The excitement of the good old days of 4e

290 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.



Wait, how exactly is that a valid point of 3.5? "Sure, you can make all sorts of Fighter-types! Its just your character won't matter unless you houserule the system into submission."

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.
..."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.

I think there's some quoting that got out of whack here (yes, this forum has StupidQuote Technology(TM)).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
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.



Wait, how exactly is that a valid point of 3.5? "Sure, you can make all sorts of Fighter-types! Its just your character won't matter unless you houserule the system into submission."


Are we seriously still picking on the fighter? I thought we came to the conclusion that we all had different ideas. Now if you'll excuse me I've got a Goliath Monk to make.

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

 

em.

 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.


No way I could do that... It's playable, but is very limited in character options. The only 4e corebook I thought was really good was the DMG. I would say it is on par with the 1e DMG.

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

 

Did that, had lots of fun with it.

4e had more options at release than 3e, at least in terms of actual useful options.  The 3e PHB had three classes in it; cleric, druid, and wizard.  Everything else was an underpowered waste of space.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
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.



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.



Wait, how exactly is that a valid point of 3.5? "Sure, you can make all sorts of Fighter-types! Its just your character won't matter unless you houserule the system into submission."



I was just going to not comment on that and let it stand on its own. In any case I don't think Zard is ALL THAT partisan. He seems to like PF and 3.5 rather more than some of us, and I'm not sure I agree with all his opinions on 4e, but he's FAR from the realms of lunacy that some of the posters on the DDN thread were at a few months ago...

Honestly, I think there are really several different groups of people. Those that are fairly hard-core 3.5 and/or PF fans, those that are fairly hard-core 4e fans, and a LOT of people that either are agnostic, OK with both games, or really don't have enough experience with the game to make a choice between them. Most groups play what is acceptable to all its members. Its easy to see what has happened here. You have a certain few (say 10%) of the community that was bound and determined to hate 4e either because they were so invested in some aspect of 3.5 or were put off by WotC's PR (which was rather inept), etc. Lots of groups don't really ever switch right away anyhow (and some just never bother). With PF arriving all these hardcore people had a viable way to armtwist all the people that didn't care much. Meanwhile 4e is a new system, it has few real diehards going in, and a lot of players just never got a chance to try it. You can see that in the assymetry of experience. Virtually all 4e players have played 3.x or PF, but very few go the other way. What you get from the opinionated PF fans for instance is mostly uninformed anti-4e screed picked up on some board. Even if 90% of the players out there could care less most groups have one of these people to contend with. It is just easier to throw up your hands and play what they want to play. I know if I hadn't happened to not own 3.x and had bought 4e before hearing the whole BS routine I'd probably not have bothered either.

WotC is just stupid about messaging. In essence they have no marketing talent with D&D because they never HAD to market it before. They were the sole purveyors of a product that sold itself. When they did a version roll to 3e the game was basically dead and out of print. Nobody was going to really argue that much. 4e could have been perfectly successful if they'd understood they had to actually sell it and HOW to do that.

As for Zard's "Play with the Core Books Only!" thing... Dude, we started in June of 2008 with our first campaign. Of course we played with the 3 core books... It was fine. By the time we barely got rolling MP1 was out anyway, which definitely added a bunch of cool options. Honestly, our 2e characters converted over pretty well. There were a few that we had to wait till March of '09 and the PHB2 for, the Druid mostly. Still, it just wasn't a big deal. I guess I can imagine if you were trying to convert over from a 3.5 game where you played a whole lot of the less usual classes then you might have a rough time, but I don't think that by itself is a huge strike against a system. If it is then DDN is doomed already because it is sure as heck not going to be possible to convert 4e characters into DDN.

Sure, 3.0 had a much smoother launch because it wasn't replacing anything. 2e was LITERALLY dead, out of print, dated, and rapidly headed for oblivion, when 3e came along. Of course it was a 'smooth transition', there simply wasn't any question that you HAD to buy 3e if you wanted to buy any D&D product.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Did that, had lots of fun with it.

4e had more options at release than 3e, at least in terms of actual useful options.  The 3e PHB had three classes in it; cleric, druid, and wizard.  Everything else was an underpowered waste of space.

lol, harsh, but sadly not far from the truth. I think you can give Fighters and Rogues some credit though, below 6th level they were pretty viable. Rogues could come in handy for trap figiting even after that.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Did that, had lots of fun with it.

4e had more options at release than 3e, at least in terms of actual useful options.  The 3e PHB had three classes in it; cleric, druid, and wizard.  Everything else was an underpowered waste of space.


I still fail to see how powerful wizards are such a big deal. You can take that power away just as easy, with level drain, or even a cheaper move like your spellbook burns.

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

 

Did that, had lots of fun with it.

4e had more options at release than 3e, at least in terms of actual useful options.  The 3e PHB had three classes in it; cleric, druid, and wizard.  Everything else was an underpowered waste of space.


I still fail to see how powerful wizards are such a big deal. You can take that power away just as easy, with level drain, or even a cheaper move like your spellbook burns.



Exactly my point.  You shouldn't have to resort to 'cheap moves'.  It should be balanced innately, not through hoser mechanics, which are another way of saying 'You don't get to play'.

To put it another way, I think a class should be at 50 all the time, instead of going from 100 to zero due to arbitrary DM actions.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Did that, had lots of fun with it.

4e had more options at release than 3e, at least in terms of actual useful options.  The 3e PHB had three classes in it; cleric, druid, and wizard.  Everything else was an underpowered waste of space.


I still fail to see how powerful wizards are such a big deal. You can take that power away just as easy, with level drain, or even a cheaper move like your spellbook burns.



Exactly my point.  You shouldn't have to resort to 'cheap moves'.  It should be balanced innately, not through hoser mechanics, which are another way of saying 'You don't get to play'.

To put it another way, I think a class should be at 50 all the time, instead of going from 100 to zero due to arbitrary DM actions.


We have completely different thoughts on almost everything. If you think 4e was balanced you are right. But was it balanced correctly?

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

 

Pretty close to it, yes, in my not particularly humble opinion.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm not that super partisan. I only play PF because its better than 3.5 and its not 4th ed. I had DDI for 3 years and didn't mind runing 4th ed at all. Basically prefered to DM 4th, but I would rather play PF. Paizo runs rings around WoTC in terms of adventure design and quality of sourcebooks. I like Paizo as a company, Pathfinder not so much which I like but I'm not rabidly devoted to it.

 One thing I don't like from some of the rapid (read stupid) fans on either side of the fence is all things 3.5/4th ed needs to die in a fire mentality. They just added recharge mechanics to D&DN and they seem to be engaging in a real playtest- this is broken, this doesn't work etc. Recharge was a great 4th ed mechanic. I liked the flexability of 3.5/PF/SWSE d20 systems, did not like the 4th ed role structure and AEDU power stucture for every class although I did like the 4th ed wizard for example. I really did hate the role structure of 4th ed which would be my biggest beef with the system. You don't like that and you can't really houserule it away without a massive rewrite as opposed to maybe a page of houserules for 3.5. I have been using 3rd ed for 12 years now, just saying no helps alot (natural spell, divine metamaigc, timestop etc). I was ready to move on from 3.5 in 2008, 4th ed wasn't what I wanted though, D&DN liking so far but I'll wait and see before I make a final choice on it as its fun to play anyway (and has a huge 4th ed influence btw).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yeah, the PH was really limiting on character options. You only had 8 races and 8 classes. That's only, like 64 posibilities. And the classes only had 2-3 different builds... so that would be 128 characters... And then there were the different feats you could take... and the different power options for encounter, daily, and utilities... and then there was to variations on which stat array you used... Yeah, that was a serious limitation there. only 512 options (race, class, build, encounter power, daily power) before working out which feat(s) and stat array you wanted to use. And that isn't even touching which weapon the melee and martial characters chose. Sure, some of the choices are sub-optimal, but they can still fun.
Hate to break it to you, but I played a PH1 fighter up to lvl10 and loved it. and a PH1 cleric to lvl8. Then the other books came out... And they provided some interesting options...
The only character that got really worked over was my Fey-pact warlock: it took until arcane Power and the DDI articles with new Warlock powers and feats to make it anywhere comparable to the other striker classes that came out in the PH1 (and no, I don't want to start that argument again).

The books were too expensive? Yes. Certainly.
Is the system too limited? Only as limited as your imagination and willingness to refluff.
Most major liabilities: uneven release of material, failure to provide source material, utter failure to market/PR, shoddy editing.
Other liabilities: way too much time/effort to create a minis game (which failed), mid-edition release of Essentials as another failure/distraction
Yeah, the PH was really limiting on character options. You only had 8 races and 8 classes. That's only, like 64 posibilities. And the classes only had 2-3 different builds... so that would be 128 characters... And then there were the different feats you could take... and the different power options for encounter, daily, and utilities... and then there was to variations on which stat array you used... Yeah, that was a serious limitation there. only 512 options (race, class, build, encounter power, daily power) before working out which feat(s) and stat array you wanted to use. And that isn't even touching which weapon the melee and martial characters chose. Sure, some of the choices are sub-optimal, but they can still fun.
Hate to break it to you, but I played a PH1 fighter up to lvl10 and loved it. and a PH1 cleric to lvl8. Then the other books came out... And they provided some interesting options...
The only character that got really worked over was my Fey-pact warlock: it took until arcane Power and the DDI articles with new Warlock powers and feats to make it anywhere comparable to the other striker classes that came out in the PH1 (and no, I don't want to start that argument again).

The books were too expensive? Yes. Certainly.
Is the system too limited? Only as limited as your imagination and willingness to refluff.
Most major liabilities: uneven release of material, failure to provide source material, utter failure to market/PR, shoddy editing.
Other liabilities: way too much time/effort to create a minis game (which failed), mid-edition release of Essentials as another failure/distraction



3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 

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

 



3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 



But only 3 classes worth taking.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 



But only 3 classes worth taking.



According to what exactly?  How powerful you where?  Is that what passes for role-playing these days? 

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

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

Yeah, the PH was really limiting on character options. You only had 8 races and 8 classes. That's only, like 64 posibilities. And the classes only had 2-3 different builds... so that would be 128 characters... And then there were the different feats you could take... and the different power options for encounter, daily, and utilities... and then there was to variations on which stat array you used... Yeah, that was a serious limitation there. only 512 options (race, class, build, encounter power, daily power) before working out which feat(s) and stat array you wanted to use. And that isn't even touching which weapon the melee and martial characters chose. Sure, some of the choices are sub-optimal, but they can still fun.
Hate to break it to you, but I played a PH1 fighter up to lvl10 and loved it. and a PH1 cleric to lvl8. Then the other books came out... And they provided some interesting options...
The only character that got really worked over was my Fey-pact warlock: it took until arcane Power and the DDI articles with new Warlock powers and feats to make it anywhere comparable to the other striker classes that came out in the PH1 (and no, I don't want to start that argument again).

The books were too expensive? Yes. Certainly.
Is the system too limited? Only as limited as your imagination and willingness to refluff.
Most major liabilities: uneven release of material, failure to provide source material, utter failure to market/PR, shoddy editing.
Other liabilities: way too much time/effort to create a minis game (which failed), mid-edition release of Essentials as another failure/distraction



3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 

Sure, after how many books? And as Salla says, many of those options were EXCEEDINGLY weaker than the others, not like a LITTLE BIT, but like "you might as well just sit back and watch the fight" weaker.

And no, how powerful a specific given character is isn't the point. You don't have to be the most powerful, it is still fun, but when a system says "You CANNOT EVER make a guy that swings a sword that holds a candle to ANY guy that uses magic PERIOD" then that's a rule system that has serious issues. It may be fine for some people but just because you don't 'get' what the problem is doesn't fix it either. 4e fixed it. It just plain frigging fixed it open and shut case fixed.

Frankly it is a kick-ass system and I have no real interest in switching. In fact I just fired up a 2nd weekly 4e game to run again whole new campaign, starting at 1st it looks like (Some of these players have mid-paragon PCs we used in an earlier campaign too, which might be fun to work in, we'll see). DDN? I don't even want to hear about that stuff. Have fun with it. I can find plenty of players for 4e games. I've got 30 books worth of 4e stuff, and DDI is working fine. Time to just have fun. If you all are too hung up to get in on the fun, too bad for you! ;) (Honestly, play what is fun for you, its all OK, but I'm done even hearing any more 4e crapping upon).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Another poster summed it up better than I could.

Xguild in another thread.

 "Most importantly you could remove and replace mechanics you didn't like without the system breaking down in Pathfinder.  Again in 4th edition most mechanics where part of the foundation built into the core of the system.  You couldn't for example add vanican magic into the game, or remove healing surges. You couldn't switch to a mana based  magic system or re-define how divine magic worked.  You where always tied to the demands of the system."

THats what I mean when I say 4th ed restricted options. Its really a sandbox vs linear approach to D&D. You probably could make a 4th ed/d20 based game with some of the changes he listed there but it would require a dramatic rework of the rules/system to make it work. If you had a major probelm with the Druid class for example one could just say "Druids are now banned". A heavy handed approach sure but it works. If you don't like healing surges you are going to have to rewrite a new mechanic to replace them as a simple house rule "no more healing surges guys" is going to have a dramatic effect on your game system.

 Star Wars Saga for example was set in  different game world but it was mostly 3.5 based with the magic system stripped out and elements of 4th ed added. You keep the options part of 3.5 and remove a big problem 3.5 had (spellcasters). 4th ed took a heavy handed approach to the spellcaster problem in 3rd ed which was really gut the system and make everyone a spellcaster of sorts although you can quibble over things like power sources. Everyone used the AEDU structure. What happens if you don't like AEDU?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yeah, the PH was really limiting on character options. You only had 8 races and 8 classes. That's only, like 64 posibilities. And the classes only had 2-3 different builds... so that would be 128 characters... And then there were the different feats you could take... and the different power options for encounter, daily, and utilities... and then there was to variations on which stat array you used... Yeah, that was a serious limitation there. only 512 options (race, class, build, encounter power, daily power) before working out which feat(s) and stat array you wanted to use. And that isn't even touching which weapon the melee and martial characters chose. Sure, some of the choices are sub-optimal, but they can still fun.
Hate to break it to you, but I played a PH1 fighter up to lvl10 and loved it. and a PH1 cleric to lvl8. Then the other books came out... And they provided some interesting options...
The only character that got really worked over was my Fey-pact warlock: it took until arcane Power and the DDI articles with new Warlock powers and feats to make it anywhere comparable to the other striker classes that came out in the PH1 (and no, I don't want to start that argument again).

The books were too expensive? Yes. Certainly.
Is the system too limited? Only as limited as your imagination and willingness to refluff.
Most major liabilities: uneven release of material, failure to provide source material, utter failure to market/PR, shoddy editing.
Other liabilities: way too much time/effort to create a minis game (which failed), mid-edition release of Essentials as another failure/distraction



3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 

Sure, after how many books? And as Salla says, many of those options were EXCEEDINGLY weaker than the others, not like a LITTLE BIT, but like "you might as well just sit back and watch the fight" weaker.

And no, how powerful a specific given character is isn't the point. You don't have to be the most powerful, it is still fun, but when a system says "You CANNOT EVER make a guy that swings a sword that holds a candle to ANY guy that uses magic PERIOD" then that's a rule system that has serious issues. It may be fine for some people but just because you don't 'get' what the problem is doesn't fix it either. 4e fixed it. It just plain frigging fixed it open and shut case fixed.

Frankly it is a kick-ass system and I have no real interest in switching. In fact I just fired up a 2nd weekly 4e game to run again whole new campaign, starting at 1st it looks like (Some of these players have mid-paragon PCs we used in an earlier campaign too, which might be fun to work in, we'll see). DDN? I don't even want to hear about that stuff. Have fun with it. I can find plenty of players for 4e games. I've got 30 books worth of 4e stuff, and DDI is working fine. Time to just have fun. If you all are too hung up to get in on the fun, too bad for you! ;) (Honestly, play what is fun for you, its all OK, but I'm done even hearing any more 4e crapping upon).


Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that. :D 

I also never crapped on 4e. No reason too its a fine system. I was just saying. And just because Salla played a fighter in a 3.5 game where there was a power gaming  show hogging wizard doesn't mean other classes are useless.

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

 



Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that. :D 


Forgot to mention thats not even with Prestige Classes

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

 

Hmmm.
Everyone can do something decent at any time.
Everyone can do some impressive stuff once per encounter.
Everyone can do something awesome once per day.
What's not to like?

I have no idea why everyone is saying that the spell casters were out-classing the non-spell casters. I played in a group where the mounted paladin ruled the battlefield, and the casters were lucky to get more that 2 or 3 creatures in their area effects. On the other hand, the cleric dropping the celestial Orca into the underground lake to fight the aquadic monster there was pretty fun. Sure, there were some great spells, but it sounds to me like people are fussing about limitations that do not necessarily apply. Sure, the Wizard could cast a 20D6 fireball. My archer could hit a target 300 yards away, 2-4 times per round (depending on level). Sounds to me like people bitching about a class they never learned to play, or restricting themselves to using calculators as RPG methods.
Hmmm.
Everyone can do something decent at any time.
Everyone can do some impressive stuff once per encounter.
Everyone can do something awesome once per day.
What's not to like?

I have no idea why everyone is saying that the spell casters were out-classing the non-spell casters. I played in a group where the mounted paladin ruled the battlefield, and the casters were lucky to get more that 2 or 3 creatures in their area effects. On the other hand, the cleric dropping the celestial Orca into the underground lake to fight the aquadic monster there was pretty fun. Sure, there were some great spells, but it sounds to me like people are fussing about limitations that do not necessarily apply. Sure, the Wizard could cast a 20D6 fireball. My archer could hit a target 300 yards away, 2-4 times per round (depending on level). Sounds to me like people bitching about a class they never learned to play, or restricting themselves to using calculators as RPG methods.


Exactly.

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

 

Hmmm.
Everyone can do something decent at any time.
Everyone can do some impressive stuff once per encounter.
Everyone can do something awesome once per day.
What's not to like?

I have no idea why everyone is saying that the spell casters were out-classing the non-spell casters. I played in a group where the mounted paladin ruled the battlefield, and the casters were lucky to get more that 2 or 3 creatures in their area effects. On the other hand, the cleric dropping the celestial Orca into the underground lake to fight the aquadic monster there was pretty fun. Sure, there were some great spells, but it sounds to me like people are fussing about limitations that do not necessarily apply. Sure, the Wizard could cast a 20D6 fireball. My archer could hit a target 300 yards away, 2-4 times per round (depending on level). Sounds to me like people bitching about a class they never learned to play, or restricting themselves to using calculators as RPG methods.



 Damage dealing spells weren't that broken in 3.5. At a casual level 3.5 worked fine it took a little bit of system mastery to really break it. The big offenders were.

1. Polymorph. Druid polymorphs into whatever, spell buffs himself and can bea a fighter in melee. Even flying around a s a hawk dropping spells was a big advanatage. A wizard could shapechange into a balor and create a vorpal sword, then another one, then another one etc. Wizard shapechanges into a Dragon, casts mage armor and shield.

2. Stacking buff spells. Usually Clerics and Druids. Fighter takes a feat giving +1 or +2 to hit or damage damage. Cleric uses persistent metamagic to gain a +10-25 bonus to hit and damage. And then power attacks. Ring of counterspells were used to counter dispel magic.

3. Action economy spells. Timestop, 3.0 haste.

4. Summoning spells. All sorts of abuse here. Some feats let you apply templates to summoned creatures, others let you conjure up creatures that could grant wish spells.

5. Spell DCs scaling faster than defenses. Fighters got dominated very easily, Mordenkainens disjunctions was a big F you to a fighter with hundreds of thousands of gp invested in his gear.

 At least it was better than 3.0 where spellcasters could get infinate ability scores, cast 17 spells a round (no I'm not joking timestop+haste), clerics could double stack certain spells (+25 hit/damage), and spell DCs could get into the 30s by level 10 or so.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that.


How are you coming up with that answer? I see seven races and 11 classes, with the ranger being quite different with the choice of combat style at level 2, so we'll go with 12 "classes". That only comes out to 84 class / race combos. Now, I certainly don't think all choice of class features for 4e classes created drastically different results, for example, the different wizard options played similar enough that I would count them as just one class, but others do play quite differently (like Str vs. Wis Clerics or the different Warlock pact options) that they would count in the same world where the two Rangers options counted separately.

As for multi-classing, as you throw in more levels, you will obviously get options and more possible combinations with 3e because of the loose way it handled that.

And 3e prestige classes aren't going to help you too much considering that just in the PH1 of 4e, each of the 8 classes had 2 (maybe 3?) paragon paths for each of the 8 classes and the two are pretty close in functionality.
Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that.


How are you coming up with that answer? I see seven races and 11 classes, with the ranger being quite different with the choice of combat style at level 2, so we'll go with 12 "classes". That only comes out to 84 class / race combos. Now, I certainly don't think all choice of class features for 4e classes created drastically different results, for example, the different wizard options played similar enough that I would count them as just one class, but others do play quite differently (like Str vs. Wis Clerics or the different Warlock pact options) that they would count in the same world where the two Rangers options counted separately.

As for multi-classing, as you throw in more levels, you will obviously get options and more possible combinations with 3e because of the loose way it handled that.

And 3e prestige classes aren't going to help you too much considering that just in the PH1 of 4e, each of the 8 classes had 2 (maybe 3?) paragon paths for each of the 8 classes and the two are pretty close in functionality.

Sorry that was just classes and I was off by 5, there are a total of 105 Class combos (@ lvl 2) this is with prereqs worked in. And this: 735 is the total number of variations for race and class combos at level 2.

My bad. 

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

 

And again, how many of those combinations are actually playable?

You're also not considering that you can't do things like bard/monk in 3e because of the stupidity of alignment restrictions.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Its not like you were blatantly lying about what classses were playable in 3.5 Even a fighter is playable at level 15 vs the MM type foes. He may be a bit dependent on gear but he can beat things down. He may not be able to warp reality or end the combat in a round or two but we had them kill high CR foes without much hassle. A large chunk of D&D players don't even post on msg boards and for casual players 3.5 worked fine because they did not have the system mastery to break it. For those players 3.5 probably worked fine.

What edition you like is subjective. 4th ed flopping is not

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

And again, how many of those combinations are actually playable?

You're also not considering that you can't do things like bard/monk in 3e because of the stupidity of alignment restrictions.


I know you can't do bard monks... I worked that in. Plus, what did you even play in 3.5? And with what kind of group. If 3.5 was broken as you say it is then why do so many people stay loyal to it?

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

 

Another poster summed it up better than I could.

Xguild in another thread.

 "Most importantly you could remove and replace mechanics you didn't like without the system breaking down in Pathfinder.  Again in 4th edition most mechanics where part of the foundation built into the core of the system.  You couldn't for example add vanican magic into the game, or remove healing surges. You couldn't switch to a mana based  magic system or re-define how divine magic worked.  You where always tied to the demands of the system."


This is uttermost bovine soil improvement byproduct. I know a guy that likes Incarnum and likes 4e. You know what he does. HE JUST RUNS THE INCARNUM RULES WITH 4E, lock stock and barrel right the heck out of the book. I know another guy that has 3e Sorcerers in his 4e game, and another one that has 2e priest kits in his. Sorry, this is just nonsensical. 4e is no less hackable than any previous edition. You MAY not achieve the superior level of rules function with that level of homebrew vs official 4e stuff, but if your fun is built on using that material and the alternative is to go to an ENTIRE GAME SYSTEM which is vastly less polished to get it then clearly using it with 4e could be the superior option and is FULLY workable by comparison. If you are claiming it isn't then you're using a double standard.


THats what I mean when I say 4th ed restricted options. Its really a sandbox vs linear approach to D&D. You probably could make a 4th ed/d20 based game with some of the changes he listed there but it would require a dramatic rework of the rules/system to make it work. If you had a major probelm with the Druid class for example one could just say "Druids are now banned". A heavy handed approach sure but it works. If you don't like healing surges you are going to have to rewrite a new mechanic to replace them as a simple house rule "no more healing surges guys" is going to have a dramatic effect on your game system.


Again, the bull fertilizer is thick here. It is no more or less hard to remove healing surges from 4e than it would be to remove magical healing from 3e (exactly how WOULD your 20th level PCs manage to heal without spells and potions and wands...). The changes to the rules are no more or less profound in either case.


 Star Wars Saga for example was set in  different game world but it was mostly 3.5 based with the magic system stripped out and elements of 4th ed added. You keep the options part of 3.5 and remove a big problem 3.5 had (spellcasters). 4th ed took a heavy handed approach to the spellcaster problem in 3rd ed which was really gut the system and make everyone a spellcaster of sorts although you can quibble over things like power sources. Everyone used the AEDU structure. What happens if you don't like AEDU?



First of all are you saying that 4e can't do say Star Wars as well as 3e? I hate to break this to you, but you're sadly unimaginative if you believe that: starwars.gameslayer.org/ how about this, a simple Star Wars 4e supplement, or how about THIS dungeonsmaster.com/2012/07/star-wars-pre... awesome set of character sheets (entire set of encounters-legal PCs refluffed to Star Wars characters using pure 4e mechanics). Sorry, you're going to have to try harder.

What happens in 3e if you don't like "stand in one place and power attack" fighter? Or Vancian Wizard? Get serious. You can make up different classes that are different than that if you want, JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS COULD. Did 4e stick a straw up your nose and suck out the brains? Of course there are a whole slew of non-AEDU classes in 4e supplied by WotC as well, which if nothing else did would certainly crush this sort of argument.

Truthfully I'm an advocate of consistent AEDU class design, but the TOTAL possible space for classes to exist in within 4e is just as large as that of any previous edition. It mystifies me how anyone can think otherwise.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Yeah, the PH was really limiting on character options. You only had 8 races and 8 classes. That's only, like 64 posibilities. And the classes only had 2-3 different builds... so that would be 128 characters... And then there were the different feats you could take... and the different power options for encounter, daily, and utilities... and then there was to variations on which stat array you used... Yeah, that was a serious limitation there. only 512 options (race, class, build, encounter power, daily power) before working out which feat(s) and stat array you wanted to use. And that isn't even touching which weapon the melee and martial characters chose. Sure, some of the choices are sub-optimal, but they can still fun.
Hate to break it to you, but I played a PH1 fighter up to lvl10 and loved it. and a PH1 cleric to lvl8. Then the other books came out... And they provided some interesting options...
The only character that got really worked over was my Fey-pact warlock: it took until arcane Power and the DDI articles with new Warlock powers and feats to make it anywhere comparable to the other striker classes that came out in the PH1 (and no, I don't want to start that argument again).

The books were too expensive? Yes. Certainly.
Is the system too limited? Only as limited as your imagination and willingness to refluff.
Most major liabilities: uneven release of material, failure to provide source material, utter failure to market/PR, shoddy editing.
Other liabilities: way too much time/effort to create a minis game (which failed), mid-edition release of Essentials as another failure/distraction



3.5 had more class combos than the total number of things you just gave. 

Sure, after how many books? And as Salla says, many of those options were EXCEEDINGLY weaker than the others, not like a LITTLE BIT, but like "you might as well just sit back and watch the fight" weaker.

And no, how powerful a specific given character is isn't the point. You don't have to be the most powerful, it is still fun, but when a system says "You CANNOT EVER make a guy that swings a sword that holds a candle to ANY guy that uses magic PERIOD" then that's a rule system that has serious issues. It may be fine for some people but just because you don't 'get' what the problem is doesn't fix it either. 4e fixed it. It just plain frigging fixed it open and shut case fixed.

Frankly it is a kick-ass system and I have no real interest in switching. In fact I just fired up a 2nd weekly 4e game to run again whole new campaign, starting at 1st it looks like (Some of these players have mid-paragon PCs we used in an earlier campaign too, which might be fun to work in, we'll see). DDN? I don't even want to hear about that stuff. Have fun with it. I can find plenty of players for 4e games. I've got 30 books worth of 4e stuff, and DDI is working fine. Time to just have fun. If you all are too hung up to get in on the fun, too bad for you! ;) (Honestly, play what is fun for you, its all OK, but I'm done even hearing any more 4e crapping upon).


Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that. :D 

I also never crapped on 4e. No reason too its a fine system. I was just saying. And just because Salla played a fighter in a 3.5 game where there was a power gaming  show hogging wizard doesn't mean other classes are useless.


Yeah, I agree, but you do have to admit that old-fashioned D&D REALLY limited the set of assumptions you could build around. You simply could not build a game where plausibly in view of the way the rules (and I mean for ANY previous edition) you would have non-casters that weren't totally at the mercy of any even moderately clever caster. Certainly in terms of PCs it would be laughable to run around as a high level fighter claiming you could do squat against a high level cleric or wizard, or take care of a liche or probably even one of your more capable dragons.

I got tired of it being so limited long before 3e even showed up, long before WotC was even on the radar. It is just as fine to want to play bad assed world dominating wizards that rule everything and fighters are peons, but I WANT to be that fighter that murderizes spell casters and leads his army right up to the evil high priest's castle and slags the guy in single combat, which is laughably impossible in any edition of D&D before 4th.

That is not dead which may eternal lie


Just with the Core book at just level 2 there are nearly 110 options, for class/race combos. Then you can multiclass even further after that. :D 


Forgot to mention thats not even with Prestige Classes

4e PHB1 has 8 races and 8 classes, which is a base of 64 combinations. Then you also have MCing. However this is not a straightforward comparison. Every 4e class has for instance 4 at-will powers, of which you get 2, which means 12 distinct combinations (except warlock, but then humans also have extra choices). Each of these 12 produces a different set of tactical options, which can be further widened by choices of class feature for most classes and selection of encounter and daily powers for all classes. Furthermore there is a wider choice of viable skills such that in 4e it is perfectly feasible to make a fighter that has Stealth and Thievery for instance (though using PHB1 you probably can't start with both of those skills at level 1 as a fighter, still the option is open and viable and you can do it with at least some races right off, and all of them by level 2).

No doubt there are a few things you can't do right off in 4e that you can do right off in 3e, but the opposite is also true, you can do some concepts better in 4e even with the basic 3 books. I really don't think that there is a vast difference personally.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
And again, how many of those combinations are actually playable?

You're also not considering that you can't do things like bard/monk in 3e because of the stupidity of alignment restrictions.


I know you can't do bard monks... I worked that in. Plus, what did you even play in 3.5? And with what kind of group. If 3.5 was broken as you say it is then why do so many people stay loyal to it?



Yes, I played 3.5.  I houseruled the living **** out of it, including banning the cleric, druid, and wizard, to try to make it more playable.

As for why people stay loyal to it, I have been wondering that myself for quite some time ... even before 4e came out.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Meh 4th ed is dead and so is 3.5. Long live D&D. 4th ed is really the first edition of D&D to fail withen a few years of launching. The main reason probably being it alienated a good chunk of the 3.5 players.

 4th ed is very different and it was not everyones cup of tea. You can pound a peg into a round hole if you try hard enough but 4th ed was more restrictive than 3.5 for the most part. At first it went out of its way to tell that you can't be XYZ that 3.5 allowed and I'm not talking about random crap like some weird multiclass/PrC abomination that someone cooked up. No Bard, Monk, Barbarian, Sorcerer in the core books, missing 3.5 races but with 3 different flavours of elf to chose from in the 4th ed PHB. They would probably need around an extra 50-60 pages to squeexe in those classes. If you want to be a archer you had to be a ranger or multiclass ranger, want to be a duelist you have to be a rogue. Or at least to not suck anyway.

 I'm not disputing that the 3.5 fighter had issues but I could build my PC how I wanted. If I sucked and fell flat on my face so be it. 4th ed fighter on release sword and board, two handed weapon or suck were you only options. If you can't even comprehend why someone may not like 4th ed based on a basic archtype being unplayable in 4th ed that a 3.5 core class or prestige class allowed I can't make it any simpler for you. Some people did not like 4th ed due to its art being a bit cartoony.

 As I said I can at least understand why people had issues with 3.5 and I would probably agree with a few of them (overpowered spellcasters being one). Personally I did not like the AEDU class structure or the 4th ed roles which I can't really houserule away without alot of work. 4th ed DMG, great book, 4th ed monster manual /encounter building borderline brilliant, 4th ed PHB/class design system= muck around for a few years, jump to Pathfinder. I would even go as far to say 4th ed is mechanically better than 3.5 and PF but it feels like a tactical minis game to me with RPG elements and not an RPG game. I even enjoyed playing 4th ed at times, one big problem with 4th ed I will concede is that I never got to play it only DM it. If I did I would roll up a Rogue or Wizard as I liked those classes the best. I could not find another person willing to  DM 4th ed and struggled to find 4th ed players. Doesn't matter how good 4th ed is without a group and good adventures help. 1/4 players liked 4th ed, 2 others prefer 3rd ed/PF or D&D next, 1 other player doesn't really care and it apathetic towards 4th ed.

 I have low expectations for D&DN. If it doesn't have stupidly overpowered spellcasters, 4th ed role/AEDU power structure as core rules (ok with a few classes being AEDU), and its fun to play and quick to run I'll be keen. Hopefully the good parts of 4th ed will live on in Next though- prep time, monster concepts, at wills being a few of the good ideas. My dislike of 4th ed does not go far enough to write of the system. If 4th ed was popular locally and I could not play 3.5/PF I would happily play it even if its not ideal- as long as I could have a charisma rogue or some sort of wizard.

 Also liked the bard. My 3 favourite 4th ed classes I suppose, Bard, Rogue, Wizard. At least as far as the AEDU power stucture went. Wouldn't bother me that much if these classes were AEDU in D&DNext, I just don't want every class to be AEDU and then some waste of space class made up to fix a power source hole in the role structure.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

4th ain't dead yet by a long shot, it is the current edition of D&D and will be for, according to Mike Mearls, about 2 more years. All I know or care about is that it is THE MOST FUN and easiest to play version of D&D. I have UTTERLY no problem finding players. I could run 10 games a week if I had time and energy. I know I'm CERTAINLY going to be running 4e campaigns for at least that long. Further I simply have no clue what the goings on are about "less flexible" or this or that or the other endless gripping. It sounds like sour grapes to me frankly. Earlier editions of D&D have had plenty of good stuff in them, and there are strengths and weaknesses of various editions, but I've easily proven to myself without any doubt that I can take anything from say 2e (which is one of my favorites) and reuse it easily in some form in 4e (heck, most of it is already pretty much there in most cases in some form).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Its not like you were blatantly lying about what classses were playable in 3.5 Even a fighter is playable at level 15 vs the MM type foes. He may be a bit dependent on gear but he can beat things down. He may not be able to warp reality or end the combat in a round or two but we had them kill high CR foes without much hassle. A large chunk of D&D players don't even post on msg boards and for casual players 3.5 worked fine because they did not have the system mastery to break it. For those players 3.5 probably worked fine.

What edition you like is subjective. 4th ed flopping is not


4E would have been the most successful system that any other company had ever released.

So saying it flopped is, well, subjective.  Shadowrun and GURPS would KILL for those sorts of sales numbers. 
What you're complaining about is that the very first book for 4e didn't have the same stuff that 3.5 had an entire edition to come up with? They started out small and worked their way out from there. And for the races and classes that weren't in the PHB for 4e? WotC came out and said they were either the unpopular races/classes or ones they weren't sure how to implement at first.
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls The Silent God of the House of Trolls Unfrozen OTTer Arbiter of the House of Trolls Yes, I have many titles. Deal with it.
I compared PHB to PHB. I di not expect 4th ed to cover every 3.5 class on release but the system did cop alot of flack back in the day for not having them. 1/3rd of the 3.5 classes were excluded. Yes its hard to design a 15 page class in 4th ed but if they had come up with somehitng different in the 1st place they could have had them and had space left over. Satr Wars Saga managed a more balanced and fun system than 3.5 and only had around 4 pages per class with good options. I checked my rules cyclopedia from the other day and each class was 2 pages with around 20 pages total for spells. They basically had to design a new power path to support a dual wielding fighter which 3.5 required a few feats to do. All they really had to do with 3.5 was kick the spell casters in the nuts, rip out the CR system, give the non casters some out of comabt class abilities and overhaul the skill system.

 4th ed done that with a sledgehammer instead of a scapel. They had a really good frame work to build on with Star Wars Saga. THey could have gone a bit further with that system or revamped 3.5 but further than pathfinder took it. 5 page character sheets I don't think are exactly ideal. I think thats what the player base was expecting, we got 4th ed and gamers voted with their feet and wallets once Pathfinder rolled around.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I know you can't do bard monks... I worked that in. Plus, what did you even play in 3.5? And with what kind of group. If 3.5 was broken as you say it is then why do so many people stay loyal to it?

Because most groups consists of people liking the same things, having the same skill level (or at least making sure those weaker in character building get help), sticking to unspoken table rules and a DM doing massive amounts of behind-the-screen work to make every PC at the table shine. You only had to take a look at a convention game like LG (especially at the bigger conventions) to realize how badly broken some combinations could be and how all martial characters at higher levels looked the same (and non were pure classed). In the end the biggest factor in fun at the table are the people and, baring extremes, not the game.
4th ain't dead yet by a long shot, it is the current edition of D&D and will be for, according to Mike Mearls, about 2 more years. All I know or care about is that it is THE MOST FUN and easiest to play version of D&D. I have UTTERLY no problem finding players. I could run 10 games a week if I had time and energy. I know I'm CERTAINLY going to be running 4e campaigns for at least that long.



This.

And most of the stuff Salla said.

After 30 years of DM'ing, 4e is BY FAR the best version of the game I've played yet.   I doubt that any future versions will surpass that.  

4th ain't dead yet by a long shot, it is the current edition of D&D and will be for, according to Mike Mearls, about 2 more years. All I know or care about is that it is THE MOST FUN and easiest to play version of D&D. I have UTTERLY no problem finding players. I could run 10 games a week if I had time and energy. I know I'm CERTAINLY going to be running 4e campaigns for at least that long.



This.

And most of the stuff Salla said.

After 30 years of DM'ing, 4e is BY FAR the best version of the game I've played yet.   I doubt that any future versions will surpass that.  



 I have to say 4e is probably the best game to DM, but I find it not as fun to play. 

I know you can't do bard monks... I worked that in. Plus, what did you even play in 3.5? And with what kind of group. If 3.5 was broken as you say it is then why do so many people stay loyal to it?

Because most groups consists of people liking the same things, having the same skill level (or at least making sure those weaker in character building get help), sticking to unspoken table rules and a DM doing massive amounts of behind-the-screen work to make every PC at the table shine. You only had to take a look at a convention game like LG (especially at the bigger conventions) to realize how badly broken some combinations could be and how all martial characters at higher levels looked the same (and non were pure classed). In the end the biggest factor in fun at the table are the people and, baring extremes, not the game.



I don't believe that every character has to shine in every session. They should have a time to shine. But not the way 4e wants to put it. And I've never had any problems letting people shine or shining myself in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

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

 

Sign In to post comments