It's not just that someone can purposely build an overpowered character. It is quite possible that someone can accidentally build an underpowered character. I've seen this in 3.5 where the power level of different characters varied greatly. 4E provides more character options that are more or less balanced with each other. 3.5 may provide more options, but the power range amongst those options are quite varied. You have to really worry about whether or not an option is any good compared to other characters in 3.5. In 4E it is quite likely than any option you choose is roughly balanced with any other character. Anyway, this is really starting to become an edition war. I think it is clear that you do not like 4E from what you have seen and how the books are organised. If the 4E books were organised the way you prefer, I'm sure there will be others who have different complains about that organisation of 4E material. Since you seem to enjoy what 3.5 has to offer, it is probably in your best interest to keep playing 3.5 as other players have done. Perhaps Pathfinder would be more to your liking as it is quite similar to 3.5. 4E is quite different than 3.5 as the design philosophy emphasises balance and team work. Some of the things that you can do in 3.5 goes against this. If your expectation is that you should be able to do in 4E what you were able to do in 3.5, then you will be disappointed. If you do not agree with the design philosophy of 4E, then you likely would not like 4E.
The issue is that I've played other systems that also manage to emphisise teamwork, and yet still have a ton more options for concepts than 4e does - Shadowrun, for instance.
I like trying out new systems, mind. I've played V:tM for instance, despite the rules for it being quite frankly awful (and boy, heck, are they awful), and had a ton more fun with it than I had 4e. It seems like 4e went to the opposite extreme - balanced rules that are too closed down to properly allow concepts, and the game seems worse off for it.
I like trying out new systems, mind. I've played V:tM for instance, despite the rules for it being quite frankly awful (and boy, heck, are they awful), and had a ton more fun with it than I had 4e. It seems like 4e went to the opposite extreme - balanced rules that are too closed down to properly allow concepts, and the game seems worse off for it.
Masquerade's rules are okay, until you try to abuse them (or use the supplement books)- at which point, they roll over, show their belly, and break. Horribly. Requiem's are better in general - and each "broken" thing has a simple counter - but they're really strongly geared towards story-first-mechanics-second play.
About 4E: What 4E-suitable concept would you *like* to play, that you can't in 4E? I'll bet I can build it and make it reasonably effective. (Note that 4E is a game about a team of heroic high-fantasy adventurers. Concepts like "not an adventurer at all" or "would get pwned by a goblin and die every single time with no chance" are not heroic high-fantasy adventurers. If you want non-heroic, non-high-fantasy, non-adventurers, you're really looking in the wrong system entirely.)
Assuming you *want* to play a heroic high-fantasy adventurer, though, 4E offers you dozens of options that were simply and indisputably impossible in D20 or earlier.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
The issue is that I've played other systems that also manage to emphisise teamwork, and yet still have a ton more options for concepts than 4e does - Shadowrun, for instance.
As I have never played Shadowrun, can you give us some concepts avaliable in it thatdoe not have an equivalent concept buildable in 4E?
It seems like 4e went to the opposite extreme - balanced rules that are too closed down to properly allow concepts, and the game seems worse off for it.
what concepts are you seeing as being hindered by the rules being "to closed down"?
The issue is that I've played other systems that also manage to emphisise teamwork, and yet still have a ton more options for concepts than 4e does - Shadowrun, for instance.
I like trying out new systems, mind. I've played V:tM for instance, despite the rules for it being quite frankly awful (and boy, heck, are they awful), and had a ton more fun with it than I had 4e. It seems like 4e went to the opposite extreme - balanced rules that are too closed down to properly allow concepts, and the game seems worse off for it.
I've played a lot of Shadowrun myself, and I wouldn't say it was a game that emphasised teamwork. What it does emphasise is one character doing X while the others sit around waiting, then another character gets to do Y while the others wait - most notable with Deckers, but Mages going astral and Riggers at work have similar effects. I don't consider it teamwork when there's only one person involved, though your mileage may vary.
As for allowing concepts then 4e certainly has some that aren't possible, but so do all other editions of D&D. I won't say it's true of every RPG because it certainly isn't, but the core of every D&D system has been classes (and to a lesser extent races and level) and this is something that's inherently more restrictive than more freeform character creation.
These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead.
Playing: Mongoose Traveller GMing: Barbarians of Lemuria Planning: Reclaiming Neverwinter, a 4e D&D campaign
Masquerade's rules are okay, until you try to abuse them (or use the supplement books)- at which point, they roll over, show their belly, and break. Horribly. Requiem's are better in general - and each "broken" thing has a simple counter - but they're really strongly geared towards story-first-mechanics-second play.
Requiem's problem is that it cut out most of the cool clans, like the Giovanni.
About 4E: What 4E-suitable concept would you *like* to play, that you can't in 4E? I'll bet I can build it and make it reasonably effective. (Note that 4E is a game about a team of heroic high-fantasy adventurers. Concepts like "not an adventurer at all" or "would get pwned by a goblin and die every single time with no chance" are not heroic high-fantasy adventurers. If you want non-heroic, non-high-fantasy, non-adventurers, you're really looking in the wrong system entirely.)
Assuming you *want* to play a heroic high-fantasy adventurer, though, 4E offers you dozens of options that were simply and indisputably impossible in D20 or earlier.
Ok, I'll give you an example of another character I'm currently playing in 3.5e - a Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker, who's main aspects are summoning daemons and devils and tricking them into performing his will (the ends justify the means), then standing back and helping with healing/buffing spells/a crossbow while his summons either grapple or maul someone. He would also need a reasonable amount of knowledge skills, as he is primarily a scholar type of cleric, not a warrior (think Cadderly if you've read the novels). Now, the Invoker might cover this, but when I took a quick look at a friend's copy, most of the abilities seemed to be destructive attacks with the odd summon as a Daily, but this was only a quick look. Either way, this can't be done with a PHB Cleric, since most of it's summons seem to be reactive, as opposed to proactively going on the offense. I dunno, maybe one of the sourcebooks added better summons for Clerics.
Ok, I'll give you an example of another character I'm currently playing in 3.5e - a Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker, who's main aspects are summoning daemons and devils and tricking them into performing his will (the ends justify the means), then standing back and helping with healing/buffing spells/a crossbow while his summons either grapple or maul someone. He would also need a reasonable amount of knowledge skills, as he is primarily a scholar type of cleric, not a warrior (think Cadderly if you've read the novels). Now, the Invoker might cover this, but when I took a quick look at a friend's copy, most of the abilities seemed to be destructive attacks with the odd summon as a Daily, but this was only a quick look. Either way, this can't be done with a PHB Cleric, since most of it's summons seem to be reactive, as opposed to proactively going on the offense. I dunno, maybe one of the sourcebooks added better summons for Clerics.
Sounds exactly like an invoker.
Summons are pretty powerful spells now, so they are all dailies. However, you also have many conjurations. Conjurations are similar to summons, but with slightly different rules.
I've played a lot of Shadowrun myself, and I wouldn't say it was a game that emphasised teamwork. What it does emphasise is one character doing X while the others sit around waiting, then another character gets to do Y while the others wait - most notable with Deckers, but Mages going astral and Riggers at work have similar effects. I don't consider it teamwork when there's only one person involved, though your mileage may vary.
As for allowing concepts then 4e certainly has some that aren't possible, but so do all other editions of D&D. I won't say it's true of every RPG because it certainly isn't, but the core of every D&D system has been classes (and to a lesser extent races and level) and this is something that's inherently more restrictive than more freeform character creation.
Id have to agree with Shadowrun teamwork assesment. To be fair it seems to have edge in out of combat situations. Though it can be simple matter of competent DM...
What I dont agree with is that point buy seestems are less retrictive than class/level systems. Point buys still have limited pool of stuff to buy and therefore still have limited amount of mechanical variations between PC's. Even more: significant amount of variations are superficial. Its completely irrelevant if one can swim while other can climb if adventure is based in desert. The mechanicly nonimportant stuff like tha fackt that the guy is womanizer, is irrevelent since it can be played out in either system.
What pointbuy has that class lacks its inspiring quality. Person that doesn't have concept in head sits to a table and makes a char from quircks and edges. While in class system conept instinctively marries class and therfore creates ilusion of limits. The limits are not there but it takes time and sufficient mastery to see through them. Plus the very egzistence of illusion makes slew of people believe the limits are there since instead of looking through it they can just go for a place where there is illusion of limitlesness (pointbuy).
Overall 4ed gives very huge pool of ablityes and concept making tools, but fails to give significant amount of readily identifyable tags. Therefore creates illusion of limits.
I dont realy have that much eksperiance with 3ed, but from what I gathered there where quite a few limiters there that where simply removed in 4ed: class concept marriage was strongly reinforced, alignment restrictions, prestige class restrictions, irrelevancy of race (basicly all you need is stat boosts). In 4ed still lefta are: class distinctions, unmarried to concept they are, yet i believe the fact is not stressed enough, race matters (while it gave new plane of concept creation it imposed limits), power struckture and level struckture. And within those limits huge amount of concepts can be made. The limits in all games though are of balancing matter (why do you think pointbuys limit amount of points?) and are there to ensure that PC resulting from concept will be comparable in given game to other PC's.
Ok, I'll give you an example of another character I'm currently playing in 3.5e - a Cloistered Cleric of Boccob/Malconvoker, who's main aspects are summoning daemons and devils and tricking them into performing his will (the ends justify the means), then standing back and helping with healing/buffing spells/a crossbow while his summons either grapple or maul someone. He would also need a reasonable amount of knowledge skills, as he is primarily a scholar type of cleric, not a warrior (think Cadderly if you've read the novels). Now, the Invoker might cover this, but when I took a quick look at a friend's copy, most of the abilities seemed to be destructive attacks with the odd summon as a Daily, but this was only a quick look. Either way, this can't be done with a PHB Cleric, since most of it's summons seem to be reactive, as opposed to proactively going on the offense. I dunno, maybe one of the sourcebooks added better summons for Clerics.
Sounds exactly like an invoker.
Summons are pretty powerful spells now, so they are all dailies. However, you also have many conjurations. Conjurations are similar to summons, but with slightly different rules.
I would have said a hybrid bard/invoker, actually, with invoker abilities focused on conjurations and bard abilities focused on buffing. Bards can use bows as implements with very little investment and provide the knowledge skills. Maybe multi into wizard so you can take a summoning focused PP, though that starts getting a little MAD. Alternately, a hybrid wizard/cleric would also do pretty well, although the bow part would be trickier to incorporate.
As for the new World of Darkness, I'll agree it needed the rules update and a fluff reboot as well, but they totally gutted the fluff, leaving out almost all the best parts from the old WoD in Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage.
I would have said a hybrid bard/invoker, actually, with invoker abilities focused on conjurations and bard abilities focused on buffing. Bards can use bows as implements with very little investment and provide the knowledge skills. Maybe multi into wizard so you can take a summoning focused PP, though that starts getting a little MAD. Alternately, a hybrid wizard/cleric would also do pretty well, although the bow part would be trickier to incorporate.
As for the new World of Darkness, I'll agree it needed the rules update and a fluff reboot as well, but they totally gutted the fluff, leaving out almost all the best parts from the old WoD in Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage.
The bow is not a big deal, honestly. Most of the time it was used in an "Oh, I have nothing else to do." *plink* sense, as a backup weapon.
The bow is not a big deal, honestly. Most of the time it was used in an "Oh, I have nothing else to do." *plink* sense, as a backup weapon.
Gotta agree on the nWoD sentiment.
Well then entire At will concept is working in your favor then .
But seriously what was so good about OWoD fluff? I only played Vampire and found it rather overloaded and somewhat constricting... Book tells me how I should behave if I took Nosferatu... The only ones I liked where Malkavians and still there where contricting in their dementia.
The way I see it OWoD only has going for itself is cult folowing...
.