Major Design Choices of 4e D&D

[MGuy]

May not always be a use able option but they are always on the table. Using encounters and dailies aren't always an option but they are included so why not disarms and sunders? True you can never have a fighter without race but unlike 4e which has limits to what race you can be 3e doesn't have any such limits and thus it is totally fair to compare the EXTRA options in race to 4e's lack of racial options. Those are just the differences laid down in the system. Though you'll always be some kind of race the classes themselves can be judged on their own merit without including them. Both classes work the same way no matter what race you use.

[Neckbeard]

May not always be a use able option but they are always on the table. Using encounters and dailies aren't always an option but they are included so why not disarms and sunders? True you can never have a fighter without race but unlike 4e which has limits to what race you can be 3e doesn't have any such limits and thus it is totally fair to compare the EXTRA options in race to 4e's lack of racial options. Those are just the differences laid down in the system. Though you'll always be some kind of race the classes themselves can be judged on their own merit without including them. Both classes work the same way no matter what race you use.

Encounters and dailies are guaranteed to be options. Disarm and sunder are not. It is impossible to use those maneuvers against opponents that do not carry weapons.

It's not fair to compare a race of higher LA to a standard 4e race. We're talking about level 1 here. A hound archon fighter can't be level 1. It has a LA of +5.

[ubernoob]

May not always be a use able option but they are always on the table. Using encounters and dailies aren't always an option but they are included so why not disarms and sunders? True you can never have a fighter without race but unlike 4e which has limits to what race you can be 3e doesn't have any such limits and thus it is totally fair to compare the EXTRA options in race to 4e's lack of racial options. Those are just the differences laid down in the system. Though you'll always be some kind of race the classes themselves can be judged on their own merit without including them. Both classes work the same way no matter what race you use.

Encounters and dailies are guaranteed to be options. Disarm and sunder are not. It is impossible to use those maneuvers against opponents that do not carry weapons.

It's not fair to compare a race of higher LA to a standard 4e race. We're talking about level 1 here. A hound archon fighter can't be level 1. It has a LA of +5.

Actually, encounter powers are an option exactly once per encounter. Every round except that round, they are not options. The same applies to dailies; they are only an option for one round a day.

So, while in the first round of combat a day, the 4E fighter has an advantage, in the fourth round he does *not* because he's out of dailies and encounter powers.

[Neckbeard]

Actually, encounter powers are an option exactly once per encounter. Every round except that round, they are not options. The same applies to dailies; they are only an option for one round a day.

So, while in the first round of combat a day, the 4E fighter has an advantage, in the fourth round he does *not* because he's out of dailies and encounter powers.

Oh, I know. I'm just pointing out the main difference between the two different types of limited use options. One is guaranteed to come into play (encounter powers, daily powers) and the other is not (disarm and sunder vs weaponless opponents). In my book, that's a point for the level 4e fighter over the 3e fighter even at level 1. You could argue that the two even out since the non-guaranteed disarm/sunder option is of unlimited use when it is available. I just don't see it that way.

At higher levels, you have even more of those encounter/dailies, some of which have effects that persist throughout the fight. But anyway, I was just using a level 1 comparison since Trollman wanted it broken down like that.

[hogarth]

Encounters and dailies are guaranteed to be options. Disarm and sunder are not.

What about an encounter power that disarms?

[Username17]

How is that different from claiming that Cleave is not an option when you are fighting a Solo or Reaping Strike is not an option when you are fighting a Minion?

-Username17

[Neckbeard]

What about an encounter power that disarms?

I think there's only one in existence, and that's a level 17 fighter exploit. But it also deals damage.

How is that different from claiming that Cleave is not an option when you are fighting a Solo or Reaping Strike is not an option when you are fighting a Minion?

Actually, reaping strike is very much an option when fighting a minion since it's guaranteed damage. Cleave is one of the few attacks where it's the same as a basic attack against a solo. However, the feat Deft Hurler Style feat lets you forego the extra adjacent damage on Cleave to make a free non-provoking ranged attack with a heavy thrown. You can make that target the same as the main attack, which would make Cleave not useless versus a solo.

[MGuy]

Then there are times when you actually miss encounters and dailies and they are gone without having any effect on play.

[Username17]

No. Reaping Strike is NOT an option against a minion, because it deals damage "on a miss." Minions are immune to "on miss" damage, so reaping strike does nothing.

But beyond that, you're counting Combat Challenge as an "option" - I don't know why you would do that. It's just a conditional bonus attack. There are no choices to be made, we were counting 3e Cleave as "not an option" because it simply triggers, so you putting in Combat Challenge and Marking in as options is completely disingenuous.

If you want to talk about options as regards bonus, let's talk about the fact that the 3e Fighter can trip or whatever as their attack when they get a Cleave or Attack of Opportunity. The 4e fighter can only make a basic attack on an AoO or Combat Challenge. So if you bring up bonus attack options at all, that's the 3e Fighter urinating all over the 4e fighter and laughing while he does it. The 3 Fighter can even (gasp) use a reach weapon and actually control space that causes him to get AoOs on people who move towards him.

-Username17

[Neckbeard]

But beyond that, you're counting Combat Challenge as an "option" - I don't know why you would do that. It's just a conditional bonus attack. There are no choices to be made, we were counting 3e Cleave as "not an option" because it simply triggers, so you putting in Combat Challenge and Marking in as options is completely disingenuous.

There's nothing disingenuous about me including Combat Challenge. You choose whether or not to mark when you attack enemies. It's not automatic like Cleave is in 3e. Combat challenge has actual tactical implications since it's an attention-getter; A penalty to attacks and an attempt at movement lockdown. With 3e Cleave, you're getting the option to use one of the other maneuvers you've already listed; disarm, trip or whatever. Combat challenge is perfectly legit to add to the list of 4e fighter options.

If you want to talk about options as regards bonus, let's talk about the fact that the 3e Fighter can trip or whatever as their attack when they get a Cleave or Attack of Opportunity. The 4e fighter can only make a basic attack on an AoO or Combat Challenge. So if you bring up bonus attack options at all, that's the 3e Fighter urinating all over the 4e fighter and laughing while he does it. The 3 Fighter can even (gasp) use a reach weapon and actually control space that causes him to get AoOs on people who move towards him.

At level 1, yes. There's also heavy blade opportunist which allows a 4e fighter to use at-wills with an AoO in later levels in case you weren't aware. But I know we're talking about level 1 here. And again, a level 1 fighter can control space pretty damned well, especially with a net. Hell, if we assume that the 4e fighter can afford a draft lizard (200g), a large mount, the fighter can block/control a 4x4 area quite well and help keep the heat off of ranged buddies.

[Username17]

There's nothing disingenuous about me including Combat Challenge. You choose whether or not to mark when you attack enemies. It's not automatic like Cleave is in 3e.

This is out and out bullshit. Cleave is optional in 3e, because every attack is optional. You don't have the choice to not get the ability to take the attack but Combat Challenge doesn't give you the choice to not have the ability to put a free Mark on the table either. So fuck off.

At level 1, yes. There's also heavy blade opportunist which allows a 4e fighter to use at-wills with an AoO in later levels in case you weren't aware.

Look, if you want to talk about what a Paragon Tier fighter can do option wise (note: almost as deep a set of bonus options as what the 3e Glaive Fighter can do at first level), be my guest.

Hell, if we assume that the 4e fighter can afford a draft lizard (200g), a large mount, the fighter can block/control a 4x4 area quite well and help keep the heat off of ranged buddies.

Oh what the fuck? Are you seriously going to have that discussion? The discussion where we talk about how a 3e Fighter can actually have hunting dogs and shit on the table? The discussion about how a 3e Fighter can effectively control a 5x5 area just by owning a reach weapon?

You went over budget already, but even if you hadn't, you're going into the edge case crap where 3e actually lets you do lots and lots of stuff that 4e can't even dream of. 3e has actual rules for training animals, and 3e Fighters can take Handle Animal as a class skill.

-Username17

[Neckbeard]

This is out and out bullshit. Cleave is optional in 3e, because every attack is optional. You don't have the choice to not get the ability to take the attack but Combat Challenge doesn't give you the choice to not have the ability to put a free Mark on the table either. So fuck off.

Look on page 77 of the PHB. Combat Challenge lets you choose to put the mark on an enemy or not. There are actual reasons for refraining from putting that mark on enemies in some cases. It's a legitimate option either way. Once again, Cleave in 3e just lets you do another thing you already listed as a 3e fighter option. So you fuck off.

Look, if you want to talk about what a Paragon Tier fighter can do option wise (note: almost as deep a set of bonus options as what the 3e Glaive Fighter can do at first level), be my guest.

Fine. I'll post that analysis later if I feel like coming up with it.

Oh what the fuck? Are you seriously going to have that discussion? The discussion where we talk about how a 3e Fighter can actually have hunting dogs and shit on the table? The discussion about how a 3e Fighter can effectively control a 5x5 area just by owning a reach weapon?

Fine, forget I mentioned the mount. Level 1 fighters can still do fancy battlefield control with reach weapons + footwork lure. Not to mention the whole net slow thing. Sad that reach weapons no longer threaten, although your 4e fighter can still make opportunity attacks once per enemy turn where a 3e fighter needs to take lightning reflexes to do it once per dex mod. Eh.

Care to explain the 5x5 with a glaive thing? Or are we not talking about level 1 there?

[MGuy]

Simple explanation for the glaive: Glaive reaches 10ft (2 squares) You take up 1 square. So your radius increases from 7.5ft to 12.5ft. so that's 25ft (5 squares) horizontally and vertically which is 5x5

[RandomCasualty2]

Look on page 77 of the PHB. Combat Challenge lets you choose to put the mark on an enemy or not. There are actual reasons for refraining from putting that mark on enemies in some cases. It's a legitimate option either way.

Honestly, it's not really much of an option. It just tags to everything you do. And while yes, you can decide not to mark, you're basically almost always going to use it. It's really not much of a meaningful option, since you only make a meaningful choice on it very rarely.

Trying to call that an option is pretty much deceptive inflation of the amount of options you have.

[MGuy]

Regardless of rather anyone considers marking a big enough deal to even care about (It really amounts to about the same choice as choosing who you're going to attack IMO) the point has already been made that there REALLY aren't a sufficient number of bonus choices given in 4e's to credit it with being more versatile than 3e's.

[RandomCasualty2]

Regardless of rather anyone considers marking a big enough deal to even care about (It really amounts to about the same choice as choosing who you're going to attack IMO) the point has already been made that there REALLY aren't a sufficient number of bonus choices given in 4e's to credit it with being more versatile than 3e's.

Well, 3E for a non-ToB character mostly ends up being just a series of base attacks. There really aren't much in the way of options at all there.

I mean, yes, there are some other options, but you see them so rarely, that it becomes just an attempt to inflate the number of actions similar to the 4E "Combat challenge is an option" bullshit. 3E offers more actions overall, however any individual character actually has fewer real options.

[Neckbeard]

Regardless of rather anyone considers marking a big enough deal to even care about (It really amounts to about the same choice as choosing who you're going to attack IMO) the point has already been made that there REALLY aren't a sufficient number of bonus choices given in 4e's to credit it with being more versatile than 3e's.

Yeah. At this point we're just nitpicking on what constitutes an option. I think we're going to have to accept that some of us will have different opinions on what is significantly different as far as options go.

I'm currently playing both 3e and 4e. I've played 3e for years. 4e straight up feels like my actions in combat have a more significant impact than they did in 3rd Ed.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm currently playing both 3e and 4e. I've played 3e for years. 4e straight up feels like my actions in combat have a more significant impact than they did in 3rd Ed.

What, more significant than ending a combat in a single action? Thats a strange thing to say.

[koz]

I'm currently playing both 3e and 4e. I've played 3e for years. 4e straight up feels like my actions in combat have a more significant impact than they did in 3rd Ed.

Let me guess, fireball is just the bomb, isn't it?

[Neckbeard]

What, more significant than ending a combat in a single action? Thats a strange thing to say.

Sounds boring as hell.

[RandomCasualty2]

What, more significant than ending a combat in a single action? Thats a strange thing to say.

Sounds boring as hell.

I can be sometimes. But nonetheless, it's very impactful (many have said too impactful in fact).

[Roy]

The worst that can be said about win spells is that ending the encounter in one round is 'boring'. Well, so is flailing for piddly shit. The difference is that takes a lot more than one round.

So would you rather do boring stuff for a short time or a long time?

Even if you're right, you're still wrong.

[violence in the media]

You know, one of the things that video games do really well is reward you for expending the least amount of effort for the maximum reward. You often get bonus points or tchotchkies in many games if you can defeat an enemy or a level or whatever with a minimal expenditure of health, ammunition, or moves.

Table top RPGs should really embrace that paradigm.

[RandomCasualty2]

The worst that can be said about win spells is that ending the encounter in one round is 'boring'. Well, so is flailing for piddly shit. The difference is that takes a lot more than one round.

Yeah, though flailing around at least gives everyone on your team the sense that they're contributing something, where as the I win spells tend to just make everyone else feel "Why am I even here?"

[Draco_Argentum]

Sounds boring as hell.

Like RC said, it may be boring buts its sure having an impact. I don't like one shot wins either but that doesn't mean people get to make bad arguments.