As it becomes more and more obvious that our group isn't going to stick with 4E I've started to look back at why it failed.
Maybe "failed" is the wrong word. I don't want to imply that it's some sort of sweeping failure like the Zune. There are certainly fans of the game out there, people who love it and have a lot of fun playing it. To each their own. I've never bought into the whole "edition war". Everyone should play whatever game they find to be fun. Whether that game is 4E, 3.5, AD&D, Gurps, WoD or whatever else. It makes no difference to me what you enjoy playing. I certainly don't expect you to switch after reading my half-assed opinions. The bottom line is that games should be fun and DnD 3.5 was fun for me.
But why isn't 4E fun for me?
At its very core it's not really different from any other version of DnD. You create a character with some stats and a class, and you battle monsters in a world of swords and magic.
The really fun stuff is in the roleplaying. In becoming that burly warrior or busty sorceress (whaddya mean they aren't all burly or busty?) and overcoming all obstacles on the way to a goal. Really, roleplaying is completely independent of any gaming system. You could roleplay in a game of Monopoly if you really wanted to.
So my problem must lie with the mechanics of the 4E system. After all, roleplaying in a good and engaging story is not the only aspect of DnD. A big chunk of every game night is spent in combat, and combat relies almost solely on the character sheet and the game mechanincs. So, where did 4E go wrong for me?
Rather than re-hash the gripes from my various posts here, I'll put them at the very bottom of the post. Those who care to, can read them there. Those who don't care, I'll spare you the agony of scrolling past them. You're welcome.
There is one thing that's not really part of the game mechanics. In fact it's something that was almost totally within my own control. The game setting.
Granted, when 4E came out there was no official setting beyond a generic "points of light in the midst of darkness". Eberron was still there and unchanged. I guess. I never really got into Eberron as a setting. We knew that the Forgotten Realms were getting re-worked to better fit the new system. In hindsight, we could have simply continued to use the 3rd edition version of FR, if only for the names and dates. Instead we just gave a nod to the gray generic world and went with the standard storyhook in the first published module.
That was all well and good at the time, but here's that hindsight again, it really didn't do my character any favors. I never bothered to put any thought into his background. I just rolled him up and got swept away by the game mechanics. I was so blinded by making my storm themed warrior/mage work within the confines of the ruleset that I ignored the really important thing. His place within the world. His motivations. His hopes and hates. His family roots. In short, in my effort to create a unique character I ignored everything that makes a character truly unique.
So really, 4E was hamstrung from the start because I forgot about the most important part of the game. The roleplaying. I didn't invest in his background and so I never invested in him. At least, not in any meaningful way beyond making a set of stats and powers that worked for my concept.
Sorry about that 4E. Your failure is also my failure.
********
Here's that summation of my previous gripes as promised earlier.
Certainly in the very beginning I was turned off by the restrictive feeling of 4E. I always felt like the character I really wanted was either impossible or only vaguely realized after a series of roadblocks and compromises. That was somewhat fixed by the Hybrid rules, and the ongoing laxity in Implements seems to be improving. Give it a few more years and this might not be an issue at all.
Another peeve was with the powers. Not that it wasn't a novel idea or well done. It just wasn't executed quite right. I'm not even sure what that means but there's just... something... about the powers that bugs me. Maybe it's how they make all the classes feel like every other class, with only the overarching roles to really seperate one character from another. Or maybe it's just in the numbers of them you get. For the first 5 levels I definitely felt like I had a few interesting whammies but used my lame At-wills ninety percent of the time. That's not so bad at the Paragon level where the number of Encounter powers means that At-wills only become repetitious in the longest battles. Still, it made the first half of the Heroic level so boring that it was all but unplayable for me.
The neutering of Feats and Magic Items has also bothered me. Maybe I'm just too stubborn to let go of them, but I miss the days when feats and magic items meant something. Something more than a piddly bonus to a power or an extra healing surge. I want magic items that can be pulled out at the last moment and turn disaster into triumph. Feats that give a character a distinct flavor and make him something more than just-another-fighter.
There are a lot of good things about the 4E system too. I'm a big fan of how traps, disease, and poison are handled. I also like that monsters aren't handcuffed to the same rules as player characters. That makes encounter design easy and gives the DM more room to tailor battles however he/she sees fit.
Showing posts with label classes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classes. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Paragons
As I mentioned before, we had a party wipe, and the decision was made that we would start our new campaign at 11th level, to see what more-advanced 4e characters were like in this edition; note that we have been playing 4e since it was released, and we died at fifth level. That should give you a sense of our pace, and of the likelihood of us having ever seen paragon tier "naturally". In fact, for the last three or four sessions, we had moved to half-the-encounters, twice-the-XP, just to try to ramp up our advancement. So much for that.
So what have we learned about the paragon tier so far?
Well, making a character is easy, which we knew: levelling up in 4e is almost trivial, since you make very few choices as you go, and the range of choice, while growing with the splat books that are coming out, is still small. However: choosing is one thing, knowing what you've chosen, during play, is another. Starting at 11th level is far different than advancing to 11th level -- as you advance, you get to know your powers at each level, only introducing one, at most, as you go. Maybe a new feat. Maybe a new magic item with a daily power. But you still have a whole level of adventure to get used to this newly available power. When you start at 11th level, especially with a class you've never looked at before (and remember, we've all only played on other 4e character), you've got a dozen or more powers available to you. Additionally, starting at a higher level means you start with magic items, again, likely ones you've never seen before, so have new abilities and modifiers there.
I do wonder how much of our tardiness was due to the new class, and how much to the large clump of new powers. While powers do define what you can do, in the end, the class does define the role, and thus gives you an overall sense of how your character is likely best played. Switching that up -- I went from a Leader to a Striker -- is quite the change (until, I'm sure, you've played them all, perhaps a few times), so we might have seen the same lack of coordination if we were to have started at 1st level with these characters. But I think we'd all agree that we would have caught on a lot faster, with just a couple of at-wills to get to know.
Two of our group was missing last night, but we decided that the party, sans deux, would tackle the first encounter without them, to take our new characters for a spin; if they won the battle, well hurray for them -- the other two would join the party later; if they died (because they were only four in an encounter designed for a party of five), then we'd press Undo, say, "that was fun", and wait until the rest of the group was available to really start the campaign, and re-do that encounter (without any metaknowledge of course!)
The reasons I wanted to do this were to let us get to know our new characters (which, as I mentioned above, is a real necessity), as well as to see if, as I believe the intent is, a paragon encounter takes no longer than a heroic one -- it's just more interesting, more involved.
Because of our struggles with our new powers and items, it's hard to say whether that test passed or failed; as the DM, I can attest that these paragon-level NPCs were no more difficult or time-consuming to run, but that's only half of the equation. And, our heroic battles could take many hours anyway (I've yet to decide if that's just us, or the game).
In the end, we halted the battle because it was after 2am, and we weren't going to finish it soon. We weren't losing, we were gaining ground, and I think we certainly would have won -- but not before a few of us would be waking to our children. And if we thought we were fighting trolls last night, we could easily imagine the trolls our wives would have been had we been up 'til 5am fighting them.
So what have we learned about the paragon tier so far?
Well, making a character is easy, which we knew: levelling up in 4e is almost trivial, since you make very few choices as you go, and the range of choice, while growing with the splat books that are coming out, is still small. However: choosing is one thing, knowing what you've chosen, during play, is another. Starting at 11th level is far different than advancing to 11th level -- as you advance, you get to know your powers at each level, only introducing one, at most, as you go. Maybe a new feat. Maybe a new magic item with a daily power. But you still have a whole level of adventure to get used to this newly available power. When you start at 11th level, especially with a class you've never looked at before (and remember, we've all only played on other 4e character), you've got a dozen or more powers available to you. Additionally, starting at a higher level means you start with magic items, again, likely ones you've never seen before, so have new abilities and modifiers there.
I do wonder how much of our tardiness was due to the new class, and how much to the large clump of new powers. While powers do define what you can do, in the end, the class does define the role, and thus gives you an overall sense of how your character is likely best played. Switching that up -- I went from a Leader to a Striker -- is quite the change (until, I'm sure, you've played them all, perhaps a few times), so we might have seen the same lack of coordination if we were to have started at 1st level with these characters. But I think we'd all agree that we would have caught on a lot faster, with just a couple of at-wills to get to know.
Two of our group was missing last night, but we decided that the party, sans deux, would tackle the first encounter without them, to take our new characters for a spin; if they won the battle, well hurray for them -- the other two would join the party later; if they died (because they were only four in an encounter designed for a party of five), then we'd press Undo, say, "that was fun", and wait until the rest of the group was available to really start the campaign, and re-do that encounter (without any metaknowledge of course!)
The reasons I wanted to do this were to let us get to know our new characters (which, as I mentioned above, is a real necessity), as well as to see if, as I believe the intent is, a paragon encounter takes no longer than a heroic one -- it's just more interesting, more involved.
Because of our struggles with our new powers and items, it's hard to say whether that test passed or failed; as the DM, I can attest that these paragon-level NPCs were no more difficult or time-consuming to run, but that's only half of the equation. And, our heroic battles could take many hours anyway (I've yet to decide if that's just us, or the game).
In the end, we halted the battle because it was after 2am, and we weren't going to finish it soon. We weren't losing, we were gaining ground, and I think we certainly would have won -- but not before a few of us would be waking to our children. And if we thought we were fighting trolls last night, we could easily imagine the trolls our wives would have been had we been up 'til 5am fighting them.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Making a Class
Griff's earlier post about the Arcane Powers got a bunch of comments from readers, including one from Francis Bousho who was talking about designing a martial controller class. This got me thinking about how his idea would fit well with one of my 3.5 characters, but then got me thinking about how tough class design is in 4e.
Back in the days of 3.5, you could think up your class's theme (or more likely, prestige class), pick an appropriate hit die and save(s), think up a couple of class abilities that likely progressed every few levels, and otherwise fill in the "balance" blanks with concepts from other classes. Just look at the 3.5 fighter: pick d10, pick Fortitude, give him a bunch of proficiencies, and then add "extra feat" every even level. Done! Even spellcasting classes or prestige classes were easy -- the spell choices were from the "arcane" or "divine" list, and you either gave a select list from which to choose (e.g. the assassin) or just say "+1 to arcane spellcaster level" and be done with it. Easy!
But now look at the 4e class. Any class. There's no shared list of powers. Anywhere. Not a single one. This means that you've got to come up with new powers for THIRTY levels. The cleric has 79 powers to choose from, not counting the actual class feature ones (like Channel Divinity) or Paragon/Epic prayers. Assuming the cleric is typical in count, that's a LOT of work. And don't forget about class-specific feats...
This got me wondering, then, about how many powers you could possibly have. Even considering the at-will powers of every class, you've only got so many variables, which I've talked about before, and this means a finite amount of different powers. We may not have hit that amount yet, but how many can there be? Push/pull/slide, knock prone, daze/stun/immobilize, ongoing effects of various kinds... you can only combine so many of these together before you run out of new ways to do so -- and then you have to start sharing powers. Myself, I don't see that as bad, but it seems that this is verboten in 4e design.
So what challenges does Bousho face? Not only NOT coming up with an attack that exists already, but also being able to balance the strength of 1[W] vs. stun vs. slide-#squares-equal-to-Ability-modifier vs. ongoing Somekindof damage, at each level, compared to the other classes. All of them. Utility powers? Easy in comparison! But it's all of the combat ones that, frankly, seem unbearably numerous to be able to tackle such a task.
Trying to imagine how I, or the Wizards developers, would go about this, I picture multiple spreadsheets, or a versatile database (the Compendium just wouldn't cut it) for finding all (level X to Y) powers (at-will or encounter) (vs. Reflex, say) that deal (X)[W] and also (stun/daze/etc.) until (end of your next turn / save ends). So if you think you want a stunning attack, you can see all of the powers that have it, what range their levels are at, how many [W] they deal -- all to figure out whereabouts your power should be (and if it's at-will, encounter or daily) and, more importantly, if it already exists.
Or maybe you *could* use the Compendium... maybe I'm thinking too much like a DM. A search for "stun" in the powers brings up a single one. "Daze" brings up two. more appropriate to the monster I'm used to running, perhaps? Okay, but what about "prone"? 191. "slide"? 178. 156 if I filter by "attack", and only 10 if I filter "at-will" out. Now we're getting somewhere. Eight of the ten are level 1 (which makes sense, since that's where most at-wills appear).
Those eight are all different, but some not by much... the Footwork Lure of the fighter and the Luring Strike of the swordmage are very close -- but different enough to be different powers. So maybe I was wrong, maybe there ARE enough variables to keep making variants of the same idea for years to come - but I wouldn't want to have to go through every existing power to make sure I haven't overlapped. Eight at-wills are one thing to look through, 76 sliding encounter powers is another. Computer please!
Of course, there's nothing saying that home-made classes can't steal existing powers, intentionally or not. It might hinder their adoption outside of your group, if posted to a forum as a proffered donation to the community (and really, I should have checked out the Wizards forums before writing this -- I'm sure there's a forum dedicated to hand-made classes), because there will always be people who are sticklers about such things like overlap. Also, not allowing overlap means that future official classes might invalidate your handmade class, if Wizards, too, realizes that an at-will power that slides the target 1 square, and deals 1[W]+Intelligence modifier damage hadn't been used yet.
I don't see myself trying to create a class any time in the future, because of all of this. A paragon path or an epic destiny, maybe, and monsters for sure, but I definitely have respect for the Wizards developers (or their software which helps them manage these things), and for any players willing to take a stab at it. Francis, if you do follow up with making your martial controller class, do send it to us!
Back in the days of 3.5, you could think up your class's theme (or more likely, prestige class), pick an appropriate hit die and save(s), think up a couple of class abilities that likely progressed every few levels, and otherwise fill in the "balance" blanks with concepts from other classes. Just look at the 3.5 fighter: pick d10, pick Fortitude, give him a bunch of proficiencies, and then add "extra feat" every even level. Done! Even spellcasting classes or prestige classes were easy -- the spell choices were from the "arcane" or "divine" list, and you either gave a select list from which to choose (e.g. the assassin) or just say "+1 to arcane spellcaster level" and be done with it. Easy!
But now look at the 4e class. Any class. There's no shared list of powers. Anywhere. Not a single one. This means that you've got to come up with new powers for THIRTY levels. The cleric has 79 powers to choose from, not counting the actual class feature ones (like Channel Divinity) or Paragon/Epic prayers. Assuming the cleric is typical in count, that's a LOT of work. And don't forget about class-specific feats...
This got me wondering, then, about how many powers you could possibly have. Even considering the at-will powers of every class, you've only got so many variables, which I've talked about before, and this means a finite amount of different powers. We may not have hit that amount yet, but how many can there be? Push/pull/slide, knock prone, daze/stun/immobilize, ongoing effects of various kinds... you can only combine so many of these together before you run out of new ways to do so -- and then you have to start sharing powers. Myself, I don't see that as bad, but it seems that this is verboten in 4e design.
So what challenges does Bousho face? Not only NOT coming up with an attack that exists already, but also being able to balance the strength of 1[W] vs. stun vs. slide-#squares-equal-to-Ability-modifier vs. ongoing Somekindof damage, at each level, compared to the other classes. All of them. Utility powers? Easy in comparison! But it's all of the combat ones that, frankly, seem unbearably numerous to be able to tackle such a task.
Trying to imagine how I, or the Wizards developers, would go about this, I picture multiple spreadsheets, or a versatile database (the Compendium just wouldn't cut it) for finding all (level X to Y) powers (at-will or encounter) (vs. Reflex, say) that deal (X)[W] and also (stun/daze/etc.) until (end of your next turn / save ends). So if you think you want a stunning attack, you can see all of the powers that have it, what range their levels are at, how many [W] they deal -- all to figure out whereabouts your power should be (and if it's at-will, encounter or daily) and, more importantly, if it already exists.
Or maybe you *could* use the Compendium... maybe I'm thinking too much like a DM. A search for "stun" in the powers brings up a single one. "Daze" brings up two. more appropriate to the monster I'm used to running, perhaps? Okay, but what about "prone"? 191. "slide"? 178. 156 if I filter by "attack", and only 10 if I filter "at-will" out. Now we're getting somewhere. Eight of the ten are level 1 (which makes sense, since that's where most at-wills appear).
Those eight are all different, but some not by much... the Footwork Lure of the fighter and the Luring Strike of the swordmage are very close -- but different enough to be different powers. So maybe I was wrong, maybe there ARE enough variables to keep making variants of the same idea for years to come - but I wouldn't want to have to go through every existing power to make sure I haven't overlapped. Eight at-wills are one thing to look through, 76 sliding encounter powers is another. Computer please!
Of course, there's nothing saying that home-made classes can't steal existing powers, intentionally or not. It might hinder their adoption outside of your group, if posted to a forum as a proffered donation to the community (and really, I should have checked out the Wizards forums before writing this -- I'm sure there's a forum dedicated to hand-made classes), because there will always be people who are sticklers about such things like overlap. Also, not allowing overlap means that future official classes might invalidate your handmade class, if Wizards, too, realizes that an at-will power that slides the target 1 square, and deals 1[W]+Intelligence modifier damage hadn't been used yet.
I don't see myself trying to create a class any time in the future, because of all of this. A paragon path or an epic destiny, maybe, and monsters for sure, but I definitely have respect for the Wizards developers (or their software which helps them manage these things), and for any players willing to take a stab at it. Francis, if you do follow up with making your martial controller class, do send it to us!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Insider Knowledge
I've talked before about how I don't really care for the fact that Dragon and Dungeon magazines are now all electronic, and that I no longer get a paper copy. This means that all of the articles go unread in a pile of bits instead of a pile of pulp.
But the news post from last Friday (see how far behind I am?) talks about how one of the articles in the lastest issue of Dragon has been re-issued. Of course, not having gotten to the previous article, I hadn't formed an opinion on it before, so was curious as to what the masses had found so wrong about it, as I certainly don't follow any of the forums where this might be discussed.
The article in question is on the Class Act: Ranger, which provides a variant path of powers for your ranger if they become a part of the Verdant Silence. The introduction text was changed a surprising amount, considering it's all flavour for this class path. Whether this was done because the Cordell had an opportunity to change things, or whether this was one of the focuses of complaint, I'm not sure; it still feels like it has the same idea; things like
"...is a furtive martial order that appears to safeguard natural forests and Feywild
crossings from corrupting influences."
to
"...is a furtive martial order that safeguards forests and Feywild crossings from corruption."
could have all sorts of things read into it, such as the "appears to" being omitted, the "natural" forests, and no longer "corrupting influences" but "corruption." Just a writer's fancy? Or were these all bones of contention with readers?
Even the flavour text in the Powers got modified, though the more interesting things are the Powers' effects themselves that changed. The Bending Branch exploit once gave a free basic attack, now just gives a bonus to the next attack. The Death Threat exploit got totally revamped, from dealing ongoing psychic damage to gaining combat advantage for a turn. Blood of the Fallen used to give you a +2 attack bonus by spending a healing surge; now it lets you regain hit points without spending a surge at all. And then others just had their wording changed to get rid of ambiguity, such as the confusion surrounding Confusion of Blades, which could be interpreted as 1[W]+Strength+1 for every adjacent enemy, instead of just the +1 for every adjacent enemy.
This kind of change would likely never have happened with a print version of Dragon - the only avenue for such a change would be through the magazine itself, in either an editor's note or a completely new article, wasting value space... and for that, the electronic version is definitely a boon. I do wonder, however, if the article might have been vetted better had it been going to print. I understand that the Sneak Peak articles are provided with every intention of the userbase to comment and help change the race, class or whatever, but this article is not presented as such, but as a published extension to a class. Are the writers and editors getting lazy with their new medium? Or is this just how the internet is changing publishing? We have the Compendium as a "live" source of the rules, in theory, so are the PDF articles now just introductions to new rules, with the final, current word always found online?
And will such a change to an article prompt the fanbois to be even more vocal about future articles, including all of the ones that aren't soliciting input? And will Wizards capitulate more readily? I hope not, and the wording of the news article definitely has the tone of apology, embarassment, and resolve to not have to make such changes in the future.
But the news post from last Friday (see how far behind I am?) talks about how one of the articles in the lastest issue of Dragon has been re-issued. Of course, not having gotten to the previous article, I hadn't formed an opinion on it before, so was curious as to what the masses had found so wrong about it, as I certainly don't follow any of the forums where this might be discussed.
The article in question is on the Class Act: Ranger, which provides a variant path of powers for your ranger if they become a part of the Verdant Silence. The introduction text was changed a surprising amount, considering it's all flavour for this class path. Whether this was done because the Cordell had an opportunity to change things, or whether this was one of the focuses of complaint, I'm not sure; it still feels like it has the same idea; things like
"...is a furtive martial order that appears to safeguard natural forests and Feywild
crossings from corrupting influences."
to
"...is a furtive martial order that safeguards forests and Feywild crossings from corruption."
could have all sorts of things read into it, such as the "appears to" being omitted, the "natural" forests, and no longer "corrupting influences" but "corruption." Just a writer's fancy? Or were these all bones of contention with readers?
Even the flavour text in the Powers got modified, though the more interesting things are the Powers' effects themselves that changed. The Bending Branch exploit once gave a free basic attack, now just gives a bonus to the next attack. The Death Threat exploit got totally revamped, from dealing ongoing psychic damage to gaining combat advantage for a turn. Blood of the Fallen used to give you a +2 attack bonus by spending a healing surge; now it lets you regain hit points without spending a surge at all. And then others just had their wording changed to get rid of ambiguity, such as the confusion surrounding Confusion of Blades, which could be interpreted as 1[W]+Strength+1 for every adjacent enemy, instead of just the +1 for every adjacent enemy.
This kind of change would likely never have happened with a print version of Dragon - the only avenue for such a change would be through the magazine itself, in either an editor's note or a completely new article, wasting value space... and for that, the electronic version is definitely a boon. I do wonder, however, if the article might have been vetted better had it been going to print. I understand that the Sneak Peak articles are provided with every intention of the userbase to comment and help change the race, class or whatever, but this article is not presented as such, but as a published extension to a class. Are the writers and editors getting lazy with their new medium? Or is this just how the internet is changing publishing? We have the Compendium as a "live" source of the rules, in theory, so are the PDF articles now just introductions to new rules, with the final, current word always found online?
And will such a change to an article prompt the fanbois to be even more vocal about future articles, including all of the ones that aren't soliciting input? And will Wizards capitulate more readily? I hope not, and the wording of the news article definitely has the tone of apology, embarassment, and resolve to not have to make such changes in the future.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Psion
D&D Insiders just got a sneak peak at the Psion class that will be coming out next year in the Player's Handbook 3. As soon as I saw it, I giggled inside, because I know how much Griff loves psionics... I was a bit excited to see what they had done with it, since the Psion is the only psionic character I've played in the last 20 years.
Right off the bat, I was wrong about where the Psion was going to place in the scheme of things. And, right off the bat, I got my back up when I read that the Psion has no encounter attack powers.
Until now, all classes have followed a very regular formula of what they get at each level - at-will here, daily there, new one here, new one there. So when I read that the Psion wasn't taking part in this, I immediately saw 4e going the way of 3.5, with level advancement charts for every class looking wildly different. Instead of the encounter power, the Psion gets power points, reminiscent of the points used in 3.5. These points are used to augment the at-will powers that the Psion has, basically letting him or her turn the at-wills into a pseudo-encounter power, in terms of strength and effect.
This is actually quite interesting, giving the Psion quite a bit of flexibility. The article says that, overall, the resulting effect is that the Psion is going to do as much damage as any other Controller class would do with their encounter power(s). But in this manner, the Psion is allowed to make one of the at-wills their "encounter-like" power in this battle, and another one in the next.
The fact that they don't gain an encounter power still bugs me, though, so I propose that the Psion gets this Power available at the appropriate levels:
Psionic Augmentation I
You augment your psionic powers from a well of extra will.
Encounter Psionic
Free Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you can spend power points on any Power with the Augmentable keyword.
This encounter Power could also be the source of the power points themselves, instead of the separate table in the article.
The Psion of 3rd edition had six Disciplines, each associated with one of the six ability scores. The article has developer commentary throughout it, and they mention that to start they focussed on the two "iconic" builds, telepathy (based on Intelligence in 3.5) and psychokinesis (base on Constitution). Since my dwarf Psion was a Savant (the psychokinesis discipline), I was excited to see that that was going to be available -- but then disappointed when this article stopped after introducing the telepath. HOW long do I have to wait?
The article also, unfortunately, saves space by listing many of the Powers, but not their descriptions, instead providing links to the Compendium. This technically isn't a problem for anyone who's reading it, since they have access to the Compendium as well, but it's awkward to have to go to each power separately to read about them, instead of just reading a handful of pages that lay them all out. Additionally (and this might just be a setting in my Reader), clicking on the links uses the same tab in which I'm reading the PDF, instead of popping up a new one. A bit of a pain, that.
The powers that I did read, though, seem not to have much focus. They mainly deal damage, but some affect in other ways (daze, stun), some do ongoing damage, some weaken defenses... on the one hand, having such a wide range of effects can be handy, true, but it doesn't allow for making a character with a theme.
In fact, the whole feel of the Psion, as I can see with this partial view, is that it's meant to be used for a hybrid character. It feels like it would go well with a Fighter, Rogue or Warlord, adding some Controller to those other roles. Perhaps once the full class is finally released that view might change, but for now, there's just ... something ... that seems to be missing to make it a complete class on its own.
Maybe I can convince Griff to playtest it...
Right off the bat, I was wrong about where the Psion was going to place in the scheme of things. And, right off the bat, I got my back up when I read that the Psion has no encounter attack powers.
Until now, all classes have followed a very regular formula of what they get at each level - at-will here, daily there, new one here, new one there. So when I read that the Psion wasn't taking part in this, I immediately saw 4e going the way of 3.5, with level advancement charts for every class looking wildly different. Instead of the encounter power, the Psion gets power points, reminiscent of the points used in 3.5. These points are used to augment the at-will powers that the Psion has, basically letting him or her turn the at-wills into a pseudo-encounter power, in terms of strength and effect.
This is actually quite interesting, giving the Psion quite a bit of flexibility. The article says that, overall, the resulting effect is that the Psion is going to do as much damage as any other Controller class would do with their encounter power(s). But in this manner, the Psion is allowed to make one of the at-wills their "encounter-like" power in this battle, and another one in the next.
The fact that they don't gain an encounter power still bugs me, though, so I propose that the Psion gets this Power available at the appropriate levels:
Psionic Augmentation I
You augment your psionic powers from a well of extra will.
Encounter Psionic
Free Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you can spend power points on any Power with the Augmentable keyword.
This encounter Power could also be the source of the power points themselves, instead of the separate table in the article.
The Psion of 3rd edition had six Disciplines, each associated with one of the six ability scores. The article has developer commentary throughout it, and they mention that to start they focussed on the two "iconic" builds, telepathy (based on Intelligence in 3.5) and psychokinesis (base on Constitution). Since my dwarf Psion was a Savant (the psychokinesis discipline), I was excited to see that that was going to be available -- but then disappointed when this article stopped after introducing the telepath. HOW long do I have to wait?
The article also, unfortunately, saves space by listing many of the Powers, but not their descriptions, instead providing links to the Compendium. This technically isn't a problem for anyone who's reading it, since they have access to the Compendium as well, but it's awkward to have to go to each power separately to read about them, instead of just reading a handful of pages that lay them all out. Additionally (and this might just be a setting in my Reader), clicking on the links uses the same tab in which I'm reading the PDF, instead of popping up a new one. A bit of a pain, that.
The powers that I did read, though, seem not to have much focus. They mainly deal damage, but some affect in other ways (daze, stun), some do ongoing damage, some weaken defenses... on the one hand, having such a wide range of effects can be handy, true, but it doesn't allow for making a character with a theme.
In fact, the whole feel of the Psion, as I can see with this partial view, is that it's meant to be used for a hybrid character. It feels like it would go well with a Fighter, Rogue or Warlord, adding some Controller to those other roles. Perhaps once the full class is finally released that view might change, but for now, there's just ... something ... that seems to be missing to make it a complete class on its own.
Maybe I can convince Griff to playtest it...
Monday, April 6, 2009
Hybrids
Today's Dragon articles included a Playtest article on Hybrid Characters. In a nutshell, this is multiclassing for 4e.
But wait, doesn't 4e have the multiclass feat? Sure, but did anyone really think of that as multiclassing? Not around here, surely. It let you dabble in a second class, getting a little taste of it, just enough to wish for the old days.
Hybrids, though, let you do more than that. As you advance, you advance in your two chosen classes equally; in fact, you get the hit points for both, the bonuses for both, the weapon proficiencies, the surges... sounds too powerful, right?
Well not quite. There are "hybrid" versions of the classes, which lessen the impact of these combining rules: clerics get 7 surges a day, hybrid clerics get 3 (plus their other hybrid class's); clerics get healing word, hybrid clerics get a hybrid version that's once-per-encounter.
The powers are as usual, though, which means that you have the same number of powers at each level, but can now choose from both of your hybrid classes. There's a small restriction - that if you have more than one type of power (daily, encounter, etc.) you must have at least one from each of the classes, much the same as the druid class requires you to take at least one beast-form and one non-beast-form power.
The article starts off pointing out that if you choose two classes that fill different roles, then your character is not going to adequately fill either. This means that if you're in a larger party, you might want someone else to also be a leader, or controller, along side you; but is also means that in a smaller party, you can help fill in roles that might have gone absent.
An interesting side note also mentions that "[t]he system of classes and roles in D&D is designed to ensure that every character has a clear purpose at the table and that no character can easily become marginalized by poor choices made in character creation," and goes on to warn that "[t]he hybrid character system discards many of the safeguards built into the normal class system."
Unfortunately, until this playtest turns into official rules (having ironed out what we Insiders might send them in commentary), we won't have access to the hybrids in the Compendium or the Character Builder. Being my preferred method for trying out 4e builds, I don't know that I'll be trying out this hybrid very soon, even though I could just do it by hand. I think that hybrids between similar roles will turn out to be better characters in general, because they're not splitting their attention, so much as their methods. A ranger/rogue is still a striker through-and-through, even if only half of the abilities are rangery and half roguey.
However, having read Griff's opinion on the wizard, and how you just end up using the same at-will power over and over, perhaps having a second, completely-different type of at-will at your disposal might be the key to livening up a character. In fact, Griff's wizard fancies the bastard sword, so having a controller attack of a wizard as well as a defender/striker attack when up-close might be the key to turning Griff to the dark side of 4e. Perhaps he'll let us know.
One last thing I should point out is that you can still take the multiclass feat when a hybrid, letting you dabble in a third class. I think that this, if balanced properly, might just allow those of us addicted to countless classes and prestige classes from 3.5 to get closer to the customization we miss.
But wait, doesn't 4e have the multiclass feat? Sure, but did anyone really think of that as multiclassing? Not around here, surely. It let you dabble in a second class, getting a little taste of it, just enough to wish for the old days.
Hybrids, though, let you do more than that. As you advance, you advance in your two chosen classes equally; in fact, you get the hit points for both, the bonuses for both, the weapon proficiencies, the surges... sounds too powerful, right?
Well not quite. There are "hybrid" versions of the classes, which lessen the impact of these combining rules: clerics get 7 surges a day, hybrid clerics get 3 (plus their other hybrid class's); clerics get healing word, hybrid clerics get a hybrid version that's once-per-encounter.
The powers are as usual, though, which means that you have the same number of powers at each level, but can now choose from both of your hybrid classes. There's a small restriction - that if you have more than one type of power (daily, encounter, etc.) you must have at least one from each of the classes, much the same as the druid class requires you to take at least one beast-form and one non-beast-form power.
The article starts off pointing out that if you choose two classes that fill different roles, then your character is not going to adequately fill either. This means that if you're in a larger party, you might want someone else to also be a leader, or controller, along side you; but is also means that in a smaller party, you can help fill in roles that might have gone absent.
An interesting side note also mentions that "[t]he system of classes and roles in D&D is designed to ensure that every character has a clear purpose at the table and that no character can easily become marginalized by poor choices made in character creation," and goes on to warn that "[t]he hybrid character system discards many of the safeguards built into the normal class system."
Unfortunately, until this playtest turns into official rules (having ironed out what we Insiders might send them in commentary), we won't have access to the hybrids in the Compendium or the Character Builder. Being my preferred method for trying out 4e builds, I don't know that I'll be trying out this hybrid very soon, even though I could just do it by hand. I think that hybrids between similar roles will turn out to be better characters in general, because they're not splitting their attention, so much as their methods. A ranger/rogue is still a striker through-and-through, even if only half of the abilities are rangery and half roguey.
However, having read Griff's opinion on the wizard, and how you just end up using the same at-will power over and over, perhaps having a second, completely-different type of at-will at your disposal might be the key to livening up a character. In fact, Griff's wizard fancies the bastard sword, so having a controller attack of a wizard as well as a defender/striker attack when up-close might be the key to turning Griff to the dark side of 4e. Perhaps he'll let us know.
One last thing I should point out is that you can still take the multiclass feat when a hybrid, letting you dabble in a third class. I think that this, if balanced properly, might just allow those of us addicted to countless classes and prestige classes from 3.5 to get closer to the customization we miss.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Playing your own character
Hot on the heels of Griff's last two posts, I'll mention that I've been playing with the Character Builder a lot lately, getting to know the different classes out there. I find that this is a lot easier than trying to read through thirty levels of powers for a class, where they all blur together...
To test out the Builder, I took all of my various 3.5 characters over the years, and attempted to recreate them in 4e. It should be noted that, while I might complain about the lack of choice in 4e, I very rarely multiclassed in 3.5, not counting prestige classes. I thought that this might have made these recreations a little easier.
I started this experiment after reading the article on the Shadar Kai in Dragon #372, where they also provided some feats specific to the spiked chain. This brought to mind my 3.5 character Placide DeMorgan, and I thought I'd give a spin recreating him.
This was actually a lot of fun, and quite the challenge. The idea of Placide was that he had reach, and that he could Trip and Disarm well. Trip and Disarm are no longer general attack types in 4e, so my goal was to take any power that came along that provided "...and target falls prone" or any mention of disarming. Then I decided that anything that might grab a target would fit in with the concept (wrapping them around with the chain), and, if none of these choices was available, I'd go for the idea of a sweeping attack, such as a close burst smack-everyone-around-you attack. And if all else failed, I'd take a power that provided a slide or pull effect, as Placide tugs his opponents around the battlefield.
But it was tough! There were many choices of powers that fit with this idea. It also "helped" that, with the right choice of feats, the spiked chain was considered a flail, a two-handed weapon, two weapons, an off-hand weapon, a light blade, a double weapon, and reach weapon, which meant that any powers that offered up bonuses to use of such a weapon became appealing.
To level Placide through level 30 probably took two hours, on and off, of flipping back and forth between power descriptions and even feat descriptions. It was probably the most engaging character I've made in 4e.
On the heels of such a success, I tried to make Raven, my Druid/Shifter (and by far my favorite 3.5 character to play). Not having the Shifter prestige class was going to be a blow, but because the beast form was such a large part of the 4e druid, my idea was to focus on powers and feats that would allow 4e Raven to remain in beast form and be at her most powerful, with little regard to her human form. Also, going with the more feral build, I was going to avoid taking any powers that did energy damage, staying instead with claws, teeth and primal savagery.
Well I was successful, I suppose, in that I made a 30th level druid. But it wasn't nearly as fun, or interesting, or engaging, as making the fighter. I kept thinking that I wished I could have a little bit of a Rage effect, to really let the primal nature take over, or some stealthy creeping beast form to then sneak attack with -- but of course, I can't multiclass barbarian or rogue here. While I was able to apply my build "rules" and choose from my options easily, I ended up whipping through the 30 levels without really noticing it, without much thought.
You might be thinking, then, that it's my fault for coming up with this restrictive build, that made this character easy and uninteresting to make. But this is my point. I summarized this feeling to one of our group on Saturday night: that 3.5 allowed you to come up with some completely-custom idea for a character -- a stabby, lightning-casting, gnome who's good at tripping and throwing hammers -- and you could find a combination of classes, feats, spells and equipment to realize you very specific character concept. In 4e, you can try to do this, but in the end, are given only a handful of choices, and you have to try and be creative based on those (or perhaps in spite of those).
I got lucky with building 4e Placide, because there were lots of feats and powers that accentuated the idea behind him. But not so much with Raven. And perhaps the next book or Dragon article will give me the flexibility I need -- even 3.5 didn't have every bit of content available in the beginning -- but generally new content in 4e is for the new race or new class, not something that gets added to an existing class. Feats, sure, are available to most characters, but powers are always tied to a specific class. And if I can't take that power, then let me take that class *at any level I decide to*.
As Griff just mentioned, the Paragon Paths are helping to provide a few extra branches to the thin evergreens of the class progressions, but even those are limited, and the Epic Destinies are, as Griff believes, a bit limited.
Today I just tried another remake, this time recreating the ever-doomed Ish'us'q. Had Ish'us'q seen more years in 3.5, he would have focused on DR, SR and regeneration, likely going down the path of the forsaker. In 4e, I decided to build him similarly to the Dungeons & Dragons Online version of him, with heavy concentration on raging, a falchion, and taking out multiple foes at once. There are various powers that focus on raging, and when there wasn't one available, a close burst power was usually available. The choices were there, and I got my character, but, as with Raven, it just wasn't very satisfying. There's my barbarian, all made up and ready for 30 levels... but apart from the initial "choice" of my theme, it was a no-brainer at all 29 level-ups. The glimmer of hope I had for 4e character creation that I had when making Placide still wasn't recreated.
I'm not done yet -- I've got more classes to try out in the builder, both old and new. But instead of coming up with a theme and then sitting down to realize it on a character sheet, I will be browsing through the powers of my chosen class, and trying to come up something interesting, to stand out from the others.
What colour do you want your Ford Model T in?
To test out the Builder, I took all of my various 3.5 characters over the years, and attempted to recreate them in 4e. It should be noted that, while I might complain about the lack of choice in 4e, I very rarely multiclassed in 3.5, not counting prestige classes. I thought that this might have made these recreations a little easier.
I started this experiment after reading the article on the Shadar Kai in Dragon #372, where they also provided some feats specific to the spiked chain. This brought to mind my 3.5 character Placide DeMorgan, and I thought I'd give a spin recreating him.
This was actually a lot of fun, and quite the challenge. The idea of Placide was that he had reach, and that he could Trip and Disarm well. Trip and Disarm are no longer general attack types in 4e, so my goal was to take any power that came along that provided "...and target falls prone" or any mention of disarming. Then I decided that anything that might grab a target would fit in with the concept (wrapping them around with the chain), and, if none of these choices was available, I'd go for the idea of a sweeping attack, such as a close burst smack-everyone-around-you attack. And if all else failed, I'd take a power that provided a slide or pull effect, as Placide tugs his opponents around the battlefield.
But it was tough! There were many choices of powers that fit with this idea. It also "helped" that, with the right choice of feats, the spiked chain was considered a flail, a two-handed weapon, two weapons, an off-hand weapon, a light blade, a double weapon, and reach weapon, which meant that any powers that offered up bonuses to use of such a weapon became appealing.
To level Placide through level 30 probably took two hours, on and off, of flipping back and forth between power descriptions and even feat descriptions. It was probably the most engaging character I've made in 4e.
On the heels of such a success, I tried to make Raven, my Druid/Shifter (and by far my favorite 3.5 character to play). Not having the Shifter prestige class was going to be a blow, but because the beast form was such a large part of the 4e druid, my idea was to focus on powers and feats that would allow 4e Raven to remain in beast form and be at her most powerful, with little regard to her human form. Also, going with the more feral build, I was going to avoid taking any powers that did energy damage, staying instead with claws, teeth and primal savagery.
Well I was successful, I suppose, in that I made a 30th level druid. But it wasn't nearly as fun, or interesting, or engaging, as making the fighter. I kept thinking that I wished I could have a little bit of a Rage effect, to really let the primal nature take over, or some stealthy creeping beast form to then sneak attack with -- but of course, I can't multiclass barbarian or rogue here. While I was able to apply my build "rules" and choose from my options easily, I ended up whipping through the 30 levels without really noticing it, without much thought.
You might be thinking, then, that it's my fault for coming up with this restrictive build, that made this character easy and uninteresting to make. But this is my point. I summarized this feeling to one of our group on Saturday night: that 3.5 allowed you to come up with some completely-custom idea for a character -- a stabby, lightning-casting, gnome who's good at tripping and throwing hammers -- and you could find a combination of classes, feats, spells and equipment to realize you very specific character concept. In 4e, you can try to do this, but in the end, are given only a handful of choices, and you have to try and be creative based on those (or perhaps in spite of those).
I got lucky with building 4e Placide, because there were lots of feats and powers that accentuated the idea behind him. But not so much with Raven. And perhaps the next book or Dragon article will give me the flexibility I need -- even 3.5 didn't have every bit of content available in the beginning -- but generally new content in 4e is for the new race or new class, not something that gets added to an existing class. Feats, sure, are available to most characters, but powers are always tied to a specific class. And if I can't take that power, then let me take that class *at any level I decide to*.
As Griff just mentioned, the Paragon Paths are helping to provide a few extra branches to the thin evergreens of the class progressions, but even those are limited, and the Epic Destinies are, as Griff believes, a bit limited.
Today I just tried another remake, this time recreating the ever-doomed Ish'us'q. Had Ish'us'q seen more years in 3.5, he would have focused on DR, SR and regeneration, likely going down the path of the forsaker. In 4e, I decided to build him similarly to the Dungeons & Dragons Online version of him, with heavy concentration on raging, a falchion, and taking out multiple foes at once. There are various powers that focus on raging, and when there wasn't one available, a close burst power was usually available. The choices were there, and I got my character, but, as with Raven, it just wasn't very satisfying. There's my barbarian, all made up and ready for 30 levels... but apart from the initial "choice" of my theme, it was a no-brainer at all 29 level-ups. The glimmer of hope I had for 4e character creation that I had when making Placide still wasn't recreated.
I'm not done yet -- I've got more classes to try out in the builder, both old and new. But instead of coming up with a theme and then sitting down to realize it on a character sheet, I will be browsing through the powers of my chosen class, and trying to come up something interesting, to stand out from the others.
What colour do you want your Ford Model T in?
With this class, I thee wed...
Our group finally got the chance to play after a two month hiatus.
It was good to get back as it reminded me that the ruleset (ie. 4e or 3.5) isn't the most important thing. It's an important foundation for the fun, but the rules are not the be all, end all of the fun.
During play I also got to read through my brother's copy of the PHB2. As I did I even had an epiphany of sorts.
The classes in 4E feel so restrictive because they're meant to be. You're supposed to pick a single class and go with it for all 30 levels!
I know. That sounds like a total "well duh dipshit wake the fuck up" thing to write, but like I said... epiphany.
In my mind, the class has always been just a tool to help with the realization of my character concept. If I want a melee fighter who uses touch spells I start with a monk and then add in either sorceror or cleric levels. If I want a stealthy warrior who uses twin short swords I go ranger and rogue. And so on.
I can't do that in 4E because once you pick a class, that's it. You're locked in for better or for worse. Til death or TPK do you part. You might look wistfully at that other class and wonder what it would be like to be that for just a weekend, but at best you can flirt by using a multi-class feat.
Upon realizing that it became clear that to fully enjoy 4E I need to change the way I make my characters. I can still start with a concept (ie. storm themed caster) but I have to pour over the potential class and find the one that'll be the best fit.
I did exactly that with the PHB2 as I considered switching my current character from a wizard to a sorcerer.
On the one hand, the sorcerer dragon magic path is a nice fit for my Dragonborn. On the other, the sorcerer powers (for the heroic tier anyways) don't really fit the storm theme I want. There are some lightning and cold powers but nothing that really screamed "this is the character I want".
So, although the wizard class isn't perfect it is comfortable. So I settled.
Of course, when one settles for less than perfect it's only a matter of time before you start thinking of divorce.
It was good to get back as it reminded me that the ruleset (ie. 4e or 3.5) isn't the most important thing. It's an important foundation for the fun, but the rules are not the be all, end all of the fun.
During play I also got to read through my brother's copy of the PHB2. As I did I even had an epiphany of sorts.
The classes in 4E feel so restrictive because they're meant to be. You're supposed to pick a single class and go with it for all 30 levels!
I know. That sounds like a total "well duh dipshit wake the fuck up" thing to write, but like I said... epiphany.
In my mind, the class has always been just a tool to help with the realization of my character concept. If I want a melee fighter who uses touch spells I start with a monk and then add in either sorceror or cleric levels. If I want a stealthy warrior who uses twin short swords I go ranger and rogue. And so on.
I can't do that in 4E because once you pick a class, that's it. You're locked in for better or for worse. Til death or TPK do you part. You might look wistfully at that other class and wonder what it would be like to be that for just a weekend, but at best you can flirt by using a multi-class feat.
Upon realizing that it became clear that to fully enjoy 4E I need to change the way I make my characters. I can still start with a concept (ie. storm themed caster) but I have to pour over the potential class and find the one that'll be the best fit.
I did exactly that with the PHB2 as I considered switching my current character from a wizard to a sorcerer.
On the one hand, the sorcerer dragon magic path is a nice fit for my Dragonborn. On the other, the sorcerer powers (for the heroic tier anyways) don't really fit the storm theme I want. There are some lightning and cold powers but nothing that really screamed "this is the character I want".
So, although the wizard class isn't perfect it is comfortable. So I settled.
Of course, when one settles for less than perfect it's only a matter of time before you start thinking of divorce.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Invoker
Yet another old article, one that I hadn't even perused when it first came out. That's surprising, since I'm playing a Cleric right now, and in hindsight I should have been more curious as to where the line was between Leader and Controller for the Divine power.
Right off the bat, I like the look of the Covenants. They let you customize what the Channel Divinity does for you (something that I'm very bad at remembering to use), and give you the extra Manifestation, which is a nice boost to your significant powers (if you remember to use them).
The Invoker spell Summon Angel of Fire confused me; it wasn't clear how long the summoned angel stayed around. One round? The end of combat? Until it gets bored? Forever? There are no rules that I recall for summoning in the 4e Player's Handbook, and the Compendium doesn't return anything that might help.
I liked the Shroud of Warning prayer. It basically gives your party an initiative bonus once per day. It may not sound like a lot, but at least it's different from most of the powers we see. Granted, that's because it's a Utility power, and not an Attack power.
The rest of the powers, though... pull, push, slow, daze. Weren't these the same thing we saw in the Warden? Are these Controller things or Defender things? Oh, right, the Controller does it with bursts, while the Defender tends to stick to individuals.
It started off a bit interesting, but in the end, this class didn't impress me. This *is* just a sneak peak at the first three levels, but I don't really see where it's going to get its own personality to keep it separate from the Cleric and Warden in theme and role.
Right off the bat, I like the look of the Covenants. They let you customize what the Channel Divinity does for you (something that I'm very bad at remembering to use), and give you the extra Manifestation, which is a nice boost to your significant powers (if you remember to use them).
The Invoker spell Summon Angel of Fire confused me; it wasn't clear how long the summoned angel stayed around. One round? The end of combat? Until it gets bored? Forever? There are no rules that I recall for summoning in the 4e Player's Handbook, and the Compendium doesn't return anything that might help.
I liked the Shroud of Warning prayer. It basically gives your party an initiative bonus once per day. It may not sound like a lot, but at least it's different from most of the powers we see. Granted, that's because it's a Utility power, and not an Attack power.
The rest of the powers, though... pull, push, slow, daze. Weren't these the same thing we saw in the Warden? Are these Controller things or Defender things? Oh, right, the Controller does it with bursts, while the Defender tends to stick to individuals.
It started off a bit interesting, but in the end, this class didn't impress me. This *is* just a sneak peak at the first three levels, but I don't really see where it's going to get its own personality to keep it separate from the Cleric and Warden in theme and role.
Druids
Okay, the Sneak Peak article came out over a month ago, and I'm only commenting on it now. But as mentioned before, Druids have been one of my favorite classes for a while, and I thought I should take a look at what 4e has done to/for it.
The odd armor availabilities are something that any Druid player has come to expect, but it's nice to see that the weapons are no longer limited. The Primal power source, as with the Warden and Barbarian, nicely extends the 4e concept, and lets the Druids step away from their association with the Cleric and their divine magic.
I'm a bit disappointed that the Wild Shape ability doesn't confer any bonuses from the form you take, especially speed. Perhaps there will be Feats that allow this?
The Druid has a special condition on their At-Will attack powers -- that at least one but not all of them must have the Beast keyword. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I think this is a rule that will be forgotten by players and DMs alike. 4e has been trying to get rid of the exceptions, and this is a step backwards, especially for those who have gotten fully into that mindset of 4e -- the "regularity" of the rules.
I like the Wild Shape power, though. Being an At-Will Minor action that has a built-in shift from beast- to humanoid-form, a character could essentially get three shifts in a round if needed -- minor, move and standard actions -- perhaps to get out of a sticky situation, or to help sneak behind a foe to give a party member some flanking.
The Beast keyword powers and the non-Beast ones make a nice balance for feral, animal-form combat and the raw, natural, elemental powers. At first I wasn't really sure about the Controller role that these powers were supposed to provide, but as a whole, I suppose they do the job; the Burst powers are what come to mind for Controllers, for me: someone who is affecting large numbers at once. Each of the single-target powers instead "control" their target by forcing them to move, either willingly (to avoid ongoing damage) or not, which I suppose, too, is a form of control.
It's not a bad class, so far, but I have to admit, it doesn't pique my interest as much as the Druid has in the past. I think part of it is, again, the fact that everyone has powers now, so the wizard/cleric/druid don't feel as special. The Druid, like the Cleric, was always the hybrid spellcaster, designed with a little bit of melee combat in mind. But I'm not feeling the uniqueness of this class over any other. The Primal power source gives it the bestial flavor, but my beast form isn't anything other than the key to unlocking half of my powers and a source of lice.
The odd armor availabilities are something that any Druid player has come to expect, but it's nice to see that the weapons are no longer limited. The Primal power source, as with the Warden and Barbarian, nicely extends the 4e concept, and lets the Druids step away from their association with the Cleric and their divine magic.
I'm a bit disappointed that the Wild Shape ability doesn't confer any bonuses from the form you take, especially speed. Perhaps there will be Feats that allow this?
The Druid has a special condition on their At-Will attack powers -- that at least one but not all of them must have the Beast keyword. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I think this is a rule that will be forgotten by players and DMs alike. 4e has been trying to get rid of the exceptions, and this is a step backwards, especially for those who have gotten fully into that mindset of 4e -- the "regularity" of the rules.
I like the Wild Shape power, though. Being an At-Will Minor action that has a built-in shift from beast- to humanoid-form, a character could essentially get three shifts in a round if needed -- minor, move and standard actions -- perhaps to get out of a sticky situation, or to help sneak behind a foe to give a party member some flanking.
The Beast keyword powers and the non-Beast ones make a nice balance for feral, animal-form combat and the raw, natural, elemental powers. At first I wasn't really sure about the Controller role that these powers were supposed to provide, but as a whole, I suppose they do the job; the Burst powers are what come to mind for Controllers, for me: someone who is affecting large numbers at once. Each of the single-target powers instead "control" their target by forcing them to move, either willingly (to avoid ongoing damage) or not, which I suppose, too, is a form of control.
It's not a bad class, so far, but I have to admit, it doesn't pique my interest as much as the Druid has in the past. I think part of it is, again, the fact that everyone has powers now, so the wizard/cleric/druid don't feel as special. The Druid, like the Cleric, was always the hybrid spellcaster, designed with a little bit of melee combat in mind. But I'm not feeling the uniqueness of this class over any other. The Primal power source gives it the bestial flavor, but my beast form isn't anything other than the key to unlocking half of my powers and a source of lice.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Save vs Negativity Failed
Long time, no blog.
My lack of posting isn’t from a dearth of material to look at. There’s plenty for me to go over (at least when I get the chance to read through Crwth’s digital Dragon magazines) so I’m sure I could pick up a topic or two if I took the time to read it all. The holidays make for a handy scapegoat in the gap in writing but in all honesty I had plenty of time to make up a post.
Case in point. I’ve had the following saved on my computer since late November or early December. I could have posted it at just about any time but hesitated for one big reason. I’m tired of being so negative all the time.
Honestly. I want to like 4e because at it’s core it’s still DnD, it’s still the game that I’ve loved since I rolled up my first dwarven ranger in 1984.
I want to find and focus on the gems of the game. Things like the monsters and encounters. The design of those two areas is greatly improved. I like the rules on disease, poison, and traps. Those rules have been improved over 3.5 by leaps and bounds. I like the emphasis on terrain. The skill system is another tweak that I really approve of. I’ve even grown to like the roles. There are lots of other things that I like that I aren’t coming to mind at the moment, so suffice to say that overall 4E is a good game.
Actually, more accurately, I still have a lot of fun when playing DnD. Is that fun a result of the rule set? No. Absolutely not. Definitely and emphatically no.
The fun comes from our DM ‘s ability to spin a tale and run the game with a nice pace. It’s fun because of my friends. It’s fun because of the off track tangents that inevitably veer us away from the game. It’s fun because of the mom jokes and the pop culture references and Simpsons quotes.
If anything, there’s just one small trifling detail that holds my weekly gaming back in terms of pure enjoyment.
The classes.
I hate them.
Seriously. They bore me. To tears.
I’ve been trying to leave this poor dead horse alone but the classes are all just so cookie cutter. The names of the powers and abilities are all different but the core of their effects are all the same. Some classes lean more heavily on one type of power but everyone seems to have a the same generic options. The extra feats don’t add any spice to the mix. It’s just more salt in an already salty soup. Spellcasters are so dumbed down they are beyond the point of banality.
Even the release of some new classes has done nothing for me. The Swordmage in the FRPG is interesting but barely different from the sword wielding wizard I’m currently playing. The sneak peek at the upcoming Barbarian was ho hum. Do I dare hold out hope for the PHB2?
Sure, there’s no more mindlessly hacking away with sword or axe. Instead we mindlessly flail away with “Holy Smites”, “Twin Strikes”, and “Scorching Blasts”. Whee.
Sure, there’s no more accidentally nerfing your character by multiclassing or missing out on a pre-requisite for a feat. Instead there is no multiclassing, and if you miss a feat, take it next level. Or “retrain”.
Leveling up used to be the penultimate in excitement as all new paths and options opened up. Now it’s just a matter of changing some numbers on the character sheet. The only reason I even bother with bugging our DM about leveling up is for the running joke.
The bottom line is it’s still nice to get out of the house and do some gaming with my friends. It’s just that I’d be just as happy if we were to play d20 Modern or VtM or just about any other RPG out there. The only thing that currently keeps me with DnD is the familiarity factor. That and the high fantasy setting of battling monsters with sword and spell. Other than that avenue of escapism, 4th edition has nothing to hold my interest.
My lack of posting isn’t from a dearth of material to look at. There’s plenty for me to go over (at least when I get the chance to read through Crwth’s digital Dragon magazines) so I’m sure I could pick up a topic or two if I took the time to read it all. The holidays make for a handy scapegoat in the gap in writing but in all honesty I had plenty of time to make up a post.
Case in point. I’ve had the following saved on my computer since late November or early December. I could have posted it at just about any time but hesitated for one big reason. I’m tired of being so negative all the time.
Honestly. I want to like 4e because at it’s core it’s still DnD, it’s still the game that I’ve loved since I rolled up my first dwarven ranger in 1984.
I want to find and focus on the gems of the game. Things like the monsters and encounters. The design of those two areas is greatly improved. I like the rules on disease, poison, and traps. Those rules have been improved over 3.5 by leaps and bounds. I like the emphasis on terrain. The skill system is another tweak that I really approve of. I’ve even grown to like the roles. There are lots of other things that I like that I aren’t coming to mind at the moment, so suffice to say that overall 4E is a good game.
Actually, more accurately, I still have a lot of fun when playing DnD. Is that fun a result of the rule set? No. Absolutely not. Definitely and emphatically no.
The fun comes from our DM ‘s ability to spin a tale and run the game with a nice pace. It’s fun because of my friends. It’s fun because of the off track tangents that inevitably veer us away from the game. It’s fun because of the mom jokes and the pop culture references and Simpsons quotes.
If anything, there’s just one small trifling detail that holds my weekly gaming back in terms of pure enjoyment.
The classes.
I hate them.
Seriously. They bore me. To tears.
I’ve been trying to leave this poor dead horse alone but the classes are all just so cookie cutter. The names of the powers and abilities are all different but the core of their effects are all the same. Some classes lean more heavily on one type of power but everyone seems to have a the same generic options. The extra feats don’t add any spice to the mix. It’s just more salt in an already salty soup. Spellcasters are so dumbed down they are beyond the point of banality.
Even the release of some new classes has done nothing for me. The Swordmage in the FRPG is interesting but barely different from the sword wielding wizard I’m currently playing. The sneak peek at the upcoming Barbarian was ho hum. Do I dare hold out hope for the PHB2?
Sure, there’s no more mindlessly hacking away with sword or axe. Instead we mindlessly flail away with “Holy Smites”, “Twin Strikes”, and “Scorching Blasts”. Whee.
Sure, there’s no more accidentally nerfing your character by multiclassing or missing out on a pre-requisite for a feat. Instead there is no multiclassing, and if you miss a feat, take it next level. Or “retrain”.
Leveling up used to be the penultimate in excitement as all new paths and options opened up. Now it’s just a matter of changing some numbers on the character sheet. The only reason I even bother with bugging our DM about leveling up is for the running joke.
The bottom line is it’s still nice to get out of the house and do some gaming with my friends. It’s just that I’d be just as happy if we were to play d20 Modern or VtM or just about any other RPG out there. The only thing that currently keeps me with DnD is the familiarity factor. That and the high fantasy setting of battling monsters with sword and spell. Other than that avenue of escapism, 4th edition has nothing to hold my interest.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Warlord Revisited
I know I had some doubts about the Warlord class and now that I’ve had a look at the class in play (thanks to the newest addition to our group), I should in all fairness provide an update. Here it is.
Right off the bat I’ve gotta say that the class is very good at what it’s designed for. It’s powers are centered around moving allies into the right spots to control a battlefield (or dungeon room or whatever) and the class does that very well. Played properly I think a Warlord could force even the most disfunctional group of players into acting like a well oiled fighting machine.
At the same time, in it’s purest “build” (I hate that term!) the Warlord doesn’t do a lot of damage. It strikes me as a true “leader” (yuck!) in that it’s contribution isn’t in damage dice but in hidden, or subtle adds. Once you factor in all the hits that would have been misses, and the extra sneak attack damage etc… the Warlord does pull it’s weight.
On the other hand, I still don’t see why it’s powers couldn’t have been split into the paladin and cleric classes. Tried and true classes that can easily fit the “leader role” (cringe). If nothing else, rolling the Warlord’s powers into those classes would have given players extra “builds” (fuck, I hate myself right now) for their clerics and paladins.
Plus, there were rounds where our warlord used his power to give our paladin an extra attack on an enemy. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t one of the design goals to give every player something cool to do on every turn? Hence the healing surges and second winds to free up of the cleric from casting cure spells every other round. Yet, the warlord on two separate rounds did, for all intents and purposes, nothing. Weird.
Most damning of all, in my mind at least, is that the Warlord’s roots clearly show. It’s a Mini through and through. If you need any evidence to prove that 4e is nothing but D&D Minis with some roleplaying elements thrown over top, look no further. I present Exhibit A. The Warlord. Case closed.
That aside, the warlord is overall an interesting class with some nice powers. Does it have a place in 4e? Sure. Does it deserve it’s spot in the PHB? Not in my opinion. Will I ever play one? Nope. Not my cup of tea.
Right off the bat I’ve gotta say that the class is very good at what it’s designed for. It’s powers are centered around moving allies into the right spots to control a battlefield (or dungeon room or whatever) and the class does that very well. Played properly I think a Warlord could force even the most disfunctional group of players into acting like a well oiled fighting machine.
At the same time, in it’s purest “build” (I hate that term!) the Warlord doesn’t do a lot of damage. It strikes me as a true “leader” (yuck!) in that it’s contribution isn’t in damage dice but in hidden, or subtle adds. Once you factor in all the hits that would have been misses, and the extra sneak attack damage etc… the Warlord does pull it’s weight.
On the other hand, I still don’t see why it’s powers couldn’t have been split into the paladin and cleric classes. Tried and true classes that can easily fit the “leader role” (cringe). If nothing else, rolling the Warlord’s powers into those classes would have given players extra “builds” (fuck, I hate myself right now) for their clerics and paladins.
Plus, there were rounds where our warlord used his power to give our paladin an extra attack on an enemy. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t one of the design goals to give every player something cool to do on every turn? Hence the healing surges and second winds to free up of the cleric from casting cure spells every other round. Yet, the warlord on two separate rounds did, for all intents and purposes, nothing. Weird.
Most damning of all, in my mind at least, is that the Warlord’s roots clearly show. It’s a Mini through and through. If you need any evidence to prove that 4e is nothing but D&D Minis with some roleplaying elements thrown over top, look no further. I present Exhibit A. The Warlord. Case closed.
That aside, the warlord is overall an interesting class with some nice powers. Does it have a place in 4e? Sure. Does it deserve it’s spot in the PHB? Not in my opinion. Will I ever play one? Nope. Not my cup of tea.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A rant on class
I seem to have touched on something based on the comments on my last post, so I’m gonna use it to pad my post count.
For starters, I’ll be the first to admit that my opinions are colored by the 3.5 past. I will not however apologize for that.
When I got a new car I did the same thing. The new one has more horsepower and a better air conditioner, but the old one had a better dashboard layout and cornered better. Comparing old to new and apples to oranges is just human nature. Still, point taken Adam,.
As for being patient and giving WoTC time to put out more material, well, I’ll concede that one too. I have no doubts that over the next few years we’ll be swamped with numerous offerings (or depending on how you look at it, schemes to pry our cash from our hands and pad their corporate bottom line). I’m also sure that the upcoming FRCS and certainly the PHB2 will be chock full of new powers (whether martial or arcane or divine). That’s all well and good. In the meantime while I wait for the main entrée I’ll make due with the bland soup of the day.
My bottom line point is that 4e classes all “feel” the same to me. No one has anything that really makes them stand out anymore. I’ve yet to see anyone in our party do something that made me do a double take. There has been no “oh wow, that was cool” moment.
The rogue has a ‘piercing strike’ that does some extra damage coupled with a move. The paladin has some kind of ‘smite’ thing. The cleric a ‘radiant strike’. My wizard the ‘scorching blast’. At first they were each on their own an intteresting effect to see in combat. Done every other round they lose their edge and become just another attack.
In 3.5 every class, every character, felt unique. They had their special flavors, their quirks, their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it’s just me but I thought that was a beautiful thing.
Each class had it’s role in 3.5, only they were subtle and unspoken. They weren’t slapped down in stone and used like chains to lock us into a certain playstyle. It was understood that sorcerers and wizards stayed in the back while the fighters and paladins stood up front. Clerics and bards laid out the buffs and healing. Rangers and rogues crept around the edges and got in their damage when an opportunity opened up.
However, if you wanted to push a class into a different role, it was possible. A few feats or some multiclassing and my sorcerer could wear a chainshirt and step up to melee with the best of them. For sure it cost me a level of spellcasting and that arcane failute check bit me a few times, but that was part of the fun. I could get creative and experiment and revel in the failures.
True. The old multiclassing rules opened up some abuses. But when did “powergaming” become a bad word? If I want to take a level of fighter for the free weapon and armor proficiencies, or start as a rogue at 1st level solely for the skill ranks, well… where’s the harm? Who am I hurting? Some chump who’s playing the game in Yakima? No. I’m just having some fun. Last time I checked that’s the whole point of any game.
As another example the 3.5 ranger fought with two weapons or mastered the bow and could track. That was his thing, his role. For sure any other 3.5 class could do that with the proper feat selections. Same goes in 4e where a feat or two will do it. The difference was that in 3.5 feats were a precious commodity. Did your paladin really want to ‘waste’ a feat to track? Not bloody likely.
In 4e however nothing is off limits. Wanna learn to raise the dead? Spend some of the plethora of feats and learn the ritual. For all intents and purposes class no longer matters. In their mad quest to make every class equal to every other at every level (no more fighters outshining the wizard at low levels, only to have the tables turned in the high levels) they've given us vanilla throughout. Might as well just have "Adventurer type A" and "Adventurer type B" and get it over with.
Strategy seems to be a thing of the past as well. Sure, positioning your mini on the grid is more vital than ever, but past that there’s very little to think about. It’s a simple case of MMO style button mashing. Pick your at-will and your target and role a d20. No longer do you need to worry about meting out those special abilities or spells for a crucial moment. Fire away my friends! Plenty more where that came from!
Personally, I liked the angst over every decision. Especially when it came to spellcasting. I loved the whole “do I cast this or save it?”, or “do I try a spell that has a Will save because that giant seemed to slough off my Fort save based spell last round?” Those were the tactics and strategy that I really enjoyed. And when I ran out of spells, I loved to have my sorcerer grab her sickle and jump into melee. Puny hitpoints be damned! She wore that magic mithral chainshirt for a reason dammit!
That’s a thing of the past it seems. Now my dragonborn wizard is going to take the feats needed to wear chainmail only because there’s nothing else to spend them on. He’ll continue to grab his bastard sword and hack away at the bad guys despite having scorching blasts at his beck and call. He’ll keep on breaking out of his role because that’s the way I play. That’s called fun.
Ps. Despite my tone, I really am having fun with my new character. It is still DnD after all.
Pps. I am going to try out the multiclassing feats, just to try them. I’m also keeping an open mind. I can’t stress this enough. My opinions six months from now might be a total 180 from today.
For starters, I’ll be the first to admit that my opinions are colored by the 3.5 past. I will not however apologize for that.
When I got a new car I did the same thing. The new one has more horsepower and a better air conditioner, but the old one had a better dashboard layout and cornered better. Comparing old to new and apples to oranges is just human nature. Still, point taken Adam,.
As for being patient and giving WoTC time to put out more material, well, I’ll concede that one too. I have no doubts that over the next few years we’ll be swamped with numerous offerings (or depending on how you look at it, schemes to pry our cash from our hands and pad their corporate bottom line). I’m also sure that the upcoming FRCS and certainly the PHB2 will be chock full of new powers (whether martial or arcane or divine). That’s all well and good. In the meantime while I wait for the main entrée I’ll make due with the bland soup of the day.
My bottom line point is that 4e classes all “feel” the same to me. No one has anything that really makes them stand out anymore. I’ve yet to see anyone in our party do something that made me do a double take. There has been no “oh wow, that was cool” moment.
The rogue has a ‘piercing strike’ that does some extra damage coupled with a move. The paladin has some kind of ‘smite’ thing. The cleric a ‘radiant strike’. My wizard the ‘scorching blast’. At first they were each on their own an intteresting effect to see in combat. Done every other round they lose their edge and become just another attack.
In 3.5 every class, every character, felt unique. They had their special flavors, their quirks, their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it’s just me but I thought that was a beautiful thing.
Each class had it’s role in 3.5, only they were subtle and unspoken. They weren’t slapped down in stone and used like chains to lock us into a certain playstyle. It was understood that sorcerers and wizards stayed in the back while the fighters and paladins stood up front. Clerics and bards laid out the buffs and healing. Rangers and rogues crept around the edges and got in their damage when an opportunity opened up.
However, if you wanted to push a class into a different role, it was possible. A few feats or some multiclassing and my sorcerer could wear a chainshirt and step up to melee with the best of them. For sure it cost me a level of spellcasting and that arcane failute check bit me a few times, but that was part of the fun. I could get creative and experiment and revel in the failures.
True. The old multiclassing rules opened up some abuses. But when did “powergaming” become a bad word? If I want to take a level of fighter for the free weapon and armor proficiencies, or start as a rogue at 1st level solely for the skill ranks, well… where’s the harm? Who am I hurting? Some chump who’s playing the game in Yakima? No. I’m just having some fun. Last time I checked that’s the whole point of any game.
As another example the 3.5 ranger fought with two weapons or mastered the bow and could track. That was his thing, his role. For sure any other 3.5 class could do that with the proper feat selections. Same goes in 4e where a feat or two will do it. The difference was that in 3.5 feats were a precious commodity. Did your paladin really want to ‘waste’ a feat to track? Not bloody likely.
In 4e however nothing is off limits. Wanna learn to raise the dead? Spend some of the plethora of feats and learn the ritual. For all intents and purposes class no longer matters. In their mad quest to make every class equal to every other at every level (no more fighters outshining the wizard at low levels, only to have the tables turned in the high levels) they've given us vanilla throughout. Might as well just have "Adventurer type A" and "Adventurer type B" and get it over with.
Strategy seems to be a thing of the past as well. Sure, positioning your mini on the grid is more vital than ever, but past that there’s very little to think about. It’s a simple case of MMO style button mashing. Pick your at-will and your target and role a d20. No longer do you need to worry about meting out those special abilities or spells for a crucial moment. Fire away my friends! Plenty more where that came from!
Personally, I liked the angst over every decision. Especially when it came to spellcasting. I loved the whole “do I cast this or save it?”, or “do I try a spell that has a Will save because that giant seemed to slough off my Fort save based spell last round?” Those were the tactics and strategy that I really enjoyed. And when I ran out of spells, I loved to have my sorcerer grab her sickle and jump into melee. Puny hitpoints be damned! She wore that magic mithral chainshirt for a reason dammit!
That’s a thing of the past it seems. Now my dragonborn wizard is going to take the feats needed to wear chainmail only because there’s nothing else to spend them on. He’ll continue to grab his bastard sword and hack away at the bad guys despite having scorching blasts at his beck and call. He’ll keep on breaking out of his role because that’s the way I play. That’s called fun.
Ps. Despite my tone, I really am having fun with my new character. It is still DnD after all.
Pps. I am going to try out the multiclassing feats, just to try them. I’m also keeping an open mind. I can’t stress this enough. My opinions six months from now might be a total 180 from today.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Roles and classes
The day is finally here -- it's official release day! And I'm without my Monster Manual. *:^( Karma for gloating that I had the other books early, I suppose - I'm told it shipped this afternoon, so I'll probably see it Tuesday.
While flipping through the class chapter again, to read the powers, I noticed that each of the class blocks had, right at the start, the role and the power source, and that you could possibly refer to a class by that combination; a cleric is a divine leader. This got me wondering about which combinations are currently presented:
So, we've already doubled up on one, which shoots my theory out the window. But what might be planned for those empty spots? A martial controller could be someone who mesmerizes with fancy moves? What would a divine striker be - a terrorist?
And of course, we have other power sources coming - psionics, elemental, ki, etc., which open up even more possibilities. Possibilities that could be filled by PRESTIGE CLASSES...
While flipping through the class chapter again, to read the powers, I noticed that each of the class blocks had, right at the start, the role and the power source, and that you could possibly refer to a class by that combination; a cleric is a divine leader. This got me wondering about which combinations are currently presented:
Role \ Power source | Arcane | Divine | Martial | |
Controller | Wizard | |||
Defender | Paladin | Fighter | ||
Leader | Cleric | Warlord | ||
Striker | Warlock | Ranger, Rogue |
So, we've already doubled up on one, which shoots my theory out the window. But what might be planned for those empty spots? A martial controller could be someone who mesmerizes with fancy moves? What would a divine striker be - a terrorist?
And of course, we have other power sources coming - psionics, elemental, ki, etc., which open up even more possibilities. Possibilities that could be filled by PRESTIGE CLASSES...
Thursday, June 5, 2008
PHB - Classes
Chapter 4 - CHARACTER CLASSES
This chapter starts off defining a lot of terms that will be used in the later class entries, explaining the different fields that will appear (role, power source, key abilities, etc.) and also explaining the long-term goals of classes, including the paragon paths and epic destinies. It is explained that the paragon paths do not stop your progression in your original class, which makes it a little different than prestige classes were - that is, you don't stop advancing as a cleric to become an angelic avenger, but instead an angelic avenger is a cleric who's getting a few other powers as they go. And also mentioned is the ability to take "paragon multiclassing" instead of a paragon path. I still don't know what I think about the lack of true multiclassing, but I think some play will help determine whether the flexibility is still there.
Also before the class entries is a good-sized section on Powers and their entries. A lot of terms are thrown around here, such as the power sources, damage types, effect types and attack types. I think this is going to overwhelm a newcomer to the game, but will make a good reference to go back to once they've flipped through a few powers.
The class entries have what you'd expect from the preceding section, their list of abilities and role and so forth, as well as their defense bonuses, such as the +2 Will that a cleric gains. There are also builds provided in the class entries, in the same vein as in 3rd edition where they suggest your starting feat(s), skill choices, and (in 3rd edition) equipment. I felt it was at a better place in the older books, finishing off the entry with a suggestion or two. Here they're one of the first bits of info, and might be misconstrued as a list of two choices that one must choose from, if the word "suggested" is overlooked. Granted, it's there four or five times, but still...
One of the key features mentioned along with the talk of paragon paths is that they provide expanded use for your action points. These are still new to me, having only played one Eberron campaign, so I don't yet have a feel for how often you use them, when you decide to, etc. But I think it's going to be the same kind of thing as when to use your encounter power, and moreso when you use your daily power.
Each paragon path seems to have one ability that enhances your action point use, and then provides a few other small abilities, and a small list of paragon powers. I have to keep reminding myself that the paragon path is NOT a prestige class, and that it does not preclude the advancement of your main class. It's more like the ranger choice made in 3rd edition (dual-wield vs. range fighter).
Overall, I found the paragon paths disappointing. They introduce very few new abilities and only a handful of powers each. They seem to be presented as these big decisions and changes that your character goes through at 11th level, but really they're just a small variation.
This is a large chapter, but the majority of it is taken up by powers, which I think warrant their own post.
This chapter starts off defining a lot of terms that will be used in the later class entries, explaining the different fields that will appear (role, power source, key abilities, etc.) and also explaining the long-term goals of classes, including the paragon paths and epic destinies. It is explained that the paragon paths do not stop your progression in your original class, which makes it a little different than prestige classes were - that is, you don't stop advancing as a cleric to become an angelic avenger, but instead an angelic avenger is a cleric who's getting a few other powers as they go. And also mentioned is the ability to take "paragon multiclassing" instead of a paragon path. I still don't know what I think about the lack of true multiclassing, but I think some play will help determine whether the flexibility is still there.
Also before the class entries is a good-sized section on Powers and their entries. A lot of terms are thrown around here, such as the power sources, damage types, effect types and attack types. I think this is going to overwhelm a newcomer to the game, but will make a good reference to go back to once they've flipped through a few powers.
The class entries have what you'd expect from the preceding section, their list of abilities and role and so forth, as well as their defense bonuses, such as the +2 Will that a cleric gains. There are also builds provided in the class entries, in the same vein as in 3rd edition where they suggest your starting feat(s), skill choices, and (in 3rd edition) equipment. I felt it was at a better place in the older books, finishing off the entry with a suggestion or two. Here they're one of the first bits of info, and might be misconstrued as a list of two choices that one must choose from, if the word "suggested" is overlooked. Granted, it's there four or five times, but still...
One of the key features mentioned along with the talk of paragon paths is that they provide expanded use for your action points. These are still new to me, having only played one Eberron campaign, so I don't yet have a feel for how often you use them, when you decide to, etc. But I think it's going to be the same kind of thing as when to use your encounter power, and moreso when you use your daily power.
Each paragon path seems to have one ability that enhances your action point use, and then provides a few other small abilities, and a small list of paragon powers. I have to keep reminding myself that the paragon path is NOT a prestige class, and that it does not preclude the advancement of your main class. It's more like the ranger choice made in 3rd edition (dual-wield vs. range fighter).
Overall, I found the paragon paths disappointing. They introduce very few new abilities and only a handful of powers each. They seem to be presented as these big decisions and changes that your character goes through at 11th level, but really they're just a small variation.
This is a large chapter, but the majority of it is taken up by powers, which I think warrant their own post.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
You must be this class to take this ride.
After reading the latest Dev&Des article I am both encouraged and discouraged. Disencouraged? I dunno. Whatever.
The article gives some sweet insight into the role of feats in 4e. First of all, applause for keeping feats in the new edition. I love feats. I'm a whore for feats. I like to map them out. I like to use them. I think they add tons of versatility and uniqueness to a character. As far as game mechanics go, the feat system in 3.5 is probably my favorite.
So, while I'm glad to see that feats will be a part of 4e, I'm not so thrilled by the implementation. As per Andy Collins, a guy who probably knows, the majority of feats are being rolled into each class.
My reaction to this can be summed up in one cute little acronym. WTF?
This is exactly what I feared losing in 4e. The versatility and freedom to make any character I can imagine. No longer will I be able to mix up archetypes and concepts through choice of class, feats, skills, and spells.
Instead, if I want Spring Attack, I'll have to play a ranger or rogue. If I want Power Attack, well, that's under the Fighter and Barbarian class only. Think a sorcerer with a spiked chain and Improved Trip would be fun? Sorry. You'd need the Exotic Weapon feat and Combat Expertise, both of which are buried in the fighter type classes.
Maybe multi-classing will save the day. I'm certainly not above dipping into second or third classes for an extra feat or some proficiencies. However, I'm not willing to hamstring my character at later levels for a feat I should have been able to take at 3rd, 6th, or 9th level regardless of chosen class.
So I'm miffed.
Then there's this thing called "Tiers". As in...
"Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level."
In the article Collins lists two kinds of tier. Heroic and Paragon. Interesting in that it's somewhat concrete proof of the whole talent tree concept. Cool, I guess. I'm just too pissed off about the feat thing to care.
The article gives some sweet insight into the role of feats in 4e. First of all, applause for keeping feats in the new edition. I love feats. I'm a whore for feats. I like to map them out. I like to use them. I think they add tons of versatility and uniqueness to a character. As far as game mechanics go, the feat system in 3.5 is probably my favorite.
So, while I'm glad to see that feats will be a part of 4e, I'm not so thrilled by the implementation. As per Andy Collins, a guy who probably knows, the majority of feats are being rolled into each class.
My reaction to this can be summed up in one cute little acronym. WTF?
This is exactly what I feared losing in 4e. The versatility and freedom to make any character I can imagine. No longer will I be able to mix up archetypes and concepts through choice of class, feats, skills, and spells.
Instead, if I want Spring Attack, I'll have to play a ranger or rogue. If I want Power Attack, well, that's under the Fighter and Barbarian class only. Think a sorcerer with a spiked chain and Improved Trip would be fun? Sorry. You'd need the Exotic Weapon feat and Combat Expertise, both of which are buried in the fighter type classes.
Maybe multi-classing will save the day. I'm certainly not above dipping into second or third classes for an extra feat or some proficiencies. However, I'm not willing to hamstring my character at later levels for a feat I should have been able to take at 3rd, 6th, or 9th level regardless of chosen class.
So I'm miffed.
Then there's this thing called "Tiers". As in...
"Toughness
Tier: Heroic
Benefit: When you take this feat, you gain additional hit points equal to your level + 3. You also gain 1 additional hit point every time you gain a level."
In the article Collins lists two kinds of tier. Heroic and Paragon. Interesting in that it's somewhat concrete proof of the whole talent tree concept. Cool, I guess. I'm just too pissed off about the feat thing to care.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Like pulling teeth
I should know better than to trust the Wizards website to give me easy access to information (that's why wizardslinks was born), so I suppose it's my fault that I relied on their RSS feed to inform me when the developers' blogs changed, and thus I retract the curses I put upon them for not having anything new over the last few days.
Let's see... where to start.
Perkins had a nice set of official answers to official questions, or something like that...
I'm not really sure where I stand on the 30 base levels. It feels a bit like DDO's "rank" system to elongate the levels from the start to the end, but we'll see how they feel during play.
The answer about Greyhawk no longer being the standard setting was revealing -- specifically, the gods used in the base system were the gods from the realm of Greyhawk, were they not? Are they going to avoid the specifics of the gods entirely then?
And already players are asking for video-game friendly? I haven't played Neverwinter Nights 2 yet -- I certainly don't want NWN3 to come out any time soon.
I want James Wyatt's job. It's not numbers, or game mechanics, but it sure sounds fun. What does this have to do with 4th edition? Well he's working on it, isn't he? Sheesh.
I missed three or four blogs from Noonan... and that guy's prolific, so I should have known better.
It sounds like the work being done on the Dungeon Master's Guide is worthwhile. I have to admit that I'd be hard-pressed to describe half of what's in the 3.5 version. I've read it front-to-back once, but the stuff that I refer back to tends to be a very select part of the book -- magic items, XP and treasure tables. The extra detail given to encounters sounds interesting, not that I feel I need it, but to see their take on expanding the "typical encounter."
That they're organizing the book by "DM tasks" does look good, though. Noonan's list of DM tasks that he gives looks like a good start to a table of contents.
His playtest commentary was too much of a tease to get anything 4e out of it, but it reinforced the fact that Noonan and I have similar DMing styles.
And his Mood on that same post is very apropos.
Rich Baker lets out some information on the swordmage class. While Griff's first response was "just multiclass!", I think the idea is that their abilities are geared solely to defense, whereas a multiclass wizard/fighter would have a more versatile set of spells available, but probably nothing specific to being the "arcane defender" that they were going for.
My biggest complaint with the swordmage, and warlord, and, frankly, any other new class, is exactly that -- that they're new classes. Sure, a lot of the 3.5 splat books had some interesting ideas, but to me, there is a core set of classes for D&D, which includes a cleric, a fighter, a magic-user (which I always called a "mage" back then, but I'll allow wizard and sorcerer), a rogue, etc.
Rangers, druids and monks feel like new kids, but have been around long enough to be "standard" to D&D. But when you start having terms like "warlord" and "swordmage", these even sound like prestige classes. Prestige classes, to me, are the way to focus a character down a certain path, or role as 4th edition calls it. Baker ever talks about the idea of making a grid of power-source versus role to come up with the "slots" that might need filling, and that's exactly what the swordmage feels like to me. Perhaps it's the old 3.5 player in me, but actual classes like warlock, ninja, etc. just don't feel "right".
Mearls talks about the work on the Player's Handbook, and the organization of the specialty attacks like bull's rush and the like. I've been playing this game for how long? I still don't remember the rules, and I still flip like a maniac trying to find them. Let's see if this re-organization works.
Like the comment above about the DMG, this isn't really specific to 4th edition, I know, but it's something to look forward to, regardless of what rules are being put out.
Well, now that I've caught up on blog posts, and know now to just keep refreshing the webpage instead of relying on their RSS feed, am I allowed to say that I hope this D&D Insider thing gets better really soon, really fast? You're not getting my expectations up with hard-to-find archives and broken RSS feeds.
Let's see... where to start.
Perkins had a nice set of official answers to official questions, or something like that...
I'm not really sure where I stand on the 30 base levels. It feels a bit like DDO's "rank" system to elongate the levels from the start to the end, but we'll see how they feel during play.
The answer about Greyhawk no longer being the standard setting was revealing -- specifically, the gods used in the base system were the gods from the realm of Greyhawk, were they not? Are they going to avoid the specifics of the gods entirely then?
And already players are asking for video-game friendly? I haven't played Neverwinter Nights 2 yet -- I certainly don't want NWN3 to come out any time soon.
I want James Wyatt's job. It's not numbers, or game mechanics, but it sure sounds fun. What does this have to do with 4th edition? Well he's working on it, isn't he? Sheesh.
I missed three or four blogs from Noonan... and that guy's prolific, so I should have known better.
It sounds like the work being done on the Dungeon Master's Guide is worthwhile. I have to admit that I'd be hard-pressed to describe half of what's in the 3.5 version. I've read it front-to-back once, but the stuff that I refer back to tends to be a very select part of the book -- magic items, XP and treasure tables. The extra detail given to encounters sounds interesting, not that I feel I need it, but to see their take on expanding the "typical encounter."
That they're organizing the book by "DM tasks" does look good, though. Noonan's list of DM tasks that he gives looks like a good start to a table of contents.
His playtest commentary was too much of a tease to get anything 4e out of it, but it reinforced the fact that Noonan and I have similar DMing styles.
And his Mood on that same post is very apropos.
Rich Baker lets out some information on the swordmage class. While Griff's first response was "just multiclass!", I think the idea is that their abilities are geared solely to defense, whereas a multiclass wizard/fighter would have a more versatile set of spells available, but probably nothing specific to being the "arcane defender" that they were going for.
My biggest complaint with the swordmage, and warlord, and, frankly, any other new class, is exactly that -- that they're new classes. Sure, a lot of the 3.5 splat books had some interesting ideas, but to me, there is a core set of classes for D&D, which includes a cleric, a fighter, a magic-user (which I always called a "mage" back then, but I'll allow wizard and sorcerer), a rogue, etc.
Rangers, druids and monks feel like new kids, but have been around long enough to be "standard" to D&D. But when you start having terms like "warlord" and "swordmage", these even sound like prestige classes. Prestige classes, to me, are the way to focus a character down a certain path, or role as 4th edition calls it. Baker ever talks about the idea of making a grid of power-source versus role to come up with the "slots" that might need filling, and that's exactly what the swordmage feels like to me. Perhaps it's the old 3.5 player in me, but actual classes like warlock, ninja, etc. just don't feel "right".
Mearls talks about the work on the Player's Handbook, and the organization of the specialty attacks like bull's rush and the like. I've been playing this game for how long? I still don't remember the rules, and I still flip like a maniac trying to find them. Let's see if this re-organization works.
Like the comment above about the DMG, this isn't really specific to 4th edition, I know, but it's something to look forward to, regardless of what rules are being put out.
Well, now that I've caught up on blog posts, and know now to just keep refreshing the webpage instead of relying on their RSS feed, am I allowed to say that I hope this D&D Insider thing gets better really soon, really fast? You're not getting my expectations up with hard-to-find archives and broken RSS feeds.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
With this 4th Edition, I thee wed?
Rumor has it that certain classes will be merged in an attempt to whittle down the number of core classes.
Okay. I guess I'm all right with that. In some cases.
One such merger I saw (http://d20.jonnydigital.com/) suggests the Ranger and the Scout. Fine. I always thought the Scout as a class was just a multiclassed rogue/ranger. As a Prestige Class, sure it would work. But as a separate class?
The other merger (same site) has the sorcerer and the wizard.
Gasp! Say it ain't so!
Yes, I'll agree that the two classes are somewhat redundant. They certainly overlap. I can even understand the argument against having two types of arcane casters in the core classes. I never embraced the Warlock for that same reason. But come on!
Going back to having just the wizard as the only arcane caster available is like going from a sexy sports car to a minivan (there's a better analogy out there but I'm currently car shopping).
Personally, the sorcerer made spell casting fun for me. I love it's minimal book keeping and the challenge of picking just the right combination of spells without any safety net or mulligans. It even made the Charisma score relevant.
From a roleplaying point of view (and last time I checked 4e is still being touted as a RPG) the sorcerer and wizard are night and day. One is a bookish nerd rarely seen outside his tower. The other is a pompous loudmouth jerk really seen outside a tavern. One wants to study odd phenomena. The other just blasts it with a couple of scorching rays and moves on.
In short, the sorcerer is the swashbuckler of spell casting. I think the game will be sadly lacking without it as a core class.
Okay. I guess I'm all right with that. In some cases.
One such merger I saw (http://d20.jonnydigital.com/) suggests the Ranger and the Scout. Fine. I always thought the Scout as a class was just a multiclassed rogue/ranger. As a Prestige Class, sure it would work. But as a separate class?
The other merger (same site) has the sorcerer and the wizard.
Gasp! Say it ain't so!
Yes, I'll agree that the two classes are somewhat redundant. They certainly overlap. I can even understand the argument against having two types of arcane casters in the core classes. I never embraced the Warlock for that same reason. But come on!
Going back to having just the wizard as the only arcane caster available is like going from a sexy sports car to a minivan (there's a better analogy out there but I'm currently car shopping).
Personally, the sorcerer made spell casting fun for me. I love it's minimal book keeping and the challenge of picking just the right combination of spells without any safety net or mulligans. It even made the Charisma score relevant.
From a roleplaying point of view (and last time I checked 4e is still being touted as a RPG) the sorcerer and wizard are night and day. One is a bookish nerd rarely seen outside his tower. The other is a pompous loudmouth jerk really seen outside a tavern. One wants to study odd phenomena. The other just blasts it with a couple of scorching rays and moves on.
In short, the sorcerer is the swashbuckler of spell casting. I think the game will be sadly lacking without it as a core class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
