Me and my group tried out 4e back when it was released and had a fair few problems, and I'm curious as to whether or not they've been fixed yet.
1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?
2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?
3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?
4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.
5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?
6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Im not exactly sure what your issues are, I mean most of them seem to stem from your own inability to play the game.
1. you dont have to use the Default Cosmology. Are you saying that settings are also set in stone? Can no originality be used unless it is handed to us?
2. Im pretty sure 4.0 is more flexable with its weapons and armors then 3.5. I dont see why your rogue couldnt dualwield cutlasses, since there is no such weapon in the game, just reflavor a short sword, which is a light blade and the rogue gets all its abilities.
3. no, not yet. Or what have you.
4. Define proper wizard. Who says this isnt a "proper" wizard.
5. coming out in the PHB 3. Also define missing? do you mean "Missing from the original release"? or "OMG THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE IT EVAR!!"? Give it time, eventually im sure everything that you loved from older editions will resurface.
6. No, What have you.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot.
2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?
The multiclassing system is better then previous editions, as with 3.5 you go to much for to little cost. and hybrids characters are coming out in PHB3. but a rogue with 2 cutlasses would be a rogue with the 2 weapon feat chains, and/or multied to fighter or ranger for some 2 weapon powers.
Also character concepts are more limited by the player, as classes are basically a combination of power source and tactic, and do not define the character in the same way they did in previous editions.
4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.
Dragon Mag article with some necromancy, and issusions are in arcane power.
6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?
Outside of Divine power just Bane, and possibly the Raven Queen , divine power has info on domains and I think there iare evil ones, not 100% as I did not have the cash to spare, yet.
But D&D is about playing heroic characters, so the focus is on the heroic, and the majority of published adventurers for any system do not work with evil PCs anyway, which is the only real place with the "goody-goody" focus as you call it, as all that is missing for a villain character otherwise is channel divinity feats.
Me and my group tried out 4e back when it was released and had a fair few problems, and I'm curious as to whether or not they've been fixed yet.
1) The Cosmology kinda sucks (aka has anyone written a 4e Planescape supplement ala Planeswalker yet)?
2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?
3) Does it have stuff for some of the older settings such as Dragonlance or Planescape or what have you yet?
4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.
5) Alot of the classes, especially the Psionic ones, were missing. Did they add these yet?
6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?
Cheers in Advance, comrades.
Not that I know of. Personally, I don't think the cosmology sucks, and it seems that neither does WotC. Don't expect them to rollback it to the Great Wheel. My guess is that when Planescape comes out (it's not been announced yet, but there's a good chance it will), it will be redone for the new cosmology.
There will be an additional multiclassing system, called Hybrid Classes, in the PHB III. If you're a D&D Insider, you can have access to it now as it has been previewed in Dragon magazine a few months ago. It allows you to pick 2 classes instead of just one (with about half the features/powers of each one), and you can still multiclass the PHB I way on top of it. It does allow for more options.
None of these yet. Forgotten Realms and Eberron are out, and Darksun is coming out next year. WotC plans to release one setting a year until they don't feel like doing it anymore. We hear that Greyhawk and Dragonlance have a good chance to make the list.
There was a new book, Arcane Power, with more options for the arcane classes that were out at the time (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Bard). It did boost the wizard a bit, added illusion, summoning spells and rules for familiars, but I don't think we'll see a wizard as versatile as before.
They're coming out in PHB III. Monk (yes, he's now psionic) and Psion have been previewed in Dragon magazine.
Personally, I didn't think it needed fixing.. It might have needed more options (We have been spoilt by the amount of options in previous editions of the games), which have come with the newer books (As we all knew they would).
As for things like cosmology, no, they haven't been changed, and I really, really doubt they will be. But it is just fluff.. if you like the old fluff, use it, nothing says you have to use the official cosmology, unless you are playing RPGA stuff..
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me.
1) It's just fluff. It's perfectly doable to run 4th with ANY cosmology you so choose.
2) One thing I feel the need to point out is that with 4e the amount of concepts available is alot greater once you realise that the name of the class doesn't set the nessarcary fluff in stone. If you insist that cutlass wielding character (assuming refluffed short-sword as mentioned above isn't satifactory for you) has to have the word "rogue" on your character sheet then yes you'll feel limited. That concept would work better mechanically as a ranger. Just choose dungeoneering rather than nature and use backgrounds to get thievery and take stealth too. Hey presto you have a sneaky character with a knack for plundering tombs and picking pockets who likes to get upclose and wail on enemies with multiple attacks. You class name is purely mechanics and not tied to fluff.
As for Gish types, the Forgotten Realms players guide gave us the swordmage which is as gishy as they get. A few other classes have builds that can be gish-like as well now (Bards for example).
4)Arcane power has as said vastly expanded wizards. Also my advice on the rogue/ranger thing above counts here to. Some Wizard concepts can be filled by the Warlock and Sorcerer instead. The pacts and inborn talent can easily be reflavoured as learned knowledge.
6) Evil campaigns and characters can be great when done right but horrible done wrong. Fear of the latter means most avoid it (I've rarely seen it done and only once seen it done right) in the name of caution. This makes it kinda niche. With the Assassin coming to D&Di we me see more support for shadier characters over time. Just be patient.
2) The classes with arbitary restrictions, coupled with the poor multiclassing system, meant that fewer concepts were playable in 4e compared to 3.5e. It was not possible to have, say, a rogue who used two cutlasses competantly, or a greataxe, or what have you, nor was it possible to make a true Gish. Did they add any feats to allow you to use whatever implements you wish and such to remedy this yet?
How much you'll like the "fix"(?) depends on how big a problem it was to start. Rogues already can use two cutlasses competently, though a Ranger or Tempest Fighter better represents a multi-attacking melee character. To this extent they've added in support for some additional weapons outside of restriction, more exotic combat styles, and such, but at the root 4e still stands on the idea of a strong class identity and that the player should find the class that matches their concept rather than the strictly-3e method of "I'm a {class/class/class/PrC} that does {stuff}."
To use the Gish as an example, the Swordmage, Bard, and Artificer are already Gish-ready out of the book.
Additionally the PHB3 will feature Hybrid class rules (currently they're in playtesting, so Insider members have access to the current rules) which are a more complex take on multiclassing that combines class features in a variety of ways to achieve a character that's basically a 50/50 split, but potentially MAD as hell.
4) Another issue I had was that the Wizard especially was not very representative of a proper wizard, because it lacked proper representation of some of the major schools of magic (such as Illusions or Necromancy). Have these been added in, and if so, can you customise Illusions as you wish (so as to say, trick a foe with a fake wall or what have you)? In addition, I am especially curious as to whether or not summoners are in it yet, as my current character is one (Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker), and it's pretty fun.
Summoning was heavily supported for the Wizard in Arcane Power and the Invoker (PHB2) is a divine controller with a lot of Summoning powers available.
Lassaize Faire illusions are still not in the game, nor do I anticipate them to ever be given their wildly disparate power levels being based entirely on the creativity (or lack thereof) of the player and the tolerance of the DM.
6) Another issue was the focus on goody-goody characters to a, quite frankly, rediculous extent. Did they add proper information on evil deities, prestige paths, feats and what have you?
"Proper support" for cartoon evil characters is still not there, but characters are still free to kick puppies and eat children fearing only the limits of their DM and fellow players since almost none of the existing material relies on the characters actually being good.
Divine Power, though, has the full range of domains for good and evil deities. Channel Divinity feats are still absent, though no one has noticed since Tempus is the only god worth spending a Feat on.
5. coming out in the PHB 3. Also define missing? do you mean "Missing from the original release"? or "OMG THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO RELEASE IT EVAR!!"? Give it time, eventually im sure everything that you loved from older editions will resurface.
I meant missing as in missing at the start of the edition.
The multiclassing system is better then previous editions, as with 3.5 you go to much for to little cost. and hybrids characters are coming out in PHB3. but a rogue with 2 cutlasses would be a rogue with the 2 weapon feat chains, and/or multied to fighter or ranger for some 2 weapon powers.
Also character concepts are more limited by the player, as classes are basically a combination of power source and tactic, and do not define the character in the same way they did in previous editions.
I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.
Outside of Divine power just Bane, and possibly the Raven Queen , divine power has info on domains and I think there iare evil ones, not 100% as I did not have the cash to spare, yet.
But D&D is about playing heroic characters, so the focus is on the heroic, and the majority of published adventurers for any system do not work with evil PCs anyway, which is the only real place with the "goody-goody" focus as you call it, as all that is missing for a villain character otherwise is channel divinity feats.
Personally, I prefer morally grey characters, which is why most of them are Neutral, but limiting it to goody-goody characters is bad because it reduces options, and less options is bad.
Not that I know of. Personally, I don't think the cosmology sucks, and it seems that neither does WotC. Don't expect them to rollback it to the Great Wheel. My guess is that when Planescape comes out (it's not been announced yet, but there's a good chance it will), it will be redone for the new cosmology.
There will be an additional multiclassing system, called Hybrid Classes, in the PHB III. If you're a D&D Insider, you can have access to it now as it has been previewed in Dragon magazine a few months ago. It allows you to pick 2 classes instead of just one (with about half the features/powers of each one), and you can still multiclass the PHB I way on top of it. It does allow for more options.
None of these yet. Forgotten Realms and Eberron are out, and Darksun is coming out next year. WotC plans to release one setting a year until they don't feel like doing it anymore. We hear that Greyhawk and Dragonlance have a good chance to make the list.
There was a new book, Arcane Power, with more options for the arcane classes that were out at the time (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Bard). It did boost the wizard a bit, added illusion, summoning spells and rules for familiars, but I don't think we'll see a wizard as versatile as before.
They're coming out in PHB III. Monk (yes, he's now psionic) and Psion have been previewed in Dragon magazine.
1) In that case, I hope they don't do it, because the new cosmology is dumbed down to hell.
2) This sounds better than the original one.
3) Sounds good.
4) How freeform are summons? Is it like 3.5e where you pick from a list, or does each spell summon the same creature each time.
5) Monk sorta makes sense as Psionic if they're not going to add a Ki power source.
2) One thing I feel the need to point out is that with 4e the amount of concepts available is alot greater once you realise that the name of the class doesn't set the nessarcary fluff in stone. If you insist that cutlass wielding character (assuming refluffed short-sword as mentioned above isn't satifactory for you) has to have the word "rogue" on your character sheet then yes you'll feel limited. That concept would work better mechanically as a ranger. Just choose dungeoneering rather than nature and use backgrounds to get thievery and take stealth too. Hey presto you have a sneaky character with a knack for plundering tombs and picking pockets who likes to get upclose and wail on enemies with multiple attacks. You class name is purely mechanics and not tied to fluff.
As for Gish types, the Forgotten Realms players guide gave us the swordmage which is as gishy as they get. A few other classes have builds that can be gish-like as well now (Bards for example).
Cutlasses were just slashing short swords anyway. Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking). Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.
Also, from what I hear, the Swordmage is another example of a class with arbitary limits in that you MUST use a sword as one. So you cannot, say, use a halberd or a greataxe.
, divine power has info on domains and I think there iare evil ones, not 100% as I did not have the cash to spare, yet.
