My Gripe with 4th Ed.

[malyss]

In general, I think all players in a game should be equal. What sets them apart are their individual choices and decisions. In 4E resource management is there for everyone equally and it's not as bad, since you have encounter and daily powers to think about.

Your party is obviously an exception to the 3E norm. The 15 minute adventuring day is so prominent in 3E that changing it became part of 4E's design goals http://rampantgames.com/blog/2008/04/rpg-design-fifteen-minute-adventuring.html

If you want to use a car analogy, think of a race. All drivers use the same rules when it comes to their cars. Certain drivers aren't singled out and told "well you have to use a fuel efficient hybrid - but that's okay because once these high performance gas guzzlers run out of fuel, you can catch up!" I

I think the problem is that you think a level playing field is the same as "if everyone is special then no one is special" when what separates players are their individual choices and decisions. Virtually every board and card game since chess and poker require equal resources for players.

Also fighters in 4E stop the enemy's movement when they hit them with a OA. That's how they lock them down.

Multi class abilities are dailies usually - you get a bit of healing with it but not that much.

I still don't like that everyone now has to manage resources. One friend of mine refuses to play 4E because he can't just be a basic fighter or rogue. He doesn't play spellcasters because he doesn't want to have to deal with more than just swinging, and maybe a charge or two. He finds it too complicated for him to enjoy at the table. Some amount of inequality might allow for more people to enjoy the game. Maybe it just isn't the system for them, but I have a hard time arguing it makes it better. More fair, yes, but not better. (I know that is simply opinion)

I think I have been very fortunate to have a great role-playing group. We have never seemed to fit the stereotype as much as others expect.

You make a good point with your analogy. But I think they have gone beyond that and made the game into NASCAR, where the limits are so strict as to try to remove the vehicle from the equation. What you can end up with in that situation is the one player that wins every race because they are just better at it. This is a hard point for me to articulate as I would like to, but I enjoy the fact that sometimes a weaker player (not character) can come out ahead by virtue of their class in some situations. I'm going to toot my own horn to an extent, but tactically I am much better than some of my friends and using powers and abilities to take advantage of openings in the game. I play the tactical game better, but I am not a better role-player just because of that. If anything, it gets in the way sometimes because I see a way to win that doesn't fit the story and have to remind myself that it isn't about winning.

Decisions do play a role, but I don't believe everyone needs to be presented with the exact same choices.
I once upon a time played Magic (card game) and found it anything but level. The player with the most cash had the best deck, and there was just no playing around it, no matter how skilled you were. Chess, absolutely, but not with the card games. Anyway, that is another point and somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. I am not really speaking of a competition, but a collaboration. In competition, I understand the need to balance things very precisely, but in collaboration, I think you get more benefit out of having a wider array of unequal choices.

Fighters, yes, but defenders as a role, not always.

My point with the multiclass abilities is that it is a restricted resource and if you needed to wait for the one character to recharge it, you would (based on the understanding that the party always waits - which isn't my point, but illustrates another way to use the new system in the same manner as the old one).

I do enjoy many things about 4E, but I don't think it is superior. Different, more fair, but not superior.

[Mckma]

To put my two cents in, I think that if done right, both are "equally good" (extrapolating 4E's potential of course to the 8 or whatever years 3.0-3.5 was out).  The two are fairly different, and I think would be just as good as each other given a thorough understanding of the mechanics and a well-written/run/played game/session/campaign.  What it ultimately comes down to (in my opinion, reading all of this as well as my experience) is that it is much easier to write/run/play 4E because it is more standardized and "balanced" (I won't necessesarily say simplified because I don't know if it really is).  This may be a result of it being new, but I think the development had this in mind, especially the way levels work consistently in this version.  A 5th level character can use a 5th level item and fight a 5th level monster with reasonable balance, and the same for any other level (as opposed to 3 where you had to deal with CR and tables to find experience).  I think the standardization makes it much easier to run a good or great game with the same knowledge, experience, and time it would have taken to do a decent or okay game in the previous.

So that's pretty much the conclusion I've drawn.  I wish there was more variety in the spells (reflecting back, I liked a lot of the random crazy spells like talk with animals, morph stone, or whatever else), and maybe a simplification of fighters, but hey, maybe that's something to homebrew, it certainly seems like it wouldn't be too tough.  An idea I had recently to create more of a 3.0-3.5 feel is to boost the power of the at-will Martial powers a little, or allow 1-2 more, and remove the encounter abilities.  Granted it would take some work and testing, but hey, maybe that would fix things up for people who don't like having so many powers to choose from.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Multi-classing is a limited resource only because it's not inherient to the class. 4E design is such that a character with only their most basic powers is capable of doing their job. A Fighter with no feats and no dailies or encounters can still mark and use Combat Superiority. His feats, powers, and magic items can only enhance and diversify him.

Likewise a wizard with no dailies and encounters can still effect many targets at range and inflict conditions upon them. A warlock or ranger can always use their damage bonus mechanics. Healers, like Clerics and Warlords, eventually hit a limit to how much they can use healing in a given fight, that is true. They never run out of small boosting abilities.


ADDITION-

For the modification to make somebody more of a "3rd Edition" type, I'd suggest that you allow your player to exchange encounters and dailies for addititional feats. This would improve the character's over all power without giving them totally new options they would have to track during the adventure.

[malyss]

Multi-classing is a limited resource only because it's not inherient to the class. 4E design is such that a character with only their most basic powers is capable of doing their job. A Fighter with no feats and no dailies or encounters can still mark and use Combat Superiority. His feats, powers, and magic items can only enhance and diversify him.

Likewise a wizard with no dailies and encounters can still effect many targets at range and inflict conditions upon them. A warlock or ranger can always use their damage bonus mechanics. Healers, like Clerics and Warlords, eventually hit a limit to how much they can use healing in a given fight, that is true. They never run out of small boosting abilities.


ADDITION-

For the modification to make somebody more of a "3rd Edition" type, I'd suggest that you allow your player to exchange encounters and dailies for addititional feats. This would improve the character's over all power without giving them totally new options they would have to track during the adventure.

I really like your last idea. Do you have a suggestion for enhancing the diversity that used to be present in the wizard class without making it more 'powerful?'

[Tadanori Oyama]

I really like your last idea. Do you have a suggestion for enhancing the diversity that used to be present in the wizard class without making it more 'powerful?'

Sure. One of the more recent additions to 4th Edition has been Skill Powers. These are primarily Utility abilities which expand from trained skills. They make for good guidelines to less combat focus abilities.

If you want to expand the role of a wizard, or any character for that matter, you could consider allowing them to exchange daily use powers for abilities which replicate Rituals. Many former wizard spells have been changed into Rituals anyway so they can be fairly easily back shifted. Since this is an individual issue you, as GM, should be able to judge a level of exchange which fits your campaign.

This system of exchange has the potential to make characters much less powerful in combat. However, in my experience, a character often does not use all of his daily powers during the course of a "day", within the game.

The most straight forward method would be to allow a character to make more extensive use of Rituals. Reduce their casting time and remove some (or all) of their casting cost. Infact, you might make it as simple as allowing a character to take a Feat which reduces Ritual time and cost by a set amount or a percentage.

I used Dragon Marks in my Eberron game as a method to encourage Ritual use by giving players chips which allowed them to cast rituals instantly or without cost a certain amount of times per day.

[FuzzyDan]

/rant on

Skills:

One of the biggest complaints I see against 4e (in terms of mechanics) is the way skills are simplified.  But here's the thing: the 3e skill system was just as bad, AND more complicated.  2, 4, 6, or 8 +int mod skill points per level, 2 points needed for a "cross-class" skill, and no way to effectively role-play skills if they weren't purchased.  Your fighter with 4 (if that) total skill points per level (16 at level 1)has to play a resource management game just to build a character he wants to play.

Craft (Weaponsmithing and Armorsmithing) or, if your GM is understanding, Profession (Blacksmith) just to do regular maintenance on your gear.

Some combination of Jump, Climb, Balance, and Tumble unless you just want to stand in the same spot all combat long and hope that your terrain out of combat has no distracting conditions.

Oh, your fighter was some type of noble?  Well, Diplomacy, Gather Info, and Knowledge (Nobility) are on your "to know" list also

Street thug?  Intimidate, Bluff, maybe some forgery.

Noble turned street thug?  Oh GOD DAMMIT.

And we're not even considering the dungeon-crawling basics:  Search, Spot, Listen, Survival

And if you think upping yourself to a higher-skill point class will help:  You'll either get twice as many skills that you "Need," or you have more skills that are cross-class (lookin' at you Monk).

d20, 3.X or 4, is not a game that is about the skill system, especially if it is not for combat-related things.  You want to be the best blacksmith?  Str check for the effort required (Or Athletics), Con check for if you can work for hours/days on end (Or Endurance), Wisdom/Dex to check if the item if it is properly balanced if necessary (Perception?), and hell, throw in an Int check to see if you made the item to traditional expectations (History?).  Ta Da.  Now you can measure how well you made a particular item in comparison to another blacksmith with a simple skill challenge.  Yeah, he may have finished first, but you managed to pattern the filigree to the King's liking, so you are named the winner.  Requirement to participate in this challenge?  You and your DM discussed how you were a blacksmith before you got recruited/drafted to become a Fighty McFighterson, Rougy McStabberguy, Ranger McShootstoomuch, Heals McLeaderhosen, or Nukes O'Arcana.

Or another example from the NW campaign:  Kuthin wants to start circulating anti-crown propaganda, IIRC, Ross had me roll some combination of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Thievery (Since that's where Forgery hides these days).  If the system isn't giving you obvious tools, find out where they are hiding, and be consistent with them.

Resource Management:

I don't get how the "resource management" of 4e is that straining.  You have 2 basic attacks (at wills), 4 encounters (probably similar to your at wills, but better), 4 Dailies, and 6 Utilities (not all of which will be useful in combat).  At most 16 "spells," approx the same amount of choices for a caster capable of 3rd or 4th level spells, and you don't have to ensure you have the correct ones ready for each day. 

I guess you also have to keep track of magic items, but wait, you just grab a generic + level/5 item for Weapon, body, and neck slot and you're on par with the attack/def curve.  The longest part of making a 3.X character post level 1 is buying magic items, another resource management, which requires more effort and finesse from non-casters just to be effective.

Along those lines:  Money.  You do not believe how HAPPY I was as a GM when I read that you can't sell mundane items, and magic items always sell for 1/5th of the market cost.  Balancing the books in accordance with WBL is now causally manageable.  Heroes want to do silly appraise/barter scams?  Shave the gains out of a treasure parcel.  Another party of equal level would have been using the time Killing more monsters and completing more quests in the same amount of time during that level.

Class Roles/Balance:

Well-min/maxed wizards, clerics, druids, and artificers are overpowered in comparison to other classes.  A Cleric becomes a fighter with spells once they have access to Divine Power (and before that they can get close).  Druids get an animal companion and wild shape (Hello 3 dumpable stats!).  Just google up the Wizard's Guide to being Batman, I dare you.  And the Artificer gets access to all Save or Suck and Save or Die spells via scrolls, and becomes a walking artillery when he metamagics a wand and is able to take 10 on UMD, (not to mention he also gets to use most of TWGtBB).   Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and even Monks with the same amount (or more) of effort maximizing do not even approach that level of utility at any level, much less mid to higher levels.

Yeah, it's nice when a classes' sheer power allows a mediocre tactician to be acceptable, but that's not necessarily a good design philosophy.  Even if you do talk to your Wizard or CoDzilla about how to not be a dick, you still have to consider what they can do when you design encounters.  If you make a challenging encounter for your weaker characters, what are you going to do when the wizard finally makes the decision to trivialize the encounter to avoid a TPK?  You have just reinforced to the party that your Wizard can do it all without you when he has to, you are just here to take care of the gruntwork. 

I would not expect Kuthin or Locke to solo any equal-level, full-party encounter like a 3rd ed wizard.  Now don't get me wrong, we would get close, but then Ross would let it run away with 1hp, but that's not the point .  But when you hear any AP fan discuss what they like about either character (Moreso Locke/Cody, but whatever), it has less to do how much damage was done and more with how they interact with other players and NPCs, and we don't have the option of just firing off Charm Person to avoid a potentially challenging social situation.  In combat, we need the other players to support us in order to shine, just like we need each other out of combat to keep the colony, natives, or Pontifex from outright killing us in our sleep, but the two of us walk around like the baddest motherfuckas in the known universe at every available opportunity.

Even if you remove the reality aspect of "Life is not always fair," You can't escape the reality of "There's always someone bigger and badder than you, and yes, he will kick the shit out of you for your stale crackers just because he can."  Unless, you are a well-prepared 3rd ed wizard, then you can have everyone's stale crackers, ever.

I would add more, but this is plenty for now and I have work in the morning

/rant off

[malyss]

/rant on

Skills:

1)  One of the biggest complaints I see against 4e (in terms of mechanics) is the way skills are simplified.  But here's the thing: the 3e skill system was just as bad, AND more complicated.  2, 4, 6, or 8 +int mod skill points per level, 2 points needed for a "cross-class" skill, and no way to effectively role-play skills if they weren't purchased.  Your fighter with 4 (if that) total skill points per level (16 at level 1)has to play a resource management game just to build a character he wants to play.

2)  Craft (Weaponsmithing and Armorsmithing) or, if your GM is understanding, Profession (Blacksmith) just to do regular maintenance on your gear.

3)  Some combination of Jump, Climb, Balance, and Tumble unless you just want to stand in the same spot all combat long and hope that your terrain out of combat has no distracting conditions.

Oh, your fighter was some type of noble?  Well, Diplomacy, Gather Info, and Knowledge (Nobility) are on your "to know" list also

Street thug?  Intimidate, Bluff, maybe some forgery.

Noble turned street thug?  Oh GOD DAMMIT.

4)  And we're not even considering the dungeon-crawling basics:  Search, Spot, Listen, Survival

And if you think upping yourself to a higher-skill point class will help:  You'll either get twice as many skills that you "Need," or you have more skills that are cross-class (lookin' at you Monk).

5)  d20, 3.X or 4, is not a game that is about the skill system, especially if it is not for combat-related things.  You want to be the best blacksmith?  Str check for the effort required (Or Athletics), Con check for if you can work for hours/days on end (Or Endurance), Wisdom/Dex to check if the item if it is properly balanced if necessary (Perception?), and hell, throw in an Int check to see if you made the item to traditional expectations (History?).  Ta Da.  Now you can measure how well you made a particular item in comparison to another blacksmith with a simple skill challenge.  Yeah, he may have finished first, but you managed to pattern the filigree to the King's liking, so you are named the winner.  Requirement to participate in this challenge?  You and your DM discussed how you were a blacksmith before you got recruited/drafted to become a Fighty McFighterson, Rougy McStabberguy, Ranger McShootstoomuch, Heals McLeaderhosen, or Nukes O'Arcana.

6)  Or another example from the NW campaign:  Kuthin wants to start circulating anti-crown propaganda, IIRC, Ross had me roll some combination of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Thievery (Since that's where Forgery hides these days).  If the system isn't giving you obvious tools, find out where they are hiding, and be consistent with them.

Resource Management:

7)  I don't get how the "resource management" of 4e is that straining.  You have 2 basic attacks (at wills), 4 encounters (probably similar to your at wills, but better), 4 Dailies, and 6 Utilities (not all of which will be useful in combat).  At most 16 "spells," approx the same amount of choices for a caster capable of 3rd or 4th level spells, and you don't have to ensure you have the correct ones ready for each day. 

  I guess you also have to keep track of magic items, but wait, you just grab a generic + level/5 item for Weapon, body, and neck slot and you're on par with the attack/def curve.  The longest part of making a 3.X character post level 1 is buying magic items, another resource management, which requires more effort and finesse from non-casters just to be effective.

9)  Along those lines:  Money.  You do not believe how HAPPY I was as a GM when I read that you can't sell mundane items, and magic items always sell for 1/5th of the market cost.  Balancing the books in accordance with WBL is now causally manageable.  Heroes want to do silly appraise/barter scams?  Shave the gains out of a treasure parcel.  Another party of equal level would have been using the time Killing more monsters and completing more quests in the same amount of time during that level.

Class Roles/Balance:

10)  Well-min/maxed wizards, clerics, druids, and artificers are overpowered in comparison to other classes.  A Cleric becomes a fighter with spells once they have access to Divine Power (and before that they can get close).  Druids get an animal companion and wild shape (Hello 3 dumpable stats!).  Just google up the Wizard's Guide to being Batman, I dare you.  And the Artificer gets access to all Save or Suck and Save or Die spells via scrolls, and becomes a walking artillery when he metamagics a wand and is able to take 10 on UMD, (not to mention he also gets to use most of TWGtBB).   Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and even Monks with the same amount (or more) of effort maximizing do not even approach that level of utility at any level, much less mid to higher levels.

11)  Yeah, it's nice when a classes' sheer power allows a mediocre tactician to be acceptable, but that's not necessarily a good design philosophy.  Even if you do talk to your Wizard or CoDzilla about how to not be a dick, you still have to consider what they can do when you design encounters.  If you make a challenging encounter for your weaker characters, what are you going to do when the wizard finally makes the decision to trivialize the encounter to avoid a TPK?  You have just reinforced to the party that your Wizard can do it all without you when he has to, you are just here to take care of the gruntwork. 

12)  I would not expect Kuthin or Locke to solo any equal-level, full-party encounter like a 3rd ed wizard.  Now don't get me wrong, we would get close, but then Ross would let it run away with 1hp, but that's not the point .  But when you hear any AP fan discuss what they like about either character (Moreso Locke/Cody, but whatever), it has less to do how much damage was done and more with how they interact with other players and NPCs, and we don't have the option of just firing off Charm Person to avoid a potentially challenging social situation.  In combat, we need the other players to support us in order to shine, just like we need each other out of combat to keep the colony, natives, or Pontifex from outright killing us in our sleep, but the two of us walk around like the baddest motherfuckas in the known universe at every available opportunity.

13)  Even if you remove the reality aspect of "Life is not always fair," You can't escape the reality of "There's always someone bigger and badder than you, and yes, he will kick the shit out of you for your stale crackers just because he can."  Unless, you are a well-prepared 3rd ed wizard, then you can have everyone's stale crackers, ever.

14)  I would add more, but this is plenty for now and I have work in the morning

/rant off

Yeah, I'm doing it again - I inserted numbers to track my thoughts. And there is seriously something wrong with me when I need a word document to organize my thoughts... I must be getting old.

1)  I don't feel that 3 was more complicated than 4. Yes, there were more choices, but that doesn't mean it is more complicated. An example I would use incorporates your example from my numbered point 5. You have effectively taken what was 1 skill and now require a back-story and 4 skill-checks to accomplish. By reducing the number of unique skills, but increasing dramatically the combination of skills to achieve the same result, you have effectively made it more complicated and harder to understand. Also, everyone had to play resource management with skills - it wasn't limited to just one class. Some classes were designed to have more skill flexibility by the nature of the role they were intended to play. Yes, you could use those points in a way that may not have been in the design, but it was still a choice. And you still have to manage your resources. Fighters still aren't diplomatic.

2) Don't make your players do regular maintenance. It wasn't a requirement of the system that you maintain your weapons. Having proficiency with the weapon came with the understanding that you needed to oil blades and string bows. No roll required. The skill was to create and repair (when actually sundered etc.) instead of maintain.

3) Pathfinder addressed this to some extent, but also terrain impacts different characters in different ways - as it is supposed to. Not everyone is athletic, and that is still the case in 4e. And if you want your fighter to play a noble, act like one, just not a very proficient one. At least you could put a couple of points in the skill to reflect tutelage to some extent. You may not be the same as every level 5 fighter, but you are unique in your choices. How is that better in 4e? You still have to choose, but now everyone just has the base 1/2 level plus attribute choice. And who makes a charismatic fighter in 4e? It's still a dump stat mostly. A street 'thug' wouldn't be a forger - you are just digging for skills on this one. And at least a noble turned thug could pick up a little bit of thievery, and not be instantly masterful at it. In 4e, it's either all or none. And it takes a feat.

4) 3.x - take a few skill points if you think that is your role. 4e - if you have perception, you don't have intimidate - there will always be some trade off, but 3.x allowed for more gradation in ability. Pathfinder also addressed the whole cross-class. Take a look - you might find it the improvement to 3.x that 4e should have been in my opinion. Still not totally perfect, but a big step up from 3.5.

5) You have found a complicated way to address a simple problem. Broad skills like Profession and Craft that have many applicable sub-categories but a single method of resolution addresses this nicely I feel.

6) Ross' solution was eloquent and would likely have been handled similarly in 3.x.

7) Exactly - now everyone is a caster of 4th level. How does this address the problem my fighter friend had? He used to cast one spell - slay with sword - and now he has 16? Not seeing the improvement.

The attack/defense curve is another thing that bugs me. Now you MUST have that item to be on par, but it doesn't stop there - you also MUST have the armour, and you MUST have the cloak, and you MUST have the belt, and you MUST have vest etc. I'm not saying you weren't going to have several items to boost your stats and pluses in 3.x, but it was possible to run into things in 3.x that fell outside of the curve in some category. The reduction to a simple chart of level+item+main stat increases = monster difficulty means that if you fall short in one area, you likely can't do anything against it. And I'm not talking just the epic monsters from 3.x like dragons etc that even high level characters needed to roll well to defeat. Now a simple orc has an AC that doesn't reflect what you can see it has. The consistency that was offered by chainmail = +5 to AC has gone out the window. It just so much feels like you are calculating your DPS versus building your character.

9) I hate the way they handle money now. The logarithmic scale of wealth is annoying. Oh, sure, it is simple, but it is obnoxious.  I mean, if my PC had that kind of wealth, he would just hire a bunch of NPCs and equip them reasonably well and they could form an army at anytime to challenge anything. Sure, the DM should prevent that, but the game system specifically makes that available (see your point in 11 and see the similarities). If you don't follow the guide on how to distribute items and wealth to your players, you can easily make it hard for them to keep up with the required stats. An example: If you randomly give your players items, instead of the ones they want as the book suggests, then they sell for 1/5th versus the benefit from something you actually want, it can take forever for them to get an actually useful item. And since the money is calculated based on players getting items they actually want, if you do that one little thing, the monsters start to out-perform the PCs at the same level.

10) You make assumptions of unlimited wealth here and disregard the fact that wizards have limited ability to cast in many encounters. Sure, if you can go absolutely prepared into every encounter, and always fight on a battlefield of your choosing, you can accomplish some pretty fantastic results. Sure, take a round to cast your spell cleric, and hope it isn't disrupted, and that you actually could spare the round or rounds to get prepared. Druids were pretty buff, but still not the equal of an equivalent fighter in that arena unless extremely specialized (which removes some of the versatility that you equate). A fighter needs to draw his weapon. And his AC is likely higher. And his BaB is higher. And he is still likely stronger than the wild-shaping druid or buffed cleric (who chose wisdom and charisma as a higher priority than strength). And he also has feats that make him more effective with his weapon. And he actually has the magic weapon instead of spending his money on a wand or scrolls. So yes, there is utility; but I don't see how that always makes them better at everything.

11) You're right - it isn't necessarily a good design philosophy. Ross already made that point and I agree in some ways. You always need to consider your players when you design encounters, even for generic encounters. There is always some combination that is more effective, and there likely always will be. I know 4e addresses this generic encounter design better than 3.x. I still don't prefer it. An example would be that we had a party with one character who was a spiked-chain trip-monkey. Nothing that wasn't large and had four legs could get within 15 feet of him without being tripped and whacked. You can design generic encounters that he will be able to beat most of the time, or you can take his tripping out of the equation. In 4e, I made an avenger that has about 5 different teleport options. The DM tried to make an encounter with basically difficult terrain everywhere that the enemies could move through but we couldn't (nature thing). No problem for my character, but everyone else was bogged down. If I wasn't playing my teleporter, the encounter would have gone down very differently. Nothing works every time. If you make a system that does, it will be dull and lifeless. As for making an encounter that is challenging for the weaker characters, but that the wizard can't just win outright, throw in creatures with spell resistance or immunity (golems, demons, devils etc). Good luck to your wizard there. Because unless they were prepared with a whole whack of anti-demon spells, their generic mix is likely not going to be that effective. It can make for a challenging campaign when most of your opponents are magic resistant. I had my wizard change from dealing damage to buffing and staying alive. She helped out where she could, but certainly didn't own any encounter. And if she decided to prepare for a demon fight, and we ended up fighting normal creatures? Well, dimensional anchor doesn't do anything unless the target tries to teleport... and dismissal doesn't work on trolls... Yeah, you can handle anything, but the fighter always has their sword, and it is always reliable. Everyone always uses the 'perfectly prepared wizard' in all of their examples. It isn't realistic in the game unless your DM always tells you what you are fighting next.

12) You are talking about role-playing, and not the system. I never argued that good role-playing is the point to either version of the game.

13) There's that well-prepared example again. Just because the wizard in the storybooks always has the right spells, doesn't mean the class inherently always has the right spells ready. One of the main points I always made was that I liked the fact that the wizard could shine when they were prepared - I don't think that is wrong, because the downside is that when they aren't, they usually just get in the way.

14) I'm at work   (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)

[Tadanori Oyama]

14) I'm at work   (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)

Internet work users of the world unite!... just, keep it quiet, my supervisor is one cube over.

[Mckma]

14) I'm at work   (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)

Internet work users of the world unite!... just, keep it quiet, my supervisor is one cube over.

"Technically" I'm at work (of course I live at my workplace/work at my living space)...

[Shallazar]

4E RULES!!!!!

[malyss]

4E RULES!!!!!

Succinct.

[sarendt]

I don't have the depth of experience some of you have, but one of the ways I always felt that fighters were easier to play than wizards, or many classes that had to work alot harder.  I don't mean simply organizing their spells, but as a GM I wouldn't just let players take spells from the book, or buy magik items willy nilly.  You want something special you had to go get it, or prove to your mentor that you desirved the privaledge.  Almost everything the fighter needs is basic items, sure they might want some magic gear, but maybe they aren't as picky about what it is.  Where wizards need spells and magic items alot more. 

I would run my games the same way in either system.  In 4.0 it would be alot harder I think to explain to the wizard, you have to quest for that daily ability, but the fighter doesnt... I didn't think that one through...

[Tadanori Oyama]

What? Fighter's depend on magic items for their very existance. I do like to see characters work for what they gain. The system you describe doesn't seem to really balance the classes unless you literally give the players one to one magic items to spells, IE Fighter gets one magic sword, Wizard gets one spell. Now that would limit spell casters.

Even under your system, once the Wizard has earned that spell (which is as easy as copying it off of a scroll and into his spellbook, after he finds said scroll), he can continue to use that spell FOREVER! Regardless of it's continued usefulness he never has to let go of that spell.

The Fighter who gains a new suit of magical armor gains its benefits until such time as he gains another suit of magical armor, at which point he must choose between the two.

[ristarr]

...  I don't mean simply organizing their spells, but as a GM I wouldn't just let players take spells from the book, or buy magik items willy nilly.  You want something special you had to go get it, or prove to your mentor that you desirved the privaledge...

This is one of the things I miss most about my original playing group ( back in the AD&D days ).  I never figured out how I actually got a wizard up to 15th level.  Our DM made me go through hell to find every new spell.  I would level up and then not get a new spell because I didn't have one of that level.  And if I did have some, they were probably crappy.  I would do anything for a gently used spellbook or scroll ( I was young and needed the parchment ).  I would gaze lovingly at all those spells in the PHB and just wish ( crap that is 9th level! ) for some shiny new ones.  I was killed at about 6th level and LUCKY to be reincarnated as a centaur.  There were lots of worse things in that damn chart to become reincarnated as.  Ahhh!!! and my wand of wonder,  which i could and would pull out when the shit truly hit the fan.  Never will figure out how I survived, I guess my DM was nicer to us than I thought!

That is what I miss about older versions and the unbalancedness.  But 4e is a much better game to play.  If I was starting out now, I am sure I would have the same memories of death defying and death cheating events.  Hardships unknown by any other fantasy character ....

[Murph]

I would run my games the same way in either system.  In 4.0 it would be alot harder I think to explain to the wizard, you have to quest for that daily ability, but the fighter doesnt... I didn't think that one through...

Isn't a troupe of the martial arts genre (e.g. Drunken Master, Karate Kid, hell, Dragon Ball Z even) that the fighty guy has to go on a quest to find a mentor or teacher to teach him that new ultimate technique?  I'd think 4th ed would make this style of play even easier.