TheRPGSite

Just read a blog post here:

http://backscreenpass.blogspot.com/2010/03/players-handbook-3-review-4e.html

Pertinent part:

"I personally think PHB3 marks a significant change in the design  philosophy of 4e.  Up till now, if I had to choose a single overriding  design goal as the obvious priority of 4e, it would have been balance.   Every class and race and power was carefully balanced against the other  options.  Unlike 3e, it was genuinely difficult if not impossible to  make a character that could not hold her own against the min-maxers best  efforts.  Unlike 3e, you did not have to carefully analyze what impact  feat choices would have far down the road.  You could pretty much just  pick what sounded cool in 4e character creation and rest assured that  the carefully balanced mechanics behind the scene would allow your  character to hit and do damage within the frequencies specified by the  design parameters.

Well, in a way that is all in the past now.  The Hybrid Character rules  (see my review for more details on these rules) pretty much throw  balance out the window.  By allowing complete freedom to mix and max  classes, you could easily end up with a horribly unbalanced class that  could not pull its weight in combat if you were not careful.  I see this  as a major shift for 4e - the desire to provide options for players to  build the character of their dreams has trumped the desire for balance."


With balance being a big selling point, or so I've heard, what do you think this means for 4e's future evolution?

I don't think it's going to significantly change the face of the game, especially since, as the blog author notes, it seems tilted towards the low-power end rather than the high-power end.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;366251With balance being a big selling point, or so I've heard, what do you think this means for 4e's future evolution?

I think this development will help make 3.x fans who are only playing 4E because it's what the rest of the group decided on a little happier, but the impact won't be all that much more significant.

Personally, the only balance I really need in the game is the ability of characters to contribute in and out of combat at least to SOME degree.

Wonder how many 4E DMs will ban the hybrid classes, shortly after 4E PHB3 is released.

Wonder how breakable a minotaur ranger/barbarian hybrid class can be made, with a twin strike at-will and barbarian rage.

My group has been running a game with several hybrid characters to test out the hybrid rules.  I am not really impressed with the hybrid rules.  Personally, I think that hybrid characters are less powerful, in the scope of the 4e mechanics, than a single classed character.  I also feel the same way about multiclassing in 4e D&D in that it's a waste of feats.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;366251With balance being a big selling point, or so I've heard, what do you think this means for 4e's future evolution?

At the present time, I suspect it may very well be "too little too late" to attract the 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder powergamer "fence sitters" to 4E.  That ship has sailed already, and is long gone.

Some "broken" overpowered race + hybrid class combinations will probably be found. I wouldn't be surprised if 4E DMs will start quickly banning stuff left and right.  This would spell disaster for future sales of player centric crunch heavy splatbooks, if some WotC splatbooks take on a reputation for being "broken".

Quote from: ggroy;366258Wonder how many 4E DMs will ban the hybrid classes, shortly after 4E PHB3 is released.

Wonder how breakable a minotaur ranger/barbarian hybrid class can be made, with a twin strike at-will and barbarian rage.

I whipped this character up using the Character Builder Quick Character function, and swapped out the Ranger at-will power to give it Twin Strike (the system picked Predator Strike originally).  Also, it assigned a greatsword as the character's weapon originally, and I swapped it out for two melee weapons so it could use Twin Strike.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Roger Dodger, level 1
Minotaur, Barbarian|Ranger
Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Fortitude

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 20, Con 16, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 11.


AC: 13 Fort: 17 Reflex: 10 Will: 10
HP: 29 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Nature +7, Heal +5, Intimidate +5, Stealth +4

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics -1, Arcana -1, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Endurance +2, History -1, Insight, Perception +2, Religion -1, Streetwise, Thievery -1, Athletics +4

FEATS
Level 1: Opportunity Gore

POWERS
Hybrid at-will 1: Twin Strike
Hybrid at-will 1: Pressing Strike
Hybrid encounter 1: Hunter-Partner Strike
Hybrid daily 1: Swift Panther Rage

ITEMS
Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Battleaxe, Light war pick
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

So, with Twin Strike, he is +7 (1d10) with the battle axe and +7 (1d6) with the light pick.

You know, I'm not a huge fan of 4e but I have to give kudos to a game with a feat called, "Opportunity gore".

Quote from: Drohem;366261I whipped this character up using the Character Builder Quick Character function, and swapped out the Ranger at-will power to give it Twin Strike (the system picked Predator Strike originally).  Also, it assigned a greatsword as the character's weapon originally, and I swapped it out for two melee weapons so it could use Twin Strike.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Roger Dodger, level 1
Minotaur, Barbarian|Ranger
Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Fortitude...

As compared to a Minotaur Barbarian1/Ranger1 using Savage Species with 3e...

Baale, male Minotaur Bbn1,Rgr 1, Minotaur8:
 
CR 9.3, Size L, Level 12, HD 1D12+6D8+1D8 + 24, hp 57,
Init 1, Spd 25,
AC 22 (Natural +5, Armor +5, Shield +2, Size -1, Dex +1),
Attack +10/+5/+0,  Reach 10'
Saves Fort +10, Ref +7, Will +9; AL CE;

Str 24(+7), Dex 13(+1), Con 14(+2), Int 8(-1), Wis 17(+3), Cha 10.

Attacks:
[*huge greataxe*]:huge greataxe +16 melee (2d8+14/21-20);  
[*gore*]:gore +16 melee (1d8+10);  
[*huge greataxe & gore*]:huge greataxe +16 melee (2d8+11/21-20); gore +11 melee (1d8+3);  
[*+1 shortbow, composite (+2str)*]:+1 shortbow, composite (+2str) +11/+6/+1 ranged (1d6+3/x3);  
[*+1 halberd*]:+1 halberd +17/+12/+7 melee (1d10+8/x3);  

Proficiencies: light armor, medium armor, all simple weapons, all martial weapons.

Skills : Appraise -1 (-1 Intel ); Balance -4 (+1 Dex, -5 Other ); Bluff +0; Climb +2 (+7 Str, -5 Other ); Concentration +2 (+2 Con ); Diplomacy +0; Disguise +0; Escape Artist -4 (+1 Dex, -5 Other ); Forgery -1 (-1 Intel ); Gather Information +0; Heal +3 (+3 Wis ); Hide -4 (+1 Dex, -5 Other ); Intimidate +7 (+2 Ranks, +5 Race ); Jump +11 (+3 Ranks, +7 Str, +4 Race, -3 Other ); Knowledge (general) -1 (-1 Intel ); Listen +8 (+1 Ranks, +3 Wis, +4 Race ); Move Silently -4 (+1 Dex, -5 Other ); Perform ((specify)) +0; Ride +1 (+1 Dex ); Search +7 (+2 Ranks, -1 Intel, +6 Race ); Sense Motive +3 (+3 Wis ); Spot +7 (+3 Wis, +4 Race ); Swim +7 (+7 Str ); Use Rope +1 (+1 Dex ); Survival +4 (+1 Ranks, +3 Wis ); Knowledge (local) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (architecture and eng) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (geography) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (history) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (nobility and royalty) -1 (-1 Intel ); Disguise (Eberron) +0; Forgery (Eberron) -1 (-1 Intel ); Perform (oratory) +0; Perform (gladiatorial combat) +0; Knowledge (Adventuri ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (Aerenal) ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (Blood of  ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (Changelin ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (Church of ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Knowledge (The Dark  ([eberron]) -1 (-1 Intel ); Perform (act) +0; Perform (comedy) +0; Perform (dance) +0; Perform (keyboard instruments) +0; Perform (percussion instrumen) +0; Perform (string instruments) +0; Perform (wind instruments) +0; Perform (sing) +0; Perform (harp) +0.

Feats: Ambidexterity, Armor Proficiency: light, Armor Proficiency: medium, Blind-Fight, Great Fortitude, Martial Weapon Proficiency: All, Power Attack, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency: All, Track, Two-Weapon Fighting, Great Sunder, Great Roar, Greater Powerful Charge, Stamp 40'

Racial Abilities: Simple Weapon Proficiency, Skills, Natural Cunning, Powerful Charge, Special Qualities, Scent 30 ft. , Keen Senses (+4).. Immune to maze Spells

Quote from: ggroy;366258Wonder how many 4E DMs will ban the hybrid classes, shortly after 4E PHB3 is released.

Wonder how breakable a minotaur ranger/barbarian hybrid class can be made, with a twin strike at-will and barbarian rage.

Half-Orcs make much better dual weapon Rangers/Barbarians.

But anyway, the thing that people forget about hybrid classes is that class dependent benefits (such as the Rogue's sneak attack) only work with powers from THAT class. In the case of a ranger/barbarian hybrid their powers powers don't actually interact with eachother, so there aren't a lot of opportunities for uber-cheesing characters.

On the whole, hybrid classes are much weaker.

That said, in case of optimized damage stacking, the best thing to do for a dual weapon combatant would be to play a half-orc hybrid ranger/fighter with a rogue MC, with twin strike as an at will (doesn't matter what the second one is, you'll probably never use it) then at 11th level take the pit fighter paragon path (has an ability that let's you add WIS modifier to any melee attack)

So by this point you are making 2 attacks and adding 1[W]+enhancement Bonus (magic weapon)+item bonus (iron armbands of power or quick hit bracers)+WIS modifer+feat bonus+2d8 (hunter's quarry)+3d6 sneak attack)+1[W] (half-orc racial ability) to one of them. On an at-will.

This becomes even sicker when an encounter or daily exploit is used, because those allow for multiple attacks AND allows you to add your STR mod (probably your highest stat) as well.

THAT is how you make a broken hybrid character.

But I personally hate crap like this, so I won't be playing this anytime soon, unless I feel like really pissing off an RPGA DM.

Edit: Hmmm...or you could take the marked scourge feat and the ranger's storm warden paragon path...

On Pathfinder/4e Fencesitters!
If we are actually talking about fence sitters it just means they'd play one game as soon as they'd play another, so by definition I don't really see this as having any effect one way or the other.

For ideologists, of course it also couldn't have an effect.

And for regular joes , which make up the bulk of everyone, it's just more options.

We've had Hybrid characters in the Builder for a while, and I think they've been legal in LFR since .. a couple of months ago? But I haven't really seen any in use. My oldest kid built a swordmage/assassin multiclass character he's been wanting to play for a while.

My analysis of the minotaur ranger/barbarian! (the 4e one, not the CR9 3e one)

It looks like a fun character to play, but it isn't overpowered.

First - I disagree that rogue sneak attack can only be used on only rogue powers. But it can only be used with rogue weapons. Which means light blades only (or possibly a mace). I ran into this myself because my main character is a rogue who for a while was carrying a whip. Couldn't sneak attack with it, but it was just cool.

The Twin Strike power itself negates the bonuses on damage that the minotaur would have made with strength. So.. +7/+7 to 1d10+1d6? A 1st level rogue with the backstabber feat can do 1d4+2d8(+ more depending on if the power added strength, dex, charisma.. or some combination) on a sneak attack with a dagger. So the Hybrid character is definitely not overpowered.

 Barbarian Rage is a daily- swift panther rage just gives 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, +2 speed and shift 2 squares as a move for the rest of the encounter. (and cannot be used in conjunction with twin strike). Just one attack, although he can keep the speed boost for the encounter.

These look fine to me.

I wouldn't ban it!

Quote from: Joethelawyer;366251With balance being a big selling point, or so I've heard, what do you think this means for 4e's future evolution?

He's wrong about hybrids, basically. I've seen a couple of them in play and done a couple of designs, and they're really no big deal. WotC playtested 'em in the field for something like 10 months before they were actually released; abuses were pre-nerfed, and I have no reason to think that WotC's aggressive stance on errata won't hold true for hybrids as well.

Example: a non-hybrid healing class gets two heals per encounter, scaling up to three heals per encounter at level 16. A hybrid healing class gets one heal per encounter, and it never scales. Therefore, if you have (say) a cleric/warlord, you'll get the same two heals per encounter at the lower levels, but when you hit level 16 you will be outstripped by a pure cleric.

Quote from: GameDaddy;366268As compared to a Minotaur Barbarian1/Ranger1 using Savage Species with 3e...

I don't see what you're out to prove with your example. You're comparing a 1st-level character from 4e with a 10th-level character from 3.5.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;366414I don't see what you're out to prove with your example. You're comparing a 1st-level character from 4e with a 10th-level character from 3.5.

That is the lowest level possible for that type of character according to the 3.5 rules.  Remember, the minotaur has to have all those stupid "monster levels" in there to play it by the rules (with a separate system for what you get using those "monster" levels that is different than the normal "character levels" rules).

And if you sense some distaste in that paragraph, you'd be right.  I love/loved 3.5, but I didn't love some of the subsystems, and the monster levels is one of those subsystems I didn't like.

Quote from: Mistwell;366430That is the lowest level possible for that type of character according to the 3.5 rules.  Remember, the minotaur has to have all those stupid "monster levels" in there to play it by the rules (with a separate system for what you get using those "monster" levels that is different than the normal "character levels" rules).

And if you sense some distaste in that paragraph, you'd be right.  I love/loved 3.5, but I didn't love some of the subsystems, and the monster levels is one of those subsystems I didn't like.

Well, to be fair, you could use 3.0 Savage Species to create a minotaur "monster-class" starting at 1st level, medium sized..with 1 hit dice. I wrote up a ton of these back when I was into it- I had a ghoul and gargoyle class I kinda loved.

3.5 Level Adjustments were kinda horrible though, because you'd get left in the dust after a while. Even the fairly tame ones like tieflings or drow (+1LA) would leave you an entire spell-level behind.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366471Well, to be fair, you could use 3.0 Savage Species to create a minotaur "monster-class" starting at 1st level, medium sized..with 1 hit dice. I wrote up a ton of these back when I was into it- I had a ghoul and gargoyle class I kinda loved.

3.5 Level Adjustments were kinda horrible though, because you'd get left in the dust after a while. Even the fairly tame ones like tieflings or drow (+1LA) would leave you an entire spell-level behind.

That is one of the rules I hate most in any game, but especially one as otherwise as flexible as 3.x. In fact, after years of being a huge Birthright fan and playing in a long-running Birthright campaign I ended up giving up on following the official Birthright conversion to 3.5 when they insisted on making scions take a LA to be blooded. It never made sense to me that the only characters even able to use true magic would never be able to reach top level as a wizard, especially when the more strongly blooded the character was (and then supposedly stronger in magic), the bigger the LA would be. It was very annoying, so we ended up running a couple campaigns and throwing out the LA and just gave blooded characters their blood powers with no adjustment. If it was ok to ignore the "balance" in 2e Birthright, it was good enough for 3.5 too, and it worked just fine.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366471Well, to be fair, you could use 3.0 Savage Species to create a minotaur "monster-class" starting at 1st level, medium sized..with 1 hit dice. I wrote up a ton of these back when I was into it- I had a ghoul and gargoyle class I kinda loved.

3.5 Level Adjustments were kinda horrible though, because you'd get left in the dust after a while. Even the fairly tame ones like tieflings or drow (+1LA) would leave you an entire spell-level behind.

Still looking for the holy grail of game balance, I see...

My whole point was the Minotaur Rgr1, BrB 1 was comparable in both 3e and 4e.

In 4E the Minotaur has 70HP worth of surges, and at-will powers.

In 3e The Minotaur has a footstamp (That would scatter any minions in a 40' radius) the Mighty Roar... and Barbarian Rage good for a few rounds... as well as 10' reach (is that in 4e as well?)

Both can multiwield weapons although with the 3e offhand penalties, I chose just a Halberd or Greataxe to maximize damage. Note the 3e Mino can attack with the greataxe and gore as well simultaneously, but doing a bit lesser damage. The Str bonus means if the 3e Mino hits, it's really gonna hurt, and grappling or charging is bad news for the Minotaurs' foe if the Minotaur connects... 9-11' tall and strong means real trouble for a human sized monster or NPC. Don't see that featured in the 4e character writeup.

I imagine the 4e at-will powers allow for extra damage during attacks making the 4e Mino almost identical to the 3e Mino in terms of damage over the course of a medium length melee, and better at long term melees right up until the surges dwindle.

I actually like the way that Monster Levels were handled with Savage Species. Allowed one to take just about any intelligent critter imaginable and give it character levels. Seemed reasonable to me, if the Minotaur (or Orc) was accepted for sword training in some army or wizardry training at some magic school.

Didn't use many of the other Monster class/level variants but accepted Savage Species characters for any of my games.

Oh, and I generated up the stat block in under 10 minutes using Roleplaying Master... I'm missing about 7 or 8 skill points to add in yet, but only becuase I haven't demarked the default skills classes for a Minotaur. Using the racial build made me spend SP 2/1 for the 1/2 SP non-class character build.

Just as a personal preference, but now that I haven't played 3E for a while - And have seen the older games, as well - the 3E Minitaur stat block made my brain go "Ack!"

Quote from: Mistwell;366430That is the lowest level possible for that type of character according to the 3.5 rules.

For one thing, trying to compare 3.5 and 4e characters is like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work that well, because the underlying assumptions of the two systems are rather different.

For another, your comparison is dishonest at best. Of course the 10th-level character in 3.5 is going to look absurd and complicated when compared to a 1st-level 4e character. Go ahead and throw any other 10th-level character up here, it'll look just as absurd. This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and five-course meals.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;366251Just read a blog post here:

http://backscreenpass.blogspot.com/2010/03/players-handbook-3-review-4e.html

Pertinent part:

-snip-

Just came across another PHB 3 review which makes the same point, except better.

http://eyeofthevortexonline.com/articles/article180.php

QuoteOne of the biggest design goals of 4e was to balance all of the classes with each other from levels 1 to 30. This may have been a reaction to the widely criticized ability of wizards and clerics in 3e to dominate play from mid to high levels, rendering every other character class essentially useless. Why play a rogue or fighter if the spell casters can simply do your job and do it better? 4e solved this problem admirably.

In some ways, the hybrid rules are a step backwards. For the first time in 4e, it is possible to create a truly weak character by combining two classes that utilize such different abilities and have such different roles that you will never be able to effectively pull your weight. I think this is more than balanced out by the amazing variety in character creation that this one simple system provides. 4e already had a lot of options for the players; the hybrid character rules turn those options up to eleven.

So that's the catch. It's not that hybrids will produce ridiculously overpowered PCs. Rather, the discrepancy between under- and over-optimized PC builds that plagued D&D 3.5. is reappearing (although hardly to its full extent, I guess) because for the first time in 4E, you can open a book, and generate a character that is not remotely as efficient as others.

Interesting development. I prefer some degree of system mastery in a RPG. I also think newbies will avoid the pitfalls of weak hybrid builds because they won't start out on them but go for non-hybrids anyway.

And knowledgable 4E players will know how to avoid the pitfalls thanks to their system mastery.

Really don't see the problem. The increase in char-gen versatility on the other hand seems pure win.

Hmm. Between this, the interview with the D&D With Pornstars guy (which included a positive depiction of someone running a game with pre-4E - and even pre-Wizards! - influences, and a link to an old school module), and the new BECMI-like box set series, I wonder if we aren't seeing some sort of shift in philosophy on the part of Wizards.

Yes, hybrid characters can weaker than usual characters. And there is a big disclaimer in PHB3 that some combinations may be underpowered.

I still don't get the whole "Why play a class that isn't as optimized as (blank)?" mindset. I thought the point of role-playing was to play a role, not play the optimal class. So what if wizards and clerics are uber l33t at higher levels. I'll still play a fighter or something, usually.

Which is rather baffling, as multi-class characters have always been 'weaker', depending on the aspect used to determine that.  Usually combat effectiveness.  I still read complaints here and there on other forums that 3.x multi-class characters can't keep up in combat, to which my usual reply is 'no shit'.  Multi-classing was always a choice of diversity over straight effectiveness.

Many of the complaints seem to revolve around the idea of character levels in 3.x, like 'my Fighter5/Wizard5 should be performing like a tenth level Fighter and a tenth level Wizard' or something similar.  Which makes no sense whatsoever to me.  Maybe I was reading the issue incorrectly, but as I remember it, multi-classing always meant you were playing the support role.  Launch a couple of spells to back up the Magic User, then wade into combat with the other Fighter types or whatever.  I can think of no logical or mechanical reason the one character would be as effective as the Fighter, and as effective as the Magic User.  If that were the case, no one would single class ever.

With combat effectiveness being a major design goal, I can see how the hybrid characters have backed the designers into a corner.  You can't make them as effective as regular characters, but making them less effective is going to impact their popularity.  The law of unintended consequence, I guess, but the difficulties of addressing this in a class/level system don't indicate a particular failure on WotC's part.  It's just a difficult mechanic to integrate properly.

I had a fun roommate this year at a certain D&D convention. I tease him a little, hopefully if he runs across this, he'll see it as funny and not too mean) but this was one of the funniest things I encountered all winter.

The guy was an RPGA judge from the 3E days, and kinda hated 4E, but was doing it anyway, because he still wanted to be part of the gang. All he could talk about was optimization. So after the gaming was over every day (it ends around midnight) we'd be in the room and he'd be wanting to debate stuff about 4E vs everything.

He'd say stuff like "You want to know what's wrong with 4E? Two words.. DRAGONBORN WIZARD!" (The implication being that dragonborn stats would make unoptimized wizards.)

and then "Two more words.. CHARISMA PALADIN!" (this was funny for me, from an AD&D1e point of view).

So we are all cracking up, and my (4E fan!) friend Alan is trying to negotiate and debate this guy based on the exact same things you are saying "but it's about the roleplaying!" and "that sounds like someones favorite character concept!"

We lol'd all the way back home. He's really a cool guy, and very astute about how to really layer things onto an encounter stat-wise. And he gave me some oranges, so I think he was a cool guy no matter what.

My favorite quote of his was something like this: "1.25 MILLION gold pieces.. does that sound like a lot of gold? Well thats the difference between a +5 and a +6 weapon! So don't tell me how unimportant optimization is!"

Oh man. It was funny stuff.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366619He'd say stuff like "You want to know what's wrong with 4E? Two words.. DRAGONBORN WIZARD!" (The implication being that dragonborn stats would make unoptimized wizards.)

The funniest threads in the world are the ones over on the Gaming Den. Frank Trollman is sitting there right now arguing that there is no conceivable reason why anyone would ever make a halfling fighter. There are BETTER CHOICES. He'll tell you so. And he literally can't understand that someone would make a choice that was suboptimal from a mechanics perspective.

(He hates 4e. A lot.)

He also thinks that the game breaks if you have a 16 in your primary attribute, mind you.

Quote from: Thanlis;366622The funniest threads in the world are the ones over on the Gaming Den. Frank Trollman is sitting there right now arguing that there is no conceivable reason why anyone would ever make a halfling fighter. There are BETTER CHOICES. He'll tell you so. And he literally can't understand that someone would make a choice that was suboptimal from a mechanics perspective.

(He hates 4e. A lot.)

He also thinks that the game breaks if you have a 16 in your primary attribute, mind you.

That's it. I'm bringing a halfling fighter to RegCon.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366623That's it. I'm bringing a halfling fighter to RegCon.

I had a halfling fighter in my Boston home game. He was completely cool.

Quote from: StormBringer;366616Which is rather baffling, as multi-class characters have always been 'weaker', depending on the aspect used to determine that.  

Not quite true as the old Xp model in 1st e meant that a 5/5 Magic user/monk had the same xp as a 6th level MU or a 6th level monk and I suspect the 5/5 guy was a lot tougher.

Remember it used to be that you doubled the xp between levels. On of the toughest characters I ever saw (and he came into our game and wouldn;t have allowed him to multi-class 3 classes ) was a Fght2/Monk6/MU8 played in a game of 9th level charcters. Now the Xp matched but ...

I always try interesting character twists. I had a half-orc Bard in a 3e game who wore black leather and carried a huge axe, for example. To me, its part of the fun.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366623That's it. I'm bringing a halfling fighter to RegCon.

But would you bring a halfling fighter who was a crap warrior but was fun to play because of his short temper and paranoid fear of spiders or will you show the guy how you can optimise a halfling fighter using the right combinations of feats weapons and tactics?

See the latter is just optimisation ... :) The former is roleplaying :)

Quote from: Drohem;366259My group has been running a game with several hybrid characters to test out the hybrid rules.  I am not really impressed with the hybrid rules.  Personally, I think that hybrid characters are less powerful, in the scope of the 4e mechanics, than a single classed character.  I also feel the same way about multiclassing in 4e D&D in that it's a waste of feats.

So what I am hearing here is, "multiclassing and hybrid rules allow for more role-play focused characters that will die quickly in games with min/max build assumptions."

Quote from: jibbajibba;366630But would you bring a halfling fighter who was a crap warrior but was fun to play because of his short temper and paranoid fear of spiders or will you show the guy how you can optimise a halfling fighter using the right combinations of feats weapons and tactics?

See the latter is just optimisation ... :) The former is roleplaying :)

Damn straight!

But then, that's why I think the PHB3 will be the first book to really bring 4E home to me. I desperately want fun characters, not point mastery experts in my games.

Quote from: Thanlis;366622He also thinks that the game breaks if you have a 16 in your primary attribute, mind you.

I've had this conversation in real life with a die-hard 4E fan. I had table-banned a couple of cringy races for my campaign, and he protested that without the deva race and others a lot of the PH2 classes were (quote) "unplayable". So I ask him why. He goes: because there's these secondary effects on powers whose effectiveness (in duration etc.) is measured by your secondary or primary stat. If you have a +0 modifier in that stat, the secondary effect basically doesn't happen.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366619So we are all cracking up, and my (4E fan!) friend Alan is trying to negotiate and debate this guy based on the exact same things you are saying "but it's about the roleplaying!" and "that sounds like someones favorite character concept!"

Oh yes how funny. It's because LFR is full of people who only care about RRRoleplaying except for the occasional optimizers that the LFR feedback channels have bullied WotC to nerf orbwizards and STR clerics out of existence just last week. I have seen exactly two types of people on the 'net (I haven't come across them in real life) who cheer at this.

Type 1: LFR player who rejoices that his suboptimal build no longer gets that 'outshining' by that other guy at his table

Type 2: LFR DM who's been plagued by these builds

I've got some sympathy for the guys in group 2, but group 1, yeah...

Sorry, but I'm utterly convinced that 90% of home games couldn't care less about requiring official fixes to some builds from above. It's only when you play in the LFR that these fixes don't take place unless they are mandated from above. So there.

Quote from: Windjammer;366642Sorry, but I'm utterly convinced that 90% of home games couldn't care less about requiring official fixes to some builds from above. It's only when you play in the LFR that these fixes don't take place unless they are mandated from above. So there.

Total threads in the LFR WotC messageboard: 1,913, with 35,506 posts.

Total threads in the Character Optimization WotC messageboard: 7,783, with 142,569 posts.

I'm not sayin' that there's not a group of 4e players who deserve your annoyance, I'm just sayin' it's not the LFR crowd. There are a few CharOp posters who also play LFR, but it's really not a huge overlap.

Quote from: jibbajibba;366630But would you bring a halfling fighter who was a crap warrior but was fun to play because of his short temper and paranoid fear of spiders or will you show the guy how you can optimise a halfling fighter using the right combinations of feats weapons and tactics?

See the latter is just optimisation ... :) The former is roleplaying :)

Wow, thanks for the tip! But I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game, (and it's about intrepid adventurers rather than comedic bumblers). In the case of RegCon, people have paid money and actually gotten hotel-space to be in the event-- so while I'm still not planning on creating the superoptimized halfling fighter, I'm also not going to create an intentionally crappy character in order to deliberately sabotage the rest of the groups I'm in through ineptitude and call it roleplaying, either. As fun as that may be.

I still haven't settled on the background for the character. "Circus performer" as a background sounds fun, though.

Quote from: Thanlis;366651Total threads in the LFR WotC messageboard: 1,913, with 35,506 posts.

Total threads in the Character Optimization WotC messageboard: 7,783, with 142,569 posts.

I'm not sayin' that there's not a group of 4e players who deserve your annoyance, I'm just sayin' it's not the LFR crowd. There are a few CharOp posters who also play LFR, but it's really not a huge overlap.

When did you find the time to run the statistical analysis on that?  In fact, with the CharOp board having almost five times the number of messages as LFR, I would bet there is a good deal more overlap than you think, as I am pretty sure the WotC mods are fairly strict about moving off topic stuff to an appropriate forum.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366655Wow, thanks for the tip! But I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game, (and it's about intrepid adventurers rather than comedic bumblers). In the case of RegCon, people have paid money and actually gotten hotel-space to be in the event-- so while I'm still not planning on creating the superoptimized halfling fighter, I'm also not going to create an intentionally crappy character in order to deliberately sabotage the rest of the groups I'm in through ineptitude and call it roleplaying, either. As fun as that may be.

I still haven't settled on the background for the character. "Circus performer" as a background sounds fun, though.

You're going to be at RegCon? Neat!

Quote from: Thanlis;366622The funniest threads in the world are the ones over on the Gaming Den. Frank Trollman is sitting there right now arguing that there is no conceivable reason why anyone would ever make a halfling fighter. There are BETTER CHOICES. He'll tell you so. And he literally can't understand that someone would make a choice that was suboptimal from a mechanics perspective.

(He hates 4e. A lot.)

He also thinks that the game breaks if you have a 16 in your primary attribute, mind you.

I played a Halfling Fighter in a 4E campaign for a while. He had a Napoleon complex and a cockney accent. It was buttloads of fun. Isn't that the only reason you really need?

Also, he consistently outperformed the Minotaur Fighter, which was also fun.

Quote from: Shazbot79;366761I played a Halfling Fighter in a 4E campaign for a while. He had a Napoleon complex and a cockney accent. It was buttloads of fun. Isn't that the only reason you really need?

Also, he consistently outperformed the Minotaur Fighter, which was also fun.

LOL. That does sound like a lot of fun.

Quote from: camazotz;366639So what I am hearing here is, "multiclassing and hybrid rules allow for more role-play focused characters that will die quickly in games with min/max build assumptions."

OK, if that's what your hearing. :)

I don't think that the multiclassing or hybrid rules necessarily facilitate role-play focused characters, nor do those rules necessarily hinder role-play focused characters.  

From a purely game mechanics point of view, I feel that spending the necessary feats to follow a multiclassing feat tree is a waste of resources.  I feel that spending those feats elsewhere than the multiclassing feats would be better resource management in character creation and development.  I also feel the same way about hybrid characters in that benefits gained from being a hybrid class character don't out weigh the trade-offs.  

Of course, this is only my opinion, and it is subjective.  Others may not feel the same way.  Also, I wouldn't rule out playing a multiclass or hybrid character because I don't solely create my character based upon a purely mechanical point of view, but it is a consideration to some degree in character creation.  I choose to create role-play focused characters, and I am often made fun of by my friends in my primary group, in good humor, about my choices in character creation.

In fact, in one of our 3.5 D&D games, I stirred a bees' hives of railing because I chose to create a 1st level Aristocrat (NPC class).  In thinking about this character's concept, I had wanted him to be from a specific noble family line in the game world.  Also, I had also thought that the class could make a good PC class, and so I wanted to try it out.

Quote from: camazotz;366640Damn straight!

But then, that's why I think the PHB3 will be the first book to really bring 4E home to me. I desperately want fun characters, not point mastery experts in my games.

I have a copy already.

WotC is sending pre-release copies to select brick and mortar stores.

You might want to have a look at your local retailer.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366655Wow, thanks for the tip! But I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game, (and it's about intrepid adventurers rather than comedic bumblers). In the case of RegCon, people have paid money and actually gotten hotel-space to be in the event-- so while I'm still not planning on creating the superoptimized halfling fighter, I'm also not going to create an intentionally crappy character in order to deliberately sabotage the rest of the groups I'm in through ineptitude and call it roleplaying, either. As fun as that may be.

I still haven't settled on the background for the character. "Circus performer" as a background sounds fun, though.

Heheheh you sure ?
So you are really saying you can play any role you like so long as that doesn't interfere with the well balanced party mechanic and your PC is mechanically optimised :)

Then we would disagree. I would much rather play Napoleon Proudfoot and help everyone have a good time than finding a way to maximise Halfling Dexterity and small size in a combat build that utilsed a feat stack optimised round high rate of fire missile attacks with secondary attribute damage modification (or whatever :) )

Think about your most memorable games do you remember the fact that you managed to optimise damage over a 7 round combat or do you remember that great scene when the party dressed as dancing girls , even the half orc barbarian, managed to talk their way past the king's guards and sneak into the treasure room only to find that it was guarded by an androsphinx, which the mage killed by casting a reversed enlarge spell on the chain that connected it to the wall.....

just asking ....

Quote from: Windjammer;366642Sorry, but I'm utterly convinced that 90% of home games couldn't care less about requiring official fixes to some builds from above. It's only when you play in the LFR that these fixes don't take place unless they are mandated from above. So there.

You mean like how 90% of MMOGers couldn't care about balance issues and its only the PVPers and diehard Raiders who keep clamoring for or raging against the nerfs from above? :p

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366655I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game

Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Quote from: CRKrueger;366806Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Like Goldy and Silvery only made of iron?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;366517For one thing, trying to compare 3.5 and 4e characters is like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work that well, because the underlying assumptions of the two systems are rather different.

For another, your comparison is dishonest at best. Of course the 10th-level character in 3.5 is going to look absurd and complicated when compared to a 1st-level 4e character. Go ahead and throw any other 10th-level character up here, it'll look just as absurd. This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and five-course meals.

First, it was not my comparison I just commented on it.

Second, fuck you for describing it as dishonest when, at worst, it was just simplistic.

But third, yeah, put up a 10th level 4e character compared to that 3e character, and you will STILL see a disparity in complexity.  The 4e 10th level character doesn't look a whole lot different as far as text on the screen than the 1st level.  That was part of the point of building in replacement powers to 4e rather than additional powers.  

Are you really now arguing 4e is equally complex compared to 3e, after a year of you arguing it's simplistic?

Christ Gnomeworks, you sure are a piece of work sometimes.  You're overly enthusiastic defense of 3x takes you to some absurd levels on occasion.

Quote from: Thanlis;366651Total threads in the LFR WotC messageboard: 1,913, with 35,506 posts.

Total threads in the Character Optimization WotC messageboard: 7,783, with 142,569 posts.

I'm not sayin' that there's not a group of 4e players who deserve your annoyance, I'm just sayin' it's not the LFR crowd.

So the majority char-op regulars are people who don't play LFR because they don't ever post in LFR? Or because they don't post as much in the LFR subboard as on the char-op forum?

Sorry, strikes me as a complete non sequitur, to look at two distinct forums and not even look at who's writing the posts in these.

There's also the suppressed premise that the char-op forum is WotC main source they listen to when doing errata. It's not that I can fully substantiate my own premises (as in, it's LFR who is the major influential force when it comes to errating stuff like the Orbwizard) but at least I mention them. ;)

Quote from: Windjammer;366816So the majority char-op regulars are people who don't play LFR because they don't ever post in LFR? Or because they don't post as much in the LFR subboard as on the char-op forum?

Sorry, strikes me as a complete non sequitur, to look at two distinct forums and not even look at who's writing the posts in these.

Um, no offense, but did you read my whole post?

"There are a few CharOp posters who also play LFR, but it's really not a huge overlap."

I did address that exact point. I know this because I actually read the threads, more in the LFR boards than the char op board, but I keep light track.

QuoteThere's also the suppressed premise that the char-op forum is WotC main source they listen to when doing errata. It's not that I can fully substantiate my own premises (as in, it's LFR who is the major influential force when it comes to errating stuff like the Orbwizard) but at least I mention them. ;)

Heh. Sorry, wasn't trying to be subtle about it. That was in fact my point -- there's much more discussion of the broken in the char-op boards, and it's largely not people who post in the LFR boards.

The thing is, you can't execute the "best" combos within the LFR context because the really broken crap assumes you can choose your own magic items. LFR doesn't give you the same flexibility. Also, there aren't many LFR characters above level 14 and none above level 17, so about half of the really extreme char op discussion is completely irrelevant.

It'd be facile and incorrect for me to claim that there aren't char-op types in LFR, but the char-op phenomenon -- which I find distasteful and perhaps even harmful -- hasn't been created by LFR.

Unfortunately, the fact that I have more experience with LFR and its culture than probably anyone on this board outside AM is completely negated by the fact that I'm fond of 4e, so nobody's ever going to listen to my informed opinion. C'est la vie.

Quote from: Mistwell;366811First, it was not my comparison I just commented on it.

...ah, true that. My bad.

QuoteSecond, fuck you for describing it as dishonest when, at worst, it was just simplistic.

Your fury amuses me.

Yes, it is a dishonest comparison. Apparently 4e has minotaurs playable right out of the gate. 3.5 has no such option, at least not that can reasonably - for a very loose definition of "reasonably" - be compared to a 4e character.

Not only that, but the 3.5 minotaur here looks to me as though written up specifically to play up the whole "3.5 is needlessly complex" drivel. Of course the stat block is going to look cluttered when you list out every Perform subskill.

QuoteThe 4e 10th level character doesn't look a whole lot different as far as text on the screen than the 1st level.

That's because the complexity has shifted from the character sheet to the powers sheet.

As I said earlier, it's not a fair comparison. The two systems are too different to make any kind of reasonable comparison. Comparing two characters at vastly different points in the scale of power in their respective editions doesn't help, but even if you do straight-up comparisons (4e 15th vs 3.5 10th, for instance), it's still going to be largely unhelpful. All it does is let the 4e camp say, "See? See? Our system is easier to use," when you know damn well 4e's complexity is not on the character sheet.

QuoteAre you really now arguing 4e is equally complex compared to 3e, after a year of you arguing it's simplistic?

I am fairly certain you have confused me for someone else. Feel free to cite your source(s), though, if any.

QuoteChrist Gnomeworks, you sure are a piece of work sometimes.  You're overly enthusiastic defense of 3x takes you to some absurd levels on occasion.

I like how you characterize me as overly defensive of 3.5. You clearly haven't been paying attention, because I'm not particularly fond of 3.5, either. Hell, I'm not particularly fond of D&D in general.

I am more active in my distaste for 4e than I am for 3.5, because 4e is - generally - more relevant in modern discussion.

Also, my W is capitalized.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858The thing is, you can't execute the "best" combos within the LFR context because the really broken crap assumes you can choose your own magic items.

Thanks, that's a really good point I had not considered.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858the char-op phenomenon ... hasn't been created by LFR.

I wouldn't claim so either.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858Unfortunately, the fact that I have more experience with LFR and its culture than probably anyone on this board outside AM is completely negated by the fact that I'm fond of 4e, so nobody's ever going to listen to my informed opinion. C'est la vie.

On the contrary, I actually take your assessments of the WotC boards at face value since I don't have any experience with them and absolutely no reason to think you're dishonest (or unable to pick up such trends).

There's one factor you haven't addressed (not that you need to) - which is that out of all the people out there playing 4E there's exactly one segment which requires these fixes to be conducted by the publisher. There's no houseruling in LFR. There's no "oh, Joe, you can't play this broken combo or exploit this feat chain because I, as the DM, tell you that you can't". This is how broken stuff gets taken care off at home games. But it's not possible for a LFR DM to do that. So I guess players and DMs substantially pissed off at broken stuff turning up at their LFR tables will get rather vocal to customer feedback.

I have no idea how strong this 'factor' is a formative contribution to what errata get released when. It's just a thought of mine, not substantiated by any official claims etc.

Quote from: Windjammer;366916There's one factor you haven't addressed (not that you need to) - which is that out of all the people out there playing 4E there's exactly one segment which requires these fixes to be conducted by the publisher. There's no houseruling in LFR. There's no "oh, Joe, you can't play this broken combo or exploit this feat chain because I, as the DM, tell you that you can't". This is how broken stuff gets taken care off at home games. But it's not possible for a LFR DM to do that. So I guess players and DMs substantially pissed off at broken stuff turning up at their LFR tables will get rather vocal to customer feedback.

I have no idea how strong this 'factor' is a formative contribution to what errata get released when. It's just a thought of mine, not substantiated by any official claims etc.

Nah, that's definitely a thing. And I can't be absolutely sure either. I used to think LFR was a big deal when it came to errata, but back in the fall WotC released a batch of errata which substantially affected LFR... and then Chris Tulach left the country for a week to judge a Magic tournament. I have never seen so many pissed off LFR players in my life.

The other piece of history I don't have is the relationship of the char-op boards to Living Greyhawk. I know 3e char-op was also a big deal, but I don't know if char-op was big into LG or what. If it was, my thinking would change again.

Interestingly, the next version of the LFR rules, currently under construction, is not being written by WotC. I dunno what that means either.

Edit: and also, just for the sake of getting it on the table -- I think LFR would be a substantially better campaign if it put more power in the hands of the DM. To the degree that it treats D&D as a black box with less room for human input and judgement, the game becomes less fun. Obviously I enjoy LFR either way, but there's some social fabric getting strained every time some smartass player says "don't care, that's what the books say so you gotta allow it." I do not see it at my tables, and if I did I'd probably play less LFR, but I know it exists in some playgroups.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366655Wow, thanks for the tip! But I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game, (and it's about intrepid adventurers rather than comedic bumblers). In the case of RegCon, people have paid money and actually gotten hotel-space to be in the event-- so while I'm still not planning on creating the superoptimized halfling fighter, I'm also not going to create an intentionally crappy character in order to deliberately sabotage the rest of the groups I'm in through ineptitude and call it roleplaying, either. As fun as that may be.

I understand where you are coming from, I can see how it makes sense and I can respect that.

That is also the kind of game I avoid like the plague. There is a balance in all roleplaying games between substance and style. For me the style, the creative aspect is the real draw. Achievement in rolpelaying game (or MMO) doesn't really do much for me, it's not like we are playing for money (maybe we should?).

Of course you are correct, putting style first does imply sticking with like-minded players, though I;m not sure I don't get the public school comment. Was it a cheap shot?