I agree, DM Windwalker - in that all the powers seem to be the same and so on. There was a bit of discussion going on in Community Chat along the same lines, and I guess that no matter how long people debate it for, there are going to remain opposing points.

In regards to DM Annihilator's comment about 4E's balance - that in itself is something else that I'm not so keen on. Personally, I would think that a seventeen year old who's been training with a sword for a few years would be more powerful than a seventeen year old wizard who's just learned to cast his first cantrip.

My impression would be that yes, it takes longer to become a master wizard than it does to become a master fighter, and it certainly takes a hell of a lot more study.

To be honest, one of the reasons I'm not overly keen on the wizard class as a whole, is that it really strikes me as a 'study' class. I would imagine the most powerful wizards being the ones staying at home, huddled away in their libraries reading book after book.

But I'm running off on a tangent, my original point was like I said - a 1st level wizard shouldn't be equally as powerful as a 1st level fighter, and yes, a 15th level wizard probably should be more powerful than a 15th level fighter.

A problem I've encountered is that, cool as the whole 'rebranding for flavour' thing is - it's not much good if you can't hit anything. I've just finished an encounter, and my wizard was completely useless, not because her powers were weak, but because I just couldn't hit anything, and I've got a maxed out INT score.

Plus, an encounter that killed one party member and used up everyone else's Dailies only gave us 100 XP each.

Well, yes, in the world at large. Magic is usually a world-shaping force, of course.

But story-wise, a heroic warrior really ought to have a chance at slaying the evil wizard, no matter what their level of power (provided they're roughly equal). Can Conan slay Thulsa Doom? Yes, of course he can.

Balance in the rules enables the heroes to have a chance at defeating the villain, and for everyone to be able to contribute equally. Rules, with balance, is just a way of creating authorial control over the story, rather than having everyone die pointlessly. Rules enable story, they shouldn't shape story.

I agree.  I will add that from a balance perspective, the "more powerful wizard" at high level is really, really shitty for the other PCs.  I ran a AD&D campaign for 4 years, where the party ended up at like level 26.  The wizard was a god--not literally, but making it literal was on his agenda.  The cleric did OK, but the wizard outpaced him.  The rogue and fighter suffered heavily.  They were nearly useless (comparatively to the encounters and the wizard/cleric) at high levels.  It was so bad that, to balance those two players, I had to give the rogue a minor artifact and practically re-write the fighter class.

Having unbalanced classes at high levels is not fun for anyone except the overpowered class....
This message was last edited by the player at 01:56, Tue 20 Jan 2009.

Aye, it is one reasons why I like 4th edition. The all classes are balanced and are somewhat equal in power level wise but each with own specialization (wizard can deal more better mobs of minions while fighter smash one targets harder and can self-recover for sometime without aid of healer).

The dailies use and so on is call card (or trump card) on chars. I myself rely quite heavily in using at-will powers and oppoturnistic use of encounter powers. I often have noticed I go to day sleep wit daily powers left in my wizard!

It can be that I do play WoW a lot so I have MMO tactical mind working while I play or something, but so far how I have run encounters the ONLY one who uses dailies often is our party ranger who likes make some hefty nuking from start and do things calmly rest of the time (he always uses power where he fires three arrows, then uses action point fire two arrows to single tough guy once he figures out which figures are minions and which are tougher guys).

Still, I do like 3.5 edition because it provides variety and is fun to tweak builds and make varied chars with different abilities instead cookie cutter builds in 4th edition. I try add some interesting mixes by choosing a different race to the class beyond recomendations. Example I play tiefling wizard who uses FORCE spells instead fire spells (and so not taking infernal bloodline likely).

A good summary of the problems with unbalanced classes....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
This message was last edited by the player at 15:45, Tue 10 Feb 2009.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20090218 - in the latest episode of the D&D Podcast, the guys from Penny Arcade and PVP are back, playing another 4E adventure, with Chris Perkins from WotC R&D as the DM.  Joining them for the adventure, is Will Wheaton of Star Trek fame, playing one of the new classes to be coming out in the PHB 2.  For those who have yet to actually play or try out this system, I suggest giving it a listen, and if you'd like, there's about eight other episodes of their first adventure in the podcast archives, as well.


Warning: This podcast contains strong language.

So, since I now have some first-hand experience, I'd like to make the following statement:  running a tabletop game of 4E D&D is a lot of fun, and a whole lot smoother than 3.5 ever was.  Class powers are a really great concept, giving everyone other options than just moving or attacking, and letting everyone have the option of pulling out some really neat trick once per day that can change the tide of an encounter for them.  Also, I really like the simplified skill list, which I'm sure I've already mentioned when raving about how awesome Star Wars Saga Edition is - having skills like Perception, Stealth, and Thievery is definitely a Good Thing in my book.

Also, I like the way Healing Surges work - you can get a small boost, once per encounter, by drawing on your natural resilience, but to get more healing than that in one encounter, you'll need someone giving you an aid, like a Cleric with his Healing Word, a Paladin, or a Warlord (I had all three of these present in my game, heh).  If you could just continually soak up damage by yourself, it would have come of as 'wrong' to me, but the way it's actually implemented really works, as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, there was no less roleplaying than in any game of 3.5 I've ever run, and the rules did nothing to hamper creativity.  So that particular myth is, as far as I'm concerned, completely and totally busted.  :p

I agree, DM Annihilator.  I love 4E.  I've been running a message board game ever since it came out, and it seems to work just fine.

Also, I agree there's lots of RP.  I also think that the classes are much more susceptible to being reflavored than 3.5 or any other previous edition I have played.  For instance, I have a player who wanted badly to play a sort of Final-Fantasy esque "monster" mage--in the sense of having monster powers.  So he picked a changling (so he could morph his features), and then just reflavored all his wizard spells.  They do the exact same thing, he just describes them very differently.  (I've told him he could change the damage type to fit with my approval, but so far he hasn't even done that.)  For instance, this is his Cloud of Daggers:

The Brood: (Wizard at-will)
Your features shift to that of an insect and you call fourth a small brood of angry hornets.
At-Will, Arcane, Implement, Force
Standard Action     Range: Area 1 square within 10 squares     Target: Each creature in square
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Attack Bonus: +5     ½ Level: +1  Ability: +3     Class: +0
                     Prof: +0     Feat: +0     Enhance: +1
Damage: + 4     Ability: +3     Feat: +0     Enhance: +1
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier damage and you push the target 1 square.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.
Secondary Effect: Any creature that enters the area or starts its turn in the area takes force damage equal to your intelligence modifier (+3).  The colony remains until the end of your next turn.  You can dispel it early as a minor action.


(I'm letting him use his changling morph power as a free action to look monstrous as he casts, with the proviso that it provides him with no game benefit--IE, no bluff bonus.  So it's effectively just flavor text.  He doesn't want it as a disguise anyway, so he doesn't care.)

I personally think that 4E has a lot more options for a creative RPer than any previous edition--you just have to use your imagination and change the flavor text.  (Especially true for caster classes; martial power source is harder.)
This message was last edited by the player at 18:14, Mon 09 Mar 2009.

I can see how a player with a good "theme" can really take advantage of the "generic" powers, which reminds me a lot like GURPS Supers where you built your powers out of basic building blocks and flavored them differently.

So a telekentic force push would do X damage.
A fireball would do X damage + fire + Area of Effect + combust combustable items
An ice beam would do X damage + forst + freeze things etc. etc.

However, the major failing I had with the system is that it does nothing to assist a player who's imagination is lacking. For example, in Star Wars Saga there are all these diplomatic powers that cause enemies to hesistate or switch sides etc. etc. Game mechanics are fine, but I'm still WTF? How does that work RP wise? Why would a stormtrooper suddenly not fire on someone?

The player really has to fill in the gaps or there are huge gaping gaps and the game feels like a video game. From what I can tell, the mechanics seem to be pretty solid, but there's no flow. It's turned from South Park to Family Guy (eh, how about that cultural reference :D). That's not to say it's not fun!, but it seems to put much more emphasis on the "game" part as opposed to the "role-playing."

It's interesting, because 2nd ed (and Star Wars d6) had TONS of emphasis on the "role-playing" part but the rules were convaluted and a real mess. 3.0...3.5 swung the pendulum closer to the middle, but then they kept going and now the rules & mechanics are solid, but there are huge gaps on the RP side. A good player or a good concept can fill those gaps, but then again a good DM could fill the rules gaps, it's just harder for the rest of us :D

Hmm.  Well, the flavor text on each ability helps to fill in gaps.  But I also just haven't had much trouble figuring out how to describe things in 4E--and nor have my players.  The hardest thing has been the healing ability of the Warlord (as he is martial), but my player does a good job flavor texting that as cajoling people to stand back up, "Stop napping!", etc.

With due respect, I think one would have to have a really terrible imagination not to be able to come up with something for this stuff.  I'd have some sympathy with someone trying to flavor some martial powers without going into the super-human (which is what I'd do), but other than that I just don't see it.

Also, since when has anyone ever expected D&D to be a game that doesn't require imagination?  In my experience as a DM, every new player I've encountered is quickly enamored with the idea that they can describe their abilities however they want, and almost always have ideas once I prompt them a little bit....

*shrugs*

Well, remember that Stormtroopers, being the elite soldiers of the Empire, are completely and totally loyal to the Emperor.  "They cannot be bribed, blackmailed, or seduced. Any such attempt automatically fails."  To me, this would also mean that abilities that would cause an opponent to switch sides (the only thing that does this that I can think of, besides Mind Trick with the Dominate Mind technique applied - which would clearly work - being one of the talents from the Corporate Agent prestige class from KotOR CG), would fail.

As for the Adept/Master Negotiator talents from the Jedi Consular talent tree, which lets you slide an opponent down the Condition Track by making Persuasion-checks, it's as the original talent states:  "You weaken the resolve of an opponent with your words."  You basically talk them down, until they put down their weapons (or at least choose not to attack you or your allies).  Now, remember that if you or your allies attack them - these penalties dissapear completely.  Again, Stormtroopers, in my campaign, would be immune to this - you aren't going to be able to talk a Stormtrooper out of following his orders, not unless you accompany your words with a Mind Trick anyway.  :p

And those abilities have deep consequences to be roleplayed out...




On the RP in 4e front, I find that I'm so much less inspired to play anything in 4e, just going by the fluff.

After messing around with SWSE and 4e, I found myself getting frustrated at having to put skill points into both Hide and Move Silently. Stealth is just so much easier. Logically, I know the reason: a failed Stealth check - did the Rogue step on a twig and give away his position (Move Silently failed) but still have the option of pretending it was an animal, or did he just get spotted altogether (Hide failed). I find I prefer 3.x's simulationist nature, even if it does overwhelm me, but 4e is easier.

I'm still rather mixed on 4e. Is anyone here running a 4e game and require a new PC? (I've just about giving up on finding games in Wanted - Players, too many hopes dashed.)

The only part about skills I don't love about 4E (and SWSE), is the inability to put just a single skill point into something that can't be used untrained, representing a very light degree of study in the skill, but enough to at least let me roll the dice for it.  Still, when it comes to the actual gameplay, the 4E skill list is definitely better, in my opinion - combining skills makes them more valuable (for example, you could take Athletics in 4E, rather than having to take Climb, Jump, and Swim - skills which I rarely see taken by anyone, except maybe a few Rangers or Rogues), and the Trained/Untrained mechanic makes levelling up so much easier.  Dividing out skill points was always one of the more time-costly thigns about levelling in 3.5 for me, except when I was playing something like a low-Int Fighter, or something, or just wanted to keep maxing out my existing skills rather than branching out.

Aye, skill system is quite simple in 4th edition and skill challenges are good way get whole team involved in task instead one guy do everything in one roll in 3.5 edition.

Example of gather information about corrupt merchant; fighter uses streetwise ask from street rumors, priest uses diplomacy ask from local officers or merchants about him, rogue uses stealth to stalk merchant learn more about him while wizard uses history knowledge to learn from local history about merchant's family etc.

GM would give varied info about merchant based on success of each roll and even if same scenario is played and used different skills it gives different info (it all matters how it was acquired).

What comes to RP then it can be both poor or rich as players make it out. Basically 4th edition allows loads of creativity but there is no 'rule based RP' present which comes automatically. Both GM and players need be creative to create interesting gaming. Otherwise 4th edition holds quite simple video gamish rules but thanks of simplicity it allows loads of creativity go around it.

Anycase has anyone opened 4th edition version of RoA? Based on the time table shown in 4th campaign guide to FR?

You know I hadn't actually thought of it that way. Good points raised, Kazzaroth.

I'm probably still not going to run out and buy any other books on 4E anyway. I'm just going to be happy to continue playing the system I know in the few games that I play in. However as time goes by and I hear more reports, my distaste towards 4E does seem to be lessening.

RoA will remain 3.5, though if anyone were to open a similar community for 4E games, I'd probably join, if only as a player at first.



What Class Are You?


Wooh, Bard!  :D

Did they include Druids in PHB2 for Fourth Ed?

I could have sworn as I was answering the questions that I was going to come out as a Ranger or Druid. Don't know how I got Barbarian, but there you go...

Yeah, Druids are in the PHB2.  They, along with Barbarians and some other new classes (Shaman and Warden, I think) represent the 'Primal' power source, so most nature-ish related answers will guide you towards those (but, strangely, not the Ranger, who is a Martial class, not Primal).

Yup, I observed that a while ago (see old post in this thread). The ranger has lost his place as the Paladin counterpart.
The class quiz appears to be broken...

I got Barbarian, too, jaguar.  I should have been a ranger or druid for sure.  If not that, then maybe a rogue.  The second time I took it, using some answers that had tied with others for my first choice, I got shaman.

And there I was sure I'd get Cleric... but then, Clerics aren't support characters any more, I guess.

>< How many times did they think they needed to ask me to choose a power source (arcane, martial, divine, primal)?!

Edited by DM Windwalker to clear up broken tags.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:07, Fri 20 Mar 2009.

Well, I thinked if some DM's volunteer become DM's/players I could open game(s) on Rpol which are made for 4th edition FR. In similar build/system as it is in here on RoA (regions split by different games while one game is basically OOC section).

Sure they are - Clerics are 'Leader' types, who support other characters and heal them, and aid their groups.  Even if you play a battle cleric, you'll be helping out the other party members, unless you really don't want to.  :p

So...  anyone here running any 4E games in need of characters?  I'm looking at the PHB2 classes, now that my Character Builder updated to include them, and I want to try both the Avenger (think Paladin meets Assassin! :D), Bard (my new favorite Leader-type), Sorcerer (Wild Magic-using halflings are totally awesome), and the Barbarian - and I'm sure I'll want to try some of the others, once I get to know them better, too.  :D