| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mitchellboeck |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 00:55:48
So I've heard a lot of bad things about the 4e realms but it seems like there is an equal number of people that like it. The people that hate 4e seem to state the reasons for their hates a lot more then the people that like it do. Sooo...what are some of the good things about it? My philosophy is usually if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and in my opinion 3.5 wasn't broke. If I like the things I hear, however, I might just try 4e. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Jul 2011 : 03:49:07
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I had a lot of problems with the 4e realms, but I also had a lot of problems with 4e. That all being said, from what I recalled, I thought the idea of the undead "kingdom" that existed anywhere there were large deposits of undead was an interesting concept. The new continent that replaced Maztica also wasn't too bad, though they could have left Maztica and just had a new continent be found (or phase in). Not that I was a big Maztica fan either.
I've been fiddling with the idea of combining the Eminence of Araunt and a more fantasy, less steampunk version of Cryx.
I suppose it goes without saying, that I'd really like to see your finished product. 
Oh, it's just a rough idea right now, not even notes... Basically, respin the Eminence as an emerging nation of undead, one that relies on these scary critters that seem to be some dire mix of undead and golem... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jul 2011 : 02:01:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I had a lot of problems with the 4e realms, but I also had a lot of problems with 4e. That all being said, from what I recalled, I thought the idea of the undead "kingdom" that existed anywhere there were large deposits of undead was an interesting concept. The new continent that replaced Maztica also wasn't too bad, though they could have left Maztica and just had a new continent be found (or phase in). Not that I was a big Maztica fan either.
I've been fiddling with the idea of combining the Eminence of Araunt and a more fantasy, less steampunk version of Cryx.
I suppose it goes without saying, that I'd really like to see your finished product. |
| Aryalómė |
Posted - 18 Jul 2011 : 01:33:37
I love 4e's game mechanics. It makes us spell caster's lives MUCH easier. I really love the Points of Light setting as well. I just don't like what they did to FR. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Jul 2011 : 18:06:50
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I had a lot of problems with the 4e realms, but I also had a lot of problems with 4e. That all being said, from what I recalled, I thought the idea of the undead "kingdom" that existed anywhere there were large deposits of undead was an interesting concept. The new continent that replaced Maztica also wasn't too bad, though they could have left Maztica and just had a new continent be found (or phase in). Not that I was a big Maztica fan either.
I've been fiddling with the idea of combining the Eminence of Araunt and a more fantasy, less steampunk version of Cryx. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Jul 2011 : 18:03:21
I had a lot of problems with the 4e realms, but I also had a lot of problems with 4e. That all being said, from what I recalled, I thought the idea of the undead "kingdom" that existed anywhere there were large deposits of undead was an interesting concept. The new continent that replaced Maztica also wasn't too bad, though they could have left Maztica and just had a new continent be found (or phase in). Not that I was a big Maztica fan either. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 14 Jul 2011 : 05:25:26
I dig that the dwarves no longer subscribe to the League of the Silver Marches/Luruar. Dwarves do not belong with orcs! Orcs should've never been admitted in the first place, but since they were, it's good that the dwarves took some sort of corrective action, belatedly. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 10 Jul 2011 : 16:06:46
Things I like of 4e FR:
The Novels The writing has become more to my taste as of late, snappy, fast sword and sorcery tales with a touch of darkness in them.
The Feywild Really like the way the Feywild has a more prominent role in the world of Abeir-Toril.
Abeir Good potential for world building DM's here.
Primordial lore I have a passion for the prehistory of D&D and Fearun and the reveal of the struggle of the Gods vs the Primordials answers some questions AND provides with new mysteries.
High-Imaskar This empire of arcane minded once-humans has a lot of potential for both intrigue based play and high level adventuring.
Waterdeep I think the evolution of 15th century Waterdeep was handled with elegance. I love the London-like feel of its wards, the connections with the underworld and the organisation of its rulers and nobility.
Sea of Fallen Stars I like what they have done here. The lowering of the sealevel gives us the reveal of new adventuring locales and exposed the excellent new threat of the city of Xxiphu
Mysterious Dieties I think the divine upheaval worked out positivly because of the uncertainty that has been reintroduced into faith on Toril. Who is a mask and who is the real power? Where are my charcters prayers going to? What happens if I don't get noticed on the Fugue plane and don't get to enter my preferred afterlife? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2011 : 14:58:44
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase
....
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "What do you like about the post-Spellplague Realms?"
No because I want to know more about 4e in a general way than the FR 4e way. I'm debating weather to play it or not and I think I might because of the responses.
I figured it was ok to talk about 4E in a general way due to this from the OP.
But I did get off topic with the 3e Warlock, so apologies there.
@ mitchellboeck: Is there anything specific you want to know about 4E in general or FR-4E specifically? I'm not sure what else to go into about the mechanics side of things unless you want to know more about Hybrids and the Essential stuff?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jul 2011 : 14:13:25
We seem to be focusing more on the mechanics of 4E, when the original post was about the setting, not the rules... |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 09 Jul 2011 : 08:43:17
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think someone had over on you. The invocation your thinking about is Eldritch Glaive (Dragon Magic supplement) which allows a warlock to manifest his EB into a melee-based weapon, but only on a Full-Attack action. In additon, the EB-Glaive doesn't factor in Weapon Damage you might be using (just EB damage). There are some benefits such as a Touch attack and it can be used in conjunction with Power Attack so Multiclassing with Fighter isn't all that bad. I dont feel that this is particularly overpowerd given the Warlock's BAB, hit points, and armor proficiency. A warlock who goes into combat with this and gets up close is asking for a punch in the face, lol.
-The first two Blast Shape Invocations.
Eldritch Spear: Blast range increases to 250 feet.
Hideous Blow: Melee attack channels Eldritch Blast |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 18:29:10
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Yeah, I was talking about the 3e one. At low levels, it seemed broken to me. It has very long range attack, can be imbued into a weapon (basically giving a 1st level character a +1 magical weapon, with the extra 1d6 of damage), and has an unlimited duration, lasting long after the measly 4-5 spells a regular spellcaster at that level has. At that point in the game, there's only a few creatures that have any kind of SR/DR, and touch attacks are normally fairly easy, negating those hurdles for at least the first couple of levels.
I think someone had over on you. The invocation your thinking about is Eldritch Glaive (Dragon Magic supplement) which allows a warlock to manifest his EB into a melee-based weapon, but only on a Full-Attack action. In additon, the EB-Glaive doesn't factor in Weapon Damage you might be using (just EB damage). There are some benefits such as a Touch attack and it can be used in conjunction with Power Attack so Multiclassing with Fighter isn't all that bad. I dont feel that this is particularly overpowerd given the Warlock's BAB, hit points, and armor proficiency. A warlock who goes into combat with this and gets up close is asking for a punch in the face, lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
The relative lack of overall support, in terms of magical items and PrCs and the like certainly hurts it though, as compared to other classes. The class didn't debut that close to the end of 3e, either, so I wonder why it received such little support? My guess, maybe, is that because 'Infernal' is kind of shoe-horned into how the class works/is described, that automatically made it a kind of niche class, and stuff in, say, Dragon Magic, you're not going to find too much matching the Warlock's kind of topic in that book.
There is often a compare/contrast with the Warlock and Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic supplement) as both use Invocations, both have a at-will/destructive ability (Dragon breath vs. Eldritch Blast). But there is actually more support for the Dragonfire Adept mainly due to other supplements. They gain support thorough the Dragon Magic book, Draconimicon, Races of the Dragon, and (I think) Dragons of Faerūn as well as Player's Handbook 2 as they can use the Dragon Shaman's auras as well. And I'm not including magical items they can use as well. The warlock.....Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, Dragon Magic. And that's it.
The reason I feel they got so little love is because it was one of those "iconic" classes that could've been done better as a Theme for the Sorcerer (or even Warmage). It was used, possibly, as a Filler for more information in Complete Arcane. I don't know how fans reacted to the class though, so it could've received a lot of negative criticism and thus got little support in favor of other, more favorite, classies (ie. Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter).
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-In another thread, I read that they changed the names of all/some of the core 4e classes, because of introduced 'subclasses' or whatever. What are the odds, in the future, Warlock is changed to something else, so that 'good' pacts can be introduced? How many pacts have been published, so far?
Well I doubt they'll rename the warlock, mainly because they already have 2 (sub-classes)and they just did a revision of the class through DDI article (free, BTW) and didn't change the name. The sub-classes are the Hexblade (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) and the Binder (Hereos of Shadow). As for the number of pacts....There's the Fey, Star, and Infernal (PHB), Dark (FRPG), White Well (Dragon article), and Gloom (hereos of shadow) which represent all the 3 classes pacts. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 17:42:49
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Sounds like the v3.5 Warlock (Eldritch Blast was 60ft. and an invocation could double the range). But even the v3.5 Warlock wasn't very powerful IMO. For one, even though his Eldritch Blast (or EB) was at-will and could be augmented, it still required an attack roll vs. Touch AND was subject to Spell Resistance. Then take into account the fact that it didn't progress as well as say....the Rogue's Sneak Attack and you have a one-trick pony. In addition, the v3.5 Warlock suffered from a lack of support in all aspects. Hardly any feat support and very little in the way of Prestige Classes. They'd get one or two magical items that were tailored to the class and a few invocations mentioned in a few source books, but that's it.
I'd say any saving grace of the class came from the non-EB invocations that could be used all the time which mimmicked wizards spells like See Invisibility, Fly, and so forth. But even they weren't really all that awe-inspiring at later levels of play. And it never seemed to be a very "team" player class.
-Yeah, I was talking about the 3e one. At low levels, it seemed broken to me. It has very long range attack, can be imbued into a weapon (basically giving a 1st level character a +1 magical weapon, with the extra 1d6 of damage), and has an unlimited duration, lasting long after the measly 4-5 spells a regular spellcaster at that level has. At that point in the game, there's only a few creatures that have any kind of SR/DR, and touch attacks are normally fairly easy, negating those hurdles for at least the first couple of levels. After the first couple of levels of the game, I've never seen it "in action", so I can't say anything about that. The relative lack of overall support, in terms of magical items and PrCs and the like certainly hurts it though, as compared to other classes. The class didn't debut that close to the end of 3e, either, so I wonder why it received such little support? My guess, maybe, is that because 'Infernal' is kind of shoe-horned into how the class works/is described, that automatically made it a kind of niche class, and stuff in, say, Dragon Magic, you're not going to find too much matching the Warlock's kind of topic in that book.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Me neither. The name Warlock pretty much says he's a bad-guy in nature or at least one you wouldn't want babysitting your kids, lol.
-In another thread, I read that they changed the names of all/some of the core 4e classes, because of introduced 'subclasses' or whatever. What are the odds, in the future, Warlock is changed to something else, so that 'good' pacts can be introduced? How many pacts have been published, so far? |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 16:59:58
Firstly, totally on board with Diffan. 
Secondly, about the warlock "underpowered" myth: My paragon group had a tiefling infernal warlock (hellbringer) who was basically ridiculous in the damage department. She would regularly put creatures down with 2-3 hits, and had one particularly ruthless out-of-turn power called "killing flames" (I think), which was a "when a creature is bloodied by an attack" blast that would routinely kill standards or elites that another character had bloodied. Her biggest frustration was that *her* attacks would bloody a creature, and you can't do immediate actions on your own turn.
I myself would be wary of the Char_Opp boards. They are amazingly useful at providing some cool ideas and very good at pointing out points of breakage in the mechanics, but they tend to have tunnel vision as regards their builds. Not that this is a bad thing, but it's a particular style of play that might not work for everyone. Use/trust at your own risk.
Thirdly, the question in the thread is what do you LIKE about 4e and 4e FR, not what do you DISLIKE. I appreciate people have issues with the game and the setting, but explicitly ignoring repeated calls for positivity from posters and from the moderators is not cool, guys.
Cheers |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 15:37:05
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
-No more ECL. It was VERY refreshing to know I could be basically any race I wanted and not have to skip out on class levels to do it. Normally I just roll up a human, but it's nice to switch it up, and the standard races get pretty boring after years and years of generic fantasy!
Totally forgot about this (shows how long I've been taking it for granted) and it's a BIG reason why the non-standard races are becoming more popular. Drow, Genasi, Warforged, Minotaur, Githzeri(sp?) are all viable races for PCS and have aspects that make them great for certain classes.
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
-Self-healing options. It takes a special kind of person to enjoy playing the role of medic, and it was nice to know that you didn't necessarily -have- to have someone dedicated to the role if your group didn't include one of these special people.
The fact that the healer's mechanic is embrased by all the leader classes (Bard, Warlord, Cleric/Warpriest, Shaman, Ardent, etc..) makes it more appealing to those who don't want traditional style of healer. A warlord plays SOO much more different than a Cleric, yet both are pretty good at healing your allies. But your correct, each character has the "Second Wind" ability which allows them a small amount of healing and bonuses to defenses at the cost of a standard action (dwarves do it for a minor action).
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
-This next one is mostly speculation (since we never got very high level in our trials of 4E) but if I had to guess, I'd assume it's easier for high-level groups to deal with high-level encounters.
Lets get real for a minute: A group of 4 players at lvl 20 will NOT, realistically, be able to beat that great wyrm red, or that tarrasque, even though they were supposed to be the correct encounters for a group of that level. They were just too powerful!
I wouldn't necessarily say it's easier, but more viable. A group has a better chance of dealing with one such as the Tarrasque or a great wyrm but it could still result in one or more player deaths. Party dynamics play a more important role in combat, so the more synergy a group has and the more they work together to set up combos the easier it is to kill strong bad-guys. The type of synergy can be gained a number of ways like magical items or themes (like divine or radiant).
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
Level 20 wizards -should- be more powerful than level 20 fighters. It just makes sense! Is it balanced? No, but balance isn't needed to role play.
I probably couldn't disagree more. I think the word "powerful" is so subjective in relation to someone's analysis of any one specific thing (let alone D&D) that it begs for examples. The comparison in power between the Wizard and Fighter has been done for at lesat as long as AD&D/2E up through 4E with the wizard usually winning in the end, but I think it's always been a "who goes first?
game A fighter who goes first often can put out enough damage to render the wizard unconscious or has enough magical items to keep up with wizard's inate magical capabilities. A wizard who goes first often wins right out by save vs. death effects or spells that render the fighter useless or even just straight damage. But it's always been been measured by initiative. I use the two above examples from a 3E perspective.
In 4E, the wizard has LOTS of spells that dish out harmful effects that render the target daze, dominated, slowed, immobilized, take ongoing damage, weakened, unconscious, etc.. in addition to damage. They also have access to self-protecting spells such as Shield, Wizard's Escape, Fly, Mirror Image, AND other utility spells which don't have to directly contribute to combat like Dispel Magic.
Adversly, the fighter is designed for close range combat, dealing moderate damgae and adding on debilitating effects like slowing targets he attacks, pulling targets towards him, knocking targets prone, etc. He's also versatile in his weapon selection and certain powers gain added benefits depending on what weapons are used.
What does this comparison mean? It means that both are effective at doing one specific role well. It means that both are powerful in their own right when the situations favor their speciality. It shows that you can be good at your job without other classes stepping on your toes through easy "fix-it" spells (like in v3.5). It also show that....in comparison between editions that if the wizard goes first, he'll probably win and if the fighter goes first, he'll probably win. But such "Vs." simulations are a thing of the past as monster's are no longer created just like PCs. Sure, they have similar roles but a Fighter going up against a Controller monster has just as much to contribute to the battle as his wizard compaion does.
quote:
Originally posted by Neo2151
Also, I like my tools to feel unique to my class. In 4E, all the tools are identical, and the only thing that seperates them from class to class are the fluff descriptions. That's upsetting.
I've never felt this with 4E. A Magic Missle works completly different than a cleric's Astral Seal. A Fighter's Cleave power works and is described differently than a Ranger's Twin Strike or a Paladin's Ardent Strike. I think the reason people in general feel that they're the same is because the layout is the same. All at-will powers are color-coded Green, regardless of class. All powers have the same flow of information (Keyword, target, hit, effect, etc..) in a line-by-line order which can give the illusion of repetitiveness. No question, 4E kept things the same to make it easier for people to read and comprehend. You know that if it's green, it's an At-Will, reds are encounters, and grey is a daily power.
I also think that because 4E is a more narritive game (instead of 3e's simulationist) that a player benefits more from describing what's going on in combat rather than saying "I use Ardent Strike". A round with my paladin goes something like this:
DM: "Ok, the goblin rushs at you with a blood-freezing yell and attempts to put 6 ft. of a wooden spear in your gut." *rolls* "Miss, the spear glances off your shining plate. Your up."
Me (Paladin): "Right, with a quick prayer to Torm I focus my wrath at the goblin and strike him with holy might. I'm attacking with Holy Strike." *rolls* "Does a 19 vs. AC hit?"
DM: "Yes. Roll for damage."
Me (Paladin): "Ok" *adds math in head* "I deal 23 radiant damage."
DM: "Your powerful swing cleaves into the gobin's chest, caving in his rib-cage and dropping him to the floor."
I did this to illustrate that it's practically the same as other edtions, just with the mechanics being showcased in the books. You get as much role-play with the edition as you put into it. If you use the rules to just run combat after combat with no role-play put in by yourself then that's what you'll get out of it. |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 05:54:38
Well, I can't really comment on too much about FR's version of 4E since I really haven't bothered to keep track! (The moment I read that Mystra was dead-dead but magic was fine? I walked away.  )
But as to 4E in general, well, I'm not really a fan of that either, but there are a few things I liked about it when I tried it:
-No more ECL. It was VERY refreshing to know I could be basically any race I wanted and not have to skip out on class levels to do it. Normally I just roll up a human, but it's nice to switch it up, and the standard races get pretty boring after years and years of generic fantasy!
-Self-healing options. It takes a special kind of person to enjoy playing the role of medic, and it was nice to know that you didn't necessarily -have- to have someone dedicated to the role if your group didn't include one of these special people.
-This next one is mostly speculation (since we never got very high level in our trials of 4E) but if I had to guess, I'd assume it's easier for high-level groups to deal with high-level encounters.
Lets get real for a minute: A group of 4 players at lvl 20 will NOT, realistically, be able to beat that great wyrm red, or that tarrasque, even though they were supposed to be the correct encounters for a group of that level. They were just too powerful!
Fighter - "I swing my (weapon) at the tarrasque! *rolls dice* I hit it! Okay, after I add this and this, I do such-and-such damage!"
DM - "Great job! Unfortunately a bunch of that damage was soaked by the creature's DR. Okay, well, now it's the tarrasque's turn, and it's regeneration heals it for most of the rest of the damage you dealt. It decides you were annoying with your last hit, so it steps on you with it's +40 attack roll. You can't hope to have an AC that high? That's too bad. With it's ridiculously high strength and natural damage it easily hits you and deals (at least 1/3rd of your health) in damage."
Wizard - "Ouch man! Well, obviously we need to fell this thing, so I'll use my most powerful spell on it! Meteor Swarm!"
DM - *rolls secret dice* Well, bad news! That meteor swarm reflected off it's carapace and hits you instead! I hope you didn't roll high damage... oh, you did? Well, looks like you're practically dead!
Healer - "I just sit there having a mental break down because my friends are getting hurt at such a rate that I can't hope to keep up!"
And that's a creature that doesn't have the intelligence or spellcasting potential that the great wyrm would have! Scary!
...
Okay, so I got off on a bit of a thing there, and I apologize for that, but I have a point! lol
Unfortunately, everything else about 4E has to go into the "dislike" pile.
Level 20 wizards -should- be more powerful than level 20 fighters. It just makes sense! Is it balanced? No, but balance isn't needed to role play.
Also, I like my tools to feel unique to my class. In 4E, all the tools are identical, and the only thing that seperates them from class to class are the fluff descriptions. That's upsetting. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 03:00:37
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
NOT A THING!
John
We have already asked to refrain from posting things like this, in this thread. We're not saying everyone has to sing 4E's praises or wax eloquent on how they want to have the 4E Realms's baby... Heck, my own overall dislike of both is well-known, and I've been attacked for my own negative opinions. We're just asking that people leave negative commentary out of a thread focusing on the positive. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 08 Jul 2011 : 02:42:31
NOT A THING!
John |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Jul 2011 : 18:54:29
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Is it really sub-optimal? I played with someone who was a Warlock, and thought the class was way overpowered, at least around the lower levels (we never got past six, I don't think). He had a range with his Warlock Blast of something like 120 feet, could use it to augment his weapon to give it extra damage, was able to morph it into an area effect...A lot going on that other lower level characters weren't able to match.
Sounds like the v3.5 Warlock (Eldritch Blast was 60ft. and an invocation could double the range). But even the v3.5 Warlock wasn't very powerful IMO. For one, even though his Eldritch Blast (or EB) was at-will and could be augmented, it still required an attack roll vs. Touch AND was subject to Spell Resistance. Then take into account the fact that it didn't progress as well as say....the Rogue's Sneak Attack and you have a one-trick pony. In addition, the v3.5 Warlock suffered from a lack of support in all aspects. Hardly any feat support and very little in the way of Prestige Classes. They'd get one or two magical items that were tailored to the class and a few invocations mentioned in a few source books, but that's it.
I'd say any saving grace of the class came from the non-EB invocations that could be used all the time which mimmicked wizards spells like See Invisibility, Fly, and so forth. But even they weren't really all that awe-inspiring at later levels of play. And it never seemed to be a very "team" player class.
As for the 4E Warlock, well the Char_Ops are very critical of "Strikers" and they rank the Warlock pretty low on the pole. This is because they measure the role of Striker to equal how much DPR you can produce in a round and in an encounter. That's considered teh very basic function of a Striker, dealing damage. And they measure up all other Strikers to the Ranger (probably one of the best in this area) because he simply puts out lots of DPR.
The main problem with the Warlock isn't his powers or the damage they produce, it's the lack of minor attack and out-of-turn attacks. The reason why the Ranger (melee-based mostly) is so great at turning out damage is because he has a host of Encounter and Daily powers that trigger when it's not his turn or takes 1 minor action. So a typical encounter is the Ranger attacking 2 to 3 times on his turn and possibly even on a monsters turn as well. Add in Racial powers such as the Half-Orc's Furious Assault which adds 1 (W) to a successful attack and the damage keeps on coming. Warlocks don't have that ability. So they settle for secondary controller by adding debilitating effects onto their attacks. This is an OK route, by my standards anyways, just not for the Char_Op people.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-It wouldn't surprise me if no 'Good' pacts were offered because of the class name, and the association that it has with...dubiousness.
Me neither. The name Warlock pretty much says he's a bad-guy in nature or at least one you wouldn't want babysitting your kids, lol. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 07 Jul 2011 : 18:01:19
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree. While some on the WotC forums will repeatedly mention how sub-optimial the Warlock is in terms of damage, optimization, blah-blah it's still one of the biggest classes people cherry-pick from to gain some really interesting combinations and class featrues. For example, people often Hybrid with the Warlock just to gain the Eldritch Strike power (because it can be used as a Melee-basic attack) and can be used with your Constitution score. Or for the Shadow Walk feature (move 3 squares on your turn, gain partial concealment for a round, nice!).
I also like how the Warlock is themed towards pacts that AREN'T always diabolic or infernal in nature. And even though none of the Pact's powers are given to you from overly Good sources, it's not always the worst of the worst either. If only they would fix the Star-Pact warlock so that it's powers key off of Charisma or Constitution.
-Is it really sub-optimal? I played with someone who was a Warlock, and thought the class was way overpowered, at least around the lower levels (we never got past six, I don't think). He had a range with his Warlock Blast of something like 120 feet, could use it to augment his weapon to give it extra damage, was able to morph it into an area effect...A lot going on that other lower level characters weren't able to match.
-It wouldn't surprise me if no 'Good' pacts were offered because of the class name, and the association that it has with...dubiousness. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Jul 2011 : 03:03:59
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Diffan mentioned Warlock, and that's another thing I like about 4e. I don't think I've ever played a Warlock, but I like the concept of them. In 3e, it was generically default that a Warlock character got his powers from entering into a pact with a Demon. The description of the class said that the powers could come from elsewhere, but Demon was pretty much the default standard, in terms of descriptions, powers, etc. I like how in 4e, Warlocks choose their pacts, and each pact comes with different powers, more or less based upon what kind of entity it is that the Warlock is giving his/her being to.
I agree. While some on the WotC forums will repeatedly mention how sub-optimial the Warlock is in terms of damage, optimization, blah-blah it's still one of the biggest classes people cherry-pick from to gain some really interesting combinations and class featrues. For example, people often Hybrid with the Warlock just to gain the Eldritch Strike power (because it can be used as a Melee-basic attack) and can be used with your Constitution score. Or for the Shadow Walk feature (move 3 squares on your turn, gain partial concealment for a round, nice!).
I also like how the Warlock is themed towards pacts that AREN'T always diabolic or infernal in nature. And even though none of the Pact's powers are given to you from overly Good sources, it's not always the worst of the worst either. If only they would fix the Star-Pact warlock so that it's powers key off of Charisma or Constitution.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 06 Jul 2011 : 18:11:39
-Diffan mentioned Warlock, and that's another thing I like about 4e. I don't think I've ever played a Warlock, but I like the concept of them. In 3e, it was generically default that a Warlock character got his powers from entering into a pact with a Demon. The description of the class said that the powers could come from elsewhere, but Demon was pretty much the default standard, in terms of descriptions, powers, etc. I like how in 4e, Warlocks choose their pacts, and each pact comes with different powers, more or less based upon what kind of entity it is that the Warlock is giving his/her being to. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Jul 2011 : 05:05:30
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
Thank you everyone for replying. There have been a lot more responses then I thought there would be and I just don't have the time to answer really even a little bit of them. If you do post though know that I still am reading and considering what you write.
Hmm, well I'm not sure what else you'd like to know. So at first, I'll just start with the classes. In 4E you have a multitude of classes to choose from. These classes are comprised of "Power Sources". For example the Fighter and Ranger have the Martial Power Source (meaning their powers are called exploits and there's nothing inherantly magical about them). Other power sources include Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, and Shadow (so far). There's nothing really mechanical about these divisions other than to show where and how a class receives it's abilities to do what it does. There are some feats and Paragon Paths that have Power Source requirements, but these are just a handful.
Another aspect (which I think we touched on) was how classes now have "Roles". And while this is often a base-line mechanic for each specific class, classes often branch into other roles thorough class feature, feats, and play style. There are 4 roles: Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker. Each one plays a significant aspect in the party's make-up.
Controller is used primarly to control the battlefield and the enemies on it. By creating areas of damaging terrain (ie. Wall of Fire), debilitating monsters directly (effects like Stun, Daze), or mass damaging spells that squash minions (like Scorching Burst) allow the controller to really take hold of combat. Controllers really don't have a specific mechanic that makes them a controller, so they're often viewed as the most versatile of the roles because there so many ways to become good at Controlling. Examples of Controllers would be a Wizard, Druid, Invoker, and Psion.
Defender is used primarly to lock down enemies by "Marking" them. This mechanic is used to make sure the Defender isn't ignored by the Big Bad End Guy (or BBEG) or otherwise considered useless at the table. Each defender has the Marking mechanic (or a division there of*) that imposes an effect on the monster. This effect is a -2 penalty to attack rolls on powers which do NOT include the defender. If the monster ignores the defender, there is often a retributive effect the defender does that makes the monster re-consider it's target. This is often referred to as a "Mark's Punishment". Examples of Defenders would be the Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, and Warden.
Leaders are the support memebers of the party. All of them have an ability that allows their allies to re-gain hit points (a power usually ending with "Word", such as "Healing Word" or "Inspiring Word"). This mechanic is featured throught all the Leaders but their abilities often have divere effects, based on class. And from there, each leader is vastly different from the other in play style and options. Examples of Leaders would be the Bard, Cleric, Shaman, and Warlord.
Strikers are ones that are designed to do LOTS of damage to 1 or a few specific targets. Most of them have a "Striker Mechanic" that boosts damage when certain measures are met. This often comes in the form of extra dice (like +1d6 or a static bonus to damage). The striker is probably the most self-serving of the Roles as it's primary goal is to deal the most amout of damage the fastes to end encounters more quickly. Examples of Strikers would be the Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Warlock.
I hope this helps you understand why Roles are important in character creation & design and gives you a better understand of party make-up. It's because of these roles that combat synergy is so widely liked in 4th edition. |
| mitchellboeck |
Posted - 05 Jul 2011 : 23:39:49
Thank you everyone for replying. There have been a lot more responses then I thought there would be and I just don't have the time to answer really even a little bit of them. If you do post though know that I still am reading and considering what you write. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 04 Jul 2011 : 05:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
Off the top of my head, my favorite bits include (certain elements of, at least):
- High Imaskar
Indeed. Even though they're but a shadow of their former might. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 04 Jul 2011 : 03:13:53
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
The Swordmage!!!!!! 
There is also word that a new Bladesinger class might appear in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide set to be released...EDIT: August 16th!! Whether this is a fully fledged (independant) class or an Essential-ized version of the Swordmage remains to be seen. Maybe Erik would like to give us another nugget of info or two?? 
Can't say anything definitive, but *I* for one really like it. I suspect, based on your post, that you will as well.
Cheers |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2011 : 12:49:06
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
The Swordmage!!!!!!
+1
I think the Swordmage is one of the best magic/swordsman "Gishes" I've seen yet in D&D. Older classes/options like the Duskblade (and it's Bladesinger variant by Costa) of v3.5 are pretty good and flavorful but their limited spell selection reduces their effectiveness by a good margin IMO. Other attempts in v3.5, such as the actual Bladesinger PrCs....well this is a positive thread so I'll say that I didn't care for them.
There is also word that a new Bladesinger class might appear in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide set to be released...EDIT: August 16th!! Whether this is a fully fledged (independant) class or an Essential-ized version of the Swordmage remains to be seen. Maybe Erik would like to give us another nugget of info or two??
Which ever is the case, I'm excited regardless. I do hope that it is an Essential-ized version of the Swordmage though. One that's based on the "Striker" or "Controller" role with a good mix of melee-based powers followed up with strong and damaging ranged attacks or even powers that allow the class to counter or immediately interrupt other opponents actions.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-I don't like the concept that non-magical classes have access to magic, in performing rituals that they know of, or being able to forge magical arms/armors/etc. (Bruenor forged Aegis-Fang in the manner he did as per the 1e rules, where Dwarves were allowed to do that once in their lifetimes, or some such). The feat represents having knowledge of how to perform the ritual, yes, but in my games, a character who does not have the ability to cast magical spells, via class, anything regarding magic is "too far gone". Until they get the basics down- one level in a spellcasting class- having knowledge on how to perform a magical ritual isn't going to help them none.
Fair enough |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 03 Jul 2011 : 06:25:53
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I actually find the idea that they're useful to non-magical classes more appealing than to already inclined magical classes. For me, this helps explain how Dwarves are able to craft mighty and powerful magical items when wizards and arcane magic is more rare with the stout folk. For example, how exactly did Breunor craft Aegis-fang when he himself isn't a wizard or has any magical abilities what so ever? You could say he has the words and power written in a scroll but then he'd need to be able have an ability to cast spells from magical items (Use Magic Device for example).
So for me, because it requires a feat and components to craft rituals every single time, PCs aren't going to be spamming this every day. It adds a little magical flare to your character but doesn't overtly break the idea that wizards and mages use magic, fighters and warrior don't since it's not an innate ability.
-I don't like the concept that non-magical classes have access to magic, in performing rituals that they know of, or being able to forge magical arms/armors/etc. (Bruenor forged Aegis-Fang in the manner he did as per the 1e rules, where Dwarves were allowed to do that once in their lifetimes, or some such). The feat represents having knowledge of how to perform the ritual, yes, but in my games, a character who does not have the ability to cast magical spells, via class, anything regarding magic is "too far gone". Until they get the basics down- one level in a spellcasting class- having knowledge on how to perform a magical ritual isn't going to help them none. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 03 Jul 2011 : 00:39:05
The Swordmage!!!!!! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2011 : 23:40:50
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
I liked the list of treasures in the FRCG.
I liked that, too. |
| Abenabin Gimblescrew |
Posted - 02 Jul 2011 : 22:35:58
What I liked about 4e Realms is some bits and pieces.
For countries: I like Cormyr - for showing how a good nation can become an imperial power, which is lacking in most fantasy campaigns.
I also like the take on the Shade, but not so much on Sembia becoming a satrap of Shade. It just seems rather contrary to the previous editions on their attitudes. While they would gladly sell their family members to their death for power and coin they don't seem like the type to just roll over. I always saw them as having a strong national pride. Allies I could see, but it sounded like the Shade just completely dominated them without a fight.
I like how dragons are more common place, but not how that came about into being.
I like how some deities changed and to save my embarrassment won't try to spell the Sun god's new/old name (Don't have the time to look it up right now for the spelling). I like how Bane got strong again, but that is probably the end of those changes I liked.
The Sovereignty was a nice twist. I'm always for a little Cthulu creatures having master plans with alien looks and agendas to most mortals.
As for the things I didn't like or disagreed with completely - well if it isn't on the list of likes it would be on the other list. I'll just leave it at that. |
|
|
