[4e] Those lying liars.

[Jacob_Orlove]

I'll give you some examples of characters I could play in 3e with just the Core books that I can't play in 4e with the PHB, DMG, and MM:

Necromancer, summoner, enchanter. A guy with an animal companion. A druid, bard, barbarian, sorcerer, and monk. A guy with a familiar. A ranged fighter. A ranged paladin. A ranged cleric. A gish. A character with a useful mount. A two-weapon fighter. A ranger using a two-handed weapon.

Half of those examples are garbage. It doesn't matter what class you have to write on your sheet to achieve a certain class concept, as long as that concept is available. "A ranged Fighter" and "A two-weapon Fighter" are NOT character archetypes. At best, they're "Fighter builds." And I honestly don't care how many "Fighter builds" a game has (although given how strictly 4E locks you into a class, more than one might actually be good).

And you can absolutely play a bow guy or a two weapon guy in 4E. You probably have to write Ranger or something on your character sheet, I don't even know. It's like Franks 3.0 example swashbuckler, that was Fighter2/Rogue3/Ranger1/Paladin2. In game, it didn't even matter, because you have a set of character abilities that allows you to swash and buckle. Concept achieved.

The overall point may well be correct (how many 4E characters can contribute to fights without doing hit point damage? how many can bypass combat encounters? how many can alter the terrain and battlefield conditions with advanced notice? etc etc). THOSE are closer to the missing archetypes, but mixing them in with nonsense about how you can't write "Fighter" on your character sheet and still be Legolas just dilutes your point.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I agree with you on principle, Jacob Orlove, but the role system does end up pigeonholing you. At least if you buy into the idea that it's supposed to work.

For example, while it may be acceptable if you want to represent the archetype of Magitek Knight to go with the Artificer class, that class comes with a lot of unexpected, perhaps even unpleasant baggage. You're expected to be the Leader, which 'means' picking magical items and expansion options that helps you with the role. Picking tanking powers and marking abilities at the expense of healing and buffing is going to get you frowned at.

Of course, the roles are complete junk so there's really no downside towards grabbing a bunch of +damage options as long as you maintain nominal healing. But if the game worked right, being a ranger is not an acceptable alternative to being a two-weapon fighter or two-weapon swordmage, because those characters in theory are supposed to play totally differently.

[Username17]

4e is full of trap options as well. First of all, you can't effectively multiclass classes with different stat needs. Wizard/Rogue does not work, full stop. But beyond that, and much more damning, there are supposed to be 3 Paladins:

• Charisma/Strength Paladin
• Charisma/Wisdom Paladin (Grind)
• Strength/Wisdom Paladin (Tron)

Of those, the first flat doesn't exist as a real playable archetype. You're supposed to be able to select powers that don't have a secondary effect based on Wisdom and then be able to have enough to get by selecting from either the Grind list or the Tron. In reality, this doesn't work. There's no synergy and you can't succeed at life.

The second option starts becoming a trap around 3rd level because it requires you to keep a weapon and an implement to use all your powers (though you only benefit from one at a time, so it's not palatable the way it is for a Ranger).

The third option starts becoming a trap at 9th level, where they seriously didn't remember to even write it an available power!

And that's assuming that you can figure out the powers you're "supposed" to take. There are 4 1st level at-wills, 4 1st level Encounters, and 3 1st level Dailies. You select 2, 1, and 1. There are therefore 72 possibilities of how you could select your powers at level 1. But if you have Strength and Wisdom raised, only two of those power layouts actually synergize with your attributes.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Half of those examples are garbage. It doesn't matter what class you have to write on your sheet to achieve a certain class concept, as long as that concept is available. "A ranged Fighter" and "A two-weapon Fighter" are NOT character archetypes. At best, they're "Fighter builds." And I honestly don't care how many "Fighter builds" a game has (although given how strictly 4E locks you into a class, more than one might actually be good).

Then let's make those more specific.

Ranged/two-weapon fighter: A heavily-armored character who uses something other than a two-hander/sword-and-board and has combat capabilities outside of "stand at the front and get hit because your role is 'defender'."

Ranged paladin: A martial character with weak spellcasting and the ability to smite evil who uses a ranged weapon as his primary means of attack.

Two-handed ranger: A lightly-armored character with an animal companion, woods-y abilities, weak spellcasting, and a few other class features that uses a two-handed weapon as his primary means of attack.

[A Man In Black]

Ranged/two-weapon fighter: A heavily-armored character who uses something other than a two-hander/sword-and-board and has combat capabilities outside of "stand at the front and get hit because your role is 'defender'."

Play a ranger and spend the feats on armor proficiencies.

Ranged paladin: A martial character with weak spellcasting and the ability to smite evil who uses a ranged weapon as his primary means of attack.

A...ranger? This seems to conflict with itself; you want a non-magical character who uses magic to shoot people with a bow?

Two-handed ranger: A lightly-armored character with an animal companion, woods-y abilities, weak spellcasting, and a few other class features that uses a two-handed weapon as his primary means of attack.

If you're talking about just core, then no, you can't get an animal companion. They advertised from the start that pets were out, so if you're trying to make the case that that's a limitation of the system you're right, but if you're trying to argue that it's a lie you're off base.

[A Man In Black]

While I'm here.

4e has nine magical item slots

That's incorrect

You're right, but your list is wrong.

1. Main hand - weapon or implement
2. Off hand - weapon or implement
3. Armor
4. Cloak/Amulet
5. Shield/Arms
6. Gloves
7. Boots
8. Belt
9. Head: Hats, helms, ioun stones, etc.
10. Ring One
11. Ring Two
12. Holy Symbol (nominally slotless, although you can only make use of one at a time)
13. Mount or Figurine of wonderous power
14. Mount or Companion Slot Item (such as barding or magic horseshoes)
15+ Slotless items or nominally slotted items, limited by item daily powers per day

There's no way to use an implement barring a free hand unless it's a holy symbol, so counting the hands twice is a little silly. That still leaves you with 11 slots for most characters in the PHB alone, which is a mess.

Lago's frothing rage aside, there are lots of expansion cheese slots but except for mounts (which were in core, just hidden in the DMG) they're all extra item daily powers, which are limited but in a different way from slots. This isn't a good design, but it's a kludge to try and limit the mass of slotless junk rather than extra slots being added.

[Username17]

There's no way to use an implement barring a free hand unless it's a holy symbol, so counting the hands twice is a little silly.

Except that certain characters are actually expected to carry implements and weapons and switch back and forth. Now, these characters suck, because magic items are so necessary and you get so little for switching from one set of hand items to the other - but the fact that this exists is proof enough of the overwhelming and crushingly large magic item dependency and diversity of magic item slots.

One of the reasons that a lot of caster/warrior hybrids are simply unviable is because you are required to keep a separate weapon and implement and switch back and forth to use different powers. Saying that no one plays those characters because they suck ass because you can't actually afford to waste that many magic items on simply not falling behind is a disingenuous argument to make when discussing how many different kinds of magic items you could be expected to juggle.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Except that certain characters are actually expected to carry implements and weapons and switch back and forth. Now, these characters suck, because magic items are so necessary and you get so little for switching from one set of hand items to the other - but the fact that this exists is proof enough of the overwhelming and crushingly large magic item dependency and diversity of magic item slots.

Every melee character ever is able to carry multiple weapons and switch back and forth, but that's not "multiple slots." An implement is just a weapon you use for spells instead of for hitting dudes.

Are the artificer and bard (the only non-multiclasses who are expected to do any significant switching) badly designed? Yes.

Is this a lie about how many slots there are? No.

It does feed back into what you're saying about lots of trap options. If you play a class that uses both weapon and implement powers (and it's not something goofy like monk/swordmage/assassin that uses its weapon as an implement as a weapon or vice versa), you make An Implement Build or A Weapon Build or rely on the GM being polite enough to supply you with The Weapon That Also Counts As An Implement (of which there are many >:| ).

[Username17]

Are the artificer and bard (the only non-multiclasses who are expected to do any significant switching) badly designed? Yes.

Is this a lie about how many slots there are? No.

One way or the other, it is a lie. For 3e comparisons, they point out that the Warrior needs a magic sword and a magic bow. The 3e character is expected to do significant switching based on the location of enemies, and that is counted against his total. So either it's a lie to count the two handheld layouts against the 3e character or it's a lie to not count the two expected layouts against the 4e character.

I don't really care which part is the lie. But one of them has to be, because it's essentially the same thing.

-Username17

[shadzar]

But it's not just an encounter here or there...very little works that can be translated.

Consider a 1d6 arrow trap. For first level D&D characters, this by itself is something to be avoided...completely meaningless in DnD4.0, where damage outside of combat is completely irrelevant.

What's worse is that a trap designed to halt the advancing PCs long enough for something to be done about them should it not be intended to kill them, should it last longer than 6 hours will actually be of benefit to the party as all their other wounds have healed BECAUSE of the trap.

What use is a sleeping gas trap if it only serves to help the people you wish to trap, likewise any kind of incarceration is useless because all it does ir replenish resources as well.

Now in order to really stall the PC party, you have to TPK them. Give them any chance to rest, and you fucked up when their dailies are back as well all their HP and healing surges.

You had plenty more options when you only healed for 1 hp per night, for stalling a party with many types of traps. Just preventing the wizard from memorizing spells with constant drum beating is no longer effective to break his concentration...hell you cannot even break a wizards concentration in 4th to prevent a spell, cause you cannot prevent a player from using a power.

[A Man In Black]

One way or the other, it is a lie. For 3e comparisons, they point out that the Warrior needs a magic sword and a magic bow. The 3e character is expected to do significant switching based on the location of enemies, and that is counted against his total. So either it's a lie to count the two handheld layouts against the 3e character or it's a lie to not count the two expected layouts against the 4e character.

You still end up at 11 or 12, since no class in the game is expected to have three weapons/implements. Bards use a melee weapon and an implement, and artificers use a ranged or melee weapon and an implement. The weapon-switchers have issues with two-handed items, not more items than hands.

Barring multiclassers, everyone has either one weapon/implement, two weapons, or a weapon and an implement. That's two slots.

[Username17]

One way or the other, it is a lie. For 3e comparisons, they point out that the Warrior needs a magic sword and a magic bow. The 3e character is expected to do significant switching based on the location of enemies, and that is counted against his total. So either it's a lie to count the two handheld layouts against the 3e character or it's a lie to not count the two expected layouts against the 4e character.

You still end up at 11 or 12, since no class in the game is expected to have three weapons/implements. Bards use a melee weapon and an implement, and artificers use a ranged or melee weapon and an implement. The weapon-switchers have issues with two-handed items, not more items than hands.

Barring multiclassers, everyone has either one weapon/implement, two weapons, or a weapon and an implement. That's two slots.

Disagree. Anyone who uses one Implement can and should take the feat where you use two implements. Which means that any character who is supposed to use a Weapon and an Implement is actually supposed to carry 3 things.

And it's worse than that. An Artificer is seriously supposed to have a Healer's Mace and a magic crossbow, and two implements.

Except that he's not really supposed to have all that shit, because the magic item accumulation system means that he can't afford all that shit.

But any argument that your game doesn't have X slots because characters don't get enough magic items to fill all their slots is a lying argument.

-Username17

[A Man In Black]

Disagree. Anyone who uses one Implement can and should take the feat where you use two implements. Which means that any character who is supposed to use a Weapon and an Implement is actually supposed to carry 3 things.

And it's worse than that. An Artificer is seriously supposed to have a Healer's Mace and a magic crossbow, and two implements.

Except that he's not really supposed to have all that shit, because the magic item accumulation system means that he can't afford all that shit.

Most of the classes in the game can't take that feat since it's specific to arcane attack powers. Plus, in the same book, on the opposite page even, there's a feat that lets him use the Mace of Healing as his backup implement. So he takes a crossbow with one of the goofy this-is-also-an-implement powers, and holds the mace in his offhand when he uses implement or healing powers. There's one single weapon-based healing power in the entire artificer list, and if he really wants that he can just use a spear or a dagger or something instead of a crossbow.

Neither an optimal artificer build (all of which use daggers or throwing spears anyway) nor a designers-as-intended artificer build has three weapons/implements. The optimal build is super goofy, but it's still two items and it's limited to one super-weird class whose whole schtick according to the playtest Dragon article was pushing the limits of the slot system (which is a terrible idea but whatever).

I don't see why we're arguing. Unless I'm mistaken, we both agree that the artificer and bard are a clusterfuck of bad ideas, that 4e completely fails to reduce the importance of bling, and that the whole implement/weapon system is a cesspool that befouls every class that tries to straddle the line. I just don't want to see Johsh Kablack's list posted somewhere else and get 4e fans swarming to claim how it's obviously wrong because it counts the hand slots twice and thus the whole argument that 4e fucked up must be wrong.

But any argument that your game doesn't have X slots because characters don't get enough magic items to fill all their slots is a lying argument.

There's nobody but you making it. Or rather, it isn't in dispute. You don't get enough money to fill the 11 slots as it is.

This goes back to the wealth-by-level discussions. Limited slots, limited daily item uses, and limited money are supposed to form together into some whole that limits the influence of magic items on the game. How does it come together? Nobody has any idea.

[Windjammer]

3. “4e is about saying 'yes' to players!”

I have no idea how this meme got started, and I have no idea who is dumb enough to perpetuate it. You see, 4e takes the exact opposite stance in the game: 4e is about saying “no” to players.

A follow up on this one. As you rightly point out, the choice of class concepts available to players is fairly limited compared to earlier editions (particularly if you compare these with sole recourse to the respective PHBs). But what adds insult to injury is that even once players have opted for a class they are straight jacketed by their powers. Not just in how many powers they get, or how the choices they have among the few (viable) powers there are are void. No, it's when a player has moved beyond all those straight jackets that 4E rears its ugliest head.

To see this, let me first say that I suppose the original idea of the 'say yes' meme was that a DM ought to be very liberal and encouraging when players come up with things not covered by the rules. This was frankly a necessity since the actual amount of stuff actively covered by the rules of 4E is extremely thin. Which harkens back to the lack of utility magic in the game.

But observe what actually happens in the game. I played in a LFR session once where a newbie player was basically just spinning out ideas of how to use Mage Hand (now an at-will) creatively in combat by moving stuff around to affect the terrain. The DM would have none of this since, as he pointed ou to the player, the write-up of 4E Mage Hand states explicitly that nothing you put the power to use ought to affect combat by e.g. causing damage.

And this isn't an isolated or non-representative instance. Earlier today I watched the (currently) newest episode of the WotC podcast where the creators of Robot Chicken play D&D. Watch the clip as of here (the link gets you to the right timing) and watch the next 3 minutes.
Watch how Creative Director of D&D, Chris Perkins, here in DM role reacts to a new player trying to use his powers creatively. Watch his rationale in turning the player down.

Players are shut down from from interacting with the in-game environment in every meaningful way. And that is why this game has written 'say no' all over it at every point. It says 'No' even past the point where a player has already accepted the narrow choices the game makes for him at character generation.

[Roy]

Dude. 4th edition is very easy to get. Here's what you do:

Get yourself a meleeburn pt. Spam abilities from best to worst. Turn on auto attack. Repeat. Bring mob train to zone, regen, repeat. Then go click on some sprites to sell your vendor trash.

Oh and don't even think about showing up with a gimp toon, NOOB. Lol Warlocks.

Be sure to keep your blacklist up to date!

[Josh_Kablack]

Lago's frothing rage aside, there are lots of expansion cheese slots but except for mounts (which were in core, just hidden in the DMG) they're all extra item daily powers,

Thanks for the correction to the list, but Solitaires are totally item encounter powers. So even your kludge is not holding up.

You still end up at 11 or 12, since no class in the game is expected to have three weapons/implements.

Please tell that to the half-orc ranger with in my current game. Quick draw and twin strike are reasons to carry a pair of swords and a bow.

[Windjammer]

Very interesting. 4E co-designer James Wyatt admits that one thing 4E got SO wrong that it'd take a whole new edition to fix it is.... tata!....magic items! Because yes they're still doing too much. Alas, I stand corrected.

If you were going to start work tomorrow on 5th edition, what would you change?

JW: *long pause* It’s funny, that question used to send me into a tizzy. It was like when we were in the middle of remodeling our kitchen and my wife would say “when we get around to remodeling the bathrooms-” AHHH! I don’t want to think about the bathrooms! I’m still working on the kitchen. I’ve since grown beyond that and part of being in R&D is thinking about what comes next.

I wouldn’t change the big picture. There are little things I would change. The way we are approaching updates to the game now is releasing errata and rules updates all the time so the game is always growing and changing. We can tweak things as we go. Every once in a while things come that we say “oh gee, it would be nice if we could fix that but it will have to wait until 5th edition” because it is too big of a change. I’m trying to think if I can remember any of them off the top of my head. The point is the changes we would make would not be on the scale of change we made from 3rd to 4th. I expect when we do 5th edition some day it will be in line with the continuity of where 4th edition is now. We would probably tweak the math here and there. We might- hmmm… *long pause*

DM: What about rituals? Would you change rituals? Because that would be high on my list.

JW: Yeah, I’d probably change rituals. *pause*

Magic items! I’m not very happy with how the magic items system came out. Tracking daily uses is awkward. The number of slots the characters makes it easy to fill up on too many items and there are too many items in the game that could use a nerfing. So players who are really pay attention to that sort of thing can make characters that are really just broken, primarily through the item system. Probably because of legacy, magic items are trying to do too much. Up through 3rd edition the things that made a fighter cool were magic items. Now he’s got all these powers and the magic items are competing in the same space. At higher level in particular, crowding powers out. That would probably be the top thing on my list to fix.

(Final emphasis - using underlining - mine.)

[A Man In Black]

Thanks for the correction to the list, but Solitaires are totally item encounter powers. So even your kludge is not holding up.

Wow, that's lame. The holes in the slot system don't matter, because the item dailies limit what you can do. Oh, the item daily limit doesn't apply to everything? Well, you can only afford so much junk. Wait, the wealth by level system is nonfunctional? Well, there's only so many slots you can fill anyway!

Please tell that to the half-orc ranger with in my current game. Quick draw and twin strike are reasons to carry a pair of swords and a bow.

Quick Draw and dual-wielding don't play nicely together, and rangers are designed so that there's almost no synergy between ranged and melee attacks. :S Even so, a double weapon and a bow = two weapons.

[RobbyPants]

Very interesting. 4E co-designer James Wyatt admits that one thing 4E got SO wrong that it'd take a whole new edition to fix it is.... tata!....magic items! Because yes they're still doing too much. Alas, I stand corrected.

That's funny. I figured they wouldn't want to bad mouth the current edition too much, as it's still making them money.

I see 5.0 as about the same as 4.0:

* they might try to squeeze in a 4.5 if they think they can get away with it.

* they'll stick with their current edition, denying any claims of working on 5.0.

* they'll make a few new subsystems to test out the 5.0 mechanics.

* they'll announce 5.0 at GenCon and further split the fan-base.

[RandomCasualty2]

And this isn't an isolated or non-representative instance. Earlier today I watched the (currently) newest episode of the WotC podcast where the creators of Robot Chicken play D&D. Watch the clip as of here (the link gets you to the right timing) and watch the next 3 minutes.
Watch how Creative Director of D&D, Chris Perkins, here in DM role reacts to a new player trying to use his powers creatively. Watch his rationale in turning the player down.

Players are shut down from from interacting with the in-game environment in every meaningful way. And that is why this game has written 'say no' all over it at every point. It says 'No' even past the point where a player has already accepted the narrow choices the game makes for him at character generation.

Wow... That was horrible. I can't believe this is how a D&D designer runs the game.

[Username17]

Probably because of legacy, magic items are trying to do too much. Up through 3rd edition the things that made a fighter cool were magic items. Now he’s got all these powers and the magic items are competing in the same space. At higher level in particular, crowding powers out. That would probably be the top thing on my list to fix.

I am flabbergasted that anyone thinks that the biggest problem of 4e is that Magic Items do too many cool things. I mean, we're seriously talking about +2 to damage or an extra move action once an encounter. We aren't talking about something that anyone would give a damn about.

Honestly, even the "must have" items like Iron Armbands of Power are something that you seriously cannot tell that someone has just by watching someone play the game. It just causes people to do more damage, but not enough more damage that you could identify that the character had anything special going on.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Honestly, even the "must have" items like Iron Armbands of Power are something that you seriously cannot tell that someone has just by watching someone play the game. It just causes people to do more damage, but not enough more damage that you could identify that the character had anything special going on.

Yes.

Definitely in the next edition of D&D, it should be a design goal that every magic item is descriptively relevant. If it's one of those bullshit background items that grants a bonus nobody even sees, like a +1 sword, then I say, just ditch the fucker.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Players are shut down from from interacting with the in-game environment in every meaningful way. And that is why this game has written 'say no' all over it at every point. It says 'No' even past the point where a player has already accepted the narrow choices the game makes for him at character generation.

One of my favorite conversations with a newbie:

Newbie: Wow, so what does Tide of Iron not work on?
Oldbie: It works on everything. Dragons, golems, the terrasque. Everything.
Newbie: That is so awesome! What about statues? Can I knock those back?
Oldie: No.

[Username17]

And this isn't an isolated or non-representative instance. Earlier today I watched the (currently) newest episode of the WotC podcast where the creators of Robot Chicken play D&D. Watch the clip as of here (the link gets you to the right timing) and watch the next 3 minutes.
Watch how Creative Director of D&D, Chris Perkins, here in DM role reacts to a new player trying to use his powers creatively. Watch his rationale in turning the player down.

Players are shut down from from interacting with the in-game environment in every meaningful way. And that is why this game has written 'say no' all over it at every point. It says 'No' even past the point where a player has already accepted the narrow choices the game makes for him at character generation.

Wow... That was horrible. I can't believe this is how a D&D designer runs the game.

To me, the number one party foul was right at the beginning when he shuts down the player for wanting to blast the door open with dark fire. Seriously, it's sealed with ice and his power makes dark fire. Do I have to draw you a diagram? You make him roll his damage, you announce that the icy wood is fire vulnerable and you descriptively blast the door off its hinges. Do I have to draw you a fucking diagram?

And then here's the real kicker: all attacks in 4e target "creatures" - scenery is technically indestructible save by DM fiat. And anyone who s a creative designer or whatever the fuck for WotC should fucking know that already. That's a flaw in the fucking rules, and the official patch is to just let players target walls and doors whenever they want unless they are doing it to gain hitpoints or otherwise advance themselves by using attacks up.

So it's not just that it's insulting and painful to ruleslawyer a player out of opening an ice-sealed door with fucking dark fire to finally make a Warlock seem useful for once in his fucking life. It's not enough that breaking the action to consider the targeting rules on an attack when someone is popping scenery open is literalism that is beyond comprehension. It's that he's actually factually wrong. About a very public issue that he's supposed to actually know the answer to.

-Username17

[Koumei]

That... is annoyingly stupid. Someone should revoke the "Creative" part of his title. Seriously, the only DMs I've met that were like that, nobody liked to play with. There may be a link between these two things.

My girlfriend wishes to know whether it would work against a Gazebo though - do they count as scenery/terrain/"stuff" or creatures?