The excitement of the good old days of 4e

290 posts / 0 new
Last post
Robert have you loooked at D&D next? Reminds me alot of pre 3rd ed rules but using modern d20 mechanics and there is a definate 4th ed influence there.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 The things I liked in earlier editions of the game (pre 3rd ed) was the simplicity of the rules. 3rd ed I liked the options and d20 nature of the game, 4th ed was sweet from the DM side of things and some other bits and pieces.

 The one thing I did not like was the rail roading of the classes like when 4th ed first came out. If you wanted to play a fighter you had 2 options really- shield and two handed. D&D next has all the main options built in except tempest (TWF style) without requiring 15 pages of bloat and stupid powers to support it. There are powers as such there and you cuold build a DDN fighter to resemble a 4th ed one if you liked or just hit harder if you liked earlier versions of the game. It also resembles 3.5 with its d20 rules, vancian casting and the like. Balance may not be perfect but 4th ed dumped on that concept fast anyway-see char op boards.

 I think D&D next looks promising unless you are the most hardcore 3rd/4th ed loyalist. See how it ends up I suppose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Its like people still can't figure out alot of people were not interested in 4th because the scale of the revisions turned alot of people off the game.

 3.0 mechanically was a drastic departure form 2nd ed but by then the 2nd ed mechanics were very dated and had not changed to much since 1977. The mechanics changed but D&D was still the same game at least in terms of classes for the most part, races and setting.

 4th ed came along 5 years after the last revision of the game, the classes and structure were fundamentally different, classes and races  were missing initially, and the whole setting was completely different (bye bye great wheel). Some dislike of 4th ed was completely irrational but if you make somehting that is to different or percieved to be to different (New Coke) from the original product you are gonna have problems. It is probably a safe bet the number of "grognards" outnumber the reasonably few new D&D players 4th ed attracted although any new edition (of anything not just RPGs) attracts new players/consumers.

 Even if people did ot want to give 4th ed a chance thats at elast an entirely rational consumer reaction based on 4th ed being different regardless of how good or bad one thinks it is. The D&D community is used to edition change as 4th ed was about the 5th version of D&D (1st-3rd+ basic) that came along. It wasn't a new edition that provoked the backlash it was the content of that new edition that provoked a backlash.

I don't think there's any doubt that WotC could have done more to create acceptance and the way they presented 4e was overall pretty lousy but the problem I see is people projecting that into a dislike of 4e as a game system and attempting to reject it as somehow not D&D.

I mean sure, you CAN do all those things, you can say it isn't D&D and h4te all over it if you want, but it is narrow minded (by you I don't mean anyone specific). From what I've seen there were a LOT of groups out there with 3 or 4 people that were perfectly happy to play 4e and one jerk that was like "I'll take my toys and go home", and a lot of them just threw up their hands and went on to some other game.

I still say a lot of it had to do with the degree to which a lot of people have invested themselves in 3.5 and talked it up so much over the last 10 years that they're damned if they're going to ever admit there's any other D&D that is any good. Of course it is clever of Mike to try to tap into that, more power to him, but it isn't likely to help produce a good game.

Like robertneaves says, I AM one prime person to be called a 'grognard'. I never liked 3e and we kept playing 2e (not much, we mostly played other stuff). The things that make 4e attractive and 3e unattractive SO FAR don't make me interested in DDN. IMHO it is basically a slightly tweaked 3e so far. Just not even interesting enough to get people to play test.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I freely admit I don't like 4th ed that much but if a 4th ed DM ran a game next door for example I would probably play it time permitting. I actually miss elements of it at times in 3.5 based games. I kinda liked parts of it at 1st (minons!!!!) but alot of feats became "you're an idiot if you don't take this" and the classes felt very railroaded i.e heres the tempest if you want to dual wield as a fighter. Erm thanks 4th ed I can be a archer fighter in 3.5 (and not suck) and in D&D next. The shrill idiots on the 4th ed boards were like "play a ranger". Half the fun in 3.5 was the road traveled to get to the endpoint (usually around level 10 when the game would fall apart). In PF Bard, monk, cleric, paladin, ranger, fighter archers were all good and sometimes rogue and barbarian as well.

3.5 problem for us was games falling apart at higher levels. 4th ed problem was we were bored before we got to 10th level- 8th level was our record IIRC.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 I freely admit I don't like 4th ed that much but if a 4th ed DM ran a game next door for example I would probably play it time permitting. I actually miss elements of it at times in 3.5 based games. I kinda liked parts of it at 1st (minons!!!!) but alot of feats became "you're an idiot if you don't take this" and the classes felt very railroaded ie heres the tempest if you want to dual wield as a fighter. Erm thanks 4th ed I can be a archer fighter in 3.5 (and not suck) and in D&D next. The shrill idiots on the 4th ed boards were like "play a ranger". Half the fun in 3.5 was the road traveled to get to the endpoint (usually around level 10 when the game would fall apart). In PF Bard, monk, cleric, paladin, ranger, fighter archerits were all good and sometimes rogue and barbarian as well.

3.5 problem for us was games fallig apart at higher levels. 4th ed problem was we were bored before we got to 10th level- 8th level was our record IIRC.


I'm going to have to agree with you completely. I like many 4e concepts, like minions, utilities for martial classes, and easy accessibility. But I feel like  t failed to execute, many ideas properly like, proper balance. It limited character options by having powers that limit what a character can do. A Fighter with a bow is a joke in 4e as the fighters has no options for him to use a bow properly, what happened to master of all weapons? Even today there are only a couple of fighting styles for classes, and it feels too limited, a fighter can't be good with a greataxe, duelweilding, and unarmed fighting. The classes (not just the fighter) seem to be built for one specialty. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

That and alot of races were also rail roaded towards specific specialities as well. I just used the fighter as an example, one can apply it to other classes.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The archer fighter on 4e is the standard ranger, and during PHB1 only era, the dual wield fighter was the ranger.  4e Rangers are very diferent than their 3.X and before counterpart, they don't have spells at all.  Rangers on 4e are more like military rangers real life rangers or commandos, than having Aragon influence, and i will be blunt...today more people will recognize the name ranger more for the military unit or as commando than tolkien's lore...even more because LotR movies, Aragon never used magic at all and all his supernatural nature was removed from the theatrical release.  The other reason was the roles (defender with bow and arrow?)

Classes on older editions were even more railroaded...you know why? because they actually didn't had any choice at all as they level up as class, only feats...and because the game was designed with trap options (Monte Cook confesed he filled 3rd edition with trap options to reward min/maxer for system mastery), you don't really had that many choices or options...the expertise feat tax on 4e is NOTHING compared to 3.x feat taxes.

If you think there is no such think as power gaming on older editions, i will say you are either lying or you are completly blind or ignorant...or maybe you lie to yourself
Nope powergaming has existed in all editions of D&D. The game is kinda notorious for it. And being honest I'm kinda of a half decent powergame rmyself if I can be bothered. I was here when the char op boards were the min/max boards and people did actually post the min parts as well. I even contributed a bit back then

 I think you fail to understand railroading. In 3.5 not all options were viable of course but the fighter for example made a decent sword and board class, two handed weapon, duelist, or whatever. At least as far as non spellcasters went in the game.

 In D&D next the fighter has in game support for all of the major styles except dual wielding which they could probably add. Rather than tie a fighter power to a specific build they are letting you use that power/maneuvre on your basic attacks. It means you can have alot more options with less space preserving 3.5 flexability and 4th eds balance as long as they do not go overboard on what the special effects actually do. An od school pre 3rd ed person who thinks fighters should not have any powers could just use  his dice for extra damage, another person may want to duplicate a 4th ed fighter another may want a little of both and all of the fighter builds feed off the same basic structure. One can actually dual wield as a fighter as well, but you may be lmited to a finesse fighter although you can actually choose that build with a two handed weapon or a sword and board if you want.

 The D&DN fighter also only uses 3 pages compared to 14 or 15 4th ed required for basically two paths to go down and one could create something very similar to a 4th ed fighter if you want. Throw in the way skills are handled and its is basically a genius system so far at least. One can already see splatbooks coming out with more feats and spells a'la every other edition of D&D but they can all feed off the same basic rules without requiring pages and pages of powers or extensive feat support to make the concept viable.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

As someone who's been playing D&D since the 80s, I can say that even though Next hasnt been released yet, it already feels dated.  Can't see myself going back to that crappy playstyle.
I don't get the class railroading argument. The whole idea of a class is to define specialization. This ain't GURPS.


It just feels like your character can be good at only ONE thing, which in reality, makes little to no sense. Just because I can type and read, does that mean I can't write with pen and paper properly (Maybe not the best comparison but you get my gist)  Like I said I can't be a fighter that can drop his sword, and shield pick up a light crossbow with one hand and start punching with his free hand and be good at these things. 4e want's to railroad you into one specific specialization,  this isn't just with the fighter but every class, they all have basic builds that your are expected to choose.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Who said you can't pick up a crossbow as a fighter and use it? you have as many options with crossbow as any older edition fighter...the amount of options being 1...Ranged Basic Attack.  You can also use your hand to punch people if you want, it's obvious that you are no monk or as good as a fighter that specialize on brawler, but you can still do it, hell you can still use your powers with unarmed attack.
I guess I can say a flaw of 4e is that it seems to make players think that have to min/max. I don't think so, but many make arguments that seem so. I hate those type of players. Sure, it's great to have an awesome character. But I like playing flawed characters. They're more realistic and more fun. Sure, they're good with a sword (or whatever) but they suck with a bow (or whatever else). I don't imagine Conan being a great marksman. Or could Legolas wield a greataxe? I don't think so.



It's only a flaw because the bad propaganda put out by *cough* certain groups of people.  The fact is, there system has /expectations/ and that's warped into somehow needing to min-max.  Meeting the baseline expectations isn't difficult provided the player uses a little common sense.
Who said you can't pick up a crossbow as a fighter and use it? you have as many options with crossbow as any older edition fighter...the amount of options being 1...Ranged Basic Attack.  You can also use your hand to punch people if you want, it's obvious that you are no monk or as good as a fighter that specialize on brawler, but you can still do it, hell you can still use your powers with unarmed attack.


Yeah but you can only specialize in one thing. I can't be a swordsman and a master unarmed fighter 4e just doesn't support characters being very good at a lot of things. If you read my previous post thoroughly, before opening your "mouth" you may have noticed me saying that you can do all these things,  but its very difficult. And fighters aren't the only ones. Wizards, rogues, clerics, bards, sorcerers, paladins, warlords, barbarians, and pretty much every other class suffers from this way of play one or two ways to play the class effectively. In any other edition a character could become good at something from training through feats, multiclassing, or oldschool dualclassing. Powers and the way classes worked severely limited what character could do in terms of variety of options.  

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

I guess I can say a flaw of 4e is that it seems to make players think that have to min/max. I don't think so, but many make arguments that seem so. I hate those type of players. Sure, it's great to have an awesome character. But I like playing flawed characters. They're more realistic and more fun. Sure, they're good with a sword (or whatever) but they suck with a bow (or whatever else). I don't imagine Conan being a great marksman. Or could Legolas wield a greataxe? I don't think so.


Conan could be if he practiced, and Legolas could be too. The thing about characters is that they are heroes and anything should be possible to some extent for them.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Who said you can't pick up a crossbow as a fighter and use it? you have as many options with crossbow as any older edition fighter...the amount of options being 1...Ranged Basic Attack.  You can also use your hand to punch people if you want, it's obvious that you are no monk or as good as a fighter that specialize on brawler, but you can still do it, hell you can still use your powers with unarmed attack.


Yeah but you can only specialize in one thing. I can't be a swordsman and a master unarmed fighter 4e just doesn't support characters being very good at a lot of things. If you read my previous post thoroughly, before opening your "mouth" you may have noticed me saying that you can do all these things,  but its very difficult. And fighters aren't the only ones. Wizards, rogues, clerics, bards, sorcerers, paladins, warlords, barbarians, and pretty much every other class suffers from this way of play one or two ways to play the class effectively. In any other edition a character could become good at something from training through feats, multiclassing, or oldschool dualclassing. Powers and the way classes worked severely limited what character could do in terms of variety of options.  



You can't be the best at everything, you are basically asking to be as good as somebody else that specialize into something.  You want to be really awesome with unarmed attacks while also being awesome swordman? Multiclass into Monk...master of fist, it gives you monk unarmed strike, your unarmed attacks turns as good as if you are using a longsword on it.  The out of the gate specialization of the classes/builds are just to help people make competent characters for something, you want to do more diferent things, use your feats for that, multiclass into other class, take your class feats, your mc's class feats, general feats, racial feats! Versatility is as good on 4e or even better than specializcng into only one thing.  The only reason 3.X fighter is competent out of the gate with all weapons, is not because the class is full with options for that, it's just because of high BAB and proficencies.
I don't see 4e multiclassing as real multiclassing maybe multidabbling. And "The only reason 3.X fighter is competent out of the gate with all weapons, is not because the class is full with options for that, it's just because of high BAB and proficencies." makes no sense, basically what you just said was that the class isn't full of options, but just has the out of the gate potential to have many skills, every weapon, and armour a fighter can use effectively he can use effectively at anytime, you can't say the same for 4e. For a fighter to have a change of heart and start using a different fighting style (effectively) he must almost completely change his class setup including his specialty which he chooses at  level one.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />But the OGL seem to cause D&D's struggling user base to suddenly become massive. And user base is primarily what I want in a rules system.




Yeah, exactly. The details of the rules, while important, are nothing like as critical as the overall health of the ecosystem. The guys at Wizards are talented, etc., but opening it up allows a lot more talent to be brought to bear, and engages many more players.

Closing the content down will kill the game, especially given how limited WOTC's online tools are.

I don't see 4e multiclassing as real multiclassing maybe multidabbling. And "The only reason 3.X fighter is competent out of the gate with all weapons, is not because the class is full with options for that, it's just because of high BAB and proficencies." makes no sense, basically what you just said was that the class isn't full of options, but just has the out of the gate potential to have many skills, every weapon, and armour a fighter can use effectively he can use effectively at anytime, you can't say the same for 4e. For a fighter to have a change of heart and start using a different fighting style (effectively) he must almost completely change his class setup including his specialty which he chooses at  level one.



Better at what? Fighter don't gain anything as it level up, only feats...feats that are mostly invested on boring modifiers crap, wish is not unique, because it's just generic feats that every class takes.  Don't compare what a fighter can do compared to what a 3.x can do.  You can do what 3.x can do with any weapon you want on 4th edition, and ALSO you can do so much than that based on what you specialize.
Better at what? Fighter don't gain anything as it level up, only feats...feats that are mostly invested on boring modifiers crap, wish is not unique, because it's just generic feats that every class takes.  Don't compare what a fighter can do compared to what a 3.x can do.  You can do what 3.x can do with any weapon you want on 4th edition, and ALSO you can do so much than that based on what you specialize.


Yes but once before, a 3.5 fighter can be good with all the weapons he is proficient with. He doesn't need to specialized in order to be effective. Sure a 4e fighter that is specialized with brawling can pick up a spear or sword and use it, but does it really do him any good?

Also what do you mean by: "Don't compare what a fighter can do compared to what a 3.x can do."

Multidabbling seems more realistic to me. I like it better that way. Multiclassing is for schizophrenic players. ;)



Then call me schizo! Dabbling is alright, but if I wanna multiclass I wanna multiclass. I liked hybrid classes though.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

But the OGL seem to cause D&D's struggling user base to suddenly become massive. And user base is primarily what I want in a rules system.




This is very true. If Wizards wan't more users/customers make the OGL effective for D&D Next! No OGL effectively made 4e a dead game walking. Especially with a good SRD. People's eyes almost bug out of their head when they here a rulebook to play a game is 40 dollars. I think of the SRD as a form of shareware (like  DOOM had), spread the "shareware" to as many people as possible, if they like it they will be glad to drop 40 bucks for a book.



Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

If my character decides one day to pick up an unfamilar weapon and start using it, he's going to. I don't care if he only gets a +1 to hit instead of a +8. "Check out this sweet new sword, guys!" is what he'd say. As he levels up maybe he'll improve his skill some, but certainly he could never expect to be as good with it as whatever weapon he'd trained in for years before. Even a super ultra lord mega warrior should realize that. People can't be good at everything they want to do, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. That's like saying I won't learn guitar unless I'm guaranteed to be a rockstar, and obviously I will be since I'm such a badass whistler.


Well if that's how you play then fine. But typically fighters are considered weapon masters (Or atleast becoming one), they normally have training of some form with other weapons as most are veterans, militia members, mercenaries, etc. But back to the original point I was trying to prove, 3.5 fighters out of the box are more versatile with weapon uses. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

If my character decides one day to pick up an unfamilar weapon and start using it, he's going to. I don't care if he only gets a +1 to hit instead of a +8. "Check out this sweet new sword, guys!" is what he'd say. As he levels up maybe he'll improve his skill some, but certainly he could never expect to be as good with it as whatever weapon he'd trained in for years before. Even a super ultra lord mega warrior should realize that. People can't be good at everything they want to do, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. That's like saying I won't learn guitar unless I'm guaranteed to be a rockstar, and obviously I will be since I'm such a badass whistler.


Well if that's how you play then fine. But typically fighters are considered weapon masters (Or atleast becoming one), they normally have training of some form with other weapons as most are veterans, militia members, mercenaries, etc. But back to the original point I was trying to prove, 3.5 fighters out of the box are more versatile with weapon uses. 




Read the 4th Ed fighter class again, proficiency with all simple/military melee/ranged weapons at the start. That means they get their proficiency bonus with every weapon , thus making them as equal on weapon usage as the 3.5 fighter. Your conclusion above is incorrect based on facts. 

Ventus 
If my character decides one day to pick up an unfamilar weapon and start using it, he's going to. I don't care if he only gets a +1 to hit instead of a +8. "Check out this sweet new sword, guys!" is what he'd say. As he levels up maybe he'll improve his skill some, but certainly he could never expect to be as good with it as whatever weapon he'd trained in for years before. Even a super ultra lord mega warrior should realize that. People can't be good at everything they want to do, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. That's like saying I won't learn guitar unless I'm guaranteed to be a rockstar, and obviously I will be since I'm such a badass whistler.


Well if that's how you play then fine. But typically fighters are considered weapon masters (Or atleast becoming one), they normally have training of some form with other weapons as most are veterans, militia members, mercenaries, etc. But back to the original point I was trying to prove, 3.5 fighters out of the box are more versatile with weapon uses. 




Read the 4th Ed fighter class again, proficiency with all simple/military melee/ranged weapons at the start. That means they get their proficiency bonus with every weapon , thus making them as equal on weapon usage as the 3.5 fighter. Your conclusion above is incorrect based on facts. 

Ventus 

 Missing the point again, 4e pigeon holes you into being good with a select weapon, I've know since the get go that 3.5 and 4e fighters have the exact same proficiencies...

 
And back to Robert, ever hear of right tool for the right job? I think that can help explain fighter versatility, In all seriousness should a fighter use a spiked gauntlet on a dragon, or a sharp bladed weapon? A sword or a maul on a skeleton? A polearm, or dagger against something with a longer reach? 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

4th ed fighters were quite good but they powered them up relative to the non casters at the expense of being pigeonholed into a role and then a defined build of that role. Initially they had 2 choices to go down- sword and board or two handed fighter.

3.5 fighters tended to specialise in a weapon true but alot of people liked the way you got there. A fighter (or fighter XYZ/prc) could pick any weapon style he liked. Sword and board, two handed, dual wielding, duelist,  archer, speciality build etc.  The fighter was also quite good at it (at least for a non spellcaster). The fighters real problem in 3.5 was overpowered spellcasters and lack of skill points for out of combat stuff.

 This meant that when 4th ed came out alot of people could not convert their fighter over from 3.5 without changing class as people told them to go ranger or whatever.  People also liked 3.5's flexability. Converting a 2nd ed character to 3.5 was not difficult even if the conversion wasn't exact. Same level, weapon and similar ability scores were doable. Converting to 4th ed was literally impossable for some fighter builds without changing class or being useless. All in all it rubbed people the wrong way.

 Other classes also had this probelm as you really got 2 choices in each class in early 4th ed material. Core 2nd ed and 3.5 you coud created a illusionist/evoker/enchanter/necromancer etc and once again convert over with a close enough character. Once again 4th ed made this impossable in alot of cases. If you had a half orc, gnome, bard, barbarian, monk, druid and other core classes from 3.5 once again tough luck. Every 2nd ed class form core rules made it to 3.0 and they added a few classes like Monk and Sorcerer as well. In the lead up to 3.0 Dragon also ran articles on 3.0 selling it in a positive light and there was also a conversion guide online IIRC. 4th ed had no Dragon, no Dungeon (in dead tree format) and missing races and classes.

 Basically a big problem if you wanted to move from 3.5 to 4th and wanted to play your character now or convert it over. 3.0 was really a new game but it resembled 2nd ed enough. 4th ed barely resembled 3.5 and made severe changes. The back lash happened and here we are with 4th ed tanking D&DN in beta testing and Pathfinder now competing with 4th ed and supporting a minis line, novels, adventures. An RPG MMO and virtual tabletop are also in the works.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

For fighters not really. It was a style problem.

 It got realy vicious on the forums here and across the net in general. Somehting was wrong compared to the 2nd to 3rd ed changeover. I was here in 2001 and the odd 2nd ed holdout was raging but for the most part the forums were great and 3.0 was popular. Gross stupidity reached new heights as 4th ed was accused of raping peoples childhoods and running over your cat. 4th ed 4vengers or whatever they called themselves were literally telling people what classes to play (want a bow fighter play ranger etc). The hardcore nerds dug trenches, chased off most of the people in the middle. Shuold have seen the FR boards when 4th ed Realms came out. Round 2.0 of the edition wars broke out.

 Any edition warring now days is very tame by  comparison. I never liked 4th ed that much but I did not hate it with a passion and I could at least understand why people liked it over 3.5. The hardcore on both sides could not work out why peopel like balance so much or a preference for an older style of D&D. The fighter was kind aof a striker or defender in 3.5 depending on how you built it. 4th ed removed that option and then forced you down narrow paths. You could get off the path of course but then you would suck.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yeah but you can only specialize in one thing.

That's kind of the definition of "specialize" isn't it?
I can't be a swordsman and a master unarmed fighter 4e just doesn't support characters being very good at a lot of things.

High mobility melee striker verging on a walking area-effect (that was the specialty), just 1 point behind the Rogue on Stealth, good ranged striker, and decent defender. That's the first character I built in 4E. It would have been better, particularly as a ranged striker, if we had been using Inherent Bonuses, but if I remember correctly this was before DMG2 came out.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Weapon Master Strike...1 fighter at-will...make more support for all kind of diferent weapons and doing diferent neat stuff with them, than almost everything on 3.x's fighter.

It's an atwill attack that do extra stuff depending on the weapon you use with it, Axe deals extra damage, Mace slide the target, Heavy Blade extra AC & reflex against the target, Spear/Polearm make the target provoke op attacks from shifting (thus not using your inmediate action for the round when they trigger your mark).

Sure a class may not have as much option at the release of an edition compared to a system who just ended it's life span after so many years of support and content...but it's impossible to do so.
Yeah but you can only specialize in one thing.

That's kind of the definition of "specialize" isn't it?
I can't be a swordsman and a master unarmed fighter 4e just doesn't support characters being very good at a lot of things.

High mobility melee striker verging on a walking area-effect (that was the specialty), just 1 point behind the Rogue on Stealth, good ranged striker, and decent defender. That's the first character I built in 4E. It would have been better, particularly as a ranged striker, if we had been using Inherent Bonuses, but if I remember correctly this was before DMG2 came out.




Yeah, but there is no generalist specialization. Once again just for those people who are gritting their teeth and giving me the virtual finger, I play 4e, and like 4e. I even play a fighter lvl 24. I'm just saying being good at multiple things at once is very hard, and its not just the fighter. And I would like to apologize to any hardcore people who've I've shaken with my blasphemous (or grammatically incorrect) words. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

I'm not shaken, nor am I giving anyone a virtual finger. Just a friendly debate. Yell But seriously, "generalist specialization"  Describe what you're after in terms of a standard 4e power card stat block, feat, or whatever. Maybe if you could put it in game terms it wouldn't sound quite so insane.

Don't give me a head bash...
Wizards had a generalist school, and 3.5 fighter where practically generalists. I'm just talking something that allows all weapons to be used and be used properly to their full extent. Most fighter powers assume you are either the classic sword wielder or blunt weapon user (Axe or hammer) say and the power will have little extra things like: "If you are wielding an axe you do extra damage equal to your con damage" There are almost now power add-ons (or many options for that matter) that relate to say daggers, spears, maces, bows, and more. And very few fighter powers are good with these weapons, almost none for any ranged weapons (especially the bow). It just feels like they only wan't you to use specific weapons they lay out for you. Think of it like getting gifts, lets say you have as many gifts as there are fighter weapon proficiencies, and lets say you open the first few and they are great 4e books, but then as you start to open the rest they end up being crappy 3rd party 3.5 modules. Sorry if that's not a good metaphor (I'm not exactly good with them), but what I'm saying is other than those select few the others feel wrong and out of place. Does that make sense?

Also I don't actually want any of this to use I'm was just agreeing with what Zardnaar said earlier. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

The 4th ed fighter was crap with the bow, 4th ed wizard couldn't be make a very good necromancer, illusionist or whatever. 4th ed cleric has laser cleric and strength cleric, wasn't that great at using a bow.

 Its human psychology 101. I give you $20 and then I take away $20. You still have the same amount of money but now you are mad at me for taking away your $20. Similar deal with 4th ed. I don't think to many people expected 4th ed to match 3.5 on release but they could have made more effort to at least try to match the core rules. They couldn't bring over every 3rd ed class for example due to AEDU power structure (lack of room) but thats an issue with every class requiring 15 pages of powers to function. Even if I designed 4th ed with the AEDU power stucture I would have made all the core races and classes from 3.5 in core 4th ed and added tieflings and dragonbrn. Something would have to be cut and that proably would have been epic levels and Eladrin although races took up very little room.

 Even if one can't get a perfect conversion some people did care about converting characters between editionss and 4th ed excluded them by default.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The 4th ed fighter was crap with the bow, 4th ed wizard couldn't be make a very good necromancer, illusionist or whatever. 4th ed cleric has laser cleric and strength cleric, wasn't that great at using a bow.

 



4e wizards are also incompetent with any weapon. Now I know they weren't great with weapons in 3.x but they at least could use them and have a reason in doing so Also the 4e cleric seems to have two distinct types of spells, Battle/Buff Spells and Healing. And that seems pretty constant throughout 4e's life 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

I don't get the class railroading argument. The whole idea of a class is to define specialization. This ain't GURPS.


It just feels like your character can be good at only ONE thing, which in reality, makes little to no sense. Just because I can type and read, does that mean I can't write with pen and paper properly (Maybe not the best comparison but you get my gist)  Like I said I can't be a fighter that can drop his sword, and shield pick up a light crossbow with one hand and start punching with his free hand and be good at these things. 4e want's to railroad you into one specific specialization,  this isn't just with the fighter but every class, they all have basic builds that your are expected to choose.

No it doesn't. There's just GOING to be one style of fighting (or it could be a couple of styles even) that you're better equipped for. Any PHB1 basic fighter can pick up any weapon and fight with it right from level 1 and be quite competent. Sure, he might get a +1 with some other weapon or whatever, but so what?

Even if you spend all your time specializing in one niche fighting style your 20th level fighter is still one of the badest-assed fighters that has ever lived, period, even if he picks up some totally unfamiliar weapon. Sure, he may be a little behind what he can do with his preferred style, but so what?

You were no less railroaded WRT fighters in previous editions either. I mean come on, even in 1e you had weapon proficiencies you had to spend, your fighter could only be good with 4 specific weapons (no groups, every different kind of sword counted separately, etc). In 2e it was even more so with specialization, double specialization, the dual wielding rules, kits, etc. No way you can tell me a 2e fighter that was built for optimum longsword and shield was going to just whip out a bow or a 2-handed axe and go to town. He'd do OK, just like a 4e fighter will.

And there's nothing silly about saying that "a fighter that uses a bow is a ranger", that's JUST THE WAY 4E WORKS (I'd have preferred if rangers also had a greatweapon option for a mixed bow/melee type, though you can pretty much fake it with double weapons).

All of this is of course ignoring the vast store of feats, MC options, Themes, etc which can absolutely help you get exactly what you want. What 4e doesn't guarantee is that specific class names will be associated with it in every case.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Who said you can't pick up a crossbow as a fighter and use it? you have as many options with crossbow as any older edition fighter...the amount of options being 1...Ranged Basic Attack.  You can also use your hand to punch people if you want, it's obvious that you are no monk or as good as a fighter that specialize on brawler, but you can still do it, hell you can still use your powers with unarmed attack.


Yeah but you can only specialize in one thing. I can't be a swordsman and a master unarmed fighter 4e just doesn't support characters being very good at a lot of things. If you read my previous post thoroughly, before opening your "mouth" you may have noticed me saying that you can do all these things,  but its very difficult. And fighters aren't the only ones. Wizards, rogues, clerics, bards, sorcerers, paladins, warlords, barbarians, and pretty much every other class suffers from this way of play one or two ways to play the class effectively. In any other edition a character could become good at something from training through feats, multiclassing, or oldschool dualclassing. Powers and the way classes worked severely limited what character could do in terms of variety of options.  

How much 4e have you played? I mean really, there's nothing stopping my brawler fighter from being a bad-ass with a sword. He'll be SLIGHTLY less of a bad-ass with it than the one-hand FWT fighter, but he'll ALSO be able to grab, its a trade-off, you don't get to be the best at everything. It is no more difficult to be good at one thing than 2 things or a different thing. You pick the feats and whatnot that make you good at that. I guess some builds are certainly less obvious than others but doing basically what you want in 4e is just NOT hard.

As for other classes, heck there are like EIGHT solid wizard builds, and probably even several more variations. There are FIVE major rogue options and several possible approaches to most of them, for easily north of half-a-dozen quite distinct rogues. Clerics have at least 4 major builds that I'm aware of, and probably more. I could go on but why? Every PHB1/2 class has at least four major variations laid out clearly in the rules and given a name, and most of them have several, sometimes many, others that are further distinct variations.

Powers are not AT ALL limiting. I can build 2 identical class option characters and give them different powers and make 2 unique characters that are both effective. No other edition of D&D even comes close to this level of customizability.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
If my character decides one day to pick up an unfamilar weapon and start using it, he's going to. I don't care if he only gets a +1 to hit instead of a +8. "Check out this sweet new sword, guys!" is what he'd say. As he levels up maybe he'll improve his skill some, but certainly he could never expect to be as good with it as whatever weapon he'd trained in for years before. Even a super ultra lord mega warrior should realize that. People can't be good at everything they want to do, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. That's like saying I won't learn guitar unless I'm guaranteed to be a rockstar, and obviously I will be since I'm such a badass whistler.


Well if that's how you play then fine. But typically fighters are considered weapon masters (Or atleast becoming one), they normally have training of some form with other weapons as most are veterans, militia members, mercenaries, etc. But back to the original point I was trying to prove, 3.5 fighters out of the box are more versatile with weapon uses. 

And SO IS A 4E FIGHTER.

Look, my 2h-FWT PHB1 Fighter (weaponmaster) with his greatsword will have a +4 (STR) +3 PROF +1 FWT = +8 to-hit. If he picks up a 1-handed Mace his chance goes down to +6, CATASTROPHIC! Maybe if he picked Reaping Strike he might not want to use that power with the Mace, oh well, he's still got Cleave, or Tide of Iron, or whatever. He's going to function at 90% effectiveness with this other weapon. If for some reason the circumstances dictate that there's some RP advantage to using said weapon (or it is magical in some needed way, etc) then there's no huge penalty for using it. Heck, he can pick up a shield too (all fighters have shield proficiency built-in).

Even at 30th level the difference is not going to be huge. You'd lose another +3 to-hit, which is kind of a bummer, and you'd probably lose some damage too presumably, but you'd still be quite effective and given the huge accuracy of PCs at that level and the number of buffs you can command it is not a crippling disadvantage. Again, you might pick up said mace simply for story reasons, though they will need to be fairly compelling (and why would they not)?

The same could be true in 2e, and 3.x is rife with weapon specializing feats for fighters too. You're just building a mountain out of a mole-hill.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I was about to say ... even ignoring the fact that fighters were useless past about 3rd level in general in 3e, almost every 'good' fighter feat required you to pick a specific weapon to use.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
If my character decides one day to pick up an unfamilar weapon and start using it, he's going to. I don't care if he only gets a +1 to hit instead of a +8. "Check out this sweet new sword, guys!" is what he'd say. As he levels up maybe he'll improve his skill some, but certainly he could never expect to be as good with it as whatever weapon he'd trained in for years before. Even a super ultra lord mega warrior should realize that. People can't be good at everything they want to do, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. That's like saying I won't learn guitar unless I'm guaranteed to be a rockstar, and obviously I will be since I'm such a badass whistler.


Well if that's how you play then fine. But typically fighters are considered weapon masters (Or atleast becoming one), they normally have training of some form with other weapons as most are veterans, militia members, mercenaries, etc. But back to the original point I was trying to prove, 3.5 fighters out of the box are more versatile with weapon uses. 




Read the 4th Ed fighter class again, proficiency with all simple/military melee/ranged weapons at the start. That means they get their proficiency bonus with every weapon , thus making them as equal on weapon usage as the 3.5 fighter. Your conclusion above is incorrect based on facts. 

Ventus 

 Missing the point again, 4e pigeon holes you into being good with a select weapon, I've know since the get go that 3.5 and 4e fighters have the exact same proficiencies...

 
And back to Robert, ever hear of right tool for the right job? I think that can help explain fighter versatility, In all seriousness should a fighter use a spiked gauntlet on a dragon, or a sharp bladed weapon? A sword or a maul on a skeleton? A polearm, or dagger against something with a longer reach? 

Yeah, you know this argument is weak because it never was true in any previous edition either. Yeah, blunt weapons did more damage to skeletons, that was about it. You could set a polearm for a charge. Beyond that you might find it useful to pick up and use a bow/xbow/sling if you couldn't close with the enemy, but that option still exists. For any decent level fighter even in 1e there was NO reason to switch weapons from what you were specialized in, none at all ever. Better to hit the skeletons more often with your sword you are specialized in that is +1 or +2 than to screw with carrying around a mace for that one time a week when it MIGHT BARELY yield an extra .5 DPR. Setting against a charge? Happens once in a fight, and only now and then. Again, it was NEVER worth using a disfavored weapon, never. If there was such a situation then there's no reason to believe it would be less true in 4e.

This "swiss army knife fighter" you are portraying just never existed in previous editions, and can be created just as well/poorly in 4e.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
A bit late to the party are ye' Abdul?

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

And I'm also not saying that 4e fighters can't use other weapons well. Like I said I have a lvl 24 fighter, and if I give him a weapon I didn't specialize in he feels weak. He is a fighter, a martial master (at his level). But yet he can't use a longsword, or his fists worth a crap. He just can't, and it feels unatural and weird. Level 24 is a very high level considering most people in D&D are minions or lvl 1.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

I was about to say ... even ignoring the fact that fighters were useless past about 3rd level in general in 3e, almost every 'good' fighter feat required you to pick a specific weapon to use.

Well, that's the OTHER thing that comparing to 3e has totally ignored. Talk about narrow options. Someone says "If you didn't follow a narrow path with your 4e fighter he sucked" WOW, yeah, he was like 80% as good, if you did a REALLY bad job with your build. In 3e your fighter JUST SUCKED, period, no if and or butt about it, he JUST SUCKED. Your best option was to MC out of fighter ASAP. Which exactly system has a better range of options? I'm sorry, but it ain't 3.x or PF either.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I was about to say ... even ignoring the fact that fighters were useless past about 3rd level in general in 3e, almost every 'good' fighter feat required you to pick a specific weapon to use.

Well, that's the OTHER thing that comparing to 3e has totally ignored. Talk about narrow options. Someone says "If you didn't follow a narrow path with your 4e fighter he sucked" WOW, yeah, he was like 80% as good, if you did a REALLY bad job with your build. In 3e your fighter JUST SUCKED, period, no if and or butt about it, he JUST SUCKED. Your best option was to MC out of fighter ASAP. Which exactly system has a better range of options? I'm sorry, but it ain't 3.x or PF either.


I don't see why people complain about 3e fighters. They were fine to me. Just because they couldn't match a god-like archmage in power? No duh... It's like trying to kill Gandalf my friend it doesn't work. Personally I like seeing Wizards grow in power, it gives you that sense of humanity, that human strive for excellence... To be powerful and remebered.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.