The excitement of the good old days of 4e

290 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.

I just don't understand what you mean by "can't use them worth crap". Your 24th level fighter will be about -4 to-hit with his fist vs a sword, maybe. I doubt he would have a single power he couldn't use with that fist either. Even assuming the most drastic case your level 24 fighter is STILL BETTER THAN EVERY NPC HUMAN FIGHTER IN THE ENTIRE GAME WORLD with his fists. He's the Chuck Norris of his world, he can win a fight with both hands tied behind his back (literally actually since it won't even penalize you by RAW).

Would you RATHER use your sword instead of your fist? Yeah, probably, but aside from having a death wish who WANTS to use an inferior weapon in a fight? If you got nothing but a fist, well you still kick butt. Maybe you'll lose to something really nasty, but what do you expect? Keep hold of your sword!
That is not dead which may eternal lie
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.

I just don't understand what you mean by "can't use them worth crap". Your 24th level fighter will be about -4 to-hit with his fist vs a sword, maybe. I doubt he would have a single power he couldn't use with that fist either. Even assuming the most drastic case your level 24 fighter is STILL BETTER THAN EVERY NPC HUMAN FIGHTER IN THE ENTIRE GAME WORLD with his fists. He's the Chuck Norris of his world, he can win a fight with both hands tied behind his back (literally actually since it won't even penalize you by RAW).

Would you RATHER use your sword instead of your fist? Yeah, probably, but aside from having a death wish who WANTS to use an inferior weapon in a fight? If you got nothing but a fist, well you still kick butt. Maybe you'll lose to something really nasty, but what do you expect? Keep hold of your sword!


Not only that but his damge output is almost cut in half.

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

 

Just like in every edition when the fighter got disarmed.  What's your point?

Of course, one feat in 4e and the fighter gets the equivalent of a longsword unarmed.  One feat in 3e gets the fighter the equivalent of a dagger (without the 19-20 crit range) unarmed.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Just like in every edition when the fighter got disarmed.  What's your point?

Of course, one feat in 4e and the fighter gets the equivalent of a longsword unarmed.  One feat in 3e gets the fighter the equivalent of a dagger (without the 19-20 crit range) unarmed.


Unarmed was just and example Salla... *sigh*

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

 

 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.

Well, I think the only ultimate thing that can be said is that some people like one thing, others like a different thing. What I never understood was why it seems so terribly necessary to tear into the thing other people like. I'm just vastly sick and tired of hearing it.
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.

Right, so the game should dictate that only the tastes of the people who want fantasy where the wizards dominate everyone else and ignore the rest of us? Sorry, there's no good justification for that. If you want wizards that are more powerful than everyone else just start them at level 5 and quit forcing your taste on everyone else.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
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.


... yup...  class name envy not supported.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Gar was it you who saw my spellcaster nerf for 3.5X in the D&DN forums. Also buffed the fighters.

 The main problem our group has had is power inflation in 3.5/PF around levle 10 or so it is really bad and in 4th ed we were bored by level 10 (well 8).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

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.



This has nothing to do with the powers, the class, or the basic weapons. It has everything to do with the fact that if he uses a weapon you didn't specialize in, it will not carry the same +5 enchantment that your main weapon does. It is the item scaling that is your problem. 4E made +x items far too important. Keeping up with your item bonuses is the most important part about staying relevent as you level.

Play with inherent bonuses, and this problem goes away.

you can also get ki-focus proficency thru several means...expertise for several weapons is not that big problem with master at arms expertise feat or ki focus expertise in case of what i said
What i am going to miss is coming up with a weird character concept, build it on 4e...and still making it a great character, because how the rules on 4e are,  i sacrifice so little for character concept on this system, the clear and transparent rules make it so...a huge diference between 4e and 3rd edition, where the rules were made so obscure and complicated, full of trap options, to follow a power gaming mentality design.
What i am going to miss is coming up with a weird character concept, build it on 4e...and still making it a great character, because how the rules on 4e are,  i sacrifice so little for character concept on this system, the clear and transparent rules make it so...a huge diference between 4e and 3rd edition, where the rules were made so obscure and complicated, full of trap options, to follow a power gaming mentality design.



This. Once you learn to ignore the fluff text and embrace the mechanical side of 4E, you can really fiddle with character options (especially throwing in Hybrid characters, Backgrounds, and Themes) without breaking the game! That simply was not possible in 3.5. Unless the player or the DM made a conscious choice to limit options (feats, multi-classing, etc) your character was either broken and useless or broketastic and game-wrecking. I don't ever want to see that again! 
 
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.



This has nothing to do with the powers, the class, or the basic weapons. It has everything to do with the fact that if he uses a weapon you didn't specialize in, it will not carry the same +5 enchantment that your main weapon does. It is the item scaling that is your problem. 4E made +x items far too important. Keeping up with your item bonuses is the most important part about staying relevent as you level.

Play with inherent bonuses, and this problem goes away.


Yes, and no. Let me let you in on a little secret. Enhancement bonus isn't any more needed or not needed in 4e than it was in previous editions. 4e gives you a nice package where if you get a +1 better weapon/armor/neck ever 5 levels then your character will fight monsters of 0-5 levels higher at varying levels of challenge and XP will work out to 1 level per 10 nominal encounters. That's nice and all but you're perfectly free to simply not progress the game EXACTLY that way. In fact you'll hardly notice the difference IMHO.

It is true though that if you have a +5 weapon and a +2 backup weapon then using the backup weapon without inherent bonuses will suck, comparatively. Still, this is not a limitation of 4e characters, nor is it unique to 4e. A 10th level AD&D or 3.x fighter without a +3 weapon would be neigh useless against relevant threats, especially if he lacked something like +2 armor, a +1 shield, etc. These characters would hardly be willing to switch weapons either, as I said earlier.

I think when you look at the various D&D edition rules in a purely objective way you find that there are more things that haven't really changed than have. 4e is different in terms of healing and powers, but otherwise it really isn't all that different from past editions.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
What i am going to miss is coming up with a weird character concept, build it on 4e...and still making it a great character, because how the rules on 4e are,  i sacrifice so little for character concept on this system, the clear and transparent rules make it so...a huge diference between 4e and 3rd edition, where the rules were made so obscure and complicated, full of trap options, to follow a power gaming mentality design.



This. Once you learn to ignore the fluff text and embrace the mechanical side of 4E, you can really fiddle with character options (especially throwing in Hybrid characters, Backgrounds, and Themes) without breaking the game! That simply was not possible in 3.5. Unless the player or the DM made a conscious choice to limit options (feats, multi-classing, etc) your character was either broken and useless or broketastic and game-wrecking. I don't ever want to see that again! 
 

QFT

That is not dead which may eternal lie
 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.
 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.


I don't hate 4e at all. I actually love it. And it would probably be my top favorite edition if it didn't have so many little things that bug me.  

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

 

 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.



 Some of the issues were address in expansion for 4th ed. Imagine if you went form 3.5 in 2008 to 4th ed and for example wanted t o convert your character. Or wanted to play a fighter with a bow and not suck with it or play a ranger.

 Two weapon fighting in 3.5 was a feat chain. Any support of dual wielding was new feats. 4th ed required extensive support in Martial Power IIRC to make the dual wielder fighter work. 4th ed also errated alot of stuff and last I played (end of 2011) you may as well maximise DPR so a party full of strikers or striker like builds basically became the norm. It wasn't as bad as 3.5 in terms of optimised vs not optimised but it was there in spades. I think that somone here calculated that since 4th ed started going bi monthlythey had spammed out roughly 80% of 3.5 material in just over two years as oppposed to 8.

 See previous statements about 4th ed also excluding 3.5 core races and classes by default. I do not call 15 pages of powers a good design for a class. 2010 was the highlight of 4th ed for our group and then we switched. 4th ed was a decent game but a poor version of D&D at least for our group although we miss elements of it. Hell because I did not love 4th ed and worship it I went into lurk mode here for over a year. Others just bailed on 4th ed alot earlier than I did.

 A few of the less extreme predictions about 4th ed cme true though although you were more or less shouted at here for expressing them. Maybe its self fulfiling prophecy but 4th ed was gonna bloat and collapse it just happened quicker than I thought. To me 4th ed died when they went bi monthly as it was about the same time quality went out the window. Technically it will last 5 years, to me it was really dead in about 2 years. 4th ed is basically dead and buried and people still don't seem to get it why it was rejected by alot of D&D players (majority IDK but even a loss of 20% of the players could mean a loss of most of the profit).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.



Has any use of the word "haters" ever been good for the conversation in question?

It would seem the person (people, I guess) you're arguing with aren't being irrational they're just coming off different priors. The fact that the "I like 4E less" crowd had a problem with just using a ranger instead of a fighter suggests to me that this comes down to standard "I like baked in fluff/I don't", a question that is purely subjective with no right answer.

That's not even a criticism, really, just a point that people here are working on different priors, which means they're having entirely seperate arguments in which (as is usually the case) both sides seem convinced the other side is being irrational. People are arguing past each other.
 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.



 Some of the issues were address in expansion for 4th ed. Imagine if you went form 3.5 in 2008 to 4th ed and for example wanted t o convert your character. Or wanted to play a fighter with a bow and not suck with it or play a ranger.

 Two weapon fighting in 3.5 was a feat chain. Any support of dual wielding was new feats. 4th ed required extensive support in Martial Power IIRC to make the dual wielder fighter work. 4th ed also errated alot of stuff and last I played (end of 2011) you may as well maximise DPR so a party full of strikers or striker like builds basically became the norm. It wasn't as bad as 3.5 in terms of optimised vs not optimised but it was there in spades. I think that somone here calculated that since 4th ed started going bi monthlythey had spammed out roughly 80% of 3.5 material in just over two years as oppposed to 8.



How is being required to go down a feat chain not being railroaded?

Perhaps the fact that I never really played 3.X is part of my problem here, because my DM has lamented many times that he can't really create his 3rd edition rogue in 4e.  His biggest problem is, he's wedded to the stupid /class name/.  But but your ranger that does everything my rogue did isn't the same.  it's not a ROGUE.  People I think would find they have much more success when they throw out the class name and look at the skill set of the characters then go from there.

I came from 2e, and thought that 3e was crap when it came out.  We played a few sessions, but never enough to really get deep down.  I feel like I can convert most of my beloved 2e characters with ease to 4e, but then again, I played mostly fighters and rangers.  I hated 2e casters, so there were none of those I was interested in converting. 

So in short, I just don't feel like 4e stops me from doing anything I could do in 2e.  if anything it gives me much more freedom and flexibility.  The problem it seems to me, is centered around 3.X, and its system rather then 4e or anything that 4e brings to the table.
 I think the idfference is in the way you build your archer. In 4th ed you had to play a ranger (or suck).

 What if you had a bard archer for example? No bard in 4th ed and AFAIK  they are not a great archer. Or a cleric archer although I did see an early 4th ed cleric archer build but that involved multiclass ranger and bak then taking multiclass feats wasn't such  a bad idea as there were a lack of better options (AKA power inflation). In Pathfinder for example one can make a good archer with the usual suspects but also Paladins, Monks, or whatever. Being an archer in 3.X is really feats and being clever you can use a class to make those feats sing so to speak. For the most part archery is a class in 4th ed. If it was fun

 Personally I liked 3.5s options compared to 4th eds. Yes 3.5 had issues with overpowered spellcasters but they were easy to fix. Example.

Fighter gets 4 skill points level, revise skill list.
Primary spelclasters are nbanned.

 Somewhat heavy handed I admit but quick and simple. Before the Psion came out in 4th ed I tried designing one. Its alot of work desigining a 4th ed class. 3.5 came across as more of a slate to do what you want with. 4th ed was better balanced but achieved it by restricting options if that makes any sense. It defined classes for you and then had to support them via powers. Weak classes in 4th ed that got very little support, new classes in 3.5 for example for the most part used feats or spells. They were more self contianed as they used the core framework of 3.5.

 What one you prefer is entirely subjective of course. Personally I have been using 3rd ed and varients for 12 years now. 4th ed always felt a bit like a minis game to me as opposed to a RPG system let alone D&D. YMMV of course, but 4th ed was designed with the canceled VTT. 4th ed was fun on occasion but it was not badly designed (overdesigned perhaps).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 I think the difference is in the way you build your archer. In 4th ed you had to play a ranger (or suck).

Very good 4E classes for an archer: ranger, warlord.

Classes with archer options I haven't really looked at: rogue, artificer (crossbow only).

Good classes with some - but not quite enough - options for the archer: bard (melee weapon and implement well supported)

Sucky classes with options for the archer: seeker (actually a nearly pure ranged-weapon class, and bad)

"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
Seeker isn't Bad.

Listening to Zardnaar explain issues with 4e is like listening to a politician explain physics.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Seeker isn't Bad.

Listening to Zardnaar explain issues with 4e is like listening to a politician explain physics.



I guess politicians aren't that diferent here then xD

But yes...there is actually cleric and avenger bow options too.  Let's not forget Hunter, even thought it's an essential class.  And have we forget Hybrids on 4e? 
What's really wrong with playing a ranger or warlord to be an archer?  If you're completely married to the fact that you're not a "fighter" nothing is stopping you from doing it the old way:  make a fighter, pump your dex through the roof, and make RBA's.

The playstyle is /exactly/ what it was in the old editions.  Of course you can always make essentials archers which are also RBA spammers, just like the old days.

If you want a mix between melee and range, the warlord is a great option, because you can use str with your ranged attacks, and still have credible melee.  It's does everything an old school fighter does and much more.
Warlord archer was added in 4th ed splat book correct? IIRC it wasn't there when 4th ed launched. I discussed this with the group today and the main isse was the blandness of the 4th ed classes. They all dealt XYZ damage+ some status effect. The classes used did not actually matter that much as long as you kept all the roles covered and had a focus on DPS or striker like builds. Most of the good strikers dealt very similar amounts of damage and for the most part it did not matter that much what leader you used, what striker class you used or even what defender you used as long as it was one of the good ones- generally PHB and PHB2 classes.

 We had fun at times with it but were kinda bored by 8th level alhtough to be fair wihtout houserules 3.5/pathfinder games tend to start falling apart at those levels even without primary spellcaster. In pathfinder thats happening now and they're using daggers, rapiers, and a bard. Power inflation kinda ruined 4th ed IMHO although on the char op boards they actually broke it before it was even released and caused a early round of errata IIRC. The 4th ed PDFs were leaked 3 days before the game launched.

 The constant errata obsoleted alot of builds that did not deal copious amounts of damage. Status effects started to matter less as 4th ed went on because the best status effect was death (high DPS builds). Roles and party composition was more important than the actual classes used.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I certainly agree with you that 4e has become bloated with errata and obsolete feats and items.  Personally, I think that the errata is a good thing.  By nerfing things that are clearly overpowered (hi to you old blade cascade) it takes the pressure off the DM so he doesn't have to house rule it, then listen to the rules lawyer cry at him for it.

As for the strikers doing similar damage and leaders being equal, that's a /huge/ selling point for me rather then a drawback.  It means I can play what I want and still be effective.  There is no one class, or build to rule them all...because the impact is equivalent. 

Playability wise  I heartily disagree.  The bard, cleric and warlord all heal.  but how they play is completely different.  The cleric is a better pure healer then either.  Warlord is an enabler:  he hits things and allows his allies to get extra attacks in too.  The bard adds some controllery elements to his ability to heal. 

The only way you look at the three and say eh, they are all three play like healbots, so there's no difference is if a healbot is all you're looking for.
Warlord archer was added in 4th ed splat book correct? IIRC it wasn't there when 4th ed launched. I discussed this with the group today and the main isse was the blandness of the 4th ed classes. They all dealt XYZ damage+ some status effect. The classes used did not actually matter that much as long as you kept all the roles covered and had a focus on DPS or striker like builds. Most of the good strikers dealt very similar amounts of damage and for the most part it did not matter that much what leader you used, what striker class you used or even what defender you used as long as it was one of the good ones- generally PHB and PHB2 classes.

That was the point. You do NOT need any specific class. And also you can skip any specific role, although that has consequences (and there's an argument about whether leaders or strikers are the least-skippable - controllers are usually conceded to be most-skippable, and whether you need a defender or not is party-dependent). People have run successful parties consisting of nothing but Warlords, nothing but Eladrin Rangers, nothing but Shamans, etc.

But the classes do not, in play, feel all the same - even within a role. I've played a couple warlords, a bard, and a shaman, and have also played alongside a couple clerics and a couple shamans. Not only do the different classes feel quite different, but different characters in the same class feel quite different. These are all leaders.  And the same is true of the several fighters, the warden, and the swordmage (defenders) I've played as or with, as well as the several rangers, barbarians, and warlocks (strikers). As for controllers, it's really not hard to feel the difference between a spell-casting wizard and a shapeshifting druid.
"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
The classes were different but i just asked my players what they did not like about 4th ed. I never played it only DMed it.
 Basically they did not care about their characters. In 4th ed you basically picked a role or a class. Each class really had an obvious path to go down and I know a Cleric is a better healer than a warlord but as long as you had a leader for the most part it did not matter what type of leader that was. Or what type of striker you had.

 It was also rapidly obvious which powers, feats and items were better than others. You really had to just pick the best ones in your defined role going down a predetermined path of powers. YOu did get the choice where you wanted to go but for the most part it did not matter what class or role you took as long as you did not neglect DPS.

 The original classes in the PHB go the most support so generally they were the best classes to pick as well. As long as you didn't do anyhting to stupid like focus on defending or healing over damage you were good to go. To my players they said they didn't really  care about their characters because they were ultimatly disposable or replaceable. This combined with the length of combat in order to be challenged the DM had to either go over the top for encounters or try and grind the characters hit points down over 3 or 4 encounters and some of those encounters could go for 30 minutes to an hour. A huge amount of game time was actually spent on combat using PCs that were really components of a pre determined path and it didn't really matter what path you chose. Alot of the status effects were cute but slowed the game down and the best status effect was death so you were really better off on focusing on damage so multiple strikers or striker like characters was usually a good idea. I a nutshell my PCs were bored. I liked DMing 4th ed it was one of the better editions in that regard, but I struggled to find players as well as the local mobs seem to prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder. Only knew of one other 4th ed group as opposed to 3 3rd ed groups. I liked 4th ed with 5 players most of the time I had 3 or 4.

 Doesn't matter if 4th ed was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It was like a flash car with no fuel, the fuel being palyers and good adventures. Despite its flaws Pathfinder and 3.5 had better advantures due to Paizo basically and their adventure paths in Dungeon and Pathfinder Chronicles.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This is why I'm generally against house rules. You get the game, play it once, dislike something because you aren't used to it yet, house rule it all to hell, break the game, then complain the game is broken. I trust that the game maker played way more than I'll ever get to and it's probably fine as it is. After a hundred sessions, if there's still something that bugs me, then, maybe, I'll tweak it a bit to suit my style.

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same way. House rules in general are just too tedious. You have to keep track of them and explain them to people, and 90% of the time they genuinely don't even make the game any better. Instead they just serve to gratify someone's ego. I mean each to his own, but frankly I've long since found that when I come into a game and the GM is all up about their mass of house rules and how it "makes the game better" chances are pretty good I just want to be out of there. The fun is PLAYING THE GAME, not obsessing about rules. Let game designers do that.
That is not dead which may eternal lie

 Basically they did not care about their characters.



How, exactly, is this a problem with the system? Sounds more like a problem with the group.

A huge amount of game time was actually spent on combat



Yeah, kinda like that. 

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
 THats the fundmental disconnect right there. Even with its problems it had in 4th ed people don't like being railroaded with the fighter (at least the 3.5 players anyway).

 I think alot of people also houseruled fighters and nerfed spellcasters in some way even if it was banning the problem spells.



I fail to see how fighters are railroaded in 4e.  I just see a bunch of haters making excuses to hate.



 Some of the issues were address in expansion for 4th ed. Imagine if you went form 3.5 in 2008 to 4th ed and for example wanted t o convert your character. Or wanted to play a fighter with a bow and not suck with it or play a ranger.


But this LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE because you actually ARE playing something that is best described as a ranger (martial bow armed warrior). It makes no sense to be a defender with a bow, just none at all. Logically you use a bow to KILL THINGS, not act as a front line defensive bulwark. The concept is just not coherent and 4e is right not to support it within the fighter class. You simply call your character a ranger and give him whatever background and etc you care to, it works PERFECTLY WELL. You're arguing something that is pointless just to create something to pick on.


 Two weapon fighting in 3.5 was a feat chain. Any support of dual wielding was new feats. 4th ed required extensive support in Martial Power IIRC to make the dual wielder fighter work.


No, actually you could play a fighter (or any class actually) using 2 weapons from day one. You wanted to have a couple of feats to make it advantageous, and there are a couple more that you can use to add some additional utility (though not strictly necessary or restricted to that fighting style). In fact if you look into it the two weapon feats in PHB1 were pretty decent options at the time (and were improved by the addition of some added weapons in AV1 like the parrying dagger and the spiked shield). In any case you had to wait AN ENTIRE MONTH for MP1 to come out, it was a terrible imposition!

4th ed also errated alot of stuff and last I played (end of 2011) you may as well maximise DPR so a party full of strikers or striker like builds basically became the norm. It wasn't as bad as 3.5 in terms of optimised vs not optimised but it was there in spades. I think that somone here calculated that since 4th ed started going bi monthlythey had spammed out roughly 80% of 3.5 material in just over two years as oppposed to 8.


I have no idea what you're going on about. There has been rather little 4e errata in the last year of any substance. The class compendium erratas in 2011 were the last major ones. Most of those were actually nerfbacks. The only players who would consider making "a party full of strikers" are die hard min/maxers and what they could do with 3.5 makes anything they could do with 4e pale in comparison. Nor has 4e really gotten more gameable over its run. I agree, 4e concentrated a lot of material in a short time frame. However considering how much you have bitched about how it lacked this and that to start with I find it hard to see how you can then complain about material being released too fast in the next breath!

 See previous statements about 4th ed also excluding 3.5 core races and classes by default. I do not call 15 pages of powers a good design for a class. 2010 was the highlight of 4th ed for our group and then we switched. 4th ed was a decent game but a poor version of D&D at least for our group although we miss elements of it. Hell because I did not love 4th ed and worship it I went into lurk mode here for over a year. Others just bailed on 4th ed alot earlier than I did.

 A few of the less extreme predictions about 4th ed cme true though although you were more or less shouted at here for expressing them. Maybe its self fulfiling prophecy but 4th ed was gonna bloat and collapse it just happened quicker than I thought. To me 4th ed died when they went bi monthly as it was about the same time quality went out the window. Technically it will last 5 years, to me it was really dead in about 2 years. 4th ed is basically dead and buried and people still don't seem to get it why it was rejected by alot of D&D players (majority IDK but even a loss of 20% of the players could mean a loss of most of the profit).



No, 4th DIDN'T COLLAPSE, that's the difference between 3.x, which fell apart so bad it isn't even funny (and PF which just picked up where 3.5 left off) and 4e which is still a perfectly good solid game system, if a bit cluttered. You may not like it but you seriously need to get real about it. I've run a BUNCH of 4e campaigns, and it works. I allow ANY official 4e material, and it works. It works PERFECTLY WELL. There are no classes that are 30x better than others or 1000's of builds, of which 99% are crap you have to wade through, etc. Even if you were bound and determined to build the most awkwardly underpowered set of build options you can find all you'd end up with is something like a Binder, which still works perfectly well in play, even if it is slightly lackluster.

It most certainly is far from a perfect system, but it is a damn good close approximation of one. I have absolute confidence that it can and should continue to be perfected through another revision or two.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
The classes were different but i just asked my players what they did not like about 4th ed. I never played it only DMed it.
 Basically they did not care about their characters. In 4th ed you basically picked a role or a class. Each class really had an obvious path to go down and I know a Cleric is a better healer than a warlord but as long as you had a leader for the most part it did not matter what type of leader that was. Or what type of striker you had.

 It was also rapidly obvious which powers, feats and items were better than others. You really had to just pick the best ones in your defined role going down a predetermined path of powers. YOu did get the choice where you wanted to go but for the most part it did not matter what class or role you took as long as you did not neglect DPS.

 The original classes in the PHB go the most support so generally they were the best classes to pick as well. As long as you didn't do anyhting to stupid like focus on defending or healing over damage you were good to go. To my players they said they didn't really  care about their characters because they were ultimatly disposable or replaceable. This combined with the length of combat in order to be challenged the DM had to either go over the top for encounters or try and grind the characters hit points down over 3 or 4 encounters and some of those encounters could go for 30 minutes to an hour. A huge amount of game time was actually spent on combat using PCs that were really components of a pre determined path and it didn't really matter what path you chose. Alot of the status effects were cute but slowed the game down and the best status effect was death so you were really better off on focusing on damage so multiple strikers or striker like characters was usually a good idea. I a nutshell my PCs were bored. I liked DMing 4th ed it was one of the better editions in that regard, but I struggled to find players as well as the local mobs seem to prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder. Only knew of one other 4th ed group as opposed to 3 3rd ed groups. I liked 4th ed with 5 players most of the time I had 3 or 4.

 Doesn't matter if 4th ed was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It was like a flash car with no fuel, the fuel being palyers and good adventures. Despite its flaws Pathfinder and 3.5 had better advantures due to Paizo basically and their adventure paths in Dungeon and Pathfinder Chronicles.

I agree with you that 4e has crap for 1st party adventures. WotC did a terrible job in that department, though they have eventually come around. The adventures they published in the last 2.5 years have steadily improved, and things like Madness at Gardmore Abby are real classics.

As for the rest, I don't know what to say. It is just ludicrous to say that 4e classes lack options. There are no 'predetermined paths' to any greater degree than in any other game. Obviously if you pick 'fighter' for your class you're establishing some limits on what your character will do. Beyond that even the basic PHB1 options allow for a WIDE range of different fighters. You could VERY straightforwardly play a hammer based CON fighter, either one-handed or two-handed, a STR based axe fighter (probably 2-handed), a WIS based fighter of either type focused on making punishing OAs, or a DEX based sword armed fighter (again your pick of shield or 2 handed) focusing on damage and control. Even within these options you have a number of choices of powers which can establish different tactical choices and a few different possibilities with feats. Even slightly less than optimal choices like 2-weapon fighter were quite playable with just PHB1. The options have clearly improved vastly since then.

I'm having difficulty really knowing why tons of the more obscure and later classes NEED deep support either (some could use it, but the game can live without it). The PHB2 classes cover every major class that you would ever need. These are vastly well supported in all cases. Even many later classes and non-core classes like the Swordmage are quite well supported in any case. Honestly it is hard to argue at this point that just because a few recent classes aren't means much. Does anyone really care if the Binder or the Skald have little support?

The point is every 4e class of any consequence at all has a HUGE number of options and to say that are confined to "set paths" or that you would "only ever pick the best powers" is ridiculous. This kind of thing just comes about when you have people that don't have any interest in learning or appreciating a game, that's all. They're welcome to their tastes, but if you expect us to be convinced or impressed in any way by that, forget it. I can build parties full of interesting 4e characters until the end of time. If I keep playing for another 40 years I doubt I'd run out of fun to have with this edition.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
The main point persoanlly I liked the 3.5 options better than the 4th ed options when it came to building a concept- whatever that concept was. Out of the box 4th ed did not include all of the 3.5 classes which made conversion possible. its right there in the 4th ed PHB. You pick a fighter and you have 2 choices- two handed or weapon and shield. 3.5 fighter you could build it into multiple sub types just using the 3.5 players hand book. The downside of course was the 3.5 fighter was goign to be outclassed at higher levels by spellcasters which was usually semi fixed in various ways such as houserules or level 10 or so being the end of the game for 3.5. Roles were more important than classes in 4th ed, my players preferred it the other way round with classes being built into the desired role- of course not all classes could fill all roles but say a fighter type leader if someone decided to do one would be a fighter varient with feat support. 4th ed optiopns got alot better as time went on but in 2008 the roles were very clear and it did not really matter what class you picked as long as you did not neglect the obvious (damage).

 If you did not like overpowered spellcasters in 3.5 there were various ways to deal with it. If you did not like the role structure or AEDU power structure of 4th ed there was really only one option which was vote with your feet. Enough gamers chose this option and either stuck with 3.5, switched to Pathfinder or stopped playing. End result that 4th ed was really dead 2-3 years in and now 5th ed is in the works. Technically 4th ed will last 5 years but it has been limping along since 2010. I can comprehend why people here do not like 3.5 due to bloat, overpowered spellcasters, or system mastery or whatever. Some people here still cannot work out why 4th ed failed or why it was rejected by a large chunk of the 3.5 player base. Theres multiple reaosns for it I suppose but a large chunk is that the changes from 3.5 to 4th were very drastic and alienated the player base.

 Go and play 4th ed with just the PHB, DMG and the 1st MM. If you don't like it that much even as a 4th ed player thats what 4th ed had back in 2008.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The big problem for me is the irregular, uneven support.

Heroes of Shadow: absolutely no support that I'm aware of for any of the races or classes introduced in the book. The whole "Shadow" power source was created, but there is no magic item support for any of it in the book, nor ever after (that I'm aware of). 4 races introduced, but only one got racial feats. Classes and subclasses created, but then never got anything afterward--no feats, no alternate builds, no magic items, notihng.

We have a Tiefling book and a Dragonborn book. Where's the book for Elves, Dwarves, Eladrin, Pixies, Halflings, Humans, Devas, Shardminds, or any of the other races? If WotC didn't want to do it themselves, they could at least have outsourced it. Or made the dragon magazine articles published accordingly.

Implements: Tomes and Totems are restricted to the point of being almost useless. Bonus from the tomes: wizard powers ONLY. Totems: well, almost only useful to Druids and Shawmen. Superior Implements: rediculously limited, and no follow-up support. How about instead have these classes use the same implements as everyone else (rod, staff, wand, orb, holy symbol, weapliment), and make those more useful on a broader basis.

Skill challenges: great idea, but almost every single one I've been in sucked. For example, tonight we were in a scales of war mod. Skill challenge: Arcana (max 3 successes), Athletics (max 1), Thievery (max 3). But we need 12 to complete the challenge. But according to the way it was written, only 7 were possible. So, the party automatically fails, or the DM has to rewrite the challenge.

More shoddy editing: my personal favorite. Power was described as "Close Blurst 3"  WTF is a "blurst"?
Since this is all available on-line, it would take little-to-no effort to correct these egregious failures. But that might actually require hiring an editing staff to review and correct.

And some of the feat-bloat from constant publishing without bothering to review...
Then the Essentials reverse engineering...

Honestly, they took something great, and made a mess.

I built a lvl 18 archer in 3.5, as both a ranger and a fighter. The fighter, with the constant feats, ended up being way better.

After 4E is done, I'm tempted to build the books that are missing, and just give a copy to the group as a set of house rules. On the other hand, that is a huge amount of work, and I have Maya creations to build and animate.
 Go and play 4th ed with just the PHB, DMG and the 1st MM. If you don't like it that much even as a 4th ed player thats what 4th ed had back in 2008.




Exactly and ultimatly these three core books is what D&D 4th edition was judged on.  By the time additional books came out anyone worthy of note didn't even bother reviewing them, the system had already been written off by the community at large.  The fact that these books had good initial sales was solely because of brand name, I mean you don't have to look past this forum to get a feel for the average players outlook.

 
If it doesn't say D&D on the box, it's NOT D&D.



With consumers like that around you don't have to worry about quality, their waiting in line with cash in hand ready to buy anything with the logo on it.

Suffice to say it didn't take long for D&D players to discover 4th edition wasn't what they expected it to be, but by than the core books for 4th edition had sold out twice over, but as I recall following months after the intial rush their where literly thousands of used 4th edition books on sale, I recall I picked up my 3 copies for about 8 dollars a pop which I felt was a bit pricey.

In any case the debate of its success is pretty much over now and while you can debate the merits of 4th edition to the cows come home, you can't debate the fact that 4th edition didn't meet any of the expectations Wizard had for it and while they tried to save it with essentials, which wasn't a terrible attempt, by the than it was too late.    

    

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

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.



If I want a homebrewed return to earlier D&D I will grab Swords & Wizardry and house rule it.

I don't want Mike "Iron Heroes was incomplete and 5E will be too!" Mearls selling me his homebrewed version of every version prior to 4E with the D&D brand on it.
Cheers Imruphel aka Scrivener of Doom
 Go and play 4th ed with just the PHB, DMG and the 1st MM. If you don't like it that much even as a 4th ed player thats what 4th ed had back in 2008.




Exactly and ultimatly these three core books is what D&D 4th edition was judged on.  By the time additional books came out anyone worthy of note didn't even bother reviewing them, the system had already been written off by the community at large.  The fact that these books had good initial sales was solely because of brand name, I mean you don't have to look past this forum to get a feel for the average players outlook.

 
If it doesn't say D&D on the box, it's NOT D&D.



With consumers like that around you don't have to worry about quality, their waiting in line with cash in hand ready to buy anything with the logo on it.

Suffice to say it didn't take long for D&D players to discover 4th edition wasn't what they expected it to be, but by than the core books for 4th edition had sold out twice over, but as I recall following months after the intial rush their where literly thousands of used 4th edition books on sale, I recall I picked up my 3 copies for about 8 dollars a pop which I felt was a bit pricey.

In any case the debate of its success is pretty much over now and while you can debate the merits of 4th edition to the cows come home, you can't debate the fact that 4th edition didn't meet any of the expectations Wizard had for it and while they tried to save it with essentials, which wasn't a terrible attempt, by the than it was too late.    

    

Yes yes, we know all about your personal version of reality and how you're going to keep hammering it out there in every thread till the end of time, thx!

That is not dead which may eternal lie
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Exactly and ultimatly these three core books is what D&D 4th edition was judged on.  By the time additional books came out anyone worthy of note didn't even bother reviewing them, the system had already been written off by the community at large.  The fact that these books had good initial sales was solely because of brand name, I mean you don't have to look past this forum to get a feel for the average players outlook.


Of which community are you speaking? I know a number of communities that consider the beginning of 4th ed to be extremely good/better than _____, and were looking forward to the next books with baited breath.
There were some who felt that way for sure but a large amount who judged the 4th ed rules with the 3 core books and then went pass. I don't know if it was a majority of players but it was enough I suspect. If you like 4th ed but would not play it with just the initial 3 books you might come close to understanding why it was rejected by a few players. 3.5 was more complete or playable with just the core rules IMHO- at least to you got to the higher levels.

 Pathfinder was more successful than I thought. I thought it would be a competitor to 4th ed I did not really expcet it to ultimately win and do things like support minis and novel lines. I expected 4th ed to be a short edition and it really crashed in burned in 2010. IMHO they should have dropped the epic part of 4th ed and focused more on the earlier levels espicially levels 1-10. THey had missing powers for various classes in some of the options, only 4 at wills for each class which was really 2 options for each path you could take which made the human 3rd at will useless. It felt very incomplete. A few splat books tend to make any edition of D&D better, 4th ed kinda required them.

 The Zard challenge. Go and play 4th ed with just the PHB,DMG,MM. 3.0 had a smoother launch and IIRC only cost $20 per book which was a special price to lure over the 2nd ed players.

 Fear is the Mind Killer