|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:30PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
For being able to survive while seperated from the party Paladins and Bards in 4e are good, Bards because they're natural versility and endless MC ablity, and for Paladin's, they had plenty of healing and damage boosting options and were one of the toughest classes in the game. Heck Blackguard's were tougher then most defenders.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:50PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
Umm.... I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm really curious as to what it is about 4e that you found so cinematic and epic? Because for myself I've found that all the character to be fairly boring, with everything being more about a tactical war game than anything else. That being said, it's a well done tactical war game.
Because even at level 1 every character has cool things they can do instead of "I hit it with my axe". Wizards don't resort to using crossbows and fighters can pull off interesting maneuvers. Because every character is capable of getting by without a healbot standing next to them, and no character is threatened by a housecat.
Then at higher levels characters don't get too bloated with tons of extra stuff, but they do grow in power at get interesting abilities instead of being defined by what gear they happen to have. Then they hit epic level and they are on the verge of godhood.
Oh and having pg 42 (although it could use some improvement, like better guidance on inflicting status effects) is very helpful for when the DM needs to adjudicate some cool stunt the PC is attempting instead of just competely guessing at what it should do.
Because for myself I've found that all the character to be fairly boring, with everything being more about a tactical war game than anything else. That being said, it's a well done tactical war game.
Can't say I've ever encountered that problem.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 3:51PM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2005
|
Let's see ...
1st level PCs aren't some bumpkin that fell off the turnip truck. They're actually capable. You don't have to worry about a lucky shot from a schlub monster or an angry housecat killing your character.
Martial characters get to do cool things instead of 'hit it, hit it, hit it'.
THE WARLORD, full stop.
The freedom to RP and fluff your character however you want.
I'll give you that level 1 characters are much more fun in 4e, though I still find their lack of options boring.
When I played 3.5 we used the full range of books, so thanks to Tome of Battle and the like, Martial characters were able to do a lot more than just hit things.
The inclusion of the Warlord, the removal of the reliance on Clerics for healing, and the all round better leader role is another thing that 4e did really well. That being said, it's not what I call "epic"
I think the last point is where we have the big disagreement. You, if I'm understanding correctly, like to have fluff and roleplay independent of the mechanics, whereas I prefer the mechanics to reflect the fluff. When I build a character in 3.5 it's a process of, "This is what I want to play, how do I use the system to build that character" where in 4e I feel that it's more of "This is what the system allows me to play, how do I try to make it more interesting."
In addition I feel that the power range of 4e is much shorter than that of 3.5. I'd say that a level 1 character in 4e is roughly equivalent to a 5th level character in 3.5, and a 30th level character is close to a 15th level character in 3.5. I base this assessment on a recent read through of Tome of Battle, and how the 9th level maneuvers blow what 30th level characters do out of the water.
So when I say that I felt 3.5 was more epic, it's because I felt less constrained by the system, and that I had cooler things that I could do. When I got a new ability, I was excited because I could do something new. Now when I get a new ability, it usually just means +1[w] damage, or Stun instead of Daze.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 4:35PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2005
|
Then at higher levels characters don't get too bloated with tons of extra stuff, but they do grow in power at get interesting abilities instead of being defined by what gear they happen to have. Then they hit epic level and they are on the verge of godhood.
I haven't played 3.5 in quite a while, but in my experience 4e epic tier characters get bloated with tons of extra stuff, get few interesting new abilities, have boring gear due to maths and don't feel near godhood.
For myself I find the early levels in both games to be quite boring, there's just not enough interesting options. By the time Paragon Paths and Prestige Classes role along, things are starting to get interesting. By the time the high levels role around, 3.5 has way more cool stuff than 4e.
Now of course 3.5 isn't perfect, far from it, and there are many boring characters. A lvl 20 fighter will be boring, and won't feel epic. 4e fighters are way more interesting than 3.5 fighters. I just feel that Warblades are more interesting than Fighters. 3.5 Casters are more interesting than 4e (though spell books could become cumbersome. Much preferred Spontaneous Casters). If you throw out the garbage in 3.5, what's left shines much brighter than 4e. Sure there's little garbage in 4e, but there's also little that shines.
In 4e I feel that the we got rid of the best and the worst of 3.5. This makes me a sad panda.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 9:50PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2007
|
I mainly DM'd 3.5, I'm sad to say. That's most of my D&D experience. So bare that in mind. Also, avid 4e DM and player.
So, I think that what I still find inherently appealing from 3.5 is that I was coming into D&D for the first time and it was the first game I'd encountered to have its own internal logic. I was a child, but even then I was a nitpicker about internal logic. Even if a cat can kill a wizard in 3.5, the rules allowing such an irrelevant thing to happen intrigued me. Magic items being made from spells was another thing. My imagination was often fostered by combining spells and trying to figure out what they'd be like in an item, while I was figuring out the cost of the item.
In short, all of its qualities that allow Rich Burlew to write The Order of the Stick, wherein the universe seems to believably run on the ruleset in its own wacky way. That said, I think I'm fine with trading that for 4th edition's simpler stuff. But back then when I was even younger and more impressionable, how different D&D was from anything I could have compared it to (I think that there was an N64 game where you could make your own game on it? Final Fantasy-style. That's as close as I knew). I guess that counts for something, right?
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 10:08PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
One thing I liked about 3.5 that didn't carry over to 4E was that choosing a class mostly did not lock you into a role. (And no, don't tell me that roles didn't exist before 4E - anyone who's ever been in a group and heard or asked the question "Who's going to be the cleric?" should know better, and I heard that question when the ink wasn't dry yet on AD&D.) Now it's odd to say this in this thread, and I'll explain why I'm saying it in a bit, but one thing I very much *dis*like about 3.5 is the wide-open multiclassing. Señor Vorpal Kickass'o is actually possible, with a slight variation in approach... pick up the first level (with all corresponding class features) in any basic class any time; yes you can be a first-level character in 11 different basic classes (and probably more than that) simultaneously. And then take several prestige classes. I wouldn't be surprised if you could play through 40 or 50 levels without ever taking level 2 of any class. I've played a 10th-level character alongside a similarly experienced character with five classes. I say that in this thread because 4th edition multiclassing is approximately equally bad but in the opposite direction. Spend a feat (a precious commodity for most builds) to get a drastically reduced version of one class feature OR an exotic weapon proficiency OR membership in a holy order - and, if you aren't a non-hybrid Bard, you can use this to grab drastically reduced versions of class features of only one class in your first 10 levels and then have to choose a particular paragon path (which requires a specific deity, among other prerequisites) to be permitted to do two more. Hybrid to get about 40% of each of two classes' features, then spend a feat to get another 20% or so of one of them. At 11th level get a paragon path which is sort of like another multiclass but ONLY for a certain set of prestige classes, and then at level 21 do it again for a completely different set of prestige classes. We need an approach to multiclassing that is somewhere between the two. Not as stupidly wide-open as 3E, not as confining as 4E.
"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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 10:10PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I had built literally hundreds of characters that were never used in 3.5 simply for the enjoyment I got out of doing so. I've made FAR fewer characters for 4E because it isn't as fascinating.
I did this a lot myself. It could be very time consuming but it was almost as much fun as actually playing the game.
I do it in 4e..I have a blast
A couple ladies : one of my recent characters is a Bloodwright (no thats not a class) she is a vampyre adept at manipulating blood, she is extremely disciplined and for the most part keeps the Vampyrism in check but it bleeds out in to her allies in wierd ways.. built her using the cleric and invoker class. (see my sig for a more complete write up)
Another example a Drow Slave Mistress, she is what I usually call a non-combatant action adventurer build (but in this case LazyLord fits her pretty well), she snaps her whips to communicate on the battle field (doesnt even have battle training in them) and afterwards apologizes in a deep mideastern style accent (well that is how I picture it) because she is afraid of offending her friends "because as she puts it she fought many years along side lesser beings and hasnt yet become used to fighting beside equals". She never launches an attack of her own but drags enemies in to position or distracts them making openings for her allies and a whole bunch of tricks of that sort occasionally she seems over confident but turns herself in to monster bait to the advantage of her allies. She has been known to deride weakness like some football coach or drill sergent and tends to swear in other languages. She at times seems almost to have a sixth sense but she says she is predicting the battle not dabbling with demons or gods. I would say she inspires her allies .. but goads them might be a better word.... her brazen temperment on the battlefield is rather at odds with how humble and withdrawn she sometimes is outside of that context.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 10:52PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2010
|
In 3.5e I liked how my DM dished out Loot, but I could do that in 4e if I didn't care if an item was overpowered. For the most part my experiences with 3.5e were not as good as my experiences with pathfinder or 4e. I felt in 3.5e as a monk I was under valued, and as a fighter I was considered useless. Though as a fighter I did manage to get better.
I realized that while the fights did go fast. My fighter only had two options to fight at lvl 4. Either he used cleave to hit two people or he hit one guy.
Ant Farm
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 13, 2012 - 11:08PM
#89
|
|
|
I am curious to know what you thought 3.5 did right that didn't transfer to 4e.
Just constructive comments, please. 
Perhaps the multiclassing versatility.
There are issues with both that have driven me back to OSRIC, but that's not pertinent to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 14, 2012 - 4:42AM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Character creation versatility!
I agree with some people, I had a blast many times just creating characters in 3.5, going through huge feat lists, spell lists, magic item lists just to create and plan the perfect character for the next 30 levels (yes, I used epic).
I understand 3.5 was very hard on DMs (and 4e did a great job simplifying things for them), but I think that during characacter creation/advancement (i.e. outside of play) the system should give players as much complexity & freedom as possible. (PS: I didn't like the multi-class system of neither 3e nor 4e, but I could do with the Gestalt system of Unearthed Arcana 3.5e).
However, during times like combat and role-playing there shouldn't be unecessarily complex rules that slow everything down.
|
|
|
