4Edition. Do you like it?

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

I finally managed to test-drive 4e last month. Went in with an open mind, and played a figther. Partially because I hadn't played one in a while, and partially to prove/disprove to myself the "fighters feel just like a spellcaster" fear.

It was fun, it was still D&D, and IMHO for that one 4-hour session, the fighter did feel like a fighter, primarily because all his powers were variations on "hit something with your sword." I don't know what other powers are out there for fighters, but I have no qualms at all about powers that are "hit something with your sword AND ..." or "hit something IN A SPECIFIC WAY with your sword."

But like Jester, the "recharge" felt nonsensical to me. Especially when I went up against the Big Bad Endboss and blew my daily on a natural-1 fumble. Why exactly can't I try that devastating maneuver until tomorrow? Some weird code of honor? I'm too tired? OK, but that makes even less sense for encounter powers. If I'm still strong enough to do another encounter power, why can't I do the same one again? And what mystical force tells me when one "encounter" ends and another begins?

Another thing that stuck in my craw was the at-will powers that were inherently better than the default "hit with sword." There was never, ever, ever a reason to just "hit with sword" when I could at least "hit with sword and do 1/2 damage if I miss" instead. So why make it a new power? why not just modify my standard attack? Seemed like sloppy game design to me. But I recognize this may be quibbling on details.

A lot of the fighter powers seemed like things that could easily be adapted into feats in 3.x. And if fighter feats were that fun and tactical in 3.x, I don't think we'd have seen as many complaints that the fighter feats don't measure up to spellcasting.

If any class makes sense with a point system (and IMHO, most do) the fighter is it. Rather than dailys and encounters, I'd have a bank of "endurance points" (or if you want to get fancy, just use hp) and each manuever wears him down by a different amount. Maybe what's now a "daily" costs enough points that you couldn't possibly do it twice without regaining some points. But the advantage there is that when you advance in level and get more points, maybe that old "daily" power just became a 2/day power because you can afford it. (like a 3.x wizard who gets the 6th level and can now cast 2 fireballs)

You can argue whatever you want for the rules behind magical forces. Maybe days and encounters have some mystic significance. But it's tough to justify those same rules for "tough guy with sword"

I suspect I'd really start to get irritated when I tried creating a character myself, especially a spellcaster. The wizard in my group was a fine approximation of a wizard that can make stuff go boom, but didn't seem to be able to do much else. Since my wizards usually have fun using the non-boom spells to make things go boom (like passwall on the rooftop a monster was standing on, for example), I don't think I'd much enjoy the restricted spell list.

I would play 4e again, if the opportunity came up. But I won't seek it out. I still have no desire to buy the books, or run a 4e campaign.

[Isabella]

Another thing that stuck in my craw was the at-will powers that were inherently better than the default "hit with sword." There was never, ever, ever a reason to just "hit with sword" when I could at least "hit with sword and do 1/2 damage if I miss" instead. So why make it a new power? why not just modify my standard attack? Seemed like sloppy game design to me. But I recognize this may be quibbling on details.

In this case it's because the at will basic is used for various things, like charges, Opportunity Attacks, and some warlord powers which let you have your allies make basic attacks on your turn.

[Igor the Henchman]

Think of the fighter daily power as a sudden now-or-never gap in the enemy's defenses, allowing for a truly awesome hit. Nothing to do with endurance or mystic forces, just a handy opportunity.

Basic attacks are mostly reserved for opportunity attacks.

As for wizards, yeah. 4E wizard and 3E wizard: two totally different animals. 4E wizards don't do utility magic during battle. Though they still dabble it in it on the side through rituals. Though now that "prestidigitation" is an at-will, wizard players can go crazy producing fun magic effects during roleplaying encounters. I'm a wizard, look at what I can do at will: Fireworks! Flowers out of a hat! Make crappy inn food into a gourmet delicacy. The eladrin wizard in my group enjoys the limitless possibilities of such "everyday magic".

[DocBeard]

Heck, I'd let some of that stuff get by with just an Arcana check, myself.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Especially when I went up against the Big Bad Endboss and blew my daily on a natural-1 fumble. Why exactly can't I try that devastating maneuver until tomorrow? Some weird code of honor? I'm too tired?

Because the BBEb already saw what maneuver you were trying to use, and will be ready to counter it next time, maybe?

[Isabella]

I'm surprised your Fighter Daily wasn't reliable, Gonzo, or at least did half damage.

I dunno, it didn't seem any sillier than Vancian Magic in 3e. Why is it that if a wizard gets woken up for five minutes during his eight hour rest, he can't cast spells for the rest of the entire day? If the fighter snores in his sleep, does that mean the wizard is effectively useless now? Why can a wizard only memorize X number of spells per day? Couldn't he just memorize them again after he used the spell slot? Why can't he just read the spell out of his spell book? Is it really just sitting in front of him with him staring at it and saying "I don't get it"? Are wizard brains just different, with bizarre alien lobes that react to magical words and expend bursts of energy that can't be recharged until they smother the fighter and get a good night's sleep? Actually that last bit sounds like a really cool setting.

You can come up for explanations for all the limiting mechanics, 3e or 4e, but it really just boils down to "it just is". I'm not sure you can call any of them sillier than the other.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

I'm surprised your Fighter Daily wasn't reliable, Gonzo, or at least did half damage.

If I remembered what it was, I could ask someone to look it up, but I don't remember anything other than it did a bunch of extra damage. And when I rolled the 1, the DM said, "yup, that sucks, but it happens..."

I dunno, it didn't seem any sillier than Vancian Magic in 3e. Why is it that if a wizard gets woken up for five minutes during his eight hour rest, he can't cast spells for the rest of the entire day?

Not true.
"If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells." --SRD

Why can a wizard only memorize X number of spells per day? Couldn't he just memorize them again after he used the spell slot?

He can, if he rests for 8 hours. If you had a 1/day spell and really wanted to cast it 3 times in a day, spending the rest of the day sleeping, you could.

Why can't he just read the spell out of his spell book? Is it really just sitting in front of him with him staring at it and saying "I don't get it"?

This is why 3e switched from "memorize" to "prepare". You're encoding magical energies in your brain... or somesuch. In the end, yeah, it's weird, but it's magic. You can make up whatever crazy-ass rules you want for magic. Eye of newt? why does an amphibian organ help cast spells? Somatic components? Why should the universe care whether you wiggle your left or right pinky? Eating a mushroom makes you double in height? sure, why not, it's magic. But a fighter's just a guy with a sword. Why would a guy with a sword in a fantasy world behave differently than one in the real world?

I recognize the weirdness of vancian magic, though. That's why I like sorcerers. Actually my personal fave magic system is the channeller system from 2e's Player's Option Spells & Magic. It felt the most like I think I "real" wizard would. Kinda difficult to use, though. that's the tradeoff.

You can come up for explanations for all the limiting mechanics, 3e or 4e, but it really just boils down to "it just is". I'm not sure you can call any of them sillier than the other.

Yeah, I get that, and I'm OK with it when it comes to magically endowed classes. It's just the marital ones that I have trouble justifying.


If, like Rotipher said, it's because the bad guy's now prepared for you, that sounds like a decent explanation for an encounter power, except that every enemy in the encounter (even non-sentient ones, or ones that haven't gotten there yet!) somehow all notice your move and adapt instantly.

If, as Igor said, it's a now-or-never gap in defenses, why do those gaps happen once a day? I'd rather see it triggered off of something the enemy does, like attack you and miss, or something like that...

Anyway, the point is, I liked playing a 4e fighter, and it felt like a fighter, but a very oddly limited fighter...

[Nathan of the FoS]

You can come up for explanations for all the limiting mechanics, 3e or 4e, but it really just boils down to "it just is". I'm not sure you can call any of them sillier than the other.

Yeah, I get that, and I'm OK with it when it comes to magically endowed classes. It's just the marital ones that I have trouble justifying.

Boy, those marital classes are something else, aren't they?

[Isabella]

Don't let your wife hear that one.

[brilliantlight]

The old system of magic did suck but it should have been replaced by a manna point system of some sort. That makes more sense.

[Mortavius]

I know there has been some emphasis in 4E that a martial character is more than "just a guy with a sword." I remember reading that these characters have trained themselves and pushed themselves to levels beyond normal people; that's why they can use dailies and such. The description I read implied that they were *almost* magical, but not.

Maybe that helps you with it, maybe not.

And as another poster mentioned, a lot of the Fighter abilities have the "Reliable" keyword which means if you miss, you keep the power.

Ultimately, it's a balancing issue. The other way they could have gone would have been to let Fighters use their dailies more often, but do less damage. But that has the problem of taking away the Fighter's big "oomph" moves.

I guess each person just has to rationalize it so it works for them.

[HuManBing]

I turn my back for just a second and you're already talking about magical endowed marital issues, honestly I can't take you anywhere, etc.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Reminds me of that ebay auction I saw for "Bleak Spouse"

Glad my typo provided some amusement.


If the daily had "reliable", both the DM and I missed it. He made the character. I like that mechanic, now that I know it exists, but it doesn't really address my fundamental objection. So now I can only *succeed* once a day? great for gameplay, perhaps. nonsensical for simulation of (fantasy-)reality. And that's fine I suppose, just not my preference.

[Jester of the FoS]

Yeah, 4e has dumped any pretence of even trying to be a reality simulator or being anything more than a game.

I just can't get behind that idea.
I know there's going to be some unreality creeping in but just abandoning it makes D&D just a game you sit down and play, like Monopoly or Munchkin. The simulation aspects and role-playing made it unique. You can't write and tell your own epic fantasy story over a game of chess without taking some serious liberties and stretches.


Here's something to think about. The problem with 3e and earlier fighters was they just swung a sword, possibly power attacking or fighting defensively for alternate benefits. The only customization was magic items that might add different damages or small bonuses.
They were limited to attack roll, damage, and other.
Meanwhile, magic users could chose spells that gave them a chance to hit and deal damage, or did automatic damage with a save, or charmed, or dazed, or held, or knocked prone. They could buff allies and protect against effects and other varied effects.

Now in 4e all classes act the same way: attack roll, damage, and effect. With utilities offering some other different benefit, usually a direct in-combat bonus to make your next attack-n-damage easier or the enemy's attack-n-damage harder.
Hasn't 4e done more to make all characters play like a slightly tweaked fighter than improve 4e fighters?

[Igor the Henchman]

Yeah, 4e has dumped any pretence of even trying to be a reality simulator or being anything more than a game.

Remind me again which edition of D&D included a pretense of trying to be a reality simulator. We're discussing a game where all important folks fit into a dozen neat class stereotypes, where combat wounds take away arbitrary "hit points", where people survive fireball blasts unscathed and where you gain level-ups for surviving dangerous situations.

Previous editions were nothing like a video game with some storytelling built in, no siree.

I just can't get behind that idea.
I know there's going to be some unreality creeping in but just abandoning it makes D&D just a game you sit down and play, like Monopoly or Munchkin. The simulation aspects and role-playing made it unique. You can't write and tell your own epic fantasy story over a game of chess without taking some serious liberties and stretches.

The simulation aspects and roleplaying are still there. The minimalist social interaction rules make the roleplaying experience freeform and intuitive. Infinitely flexible NPC-creation rules make telling your own epic fantasy stories easier than ever before. The reason I so defend the system is that it plays both like a "game you sit down and play" AND an epic storytelling platform. The system makes it easy to catch the best of both worlds. Therein is its biggest achievement. No matter your preference, heavy combat or immersive roleplaying, the game rewards you for saying "yes" to new ideas.

Personally, I'm wary of arguments that different systems get you a better or worse "play experience", unless crass-poor playtesting is involved. My group and I also dabble in WoD, Mutants & Masterminds and 7th Sea. My observation is that the players themselves create the experience they get.

No arguments regarding the fighter.