4th Edition

[Jenius]

I've been in a playgroup and I've tend to enjoy it.Due to this, I think I want to buy me some books, I have all the ones I need on pdf but there's something about it that compels me to actually invest. I'm looking for suggestions on books. The core three are a pretty obv choice (PHB1, MM, DM manual), PHB2 comes after, Martial Powers is another gimme, as well as the other powers books as they're released. Adventurer's guide (or whatever the book with the extra magical stuff) is called seems good to. I'm pretty sure I'm going to order these unless someone has major objections, but I'm looking for more current or future suggestions.

Also, general talk about 4th can go here. Presently, I play a fighter (the group I joined needed a defender) and it's pretty fun being a tank and a pseudo striker at the same time (I do pretty good damage, not as much as our strikers, but still pretty good). I think if I were to have a choice of any class I wanted, I'd probably go with ranger because they're op or sorcerer because it was my favorite 3.5 class. Druid might be fun too.

So anyone play? Or does everyone here just hate 4th because they made the game far more combat oriented?

[Dullahan]

I expected this thread to be about 4th Ed MTG.

I was wrong.

[Jenius]

Why would someone randomly talk about 4th edition in magic :/.

[Dullahan]

Why would someone randomly talk about 4th edition in magic :/.

This is the source

:V

[Fonzy]

I expected this thread to be about 4th Ed MTG.

I was wrong.

Me too. I didn't post about it though. :V

[Naga]

Me too. I didn't post about it though. :V

I would have, but Dullahan did it first.

And you just did.

[Fonzy]

I would have, but Dullahan did it first.

And you just did.

:V:V:V:V

[Jenius]

I hate you all.

[Dullahan]

I hate you all.

Hate is such a strong word.



I play a Skeleton Ranger with Dual Sword-Chucks.

[Mixed Berry Hotcakes.]

Or does everyone here just hate 4th because they made the game far more combat oriented?

That's a retarded reason to hate it. It's not called Parliament and Pixies and it' not called Romance and Ragtime - combat is what to expect.

[Jenius]

That's a retarded reason to hate it. It's not called Parliament and Pixies and it' not called Romance and Ragtime - combat is what to expect.

99% of the people I've asked why they hated the game they said it's because the game took flavor based abilities and character designs out of the game, which I think they have to some extent. But I think the combat has become more polished, and they made melee classes more interesting as you do more than get more basic melee attacks as you level.

[Mixed Berry Hotcakes.]

99% of the people I've asked why they hated the game they said it's because the game took flavor based abilities and character designs out of the game, which I think they have to some extent.

What do you mean, like prestige classes?

[QUOTE=Jenius;25464]
But I think the combat has become more polished, and they made melee classes more interesting as you do more than get more basic melee attacks as you level.

Aye, true dat. Sucks they've gimped the Gish though.

[Jenius]

What do you mean, like prestige classes?


I mean more like the spells that were pretty much useless in terms of combat. Illusions/Divination and such ya know? Abilities that were pretty cool from a flavor standpoint but weren't really about breaking opponents. There's significantly less spells/abilities/rules in general on stuff that goes on outside a dungeon.

[Cloneysocks]

I think that a more balanced combat/class system based around explicit recognition of the roles each character type plays is a good thing, and if I had time I might give it a try - perhaps this summer. Generally though DnD seems too much more structured than the way I prefer to go into the imaginal world, but it does make it easier.

[Van]

I've only briefly glanced at the 4th edition books. But I've loved everything they've done with it. It's kinda weird how you mention that some of the flavor was taken out, yet they've made it so your characters can be far more versatile while still being viable. I wish I could find a D&D group on campus, would love to get a chance to play.

4th edition rules kinda reflect why I wanted to try playing Hackmaster.

[Jenius]

Combat viability isn't really flavor. Mainly my gripe is that the game seems to have removed a significant number of ways to avoid combat or similar such things. You can't for example, summon an illusionary dragon to cause your enemies to flee. Stuff like that.

As far as I can tell, the game seems to be more written as a game game then being more loose and freeform. I think it's a good change, but there are a decent amount of people who think it's been made too simplified and lacks what they loved about previous editions.

As far as finding a group goes, I'm sure it's not that difficult if you ask around. I stumbled upon this one through a friend, you'd be surprised really at how many people play dnd or have friends who do. You're an engineering major aren't you?

[Van]

Yeah, I'm in E-School. I dunno, I wanna play DnD but I want to avoid the spergies. Which I'm guessing is impossible :V

Thing is though, if people really are complaining about those kinds of changes, well, those are really easy to change the rules of. Hell, if you want to go through and travel dungeons like an old school adventure game, you can do that without any rulebooks. The combat system is the core of the rulebooks, essentially. Even if it's not directly related to combat, everything can be described in terms of that. This is true even for 3.5.

[Jenius]

Yeah, I'm in E-School. I dunno, I wanna play DnD but I want to avoid the spergies. Which I'm guessing is impossible :V
Ho man my current playgroup is packed full of people I'd probably be embarrassed to hang out with outside the group, that's how bad they are. They're fun people though. My friend that got me into the campaign and the dm are the only two normal people there.

I'm starting a campaign of myself though here, and it'le be with different more normal people, so it's possible you might have to take the initiative and host something yourself if you want to filter who you're playing with better.


Thing is though, if people really are complaining about those kinds of changes, well, those are really easy to change the rules of. Hell, if you want to go through and travel dungeons like an old school adventure game, you can do that without any rulebooks. The combat system is the core of the rulebooks, essentially. Even if it's not directly related to combat, everything can be described in terms of that. This is true even for 3.5.
I agree, one of the main reasons I don't get the gripe is that most stuff they're complaining about your dm could make spot rule calls on and such. The only truly irreplaceable things I'd say are spells that do things. The illusion I mentioned was on a sorcerer I used a while ago, and it was an actual spell and took up actual spell slots and such. I suppose you could write your own spell, but the system in place doesn't really leave room for fluff abilities on characters.

[Naga]

I play a drow ranger with twin scimitars.

[Jenius]

I play a drow ranger with twin scimitars.

I've heard that rangers are by a mile the best striker but come to think of it no one specified whether they meant bow or dual wielding ones. Or are both builds superior?

I think if I made one I'd want to be a bow, melee dps is okay but I'd probably rather go something like tempest fighter in such a case.

[Skydin]

4e. :nono:

[Jenius]

4e. :nono:

Thank you for backing up such a stance with evidence or even general thoughts and opinions.

[Skydin]

Oh, I don't have any reasons. I don't find it mechanically inferior, or dislike any of the themes enough to support a hatred of it. I don't even think it's a bad system, I just personally dislike it for reasons even I don't know. It could be something as simple as it's not complicated enough, and I get bored doing things when they're too simple. *shrug*

[notallama]

i always disliked dnd for too much rping and not enough hitting bad guys.
so this might be more up my alley.

i'll probably just wait for a nwn style game, though.

also, are rogues still useless?
i like rogues, because in theory they do a crapton of damage out of nowhere, but it always seems like your skills are mostly useless (there are 1 or 2 good ones, but the other 6 + int go to waste), and everything is immune to sneak attack.

[Jenius]

i always disliked dnd for too much rping and not enough hitting bad guys.
so this might be more up my alley.

i'll probably just wait for a nwn style game, though.

also, are rogues still useless?
i like rogues, because in theory they do a crapton of damage out of nowhere, but it always seems like your skills are mostly useless (there are 1 or 2 good ones, but the other 6 + int go to waste), and everything is immune to sneak attack.
Everyone has powers now, so rogues have stuff that lets them setup backstabs regardless of how aware the enemy is. Its also easier to initiate flanking. Your buddies also often have powers that let you backstab. So what I'm saying here is yeah, they do good damage, but they're pretty squishy.

[Van]

*waits for the inevitable suggestion of another Source DnD game*

I'd play :V

[Jenius]

I thought about maybe running my campaign online first for a couple weeks so I could use what I'm generating from you guys in the real world but the fact of the matter is 4th edition works even less well than third edition online. Keeping track of a grid and making sure no one was cheating would be close to impossible.

Well not really impossible, I could see it working, it'd just be difficult. I might consider it if I had a couple people who could promise to be very active.

[Van]

I thought about maybe running my campaign online first for a couple weeks so I could use what I'm generating from you guys in the real world but the fact of the matter is 4th edition works even less well than third edition online. Keeping track of a grid and making sure no one was cheating would be close to impossible.

Well not really impossible, I could see it working, it'd just be difficult. I might consider it if I had a couple people who could promise to be very active.

Grids can be done even in MS paint, and there's that site that lets us monitor roles. I don't see where all this difficulty and threat of cheating come in...

[Jenius]

Well yes but think of a grid that had the four players and an encounter of like 6+ monsters. I'd have to re-edit the position of the monsters and players every turn and it'd be kinda annoying.

Cheating would be just lying about your dice rolls or using a daily power twice in one day, I seriously doubt I'd actually catch someone if they did that. Furthermore I don't want to bookkeep everyone's life for them so they could lie there easier too.

Mainly though we'd just have people go inactive and the game would die so I don't see the point in trying.

[Purser The Guy]

I confess I DMed a 4th ed campaign for a night before 4/6 of the players decided it lacked the flexibility they like so much in 3.5. I like the mechanics, and I'm especially pleased with how they handled the races, especially those poor half-elves (and orcs), but I do myself miss the ability to create spells as desired or, heaven forbid, MULTICLASS in earnest. Granted, the base classes allow a good amount of flexibility within themselves and the multiclass feats can still grant a dash of another class within the one you start with, but it's not generally worth going beyond taking an off-class paragon path. Basically, multiclassing in 3.5 is alive and well, multiclassing in 4th is a neutered eunich.

For now, I'm playing a 3.5 group, but may end up running a 4th ed game after this one finishes up.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

4th ed. seems to be making it more like WoW (some of the changes are good, like warriors having more to do each round than attack), but the class changes look like: ok, let's take the idea behind these wow classes, and change our classes to fit them.

[Jenius]

I confess I DMed a 4th ed campaign for a night before 4/6 of the players decided it lacked the flexibility they like so much in 3.5. I like the mechanics, and I'm especially pleased with how they handled the races, especially those poor half-elves (and orcs), but I do myself miss the ability to create spells as desired or, heaven forbid, MULTICLASS in earnest. Granted, the base classes allow a good amount of flexibility within themselves and the multiclass feats can still grant a dash of another class within the one you start with, but it's not generally worth going beyond taking an off-class paragon path. Basically, multiclassing in 3.5 is alive and well, multiclassing in 4th is a neutered eunich.

For now, I'm playing a 3.5 group, but may end up running a 4th ed game after this one finishes up.
You do realize that they're presently making rules to multiclassing right? The original rules on it sucked (and they more or less acknowledged that) so they're entirely revamping the system. I dunno when the book on it will be released but I do know that their plan is to making multiclassing viable.

Edit: And I didn't get WoW vibes from the game at all Caldera. Rogues aren't dual wielding monsters, paladins aren't designed to be stand in the back healers, I suppose you could say rangers are similar but I don't think wow rangers have a viable melee option. And the list goes on.

[Cloneysocks]

I wish Szatany (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes) were still around to make customizable variants of the 4e classes...

[Purser The Guy]

You do realize that they're presently making rules to multiclassing right? The original rules on it sucked (and they more or less acknowledged that) so they're entirely revamping the system. I dunno when the book on it will be released but I do know that their plan is to making multiclassing viable.Oh, that's good. This makes me happy. :V

Also, I think rangers are best being melee strikers. Blade cascade+action surge ftw.

EDIT: The best paragons for melee classes like that are those that give +4 to hit when you use an action point. It generally requires multiclassing but that bonus plus action surge (assuming human/half-elf) allows crazy awesome beatdown.

[Jenius]

But you can only use one action point per encounter and aside from that, I get an action point like once a blue moon (though maybe my dm is stingy).

Unless action surge is some ability that generates them.

[Purser The Guy]

But you can only use one action point per encounter and aside from that, I get an action point like once a blue moon (though maybe my dm is stingy).

Unless action surge is some ability that generates them.

Hence the name "striker". There are more abilities than that, just that blade cascade is a nice "everybody dies NOW" ability. Plenty of fun abilities involved with dual-wielding, especially if you go and dual-wield bastard swords. Action recovery makes you a whole lot better as well.

[Jenius]

I'm just saying that building a character around action points is incredibly short sided and makes me think you probably haven't played a notable amount of 4th.

But I could be wrong as I honestly haven't played that much either.

[Purser The Guy]

I'm just saying that building a character around action points is incredibly short sided and makes me think you probably haven't played a notable amount of 4th.

But I could be wrong as I honestly haven't played that much either.
Action points are basically a daily power that every class gets as far as I see it. Optimizing their use is not generally difficult to do, especially if human, and doesn't require much building around.
You can go too far with it, but a feat or two to get a truly big bang out of your action points is not a bad idea, especially when feats are a dime a dozen now.

[Jenius]

Action points are basically a daily power that every class gets as far as I see it. Optimizing their use is not generally difficult to do, especially if human, and doesn't require much building around.
You can go too far with it, but a feat or two to get a truly big bang out of your action points is not a bad idea, especially when feats are a dime a dozen now.
Uh, action points are something you get once a milestone. I've gotten like one in like the over a month time I've been playing. Whoever dm'ed for you must be handing them out like candy.

[Purser The Guy]

Uh, action points are something you get once a milestone. I've gotten like one in like the over a month time I've been playing. Whoever dm'ed for you must be handing them out like candy.
BZZZZT WRONG

According to PHB, extended rest sets your action point total to 1.

Also, it should NOT be hard to get a milestone. 2 encounters between extended rests is generally considered a milestone. Either your DM is being stingy, the rules have changed, or he doesn't give you many encounters/day.

[LegendShark]

neutered eunich.

REDUNDANCY

[Jenius]

BZZZZT WRONG

According to PHB, extended rest sets your action point total to 1.

Also, it should NOT be hard to get a milestone. 2 encounters between extended rests is generally considered a milestone. Either your DM is being stingy, the rules have changed, or he doesn't give you many encounters/day.
You're right about that, I didn't realize you regained them from resting, though as I had never had a need to spend them, I wouldn't have gained any in the first place this way.

[Cara]

I dislike fourth edition because they tried to mechanize flavor and tried to dumb every class down to the same thing, with the only changes being "X damage/+X stat/+X HP" 1/encounter/day/everythirdtuesday

[Purser The Guy]

REDUNDANCY

Someone finally noticed. :V

You're right about that, I didn't realize you regained them from resting, though as I had never had a need to spend them, I wouldn't have gained any in the first place this way.
This would explain both your disinterest in action points and your lack of milestones. If you aren't getting (difficult) enough encounters/day to necessitate using even 1 action point, I can see why your DM isn't bothering with milestones.

[Naga]

I have a 4th Edition Lightning Bolt.

[Jenius]

Someone finally noticed. :V


This would explain both your disinterest in action points and your lack of milestones. If you aren't getting (difficult) enough encounters/day to necessitate using even 1 action point, I can see why your DM isn't bothering with milestones.

We've had plenty of encounters where over half the party ended up unconscious. One in particular I was one of two people left standing at the end of it. I just never saw the need for action points, attacking twice wouldn't really put down anything much faster. I'm a tank not a striker. Also because I'm a dwarf, the one thing I could imagine spending an action point on (using second wind and still attacking) is unnecessary because second wind is only a minor for me.

[Purser The Guy]

We've had plenty of encounters where over half the party ended up unconscious. One in particular I was one of two people left standing at the end of it. I just never saw the need for action points, attacking twice wouldn't really put down anything much faster. I'm a tank not a striker. Also because I'm a dwarf, the one thing I could imagine spending an action point on (using second wind and still attacking) is unnecessary because second wind is only a minor for me.Maybe your party just plays bad. :V

Humans are better at using action points, as are paragon classes.

[Purser The Guy]

We've had plenty of encounters where over half the party ended up unconscious. One in particular I was one of two people left standing at the end of it. I just never saw the need for action points, attacking twice wouldn't really put down anything much faster. I'm a tank not a striker. Also because I'm a dwarf, the one thing I could imagine spending an action point on (using second wind and still attacking) is unnecessary because second wind is only a minor for me.Maybe your party just plays bad. :V

Humans are better at using action points, as are paragon classes. I'll grant you, tanks generally don't have as much to do other than stand around and attract aggro (especially at lower levels), but in that case using one in a fight hurts even less.

[Van]

I want to plaaaaaaaay.

Jenius said he might host a game if we get 2 other decent sourcites to commit. What say you, gentlemen?


If we play, I'd like to play either some kind of tank or some kind of damage-obsessed mage.

[Cara]

Depends. Can my character be chaotic good?

Oh wait nevermind oops

[Jenius]

Active is the keyword here.
Edit I'll make a post on it in a bit.

[Jenius]

Maybe your party just plays bad. :V

Humans are better at using action points, as are paragon classes. I'll grant you, tanks generally don't have as much to do other than stand around and attract aggro (especially at lower levels), but in that case using one in a fight hurts even less.

You're totally right, the campaign I play in recently went Paragon and Dreadnought action saved me so hard. I used it to take some extra swings at mobs all around me to keep them all marked and they pretty much all got stupidly lucky rolls and nailed me so hard during their turns, except between battlerager vigor brokenness and dread's resist 10 on using action points, they actually did barely any damage to me. It was amazing.

[Kant]

It's still possible to play as a Dwarven Grey Paladin, right?

If I ever play DND, I'm going to try to get a bunch of people to play as dwarven paladins and clerics and base them off of the Israelites.

Because ever since I found out that Dwarves (in Tolkiens and other early-20th century books) were originally based on Jews, I can't get the idea out of my head.