cynical... but apparently they changed the quiz...

Druid.jpg

12.jpg

Member since April 2001
Sign In to post comments