DarthHelmet86 wrote:I couldn't make my bard, who was better at picking locks (or disable device) than the rogue was and could buff the crap out of the party as well and was good enough at ranged combat to help in any combat. As well as being able to use his rapier to devastating effect when needed. Lets not forget how he could also talk us past a lot of obstacles. Charisma doesn't have to be a dump stat.

In 4E, it isn't. I don't see how this character is unmakeable. Here's the bard. One feat in Skill training grants the Thievery skill.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I couldn't make my frontline cleric who was not maxed on wisdom, instead had higher con and strength, he used his limited spells to buff himself so he could wreck absolute house. He once won a bar fight while naked.

Well for starters, I'm fairly sure one of the two basic builds for cleric is based around strength.

But here is where I think you are looking at the problem in the wrong way. You want a divine-based character who can fill the frontline combatant role. A priestly pugilist. The gods' legbreaker. In 4E terms, a divine defender: you want a paladin, not a cleric.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I doubt I could make my Dwavern Ranger who used a trident and rode a giant spider. He would often be in the front of the group with his trident planted in the ground to stop charging enemies. He never used ranged combat, underground there isn't often enough room for it so his clan focused on melee and spiders of course.

Fighter with the mounted combat feat.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:My mates gnome barbarian would more than likely be out as well, he didn't wear armour and used a great sword and longbow.

There's no rule that says your character has to wear armor. It is less advantageous for them to not do so, but this was the case in previous editions as well. In fact, since AC in 4E improves with level progression and enchanted cloth is a standard option the unarmored warrior is more viable in 4E than in any other edition. As far as a gnome being a barbarian, that seems more a roleplaying issue than a rules one. Come up with a feasible backstory and your mother's brother is named Robert.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:And my other mates fighter that was dex focused and who multiclassed into sorcerer. He wore the lightest armour he could and used mage armour to almost make himself untouchable. I had plans that later in the game I would reveal he was half dragon for a nice bit of roleplaying to explain the sorcerer powers and why I let his race favoured class be sorcerer.

Again, you are looking at the problem from the wrong end. Don't look at the class and try and figure out how to tweak it based on what you want the character to be able to do. Look at what you want the character to be able to do and pick the class accordingly. If you want a dex-based warrior in 4E, you want a rogue, not a fighter. The sorcerer class also explicitly has a "draconic" path available to it. If the character story is an agile warrior who discovers mystic abilities linked to his draconic ancestors as he progresses, a rogue multiclassing into draconic sorcerer seems a pretty obvious path to take. Alternatively, the swordmage class provides an arcane warrior character from the get-go.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Ironclad wrote:I got the old D&D Basic set when I was 14 and moved into AD&D within 12 months. Fantastic game. WE flirted with CoC (steady now..) and many other games such as Top Secret before trying Steve Jackson's Car Wars - that was enormous fun, until a good friend with aspergers worked out a win-formula and never lost a game again.

That is one I forgot from my list of games, Call of Cthulhu...amazing rules books. I wouldn't mind finding an experienced DM in that to learn how to really play it properly. A Cthulhy by Gaslight campaign would be super.

Come play with my boys sometime.

We've got the best CoC GM I've ever come across.

Goldenmane wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Ironclad wrote:I got the old D&D Basic set when I was 14 and moved into AD&D within 12 months. Fantastic game. WE flirted with CoC (steady now..) and many other games such as Top Secret before trying Steve Jackson's Car Wars - that was enormous fun, until a good friend with aspergers worked out a win-formula and never lost a game again.

That is one I forgot from my list of games, Call of Cthulhu...amazing rules books. I wouldn't mind finding an experienced DM in that to learn how to really play it properly. A Cthulhy by Gaslight campaign would be super.

Come play with my boys sometime.

We've got the best CoC GM I've ever come across.

The first CoC campaign I participated in was hampered by the inclusion of the younger brother of the aforementioned GM (Greg). If I recall correctly, he thought it would be a good idea to play a character whose only discernible talents were a mastery of artillery, a talent for headbutting people and a rank of five-star general. Who was black. In a campaign set in the 1930's.



Quite clearly, he was envisaging some scenario where we would actually win a fight with Cthulhu, thanks to his character's ... eclectic resources and training. Not sure why he went with the black thing; perhaps he'd seen In the Heat of the Night or something. The headbutting remains a mystery to this day.

After making a gentle effort, assisted by myself, to convince young Rowan that his character was:

a) an absurd anachronism

b) not possessed of any skills that a five-star general would actually possess

c) not possessed of any skills that would likely be useful in the averge CoC adventure (research and running like fuck)

and

d) fucking stupid

Greg allowed the character. Then tossed him in the hoosegow for impersonating a military officer. Not once, but several times.



Greg did eventually throw him a bone by allowing Rowan's character to blow up an underground labyrinth of tunnels that had been dug under the town by some fucked-up tentacle things. He was so happy.

Nicko wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I couldn't make my bard, who was better at picking locks (or disable device) than the rogue was and could buff the crap out of the party as well and was good enough at ranged combat to help in any combat. As well as being able to use his rapier to devastating effect when needed. Lets not forget how he could also talk us past a lot of obstacles. Charisma doesn't have to be a dump stat.

In 4E, it isn't. I don't see how this character is unmakeable. Here's the bard. One feat in Skill training grants the Thievery skill.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I couldn't make my frontline cleric who was not maxed on wisdom, instead had higher con and strength, he used his limited spells to buff himself so he could wreck absolute house. He once won a bar fight while naked.

Well for starters, I'm fairly sure one of the two basic builds for cleric is based around strength.

But here is where I think you are looking at the problem in the wrong way. You want a divine-based character who can fill the frontline combatant role. A priestly pugilist. The gods' legbreaker. In 4E terms, a divine defender: you want a paladin, not a cleric.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I doubt I could make my Dwavern Ranger who used a trident and rode a giant spider. He would often be in the front of the group with his trident planted in the ground to stop charging enemies. He never used ranged combat, underground there isn't often enough room for it so his clan focused on melee and spiders of course.

Fighter with the mounted combat feat.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:My mates gnome barbarian would more than likely be out as well, he didn't wear armour and used a great sword and longbow.

There's no rule that says your character has to wear armor. It is less advantageous for them to not do so, but this was the case in previous editions as well. In fact, since AC in 4E improves with level progression and enchanted cloth is a standard option the unarmored warrior is more viable in 4E than in any other edition. As far as a gnome being a barbarian, that seems more a roleplaying issue than a rules one. Come up with a feasible backstory and your mother's brother is named Robert.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:And my other mates fighter that was dex focused and who multiclassed into sorcerer. He wore the lightest armour he could and used mage armour to almost make himself untouchable. I had plans that later in the game I would reveal he was half dragon for a nice bit of roleplaying to explain the sorcerer powers and why I let his race favoured class be sorcerer.

Again, you are looking at the problem from the wrong end. Don't look at the class and try and figure out how to tweak it based on what you want the character to be able to do. Look at what you want the character to be able to do and pick the class accordingly. If you want a dex-based warrior in 4E, you want a rogue, not a fighter. The sorcerer class also explicitly has a "draconic" path available to it. If the character story is an agile warrior who discovers mystic abilities linked to his draconic ancestors as he progresses, a rogue multiclassing into draconic sorcerer seems a pretty obvious path to take. Alternatively, the swordmage class provides an arcane warrior character from the get-go.

See this is the exact point, you said you couldn't see how it locked you into certain classes and you have just said I should stop picking a class I like and seeing how I can play it in different ways and still be effective and instead should pick how I want to play and pick the class that lets me do that. 3.5 doesn't force me to do that and neither do a lot of other RPGs, I can pick a class and tweak it if I want to fit my roleplaying ideas, that is the freedom I want in an RPG not being told that to play how I want I must pick a certain class no matter what. Were roleplaying takes the fore over rules and min/maxing.

Lets take the Cleric, he wasn't a Paladin for a reason I didn't want to play a Lawful Good character. My Cleric was Neutral Good and would often put off doing heroic things to get drunk. I simply couldn't play him the way I did if he was a Paladin.

A similar thing goes for my mate, he didn't know I planned on making him a half dragon. He wanted to play a fighter/wizard or sorcerer and he was more interested in being a sorcerer (it also better fit the idea of a fighter casting spells right on the front line). I, as a DM, thought about it for a while and worked out that I could add an interesting storyline into the game, him trying to find his parent who ran out on him and left him ostracised and alone.

If you like the game the way it is then good, play it and enjoy it. But the reasons I have stated are why I don't enjoy the game in 4E. If I wanted to play an updated 3.5 I would get Pathfinder but I simply don't have to play an updated version 3.5 is good enough as is.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:See this is the exact point, you said you couldn't see how it locked you into certain classes and you have just said I should stop picking a class I like and seeing how I can play it in different ways and still be effective and instead should pick how I want to play and pick the class that lets me do that. 3.5 doesn't force me to do that and neither do a lot of other RPGs, I can pick a class and tweak it if I want to fit my roleplaying ideas, that is the freedom I want in an RPG not being told that to play how I want I must pick a certain class no matter what. Were roleplaying takes the fore over rules and min/maxing.

I'm really not seeing your point here. It certainly seems preferable to me to be able to pick a class that does what I want it to do straight out of the box and get right on with the business of making roleplaying decisions about motivation and personality as opposed to having to carefully plan a character progression so that the character will begin to look like what you envisaged around 8th level.

In short, 4E seems to require less obsession with the rules system, putting more emphasis on the character.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Lets take the Cleric, he wasn't a Paladin for a reason I didn't want to play a Lawful Good character. My Cleric was Neutral Good and would often put off doing heroic things to get drunk. I simply couldn't play him the way I did if he was a Paladin.

The character you described was definitely not LG, but 4E doesn't have alignment restrictions for classes. The character you described sounds awfully like a Paladin dedicated to one of the rowdier Unaligned deities.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:A similar thing goes for my mate, he didn't know I planned on making him a half dragon. He wanted to play a fighter/wizard or sorcerer and he was more interested in being a sorcerer (it also better fit the idea of a fighter casting spells right on the front line). I, as a DM, thought about it for a while and worked out that I could add an interesting storyline into the game, him trying to find his parent who ran out on him and left him ostracised and alone.

Okay.

His concept sounds more like a Swordmage.

Just as an aside, the dragon ancestry thing sounds like a great surprise resolution for a character who is searching for some kind of resolution to their mysterious family issues, BTW. Would I be right in guessing he'd find this out, oh ... round about the time the party was ready to start taking on dragons as adversaries?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:If you like the game the way it is then good, play it and enjoy it. But the reasons I have stated are why I don't enjoy the game in 4E. If I wanted to play an updated 3.5 I would get Pathfinder but I simply don't have to play an updated version 3.5 is good enough as is.

The problem is, that I don't think your criticisms of 4E accurately describe the game.

They accurately describe my problems with the game as I read it when the books first came out, simple as that. Out of the people I know who play DnD I dislike 4E the least, I can see how it might be funnier for people new to the game or for people who enjoy min/maxing and filling specific roles in a group. For the groups I played in it felt restrictive.

As for the half dragon I actually planned that he would run into his dad not long after starting, he just wouldn't know. His dad would be assuming form of an elf who would be watching over his spawn. He would pop up here and there, perhaps offering a job or a rumour every now and then or needing saving on the road. And at some point they would hear about a dragon horde and go to investigate, instead finding his father there and the truth would be revealed to the player.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:They accurately describe my problems with the game as I read it when the books first came out, simple as that. Out of the people I know who play DnD I dislike 4E the least, I can see how it might be funnier for people new to the game or for people who enjoy min/maxing and filling specific roles in a group. For the groups I played in it felt restrictive.

Whereas, for me, it felt like the focus was off the rules and onto the roleplaying.

Weird.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:As for the half dragon I actually planned that he would run into his dad not long after starting, he just wouldn't know. His dad would be assuming form of an elf who would be watching over his spawn. He would pop up here and there, perhaps offering a job or a rumour every now and then or needing saving on the road. And at some point they would hear about a dragon horde and go to investigate, instead finding his father there and the truth would be revealed to the player.

Ahah! An, "I am your father." moment without all the hand-chopping and whinging.

Nicko wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:They accurately describe my problems with the game as I read it when the books first came out, simple as that. Out of the people I know who play DnD I dislike 4E the least, I can see how it might be funnier for people new to the game or for people who enjoy min/maxing and filling specific roles in a group. For the groups I played in it felt restrictive.

Whereas, for me, it felt like the focus was off the rules and onto the roleplaying.

Weird.

People react differently to things, I had been playing and reading 3/3.5E books for a long time. I don't think about the rules when making a new character because they are often so obvious that I just work with them or around them anyway. To me 4E fails when it comes to experienced roleplayers, people used to grabbing the rules by the short and curlys and making new things happen. That isn't to say experienced roleplayers can't enjoy it, some no doubt would disagree with me but all the players I know who don't like 4E fall into that group. And I hope you understand Nicko while I disagree with you about 4E I don't hold any ill will or bullshit like that towards you.

Nicko wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:As for the half dragon I actually planned that he would run into his dad not long after starting, he just wouldn't know. His dad would be assuming form of an elf who would be watching over his spawn. He would pop up here and there, perhaps offering a job or a rumour every now and then or needing saving on the road. And at some point they would hear about a dragon horde and go to investigate, instead finding his father there and the truth would be revealed to the player.

Ahah! An, "I am your father." moment without all the hand-chopping and whinging.

Something like that yes, we never got close enough for me to solidify the event into actual writing and planning. It was merely a long term goal that I had a vague concept of. I for one had no clue how the player would play it, whether he would be happy to have a dad back in his life or would reject the father for having abandoned him in the past. I didn't even know if I would make the dragon good or evil or neutral.

Back to talking in general there are more than a few RPGs I would like to find groups for willing to take a noob in. I am well versed in DnD 3.5 (and in D20 Modern since it is the same rules pretty much) but there is stuff like Ravenloft I would rather play as a player rather than trying to run. Same goes for Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness and Shadowrun, while I have an understanding of the rules from the books this doesn't translate into how the game really plays in a group. Sadly my social anxiety disorder tends to make it hard for me to find such a group and even if I did I fear I would come off as too awkward or weird and it wouldn't last long. The fear is no doubt unjustified but that is mental problems for ya.

There are a couple of other RPGs I have in mind for collecting as well, stuff like the Star Wars D20 game and the Firefly game. But I need to finish what I have now before I start collecting more, Shadowrun just got a new edition I still haven't had the money or time to pick up.

I guess this happens when things change, but for myself I hated the 2nd edition (revision) to AD&D. Those new classes.. I dunno, they seemed to guide the player into roleplaying a certain niche, less wriggle room perhaps. And THACO, just why??

I'm sure I saw a 4th edition a while back, WothC seemed to be 'doing a GW' to me by releasing multiple entries for core books - a few Player's Handbooks for example. Why all the complication?

To Hit Armour Class 0 seems like such an odd method of working out a hit or miss doesn't it? I much prefer the Armour Class method of 3/3.5 you just have to roll a die and get that number or above flat or with your to hit bonus.

There was always the idea that 3/3.5 was the publisher (I don't think it is Wizards of the Coast any more is it? I can't remember they had some legal trouble I seem to remember) trying to suck money out of players by making them buy a whole bunch of new Core Books. But I think I buy their argument that they needed to stop fiddling around with the rules in supplements and Dragon/Dungeon magazines and instead to re-codify the rules in Core Books for new and old players to be on a similar field without needing all those supplements and magazines.

With stuff like the Players Handbook 2 I don't know what is in them to benefit buying them. I do know the Monster Manual 2/3 and the like add a lot of new content they are filled with new monsters. I would assume the Players Handbook and Dungeon Master extra books are similar, grabbing all the new content that was originally spread over many supplements and putting it into one core book. So the Players Handbook would have lots of equipment, classes, spells, advanced class from other supplements. I could be wrong though.

Hey, I've just done a little delving myself, there is a new edition coming out. AD&D Next, apparently it is being play-tested, or has been for quite a long time. Here's a link.

I think I heard about that a few years back, I also think I heard they did some alterations to 4E to make it kinda 4.5E. But I can't be sure, I stopped keeping track of DnD besides the books I was collecting and paid more attention to other games.

Well to be fair to them, if you have a company then you need to make money, an RPG like D&D can't exactly turn over a lot of money because you can't tax a verbal game (our group never used lead figurines) - the cash is all in the books. But tweaking the rules you get new blood and the money they bring in. Dragon Magazine was very good, I guess WofC got a few quid-buck-yens from here.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I think I heard about that a few years back, I also think I heard they did some alterations to 4E to make it kinda 4.5E. But I can't be sure, I stopped keeping track of DnD besides the books I was collecting and paid more attention to other games.

One day old D&D Next news HERE, but I can't read it as the site is blocked here at work.

They actually don't always make that much money off books, at least not as much as you would think. Shadowrun was almost killed because a guy in charge nicked all the money and legged it. They didn't have the money to make more books so they had to hope they could scrape together enough from the ones already made.

Even though they saved it in the end, a lot of people didn't get paid and quit. This changed the games rule books since they were being written by new people.

Ironclad wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I think I heard about that a few years back, I also think I heard they did some alterations to 4E to make it kinda 4.5E. But I can't be sure, I stopped keeping track of DnD besides the books I was collecting and paid more attention to other games.

One day old D&D Next news HERE, but I can't read it as the site is blocked here at work.

Links to a forum page, one of which is to a recent Q&A that is people asking questions about the build. Doesn't seem to be news about when it is coming out just them clearing up rules and the like.

Why don't they bite the bullet and make video games (too)? WoW looks like copyright thievery to me, IIRC certain monsters are subject to rules grounding D&D couterparts (eg, Wight)

The reason DnD can't really sue over that shit is because they nicked all the ideas from other people in the first place.

And they do make some video games, there is even a couple of DnD MMOs out there.

Linky link?

This is the newest one Neverwinter and this is the older one Dungeons and Dragons Online. I think they are both Free To Play but are both also kinda only average and focused on sucking money out of people.