|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 3:53AM
#241
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 9:39AM
#242
|
|
|
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. “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft Games I Play: - D&D 4e - D&D 3.0 (Not 3.5) - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 1:27PM
#243
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 1:53PM
#244
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
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
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 6:53PM
#245
|
|
|
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. “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft Games I Play: - D&D 4e - D&D 3.0 (Not 3.5) - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 7:41PM
#246
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 7:53PM
#247
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 8:01PM
#248
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 8:04PM
#249
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 31, 2012 - 8:08PM
#250
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
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.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
