106 réponses à ce sujet

[Killian Kalthorne]

They just didn't remove the Crafting skill, Merlin, but all the things you need to craft magical items. Removed the ways you could make special items such as silvered weapons, mithril chain shirts, and the process of making adamatine steel plate. They took away Alchemy and that is another thing my character did a lot of. Making grenade and alchemical mixtures in down time, between adventures.

The bottomline the type of characters I like to play could not exist in 4e without major tweaking and shoe horning in homebrew rules just does not cut it.



My view on classes remains. It isn't just the power tier mechanic, but also the leveling mechanic. They all get the same amount of feats. Same progression on all skills. Same progression on all saves. Same progression on all powers. No variance, all conformity. A wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue. As a fraking rogue. A rogue who has been living on the street has the same to hit chance as a book reading, non-combatant wizard. If you cannot see what is wrong with that then there is no reconciliation on this issue.

[Sloth Of Doom]

I agree with Killian here. 4e has drained the game of flavor. The remaining skills are practically pointless, and the classes have become so homogeneous as to be laughable.



Making all of the classes 'more balanced' has instead made all classes boring as hell.



IMHO, the new 4e ruleset caters to the same type of person that comes to these forums and whines that mages in DA are OP, or that warriors are pointless. For this very reason I find it surprising that some people who are the first to leap to the defense of DA in these matters will also come screaming to the defense of the new kiddiefied version of D&D.

[MerinTB]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

They just didn't remove the Crafting skill, Merlin, but all the things you need to craft magical items. Removed the ways you could make special items such as silvered weapons, mithril chain shirts, and the process of making adamatine steel plate. They took away Alchemy and that is another thing my character did a lot of. Making grenade and alchemical mixtures in down time, between adventures.
The bottomline the type of characters I like to play could not exist in 4e without major tweaking and shoe horning in homebrew rules just does not cut it.

Really - huh, I wonder what this is -

Feat - Alchemist
Heroic Tier
Benefit: You can make alchemical items of your level or lower. You must have the correct formula and an appropriate skill.
Special: You can take this feat instead of the Ritual Caster feat granted by your class feature.

Or the class of Artificer, how that doesn't do what you are wanting to do.  Oh, it might not do it the way previous editions did, but that's a change in editions.  You can say you don't like how 4th ED does this, but it still exists.

There's more, too, but if you are set on not liking the edition I won't try to change your mind.

My view on classes remains. It isn't just the power tier mechanic, but also the leveling mechanic. They all get the same amount of feats. Same progression on all skills. Same progression on all saves. Same progression on all powers. No variance, all conformity. A wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue. As a fraking rogue. A rogue who has been living on the street has the same to hit chance as a book reading, non-combatant wizard. If you cannot see what is wrong with that then there is no reconciliation on this issue.

As opposed to before where everything was a straight up D20 roll and compared to THAC0, or a straight up D20 roll and compared to your weapon skill and ability rank?  There were differences there?

A wizard has the same chance to hit as a Rogue.  Huh, ok, let's test that theory.  Let's take a simple rogue and a simple wizard build - I'll just use the Quick Character options with the Character builder here -
Quick Build asks you 5 questions -  name, race, class, build, level.  I chose human for both (to make them as "equal" as possible), Brawny Rogue and War Wizard, level 1.

For basic attacks, the Rogue has a +7 with his Dagger in melee and a +10 at range with the same Dagger.  The Wizard has +0 in meele Unarmeed and + 2 Unarmed at range (yes, quick build you don't even bother to give the Wizard a melee or ranged weapon because they won't need them) but let me adjust that to just hand the mage a dagger, to keep things as equal as possible - ok, now there we go:
Basic Attacks w/ Dagger: Rogue +7/+10, Wizard +3/+5.

A wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue.

+3 versus +7 is the same?  +4/+5 difference on a d20 at 1st level is quite big, actually. 4 is the difference between hitting someone with 10 Dexterity vs. hitting someone with 18 Dexterity, or hitting someone in no armor vs. hitting someone in Hide Armor with a Light Shield.

How about some powers, then, if you just want to compare an At-Will Rogue attack vs. a Mage's At-Will.  Let's see what the Quick Build selected:

Rogue: Piercing Strike is at +10 with the Dagger, Riposte Attack is at +10 with the Dagger.
Wizard: Magic Missile is +6, Scorching Burst is +6.

Another 4 point difference on a d20 at 1st level.

A wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue.

Really?

If you cannot see what is wrong with that then there is no reconciliation on this issue.

I think I see what is wrong.  You have either a preconceived notion or an agenda that has you stating things that are clearly factually incorrect.  What is wrong with "a wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue" is quite simply that the assertion is false.

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

For this very reason I find it surprising that some people who are the first to leap to the defense of DA in these matters will also come screaming to the defense of the new kiddiefied version of D&D.

Different games and different situations, SOD.

DAO is a single-player CRPG.  4th ED D&D is a table-top, group game.  In DAO if one of your party members you control is far better than the other three you really shouldn't feel like you are stealing the fun from yourself.  In D&D if one person is playing a monk/rogue/wizard drow with obscure abilities from the Book of Exalted Deeds (some mish-mash that makes absolutely no story sense) and overshadowing the guy playing the human fighter with a fear of heights who will only use melee weapons on honor of his father's teaching him that ranged weapons are dishonorable, the guy with the human fighter most often (unless he really, really only cares about RP and not about being far less effective in combat) will either complain endlessly and resent the other player OR make a min-max character to compete and usually not have fun as a result OR quit playing (those are the stages I went through in multiple 3rd Ed games.)

Apples and Oranges, SOD, even taking everything else you said as truth.

[Schneidend]

4th Edition is fun, and a really great set of rules, but as I've said time and again, Bioware is doing their own thing. More than that, they're succeeding at doing their own thing. More power to them. I doubt Dragon Age and Mass Effect would be the successes they are if they used the d20 system or some other tabletop derivative.

[Sloth Of Doom]

[quote]MerinTB wrote...

[quote]Sloth Of Doom wrote...

For this very reason I find it surprising that some people who are the first to leap to the defense of DA in these matters will also come screaming to the defense of the new kiddiefied version of D&D.[/quote]

Different games and different situations, SOD.  In D&D if one person is playing a monk/rogue/wizard drow with obscure abilities from the Book of Exalted Deeds (some mish-mash that makes absolutely no story sense) and overshadowing the guy playing the human fighter with a fear of heights who will only use melee weapons on honor of his father's teaching him that ranged weapons are dishonorable, the guy with the human fighter most often (unless he really, really only cares about RP and not about being far less effective in combat) will either complain endlessly and resent the other player OR make a min-max character to compete and usually not have fun as a result OR quit playing (those are the stages I went through in multiple 3rd Ed games.)[/quote]

Only a completely idiotic DM would allow this to take place in thier game.  If the game is run as some retarded munchkin-fest then any RP player should know enough not to bother playing in it.   Conversly, a group that pays more attention to RP should never allow some crap minmax character with no background or story sense into the game.   The solution to bad DMing is not to take all flavour away from the game, but to find a better DM or players.

The same idiot who made your drow wizard/monk/rogue in 3e is still going to scour the 4e rulebooks to find the most powerful, nonsensical pieces of crap to add to his character, while your human fighter is going to be playing a human warlord who insists on being in the forefront for the sake of glory, despite his crappy armour.   making a crappier ruleset hasn't changed the personality of the players.

[/quote]

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am talking about the Base Attack Bonus, Merlin. Not the little bonuses here and there. Base Attack Bonus only.

[MerinTB]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...
My view on classes remains. It isn't just the power tier mechanic, but also the leveling mechanic. They all get the same amount of feats. Same progression on all skills. Same progression on all saves. Same progression on all powers. No variance, all conformity. A wizard has the same to hit chance as a rogue. As a fraking rogue. A rogue who has been living on the street has the same to hit chance as a book reading, non-combatant wizard. If you cannot see what is wrong with that then there is no reconciliation on this issue.

Same progressions, no differences, continued -

Rogue at 1st level gets (that a Wizard does not): access to different Feats, access to different Skills as well as different Bonus class skills as well as different number of skills, ability to use different weapons and armor, different Defense bonuses, different starting Hit Points, different number of healing surges, the First Strike ability, Sneak Attack, Rogue Weapon Talent, (for this build) the Brutal Scoundrel option.
Wizard at 1st level gets (that a Rogue does not): access to different Feats, access to different Skills as well as
different Bonus class skills as well as different number of skills,
ability to use different weapons and armor, different Defense bonuses, different starting Hit Points, different number of healing surges, Implement Mastery (Wand of Accuracy in this build), Cantrips, Ritual Casting, Bonus Daily ability in Spellbook.

As you level up, the Rogue will get: different Feat options, bonuses to Sneak Attack, different hit point increases.
As you level up, the Wizard will get: different Feat options, more Rituals, mor bonus Daily and Utility powers in their spellbook, different hit point increases.

Oh, and there's the BIG difference being ignored here, the BIG difference that somewhat brings D&D back to 1st and 2nd ED where you chose a class and what you gained each level depended MOST on what class you chose as opposed to other choices you made each level as you flip-flopped between classes.
The Powers.  Wizard Powers are far different than Rogue Powers.

Rogue powers focus mostly on dealing massive amounts of damage, along with some debilitating effects or movement options.
Wizard powers mostly deal with locking down large numbers of foes, either wiping out groups of minions or status-affecting groups of enemies.

They play the same?

Only if you play them the same, and I guarantee you if you play a Wizard like a Rogue, your Wizard will die quickly.  And if your Rogue is the person the party is relying on to hold off the hordes of minions, your party is most likely in for a world of hurt.

---

Honestly, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on whether 4th is better or worse than previous editions - only personal opinion really matters there.

But when I see such obviously wrong blanket statements such as "a wizard has the same chance to hit as a rogue" and "the classes have become homogenous" I feel the need to point out why these statements are factually wrong.

[MerinTB]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

I am talking about the Base Attack Bonus, Merlin. Not the little bonuses here and there. Base Attack Bonus only.

(handle is MerinTB, Merin for short, btw, not Merlin - but if you can misrepresent D&D so badly why should I expect you to get my handle right? )

Rogue is +7/+10, basic attack, with a Dagger.  Not using any powers - just what he would do in an opportunity attack.
Wizard is +3/+5, basic attack, with a Dagger.  Same situation.

What are you looking for, bare-handed?  Fine.

Rogue is +2 at melee unarmed.
Wizard is +0 at melee unarmed.

2 points is still significant at 1st level on a d20.

Base Attack Bonus, btw, is a 3rd Edition D&D and Star Wars Saga mechanic.  It didn't exist in 2nd ED or earlier D&D, and DOES NOT EXIST IN 4th ED.

[Schneidend]

Merin, it's good that you aren't trying to convince these individuals, because they're probably going to ignore any logical argument you can make in favor of the pros of 4th Edition. All people will ever see are the cons, or they'll just make up cons of their own.

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Only a completely idiotic DM would allow this to take place in thier game.  If the game is run as some retarded munchkin-fest then any RP player should know enough not to bother playing in it.   Conversly, a group that pays more attention to RP should never allow some crap minmax character with no background or story sense into the game.   The solution to bad DMing is not to take all flavour away from the game, but to find a better DM or players.

The same idiot who made your drow wizard/monk/rogue in 3e is still going to scour the 4e rulebooks to find the most powerful, nonsensical pieces of crap to add to his character, while your human fighter is going to be playing a human warlord who insists on being in the forefront for the sake of glory, despite his crappy armour.   making a crappier ruleset hasn't changed the personality of the players.

Or a DM/GM who lets the players play how they have fun, which is WHAT THE RULE BOOKS TELL YOU TO DO.  Whether 3rd or 4th ED.

I stopped playing D&D because, after trying 4 different groups of players locally, I could not find a group that didn't have at least 2 players min/maxing, if not (as in 3 out of 4 groups) the whole group min/maxing.

If I wanted the RP side without combat focus, I had to find groups NOT PLAYING D&D.  I got to play in about three games that were more improv acting than gaming, and that wasn't satisfying either because I wanted to game not act.

4th ED has solved the problems for me.  You try and use the rules and make a character that outshines others (I'm not touching the Hybrid rules here) and doesn't make sense.  There are more effective combos, yes, and you can purposefully choose the wrong attributes (high Dex on a Paladin or high Int on a Rogue, sure), but even the most casual of players can build a character that will work in combat about as effectively as the most book-scouring of min-maxers.  4E isn't perfectly balanced, but compared to 3rd ED, it is like going from a sewer to a penthouse in comfort.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You may see a +2 as a big difference, but I don't. Especially when you reach the higher levels. I have played and ran 4e and by the observations of my players and by how I was not able to play anywhere remotely the characters I prefer to play I do not like 4e. Also this Artificer class isn't any where near the core books. I don't have the funds to buy all sorts of books so I prefer all the major rules of a system in the 3 core books. Crafting, in my ever so humble opinion, is a core mechanic that if it was to exist in 4e it should have been in the 3 core books. I am not going to buy the Adventurer's Vault 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. I am not going to buy Player's Handbook 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 and so on. All I needed for 3.5e was in the core three books to run a good campaign wwith all the options I like. Can't say the same with 4e.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Letting the players do whatever they want so they 'have fun' leads to the exact kind of UNFUN situations you have described. There has to be some sort of groundrules set. It is unfortunate that your local player base seems to be comprised of 90% munchkins, but that is not the fault of the game.



The main problem that I found 3e(and you commented on) also existed in 2e: People taking obscure feats from uncommon books in order to minmax. 4e hasn't been around nearly as long as the previous versions, obviously, and so has not had the opportunity to produce nearly as many obscure, crappy, or unbalanced tomes.

[MerinTB]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

You may see a +2 as a big difference, but I don't. Especially when you reach the higher levels. I have played and ran 4e and by the observations of my players and by how I was not able to play anywhere remotely the characters I prefer to play I do not like 4e. Also this Artificer class isn't any where near the core books. I don't have the funds to buy all sorts of books so I prefer all the major rules of a system in the 3 core books. Crafting, in my ever so humble opinion, is a core mechanic that if it was to exist in 4e it should have been in the 3 core books. I am not going to buy the Adventurer's Vault 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on. I am not going to buy Player's Handbook 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8 and so on. All I needed for 3.5e was in the core three books to run a good campaign wwith all the options I like. Can't say the same with 4e.

1 - That +2 is at first level and is unarmed.  You are being absolutely unfair in taking that as the "difference to hit."   The most common attack you are going to make in 4th ED will be an At Will Power, this is your bread and butter, and there the difference is a +6 for the Wizard and a +10 for the Rogue.  This isn't specializing, trying to make one strong and one weak, using obscure rules or abilities -
this is what you will be doing with your character probably 70-80 % if the time in combat, if not more.

At higher levels, the difference will not be much more than that - let me just make both those characters level 10 here -
Rogue: Basic Attack (w/Dagger) M+13/R+16; At-Will 1:+16; At-Will 2:+16
Wizard: Basic Attack (w/Dagger) M+8/R+11; At-Will 1:12; At-Will 2:+12

Still easier for the Striker Role to hit than the Controller Role, as it should be for the Roles.  When it comes to your issue with "a wizard and a rogue having the same "basic" chance to hit a foe" (and here I'm going with assumtion you mean a Rogue is more a combat guy and a Wizard shouldn't be good at melee), the higher level Rogue does get better than the higher level Wizard.

Your problem with BAB is pointless as there is no BAB in 4th ED.

2. Crafting is a "CORE" mechanic of 1, count them 1, edition of D&D.  It is so CORE to the game that only 1 Edition did it in the PHB.  It is so much an integral part of Dungeons & Dragons that it became an OPTIONAL rule in 2nd Edition and got left on the cutting room floor for 4th.  It may be CORE to your enjoyment, but it certainly is not at the heart of Dungeons and Dragons.

3. I hear you about the number of books.  I agree with you here completely.  Another problem I have with WotC in general, 3rd or 4th or Saga.  But, honestly, the only reason 2nd and 1st didn't put out books as fast is because role-playing was a smaller market and couldn't support a book a month for one game system.  The bigger the RPG market became, the more game systems out there, the more books each system released a year.
That said, house-ruling Crafting (just add the Crafting skill rules from 3rd ED, more or less, next to the other skills - it wouldn't rewrite 4th ED in the least to do so, just lets you craft.  This is not rocket science, it isn't even time-consuming - it's "craft like you did in 3rd ED" in a 4th ED system - nothing new to create or add!
Artificier was the first optional class you could read online - there was an Artificier in my 1st 4th ED campaign, run by a player who didn't have a single 4th ED book - one of the other players printed out the class info from the D&D website.

Honestly, if in your group of players there isn't one person with most of the books, one person with the DDI subscription, or one person with a library card who can check out the D&D books from the public library - then I feel for your very poor, very rural, role-playing group.

[MerinTB]

BACK ON TOPIC BEFORE THE THREAD IS LOCKED!

---

Alistair as I made him in the Character Builder

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Alistair, level 1
Human, Cleric
Build: Battle Cleric
Battle Cleric Armaments: Weapon Proficiency (Longsword)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 19, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 17, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10.


AC: 17 Fort: 15 Reflex: 13 Will: 13
HP: 26 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Heal +5, Religion +5, Arcana +5, Diplomacy +5, History +5

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics, Bluff, Dungeoneering, Endurance +1, Insight, Intimidate, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery, Athletics +3

FEATS
Cleric: Ritual Caster
Human: Battle Cleric Armaments
Level 1: Improved Bull Rush

POWERS
Bonus At-Will Power: Priest's Shield
Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
Cleric at-will 1: Lance of Faith
Cleric at-will 1: Righteous Brand
Cleric encounter 1: War Priest's Strike
Cleric daily 1: Shield of the Gods

ITEMS
Ritual Book, Chainmail, Light Shield, Longsword, Adventurer's Kit, Holy Symbol
RITUALS
Gentle Repose, Silence

Modifié par MerinTB, 04 janvier 2010 - 10:01 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

Which is why I only used the 3 core books for my campaigns. They are common, they have everything that is needed, and every player should have access to the same material equally. Anyhoot, 4e DnD requires too many books to have the same base core material and from what I have seen already has a glutton of classes which could have been more streamlined if they allowed proper multiclassing. Any way, 4e Shadowrun is where I game now and it is a much better cohesive system that you only need 2 books for. The Main Book, and Runner's Companion.

EDIT:  I see Alistair being more of a Paladin type than a cleric.  Leliana I would make as a Rogue/Cleric in 3.5e, or at least a Rogue with the Cleric multiclass feat in 4e.

Modifié par Killian Kalthorne, 04 janvier 2010 - 10:05 .

[Schneidend]

I probably would have made Alistair a Swordmage, Fighter, or a Paladin, personally. But, to each their own.



Besides, you're wasting your time, Merin. Those who disparage 4E are not going to know, or care to know, what any of that means.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Actually I do know what that means. I did run a 4e campaign till everyone was bored of it, 3 sessions worth, and we went to Shadowrun, I see Alistair as a Fighter or Paladin with the Cleric Multi-class feat than a straight up cleric.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

Actually I do know what that means. I did run a 4e campaign till everyone was bored of it, 3 sessions worth, and we went to Shadowrun, I see Alistair as a Fighter or Paladin with the Cleric Multi-class feat than a straight up cleric.

Odd, that is what our goup did.  Maybe we played more than 3 sessions of 4e but if so then not many.

..hrm...

[MerinTB]

Yeah, I'm done defending 4E for now -

Onto character builds!

I went with Battle Cleric for a number of reasons. Mostly due to Templar abilities and the fact that he never ever could "defend" well for me, but did "lead" fairly well with the templar and champion abilities.

*shrug*

You'd think Guardian Fighter or Protecting Paladin, but in the end Alistair just never could take a hit well and did pretty poorly at keeping enemies off of my Rogue or Morrigan (that turned into my dog Bear's job!)

Anywho, here's my taken on Oghren!

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Oghren, level 1
Dwarf, Fighter
Build: Battlerager Fighter
Fighter Talents: Battlerager Vigor

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 16, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8.


AC: 19 Fort: 16 Reflex: 12 Will: 11
HP: 31 Surges: 12 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +4, Endurance +8, Athletics +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics -2, Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Dungeoneering +3, Heal +1, History, Insight +1, Nature +1, Perception +1, Religion, Stealth -2, Streetwise -1, Thievery -2

FEATS
Level 1: Improved Vigor

POWERS
Fighter at-will 1: Crushing Surge
Fighter at-will 1: Tide of Iron
Fighter encounter 1: Shield Bash
Fighter daily 1: Knee Breaker

ITEMS
Scale Armor, Heavy Shield, Warhammer, Adventurer's Kit

Modifié par MerinTB, 04 janvier 2010 - 10:16 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

I would be mopre interested to see the NPCs stats in Shadwrun terms.



Morrigan would definitely have the Animal Empathy, Magician and Toughness positive qualities, with the Uncouth negative quality.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

I would be mopre interested to see the NPCs stats in Shadwrun terms.

Morrigan would definitely have the Animal Empathy, Magician and Toughness positive qualities, with the Uncouth negative quality.

I suppose Leli would have a stupidly high level of Tailored Pheromones.

[Killian Kalthorne]

MerinTB wrote...
Honestly, if in your group of players there isn't one person with most of the books, one person with the DDI subscription, or one person with a library card who can check out the D&D books from the public library - then I feel for your very poor, very rural, role-playing group.

Our group doesn't tend to buy online subscriptions to anything.  I won't for MMOs so why would I for DDI?  Also why should one player have most of the books?  The books tend to be $30 a pop, and with this economy that is a good chunk of change for a nonessential item.  Also our library, being a small town library, doesn't have a gaming section.

However, I do owe you a bit of an apology for harping on 4e.  We gamers are an opinionated lot.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

I would be mopre interested to see the NPCs stats in Shadwrun terms.

Morrigan would definitely have the Animal Empathy, Magician and Toughness positive qualities, with the Uncouth negative quality.

I suppose Leli would have a stupidly high level of Tailored Pheromones.

I would make her as a Type 1 Human Changling with Glamour and Astral Sight.

[Kelanil]

I'm sure 4E D&D rules would actually lend itself well to video games but to me I can't stand the new edition of D&D. They took some of the more enjoyable things such as the lore of Forgotten Realms and the like and just flushed it down the toilet. Admittedly I'm one of those people who can enjoy games that are somewhat flawed design wise if the story and lore are good. DOA is somewhat in that boat. Decent story but the game itself on the console is somewhat lacking in polish and all the numerous glitches. If I want to play a game like 4E D&D then I'll play WoW, Diablo, etc. don't get me wrong I enjoy those games but the stories and backgrounds are somewhat lacking in games such as that.