Major Design Choices of 4e D&D

[Lago PARANOIA]

For whatever reason I didn't consider ToB when I complained about tactical options in 3e. I'd basically say that's the 4e mechanic and is probably better than 4e; the other classes of 4e are trying to be ToB warriors and 4e does a decent job of pulling it off.

The ToB mechanic looks better for several reasons.

1) The effects are just simply larger. Now a lot of them suck eggs, but you can do exciting things like block spells or outlast frenzied berserkers.

2) You get a lot more effects. A Warblade / Master of Nine has like 10 manuevers and 6 stances to choose from, minimum (not counting the magic items they needed to get into the class). They refresh them all as a swift action. A level 22 character has 4 daily attack powers, 4 encounter attack powers and 5 utilities to choose from. And can't refresh them mid-battle.

3) Most importantly, though, ToB stuff stacks with schticks you get from magic items or feats. In 4E, powers are supposed to be a replacement for options you get from magic items or feats.

Seriously, Andy Collins said that this was design intent for the Cleave power to replace the Cleave feat.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I mean, honestly, take a look at the legacy items in the back of the book.

By and large the items suck eggs--though there are a couple of nice effects like the Tiger Claw kukri--but one single fucking item hands out more options than 10 levels in a paragon path.

How sad is that?

[MartinHarper]

It's fairly easy to houserule an increase in the number of options characters have in 4e. I'm surprised that such an option hasn't made its way into Dragon/PHB 2 yet. Perhaps they are worried that everyone will pick the more complex option and then the game will be harder for newbies/dumb folks.

Why does this sound like you're saying that it's ok for the spellcaster players to have to go read the magic section, but that the fighter players shouldn't be required to read the combat section?

That's similar to what I'm saying. My point is that fighter players are not required to read the combat section, and therefore novice players may not realise or use all of their options.

[MGuy]

Actually that sounds retarded. So placement is the key? You'd HAVE to read the combat section IN ADDITION to the exceedingly long list of powers for any class you'd have to play. That's pages upon pages of entries spread out into multiple books. At the end of the day, even with all this, All of the powers on a list essentially do the same things. Some do a little less damage to achieve some other miniscule effect, some are aimed at inflicting a status condition to an area, and then there's healing surge powers. All throughout the development of your character you will go back to the combat section and your list of powers to keep up with what they actually do. Beyond that most people will choose very similar lines of abilities because 50% of all the abilities for every class in all of the books are practically useless.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's fairly easy to houserule an increase in the number of options characters have in 4e. I'm surprised that such an option hasn't made its way into Dragon/PHB 2 yet. Perhaps they are worried that everyone will pick the more complex option and then the game will be harder for newbies/dumb folks.

The problem is that the options aren't all that different to begin with. If you gave Rangers three more encounter attack powers to play with, for example, they would just fill it up with attacks that let them double or triple up on an enemy. Same for a sorcerer. They would grab some powers with different tags but they would still do pretty much the same thing: small amounts of extra damage, sometimes apply a one-round penalty to an enemy. Boring.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And not too long from now, 4th Edition actually will have more reading for a new player to do than there used to be because every class has 'unique' mechanics.

Going through a cleric's list of powers doesn't help you at all for mastering the paladin's or invoker's or warlord's powers. So if you want to play a different class you have to do all that reading all over again.

It's already starting to become a big deal. If someone wants to play 'a striker' they need to read through the powers of a warlock, a ranger, a rogue, a sorcerer, a barbarian, and an avenger. And since expansion options seem to embrace the idea that feats should be class-specific, you also need to comb through whatever fucking books you have and see what unique feats you need for your class.

That is frankly too much damn work for a newbie to expect to do. I mean, I myself like doing that amount of dumpster-diving but that's simply awful for an edition that prides itself on being newbie-accessible.

[ggroy]

[JonSetanta]

Concerning Fighter, has anyone compared 3e and 4e to 1e/Mentzer/early AD&D Fighter combat options?
What was lost?
What was gained?

They seem to have many choices and tactics to use without this newfangled "you don't have the feat for it" restriction.

Hell, was even this move for dealing double damage somewhere in there...
You don't get to do that until what, level 15 in 3e? With a feat?

[RandomCasualty2]

That is frankly too much damn work for a newbie to expect to do. I mean, I myself like doing that amount of dumpster-diving but that's simply awful for an edition that prides itself on being newbie-accessible.

That's true, but that's also not how newbies make characters.

A newbie will be like "Oh the paladin picture looks cool, I'm gonna be that class."

And when you do it from that standpoint the reading is in fact much less, since he has no need to even know how an Avenger or a Druid work. he just cares about the class he happens to be playing.

[MGuy]

Then wouldn't that just mean they end up with a sub par character from lack of research/concern? In that way how would it be different from 3e newbie fighters? I guess it's all in how hard it is to die.

[User]

Concerning Fighter, has anyone compared 3e and 4e to 1e/Mentzer/early AD&D Fighter combat options?

In RC fighters gain weapon mastery. This can have one or more of the following effects / added options (depending on mastery level and weapon type):

increased chance to hit
increased AC
ability to cause fear (despair) in opponents
ability to throw normally non-throw-able weapons
improved range
break weapons
make a charge attack
instant death
deflect attacks
delay opponent
disarm opponent
entangle/hook opponent
knockout opponent
paralyze opponent
additional attack
set for charge
skewer opponent
slow opponent
strangle opponent
stun opponent

For example: a battle axe gains damage with each level of mastery, gives a greater AC bonus when fighting defensively with higher levels of mastery, becomes throwable at higher levels of mastery, can delay at medium levels of mastery and delay & stun at high levels of mastery. Whenever the wielder deals maximum damage they have a chance to cause despair, up to 16HD worth at grandmaster.

At 9th level all fighters (and mystics) can the following abilities:
the ability to make smash attacks, the ability to parry attacks, the ability to make disarm attempts

At 12th level the fighter can make multiple attacks against opponents he can hit with a 2 or better (the number of attacks starts at 2 and eventually increases to 4).

There are also unarmed combat rules that include wrestling.

I think that's everything ...

[MGuy]

*whistles* Why'd they take all that out?!

[User]

*whistles* Why'd they take all that out?!

Because at high levels it was way freaking overpowered.

[Lago PARANOIA]

That's true, but that's also not how newbies make characters.

A newbie will be like "Oh the paladin picture looks cool, I'm gonna be that class.

And when you do it from that standpoint the reading is in fact much less, since he has no need to even know how an Avenger or a Druid work. he just cares about the class he happens to be playing.

Only someone completely ignorant of concept of wargaming would select a character like that. And while I don't dispute that there are people like that, I'd say that a lot more people (especially in our post-videogame age) come up with a list of schticks first and then find a matching class.

In other words, they go, 'hmm, I want to lead troops with force of will and turn people into frogs from the back rank. Way cool. What do they got for me?'

Sometimes it works out for them and they find a class that exactly fits their criteria (I want to scream really loud and heedlessly charge into enemies). Other times they find concepts partially or completely unsupported. And that's when they have to do dumpster diving.

[RandomCasualty2]

Then wouldn't that just mean they end up with a sub par character from lack of research/concern? In that way how would it be different from 3e newbie fighters? I guess it's all in how hard it is to die.

Well a newbie will always have an inferior character, the real question is pretty much by how much.

The nice thing about 4E is that none of the classes are underpowered to the point of being completely unplayable, and you basically only have to explain to newbies that they want to max their attack stat and to make sure all their attack powers use that stat.

There are a lot of expert builds in 3E, and there are very few classes that are going to be remotely competitive past early levels, unless you know the game very well. Some are newbie traps to the point that picking one just makes you suck, like the monk.

Only someone completely ignorant of concept of wargaming would select a character like that. And while I don't dispute that there are people like that, I'd say that a lot more people (especially in our post-videogame age) come up with a list of schticks first and then find a matching class.

You can start that way too. It honestly doesn't matter. I mean you can ask your DM "I'd like to be some kind of melee basher like Conan" and let him pick a class. The result ends up being the same, where you get a class somehow and just have to read that class. Newbies don't go dumpster diving.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And sometimes you have some really bad juju like role-protection getting into the way. Probably the easiest example is the Swordmage; the idea of a gish fits a lot of concepts but the actual implementation of the concept leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately if you have a character concept like Ichigo or Gandalf the Swordmage class most fits your character concept unless you feel like doing a lot of dumpster diving.

I.E. some people are wedded to the idea of wrecking peoples' faces in with swords and magic. The actual best class to do this with is the wizard (seriously) but it requires an extreme mastery of the rules to pull off.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The nice thing about 4E is that none of the classes are underpowered to the point of being completely unplayable, and you basically only have to explain to newbies that they want to max their attack stat and to make sure all their attack powers use that stat.

They are starting to get that way, though. The warlock class is starting to garner the same reputation as the monk. Same for the pre-epic level beastmaster ranger and charisma-rogue, too, unless they're built in a very specific way. The monk playtest looks like it's going to be just as shitty as it was in previous editions.

The druid and the shaman are also getting a reputation for being lemons, too. We'll see how much Primal Power fixes things--though honestly that's asking people to buy way too many fucking book. You might as well just have a custom class that fixes the issues.

[MartinHarper]

Then wouldn't that just mean they end up with a sub par character from lack of research/concern? In that way how would it be different from 3e newbie fighters?

3e newbie fighter: "I attack the kobold", "I attack the kobold"
4e newbie fighter: "I attack the kobold with Sure Strike", "I attack the kobold with Reaping Strike"
(my experience based on a sample of one)

[Lago PARANOIA]

How is that actually different, Martin?

[RandomCasualty2]

They are starting to get that way, though. The warlock class is starting to garner the same reputation as the monk. Same for the pre-epic level beastmaster ranger and charisma-rogue, too, unless they're built in a very specific way. The monk playtest looks like it's going to be just as shitty as it was in previous editions.

The druid and the shaman are also getting a reputation for being lemons, too. We'll see how much Primal Power fixes things--though honestly that's asking people to buy way too many fucking book. You might as well just have a custom class that fixes the issues.

Well yeah, 4E has its share of lemons. The druid for instance is really pretty damn awful. But I mean, the power gap isn't so big that you're going to notice it much until you hit paragon tier at least.

[Username17]

Well yeah, 4E has its share of lemons. The druid for instance is really pretty damn awful. But I mean, the power gap isn't so big that you're going to notice it much until you hit paragon tier at least.

So? You don't notice the power discrepancy between a Druid and a Bard before level 6 in 3e.

-Username17

[MGuy]

How is that actually different, Martin?

I see the difference. Its because 4e has named attacks...

[Neckbeard]

A 3.0 Fighter can at first level Power Attack, regular attack, charge, disarm, sunder, trip, bullrush, and grapple. There are even reasons to do all of these things.

A 4e Fighter can Tide of Iron, Cleave, Spinning Sweep, Comeback Strike, charge, grab, push, and regular attack.

It's the same number of options, but the 4e version of it ha some of his options on limited use. And the 3e Fighter also has a bow, which constitutes a whole world of opportunity that the 4e Fighter basically does not have.

If we're comparing first level, I think the 4e fighter still pulls out ahead. Being able to disarm and sunder depends on fighting an enemy with a weapon. Bullrushing in 3e also depends on gaining some sort of positional advantage that is more beneficial than straight up attacking. But we'll assume it's always a viable option since we're talking about level 1 here.

The 4e fighter can use its non-daily abilities feasibly in every fight regardless of the type of enemy up against it. Some of said abilities may not be tactically sound choices, but they aren't null and void like the 3e fighter's disarm/sunder is against a weaponless opponent, nor are they often the very poor choice of grappling or bull rushing a significantly larger and/or stronger creature in 3e.

4e fighter also has marking, and, due to its secondary effect of being able to shut down enemies when they try to move or attack another ally, makes positioning pretty important. There are also racial abilities that can come into play that give a character additional option(s). For half elves you have dilletante power which gives you another option per combat; with human you get another at-will and a feat, which could mean two more options instead of just one.

For example: a tempest fighter could take the net proficiency feat from one of the dragon magazines (yes, dragon magazines count as core; it's in the character builder program), and the feat 'deft hurler style' (at level 1 if human) to become an effective two-weapon melee as well as ranged attacker. The net slows enemies and has a max range of 5 squares. It's only fair that I include feats since you've done the same for your 3e fighter's power attack.

So with that in mind we have

3e level 1 fighter.

Power Attack
Regular attack
Charge
Disarm (sometimes)
Sunder (sometimes)
Trip
Bullrush
Grapple
Ranged attack with bow

4e level 1 fighter.

Tide of Iron
Cleave
Spinning Sweep (sometimes)
Comeback Strike (sometimes)
Charge
Grab
Push
Regular attack
Mark + combat superiority
Racial ability
Feat-based option (sometimes; slowing with the net, power attacking, etc. this assumes the 4e fighter didn't take a passive boosting feat)
Ranged attack with bow

Which gives the 4e level 1 fighter a few more options over your standard 3e. The 4e fighter also "has the option" of not getting one-shotted by a lucky critical orc axe attack. Heh. Nah, I'm kidding. Not looking to turn this into any more of a 3e vs 4e fight than it already is.

But it's objective fact that when 4e put everything into colored boxes they also took a lot of the customizability and combinatability out. Our example 3e Fighter can for example Many Shot during a Shot on the Run, or Expertise during an Improved Trip during a Spring Attack. Or Directed Improved Domino Rush to Improved Trip multiple enemies and take a Heedless Charge bonus attack as an Improved Sunder to Sundering Cleave a fallen foe who just had a hafted weapon cut in half while they were on the ground. The 4e character gets to take his attack that knocks a dude prone once per encounter and that's all he can do that phase. If he wants to Power Attack that's a separate and non-combinable maneuver.

That's somewhat true. 4e does have stances for the fighter, like rain of steel, that allow them to do extra things on top of everything else, which is a type of "combinability". Of course, a lot of those stances are daily, so again, limited usage. But I would argue that this plays into 4e's strategic emphasis a bit (which I personally like), since it involves resource management. A fighter can also mark for free as part of their normal attacking routine.

Also hi gaming den.

[MGuy]

Pushing shouldn't count because its a triggered ability not an at will option on its own. Neither should the racial abilities because that is dependent on race and not the class itself. A Drow fighter can drop darkness, being a Hound Archon Fighter would grant you even more options. Plus both fighters have Full Defense actions, and the PHB has fighting defensively while the 4e fighter has second wind.

Also the 3e Fighter would have another feat (1 from class 1 for first level character). Which would make a number of other possibilities open (Combat expertise, mounted combat, dodge, etc...)

So -2 (racial/push) from 4e fighter's list +2 to both lists (full defense and second wind/fighting defensively) and +1 to the 3e fighter's list (bonus class feat). 12=12 just as many on both sides.

[Neckbeard]

You're never going to have a fighter without a race, though, so it should count. To make things even, just use a race out of the 3e core books with a 0 LA. Hound Archon shouldn't even be considered for this comparison.

You're also forgetting that with the 3e fighter, disarm and sunder are sometimes not even options at all. 4e's encounter powers are always options once per encounter, and the daily is always an option once per day.