| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 13:01:50
|
| Seems restrictive, what if you allow more ''power-swaps'' for the same roles (e.g. strikers, defenders ...), would that break a lot of balance? |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 14:02:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Seems restrictive, what if you allow more ''power-swaps'' for the same roles (e.g. strikers, defenders ...), would that break a lot of balance?
Not really. The restrictiveness is designed to keep you in the same role that you originally went into and swapping additional powers with a class of the same role just adds different effects, but balance is preserved. For example, if my Paladin wanted to gain some Fighter-based powers (more than the usual norm) it wouldn't overly complicate or imbalance the game much. Even with classes of different roles, it wouldn't imbalance the game that much either like my Paladin taking more than 1 Barbarian encounter powers for example. This can also be done through the rules with Hybrid classes. A paladin|barbarian using Strength and Charisma would be a pretty awesome character concept plus it synergizes well. Gaining "striker" powers with the healing/defensive route of the paladin makes for a well-rounded class.
Plus, I think this restrictiveness actually helps people make characters that have flavor but are still playable. The reason I feel this way is that there have been people I know who played 3.5 and were boasting about their level fighter 5/wizard 7/cleric 8 character and how bad-ass they were when a straight level 20 wizard would be much much better (or level 20 cleric etc.) Plus it cuts down on Min/Max-ing, something 3.5 was infamous with.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 04:02:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Plus it cuts down on Min/Max-ing, something 3.5 was infamous with.
Bah. Min-maxing was around long before 3.5, and it'll be around long after 4E. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 09:36:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Plus, I think this restrictiveness actually helps people make characters that have flavor but are still playable. The reason I feel this way is that there have been people I know who played 3.5 and were boasting about their level fighter 5/wizard 7/cleric 8 character and how bad-ass they were when a straight level 20 wizard would be much much better (or level 20 cleric etc.) Plus it cuts down on Min/Max-ing, something 3.5 was infamous with.
yea, that's why we started playing a near-classless system of d&d, maybe it's time to steal some more ideas from 4e, did the mechanics become more variable after PHB 1? |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 13:37:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Plus, I think this restrictiveness actually helps people make characters that have flavor but are still playable. The reason I feel this way is that there have been people I know who played 3.5 and were boasting about their level fighter 5/wizard 7/cleric 8 character and how bad-ass they were when a straight level 20 wizard would be much much better (or level 20 cleric etc.) Plus it cuts down on Min/Max-ing, something 3.5 was infamous with.
yea, that's why we started playing a near-classless system of d&d, maybe it's time to steal some more ideas from 4e, did the mechanics become more variable after PHB 1?
4E is more class structured than 3E/3.5. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 13:57:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
yea, that's why we started playing a near-classless system of d&d, maybe it's time to steal some more ideas from 4e, did the mechanics become more variable after PHB 1?
Not really sure what you mean by more variable. Ashe is correct in that the game is structured more towards what a specific class can accomplish, but this is usually for combat situations. Any class can take the Ritual Caster feats and make Magical Items or take Alchemy and make potions. So I think while combat is role-driven, out-of combat is more RP driven in that you don't need a specific class to do alot of stuff. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 15:15:03
|
Also, nothing is really stopping a DM from mixing up powers from different classes. You could easily house-rule the multiclass structure in that you can swap as many powers from one class as you want while keeping the class features of the main class.
To give you an idea of what I mean, take the Fighter. He has an option that allow him to use a Two-weapon "build" called Tempest fighter. With this class feature, he gains benefits from using weapons with the Off-hand property and wearing light armor or chainmail. If you were to mix up Ranger TWF powers and the Fighter TWF powers it would only (minimally) increase the amount of damage the Fighter deals since Rangers rely on their Hunter's Quarry feature do dish out the damage per round. In addition, the Fighter can still full-fill his role by making attacks which "mark" opponents and thus, still be good at defending. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 01:41:02
|
Diffan, a claas-less system is one like Shadowrun or GURPS; where you do not have any 'classes' to build against. D&D (every edition) has never been, and probably never will be, class-less.
This brings up an interesting side-question I have for you, Diffan. Have you ever played any systems other than D&D/OGL? |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 17 Sep 2010 01:42:10 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 07:23:45
|
Diffan, you're speaking to the wrong audience by far. I had to get my wife to read this thread to ensure I wasn't interpreting it wrong (as I am a supporter of 4e). You're going to get challenged on each point you try to make, so keep that in mind.
Essentials has provided a consolidation of errata over the past couple of years and introduced a easier entry-point for people who have never played the game. It does not rewrite how the game is played or the core of the system. The contrast between D&D and AD&D or 3.0 and 3.5 is much greater and indeed an edition change. I feel WotC is trying to bring a more consorted effort as getting people into the game with ease. Essentials does this without necessarily hampering the type of player that has already existed since 2008.
I have played most systems out there for the past 20 years. They each have their own purpose, direction, and motivation for playing. You get from a game what you want to get from it. 4e provides a cleaner slate to riff off of in my extensive experience with it. Preparation to present the story each week in my home games is astonishingly less and I find it is easier to adapt things to my specific needs.
Ironically, 4e can easily be adapted to a class-less system if one chose to. In fact, its probably the first edition of D&D that has made it so easily. I wrote up an article relating to this on Critical-Hits.com -- it is a bit dated but the principle is there with minor adjustments. I don't have the link handy at the moment. |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 09:31:25
|
| I'm aware that I'm not the right audience, this is more for amateurs, still it seems there are a few ideas worth salvaging from 4e. Thanks Diffan |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 14:30:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Diffan, you're speaking to the wrong audience by far. I had to get my wife to read this thread to ensure I wasn't interpreting it wrong (as I am a supporter of 4e). You're going to get challenged on each point you try to make, so keep that in mind.
Essentials has provided a consolidation of errata over the past couple of years and introduced a easier entry-point for people who have never played the game. It does not rewrite how the game is played or the core of the system. The contrast between D&D and AD&D or 3.0 and 3.5 is much greater and indeed an edition change. I feel WotC is trying to bring a more consorted effort as getting people into the game with ease. Essentials does this without necessarily hampering the type of player that has already existed since 2008.
I have played most systems out there for the past 20 years. They each have their own purpose, direction, and motivation for playing. You get from a game what you want to get from it. 4e provides a cleaner slate to riff off of in my extensive experience with it. Preparation to present the story each week in my home games is astonishingly less and I find it is easier to adapt things to my specific needs.
Ironically, 4e can easily be adapted to a class-less system if one chose to. In fact, its probably the first edition of D&D that has made it so easily. I wrote up an article relating to this on Critical-Hits.com -- it is a bit dated but the principle is there with minor adjustments. I don't have the link handy at the moment.
Okay, let me just get some stuff out of the way. Then we can go back to discussing things.
People post on internet forums for (basically) 3 reasons: 1) To troll for arguments, unfortunately the easiest and most common of type; 2) To find people that agree with their outlook totally and reaffirm their beliefs - these types of threads tend to be the shortest since there's no dissension but just a bunch of people going +1 until bored; 3) To speak their mind and, hopefully, win over dissenters or expand their outlook on the subject through constructed argument and debate.
Now, the 3rd one is tricky because it can quickly devolve into #1 or, if there's no dissension, it becomes #2. I like #3. It's the reason I hang out on internet forums because the only way you truly learn and expand your (mental) horizons is through argument and debate. And just to be clear (again), you can argue and debate points without it becoming a flame war. Fortunately, I see a lot of argument here at the keep, with it rarely turning into flame wars. Of course, when scrolls do flame out, they do it spectacularly around here, which are more memorable, of course.
Now, in answer to Matt's post, yes, the general outlook of Candelkeep are gamers who do not like the 4th edition ruleset. I think the only reason that 3E/OGL/Pathfinder is mentioned so much around here is because so many of the scribes have house-ruled those systems to their own preferences, even if it isn't exactly like the written rules. Anyway, if you're posting here at Candlekeep, I can guarantee one thing above any rules systems arguments: You like the Forgotten Realms and the stories set there. Now, there have been a great many debates regarding the direction the Realms have gone and there will continue to be, since everyone has their favorite parts and 'not-so-favorite' parts.
Debates/arguments are healthy things and I *like* them. I like this scroll in particular because it has been generally flame-retardant, and Diffan has taken the time to answer questions/concerns raised by others. I'm not saying every post has been written with the utmost care or politeness, and I know and admit I'm guilty of typing before I think on more than one (or a dozen) occasions.
When I come to Candlekeep, I know that 95% of the time, scrolls will be informative and constructive to the general knowledge of the Realms. I also know that those 5% of scrolls that aren't turn into magnificent displays that stick in your memory so that visitors here will remember that 'hateful' scroll over the other nineteen that provided story/campaign/character ideas. And will base their opinion off that single scroll, using it to determine their opinion of the scribes here.
I go onto boards to learn and instruct. If I'm a part of a forum where I mostly lurk, it's because I have nothing constructive to add to the conversations. There have been a few rare occasions where I've tried to add something and been denounced for my opinion outright by almost every active poster on the board (and not in the constructive argumentative "Why do you XX?" way, but the "You so lamez loser" way). Those rare times usually lead me to abandon the forums completely. There's also been EXTREMELY rare times (I'm looking at you CBT forums) when there's simply too MUCH going on for me to even keep track of so I wind up lurking, reading only posts that really catch my eye and posting maybe 5 times a year. Then there's places like Candlekeep (and the new Official Shadowrun forums), where I feel completely at home, even if I don't agree with everyone there. Those places, I rack up the post count like crazy (if you thought my count was big here, look me up over on Shadowrun -- it opened two weeks back, I registered as FastJack and I've averaged almost 60 posts a DAY there). Sure, I'm derailed on occasion, but that's because of the comfort level of the forums, not to spite it.
Okay, now to get back on topic. I like Matt. I respect him both for his game contributions and for who he is as a person (from the little I know). But, if the fans of the 4E rules themselves can't agree on whether to consider the Essential line an edition change or not, then nothing that any party says will sway the argument. Matt and Diffan do not think it is a change. Myself, I never saw 3.5 as a 'change' to 3E. I got upset when 3.5 came out because I re-purchased the core rulebooks and felt swindled because the changes they made didn't qualify to me as being necessary to call it a new edition (I still think they could've just published a 4th Core book and called it an update or somesuch).
So, like everything else that is debated in the scrolls at the 'keep, it comes down to preference. Do you like Essentials? Good, use them. Do you dislike the Time of Troubles? Ignore it. Have fun.
As a postscript, I'd like to apologize if my question regarding Diffan's gaming experience came off as condescending, it truly was not intended to. I was trying to get a feel for his outlook on RPGs as a whole, not to imply anything else. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 16:36:27
|
Good post, Ashe--well said!
I'm a fan of the 4e rules, and I don't consider Essentials an edition change. I think the contrary attitude is rooted in the slightly different branding and lack of clarity regarding the purpose of Essentials. I made a post in the "Still Playing 3.5" thread which sums up my feeling about the direction of Essentials:
quote:
Essentials is indeed difficult to classify, as WotC's doing something it hasn't done before--adding another level without revising the game, so as to serve multiple functions: draw in players used to "how things used to be," simplify some of the rules, add options for older players, etc.
I compare it to writing a companion story for a novel that doesn't *have to* be read to enjoy that novel, nor does the story rely upon you having read the novel to enjoy it. You can enjoy either or both and in any order.
So there's my 2 cents.
Cheers
P.S. Also, to indulge in Internet Forum Boards Motivation #2 for a minute, Matt James is a heckuva guy.  Also props to Ashe and Diffan. |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 17:13:35
|
Thanks Erik and Matt. I agree that discussion is the key to opening up minds and doors alike. We, as a community, might not agree with how the game is played or the version of the Realms certain people find more attractive but at least we can agree that we're all first and foremost Realms fans.
@ Ashe: Though I've been playing since about the beginning of 2000, I've mainly stuck with WotC producs, namely 3.0/3.5/PF, a little of AD&D, 4E, d20 Modern, Star Wars: Saga. I'm happy with those medians and how they express the game. I've looked at other systems like Sword and Sorcery (which I think is now d20 right?), White Wolf, Mage-something or other, and even the LotR game...but they've just not interested me. Maybe it's because I don't really feel like learning a whole new system or that that I've had so much fun with 4E/d20 products. Who knows? And I have NO idea what GURPS is, lol.
As to the topic at hand (Essentials line), I'd have to agree with Erik that it doesn't even come off as an Edition-revision. WotC has learned through trial-and-error (lots of error, lol) that the best way to throw out additional support is by "up-dating" at certain points. This up-date (done via Internet and programs like the CB) is WAAYY more productive and less invasive than the 3.5 debacle. But even the up-dates to 4E can be taken in stride. Some people hate the "auto-hit" version of Magic Missile but there's nothing stopping these people from using the original version. By up-dating the rules every few months, the designers strive to make it a more balanced game where players can have just as much fun playing a Battlemind as they would playing a Druid. |
Edited by - Diffan on 17 Sep 2010 17:15:53 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 18:46:00
|
Okay... If you are at GenCon next year, we're meeting up and I'm dragging you to the White Wolf and Catalyst Game Labs booths. And GURPS is THE generic RPG (it's right there in the name: Generic Universal RolePlaying System). Steve Jackson has built his company around a rules system where you can build any kind of character from any type of setting/time era.
Saying you prefer 4E among your games when you've played only the d20/D&D games is akin to saying you prefer Sirloin above all other foods when you've eaten nothing but beef. Sirloin may very be the best thing you ever eat, but how do you know when you've never had chicken, pork or seafood? And this isn't a dig on you, it's just going along with what our parents used to tell us at the dinner table - "How do you know you don't like it if you don't try it?" [;D] |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 17 Sep 2010 18:46:36 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 19:32:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
it's just going along with what our parents used to tell us at the dinner table - "How do you know you don't like it if you don't try it?" [;D]
Agreed with Ashe. You should try a variety of games to see what you like. Maybe you really like 4e D&D, but you might equally like other systems.
Also, GURPS is pretty cool. 
Someday, I plan to run a superhero game in my own comic book universe, and GURPS is a contender for the system of choice.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 20:37:46
|
| Thanks for the Superhero comment Erik, it just reminded me of the only d20/OGL Class-less System: Mutants & Mastermind (2nd Edition). Using a point buy system for Attributes, Skills, Feats and Powers, it's pretty cool system while remaining true to d20. I haven't checked the 3rd Edition yet (updated so it's no longer OGL), so I don't know how much was retained. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 21:49:58
|
From what I understand, 4e is so well-balanced that it seems a total waste to multi-class. Why burn a feat to do more damage taking a skill when a renamed ability you already have will do the same thing for you?
In other words, if your back-stab does the same potential extra damage as a fighter skill or magic missile, ect, then why even bother? Just for 'flavor'? It seems to me that using that feat to expand your already-given skills is the best way to go in a combat system.
Which is the same as what Diffan was saying about 3e - a 20th level anything is MUCH better then someone who is level 5 in four different classes.
Which is why so many people dream of a 'perfect' classless system, which can't possibly exist. I've seen some great systems in my day, but the 'better' they are, they harder they are to run. Reality just doesn't mesh-well with 'simple'.
Classes actually take the place of 'talents' in an RPG system. Some folks are just natural fighters, others are better at stealth, and some are just good with magic. That's what the class-system really emulates, NOT 'careers'. You are actually picking your preferred area in which you are naturally gifted when you choose a class. I realized this awhile back while trying to create my own 'classless' system - I kept falling back on four 'talents' that governed many sub-sets of skills. Martial, Stealth, Arcane, and Devotion - sound familiar? In a 'Modern' game you would replace arcane with Psionics, and maybe dump Devotion for Scientific aptitude.
In fact, one 'classless' system I used (can't remember the game off-hand) used 'Apptitudes' rather then 'classes'... but it all boiled down to the same damn thing.
At the end of the day, some people are just better then others at certain things, and even though you can practice like crazy and become very good at something, the guy (or gal) with 'natural talent' is going to be better. That's life, and that's D&D - multi-classing is just a fantasy. Fafrhd and the Gray Mouser would have gotten pwned by Conan and Elric, and that's just the way it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Diffan, you're speaking to the wrong audience by far. I had to get my wife to read this thread to ensure I wasn't interpreting it wrong (as I am a supporter of 4e). You're going to get challenged on each point you try to make, so keep that in mind.
"Challenged"? 
I think this thread has been moving along very amicable. There were no 'Challenges', merely folks asking for clarification on certain key points.
"Wrong Audience"? I want to teach an RPG to my 8 and 13 year olds - Can I ask what an official WotC designer considers "the Wrong Audience"?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Essentials has provided a consolidation of errata over the past couple of years and introduced a easier entry-point for people who have never played the game. It does not rewrite how the game is played or the core of the system.
Ummmm... that's pretty-much how 3.5 was described to the fanbase.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Sep 2010 22:05:06 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 22:44:46
|
Hello Markus, we meet again. ;) quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In other words, if your back-stab does the same potential extra damage as a fighter skill or magic missile, ect, then why even bother? Just for 'flavor'?
heh, you might as well ask, "Why even have character classes?" if flavor matters so little.
There are several abilities in 4E that key off of or trigger the activation of a power. I had one player in my 4E game who ran a Warlock and wanted to back-stab, so he picked it up and worked with the Rogue/Ranger to create opportunities (through their standard class powers) for the both of them to jump around the map back-stabbing and working in the Ranger’s Hunter’s Quarry power.
So if you go by damage potential alone within your regular character class, you miss out on opportunities for teamwork and fun damage dealing.
So, 4E is balanced, but flavor is still key in making it fun as a cooperative storytelling game.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
"Challenged"?
I think this thread has been moving along very amicable. There were no 'Challenges', merely folks asking for clarification on certain key points.
I can’t speak for Brian, but to me your last is like saying the White House Press Corps only ever asks for “clarification” from the White House Press Secretary, as though obvious skepticism, hard questions and even derision were never present in some of the questions posed by a select few reporters.
To clarify: I agree that things are pretty civil, but there are a few statements that make me scratch my head and say, “Dude, was that really necessary?” out loud, especially when you add those in with other comments made over the last couple years.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
"Wrong Audience"? I want to teach an RPG to my 8 and 13 year olds - Can I ask what an official WotC designer considers "the Wrong Audience"?
Again, not speaking for Brian, but it seems to me like Diffan is being extremely patient in answering questions posed to him that are less about the box set and more about subjective pseudo-accusations against WotC and its supposedly questionable motives.
For example, if you kindly offer to answer rules questions about a new product but end up having to spend some time defending the publisher of those rules from one or two of your responders, then the people you’re defending it against are the Wrong Audience to speak to.
quote:
Ummmm... that's pretty-much how 3.5 was described to the fanbase.
The language sounds similar at first glance, doesn't it?
This is how I look at it: while 3.5, like Essentials, consolidated errata, 3.5 was in not highly simplified in order to make it easier to play.
That is, with 3.5 you still had three Core Rulebooks at around 300 pages each to use; not so with Essentials and its smaller rulebooks.
Someone check me on this, but I don’t think 3.5 was ever marketed as an "easier entry point" for players into the system.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 17 Sep 2010 22:49:32 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 22:59:13
|
I purposely emboldened the text I was referring to - NOT the 'entry point' statement.
And ALL of my questions are derived from a current desire to learn more about 4e, because I am actually considering it for teaching my youngest. I fully realize 3e is not a good 'starter system', AT ALL.
I was truthfully confused by what was said about Essentials, and if you re-read some of the things I've said since the beginning of this thread, you can see precisely at what point I became confused.
I though 4e was a 'Basic Set' for people interested in running 4e, and then I was lead to believe it was an 'options' book for 4e, which is NOT what I want.
I'm not looking to pick any fights here - lord knows it is my own damn fault that I put so many on the defensive. Sometimes I ask questions just for the answers.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Sep 2010 22:59:46 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 23:15:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Sometimes I ask questions just for the answers.
Who even does that anymore? ;) And understood.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 23:50:10
|
*sigh*
Ok, lots to go through here...
@Markus:
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From what I understand, 4e is so well-balanced that it seems a total waste to multi-class. Why burn a feat to do more damage taking a skill when a renamed ability you already have will do the same thing for you?
In other words, if your back-stab does the same potential extra damage as a fighter skill or magic missile, ect, then why even bother? Just for 'flavor'? It seems to me that using that feat to expand your already-given skills is the best way to go in a combat system.
This is inaccurate. Fighter (and most defenders in general) have a lower damage threshold for their powers when compared to a Rogue (and most strikers) of the same level. Fighter's (and defenders) job isn't to constantly stack and pour on the damage but be a shield to his allies. Strikers (Rangers, Rogues, Warlock, etc..) focus on dealing LOTS of damage to 1 target, singling them out so to speak. So a Fighter who takes say...Ranger powers or Barbarian powers is attempting to add a little more damage per encounter.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I though 4e was a 'Basic Set' for people interested in running 4e, and then I was lead to believe it was an 'options' book for 4e, which is NOT what I want.
It's actually both, lol. If you buy the Essentials books (Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms, The Red Box) then you can use those rules exclusively. I'd also suggest getting the Monster Vault and DM book too. And if you want to expand the game further, then the PHB, PH2, PH3, Martial Power, etc.... are there for your enjoyment.
For people already invested in 4E, its additive in nature so everything coming out with Essentials can be used in their current games.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 00:09:48
|
Okay, that's where I wasn't 'getting' the difference. Not having ever played 4e, I haven't really got my head wrapped-around the whole concept of 'roles in combat' yet.
Thanks for the clarifications. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 13:32:23
|
| And the interesting thing about how "roles" work is that there's alot of difference even between classes with the same roles. For a good example, I'll use the Wizard. The wizard is a controller that focuses on altering the battlefield to suit them and their parties needs, place debilitating effects on enemies, access to a variety of Utility spells, and deal consideral amount of damage (when compared to other Controllers). But the downside is that most Wizard powers affect ALL creatures in their effects, so you have to be careful of your allies positions lest they be targeted too. Now compare the wizard to the Invoker. The Invoker is a Divine Controller and while his spells deal less damage (on average) when compared to the wizard, the spells only target enemies and often give allies within the same area a bonus/buff. And then you have th druid, who can cast spells with area affects AND get into melee with it's Wild Shape powers. The druid still remains the most versatile out of the Controllers. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 14:39:41
|
So I got my first look at a full 1-30 level Essentials class, and it was a real eye-opener. WotC released a Playtest for the Essentials Assassin called the Executioner. And while playtest means that things aren't completly "official", I saw the design for how the Essential classes work.
So there are changes in the design of how classes work and what they gain as they level. Normally, as in the PHBs, classes gain all their class features at 1st level (the barbarian gains Rage Strike @ level 5 but that's the only departure from the norm) and as they gain levels, they receive additional powers/spells/prayers/etc... Essential classes change this up a bit by adding class features at higher levels and those features sometimes scale with your character. This "build", however, comes at a price. At the levels you gain class features you don't gain powers of the respected level. The tables given with each class are pretty self-explanatory as they express what abilities/powers/features you gain at certain levels.
Additionally, each Essential class is derived from a main class. The Executioner is formed from the Assassin and this allows a character to obtain feats from the Assassin in addition to taking Assassin-based Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. As of now, I'm not sure what you can swap with the Main class though people have speculated that you can swap out Utility powers with the main class as it's noted in the chart that you gain a Utility power.
I can see why some people are calling it 4.5 since it deviates a bit from the main model of the previous classes, but it's only a small change and it works sorta like "sub-classes" or "Alternative Class Features" of 3E. And with Essential classes, they can be of more than 1 power source. In 4E, classes have a power source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, Psionic, Shadow) but wit the Executioner has both the Martial and Shadow power sources. So that can really open up some doors as to restrictions for specific classes.
As for the Executioner, I wasn't really that impressed lol. There are some interesting class features such as Death Attack. This features says that if you deal damage to a target and that target's HP is 10 or less (after the attack), you can choose for the target to die immediately. But I'll have to delve deeper into the class to grasp the possibilities of this sort of assassin. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2010 : 16:06:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Sub-classes and Alternative Class Features didn't come out until 3.5.
Always with the semantics huh ? Yes, those are introduced in 3.5 and they work similar to the Essentials. Instead of encounter/daily powers, you gain class features that spring-board from your At-will attacks. This mean, these features help your at-will attacks become more poetnt as you progress in levels. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 06:29:40
|
Of course!
I'm considering finding a way to become an editor and/or fact-checker professionally. Leaning more towards editor though, since apparently people respect my opinion and expertise enough that I've received a half-dozen manuscripts for novels and short stories they'd like me to proof and give my opinion on... |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 07:18:01
|
Well, I have to say the new Red Box is pretty darned sweet.
I even played through the "Choose your own adventure" style of character creation and had a fun time doing it!
I'd encourage this box to anyone...seriously, it was just that much fun. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 08:24:33
|
| That's what its all about. Having fun. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 11:18:40
|
I thought about getting it too. I have two people that are new to my group and D&D so this might be the perfect thing to launch them into the game. The one player decided to play a Psion right off the bat, but it's probably not the best "beginner" class, lol.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e Essentials
