Kadh's Impressions of 4e

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
keteryck		#21	[-]
Posts: 8487 (06/12/08 11:27:10) Enigma Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It's a very good feat, but I think many people really will just pick their 1 or at most 2 favorites and just move on, so it's not necessarily powerful - just... comforting. I've been putting together a 1st level 4e wizard in my head for a little bit and it seems to be far better at 1st level than a 3e equivalent. That said, an 18th wizard compares far more to the 18th sorcerer that I've had than some high level wizards. Of course, I never really played with someone who actually enforced the spellbook rules.
Raithe the Dreamer		#22	[-]
Posts: 482 (06/12/08 17:28:57) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	On the subject of "standard" classes... Druids, Monks, and Bards have been around for years, though, even before 3E. As have Gnomes and Half-Orcs. They may not have been in OD&D, but considering, for instance, that 2E was the norm for something many years and most of the original PHB classes from that carried over into 3E (all of them did, actually, I think--but I don't remember 2E that well), it's easy to see why many people would consider them "standard." Monks weren't in 2E that I recall, but they were in the original Unearthed Arcana. But Druids and Bards have been "standard" classes in D&D since 2E came out all those years ago. Druids were a standard class in 1E AD&D without considering supplements, even. Bards were wacky back then, though. IMO, the PHB should have had the Druid and the Bard to have been complete. The Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer haven't been as standard for the same amount of continuous time (the last of course only recently being introduced), so I hadn't expected them, though I would have liked to see them around. Druid, at least, could have perhaps been designed as a type of Divine Controller, which would have rounded out the class selection a little bit more. It'd mean the shapeshifting would end up being pretty minor (which would be sad!), but...The class is going to undergo major changes regardless (perhaps more than any other that I can foresee) because it could be used for many roles. Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.
Cthon		#23	[-]
Posts: 6010 (06/12/08 18:20:22) No need for labels, right? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Monks were in AD&D PHB (not the Unearthed Arcana), which goes back to around 1978 or 79. Bards were a class back then, too--the original prestige class, I would say. Barbarians (and cavaliers) were originally Dragon Magazine articles ("official ones") that went into the AD&D UA (sometimes referred to as 1.5 edition). _______________________ bored with changing signatures
seankreynolds		#24	[-]
Posts: 2168 (06/12/08 19:21:20) Archangel Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Druids were in the 1st edition AD&D PH as well. Cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, thief, assassin, monk, plus the appendix for the multiclass version of the bard.
Raithe the Dreamer		#25	[-]
Posts: 485 (06/12/08 19:35:04) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yeah, I couldn't crack open my books to check. Well, my dad's books. All the pre-3E stuff is his, and that's all in another state. I do miss the "class titles" some of the classes had from the earlier ones. The Monk ones were always, for some reason, really evocative to me, and my young self always did want to be a Ranger Lord. Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.
Knowe Remorse		#26	[-]
Posts: 1183 (06/13/08 00:58:11) Cryptic Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It looks very incomplete without the Monk, Bard, and Druid. But then again, Wizards has to pace it so they can sell lots of books.... be patient and all your desires will be filled as long as you care to pony up the cash. Never hit a man when he is down. Kick him, it's alot easier.
Kadh2000		#27	[-]
Posts: 3394 (06/13/08 01:00:58) Smarter than your average Klingon Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's the problem. I'm getting tired of ponying up the cash. Pippin: Are we lost? Merry: No Pippin: I think we are Merry: Shh. Gandalf's thinkin' Pippin: Merry? Merry: What? Pippin: I'm hungry
madfox		#28	[-]
Posts: 6508 (06/13/08 03:30:23) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Kadh2000 wrote: Madfox: Once clerics could swap out spells for healing when needed, the variety went up. As for magic-users, yeah people had their favorites. When they needed to, they could have picked something different however. It is a perception that the options were wider in 3e. Sure, compared to the previous editions variety went up, but even in 3rd edition a spell had to compete with CLW and except for a handful of spells this mostly failed especially at low levels. I am not sure Extend Spellbook is a must-have feat, at least not as much as the backstabbing feat is for the rogue. I mean, you can pick only one and since both choices are likely to be useful without being guaranteed uselessness (and there are very few if any really specialized powers), having an extra choice hardly matters.
Carthain		#29	[-]
Posts: 13341 (06/13/08 05:21:43) Keeper of the FAQ Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IIRC, classes back in AD&D & 2nd Ed had ability requirements. I think the Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Mage had the easiest ones, and as such were more common than those of the Druid, Barbarian, Bard, etc. So while the Druid, Bard, etc., did exist, they weren't as plentiful (in theory) as the 4 that were easiest to get into. That seems to rule against them being 'standard.' Plus, I'm not sure about AD&D, but 2nd Ed has the Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Bard all as optional classes. The rules said that the Fighter, Thief, Cleric & Mage had to exist, but the DM could say "no" to any of the others. Those aspects both hinder my thinking of those classes as being "standard" classes. Carthain. "Eschew Obfuscation."
Soulmage		#30	[-]
Posts: 1471 (06/13/08 05:54:15) Cryptic Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Kadh2000 wrote: That's the problem. I'm getting tired of ponying up the cash. As hobbies go, D&D is extremely cheap. Sure, there may be some cheaper ones out there. . . but in terms of dollars spent per hour of enjoyment, D&D has an excellent ROI compared to many hobbies. Wizards has come out with an excellent model for a modular game system that will allow them to continue to add new components to the game for years to come, without simply retreading material over and over again that could already really be covered by the core classes. Now splatbooks and subsequent PH releases will actually be chock full of useful and valuable material, instead of being a largely hit or miss affair with a few gems buried under a mountain of useless stuff. My current obsessions! Big gun battleship games: Miniatures: Grand Fleets Computer: Battleship Chess Battlestar Galactica Colonial Battlefleet Miniatures Game
Raithe the Dreamer		#31	[-]
Posts: 487 (06/13/08 06:16:50) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Carthain wrote: IIRC, classes back in AD&D & 2nd Ed had ability requirements. I think the Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Mage had the easiest ones, and as such were more common than those of the Druid, Barbarian, Bard, etc. So while the Druid, Bard, etc., did exist, they weren't as plentiful (in theory) as the 4 that were easiest to get into. That seems to rule against them being 'standard.' Plus, I'm not sure about AD&D, but 2nd Ed has the Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Bard all as optional classes. The rules said that the Fighter, Thief, Cleric & Mage had to exist, but the DM could say "no" to any of the others. Those aspects both hinder my thinking of those classes as being "standard" classes. Now you're just splitting hairs, Carthain. Those classes have been around in D&D for a long time, and the ability score requirements were something that (for one) a lot of people ignored or simply gave the minimums if someone wanted to play a particular class, and two, were removed in 3E because everyone realized it wasn't really that fun. The fact is that they've been in the game for a long time, and as a result, they're familiar classes that are part of D&D to many people. The fact that Paladins had to have 17 Charisma doesn't change the fact that it's a traditional D&D class. In fact, the Paladin's ability score requisites were some of the most difficult ones to achieve (I think the 1E Barbarian's and Monk's were worse, though). In 1E, if your ability scores were too high you couldn't be certain classes either. If your Intelligence was too high, you couldn't be a Fighter. That's a requirement too, though it works a bit in reverse. Does that mean the Fighter's not "standard" now too? I don't remember 1E presenting classes as options, except for perhaps the Bard, but it's been so long, I'll have to have someone else check that. But really, this is all coming down to semantics. If you don't see them as being "standard," we can use a different way to describe them. Traditional might work. The general point is that the 4E PHB drops classes that have been around for a long time as part of the original PHB. A lot of people would expect those classes to be around...of all the editions that we've had (including non-numerical ones, like OD&D), only 2E and 4E have removed classes from prior editions from the class line-up (in the first PHB, at least). All of the others have maintained what was there and added to them in some cases (like the switch to AD&D adding Paladins, Rangers, and so on). Most of those classes are considered traditional D&D classes to many people. Ability score requisites isn't going to make them think the classes aren't traditional. Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.
madfox		#32	[-]
Posts: 6513 (06/13/08 06:26:41) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There were no barbarians and monks in 2nd edition. I started playing this game in the 2nd edition days and as a result they do not appear all that standard to me even though they were there in the last 8 years. The fact that virtually all barbarians were more like stupid fighters that happen to be able to rage might be part of this feeling. If you want to play a wilderness orientated quick moving heavy hitting character you could easily adapt a rogue or ranger by just changing the sematics.
Raithe the Dreamer		#33	[-]
Posts: 490 (06/13/08 06:29:14) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yeah, I know they weren't in 2E, madfox (you'll notice I mention that 2E is one of the only editions to remove previous classes--those would be the Barbarian and Monk, as well as the Assassin). Personally, they're the two I see as less "standard" than the others precisely because they weren't in 2E. But the Bard and Druid have been around for every edition since 1E. What about those two? Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.
Cthon		#34	[-]
Posts: 6012 (06/13/08 06:42:09) No need for labels, right? Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hmm--"every edition except" seems like a strong phrase, until we state that there are only three editions since AD&D. It would be equally true to say "two out of the three editions" have kept or added classes. _______________________ bored with changing signatures
madfox		#35	[-]
Posts: 6515 (06/13/08 06:43:19) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I mainly posted my remarks to show that we are discusisng something pretty subjective Bards might be 'traditional', but I never understood them as a class, so ::shrug:: With other descriptions a cleric, rogue of warlord can easily become a bard. Druids have a better defined more unique role, but I really don't mind to see them later. 3E druids were too powerful, and thinking things more thoroughly seems like a good idea. Until that time you could play a wizard and describe the wizard's control over the elements as being druids. In essence, I don't miss any of the missing classes.
madfox		#36	[-]
Posts: 6516 (06/13/08 06:44:25) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Cthon wrote: Hmm--"every edition except" seems like a strong phrase, until we state that there are only three editions since AD&D. It would be equally true to say "two out of the three editions" have kept or added classes. Well, paladins and druids were part of oD&D, weren't they (somekind of early prestige class types to be precise)?
Raithe the Dreamer		#37	[-]
Posts: 491 (06/13/08 06:56:50) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Cthon wrote: Hmm--"every edition except" seems like a strong phrase, until we state that there are only three editions since AD&D. It would be equally true to say "two out of the three editions" have kept or added classes. I was also including the pre-AD&D stuff, which had (at first) only three classes, and was later expanded to include the Thief. But I can see how it might sound a bit strong. Well, paladins and druids were part of oD&D, weren't they (somekind of early prestige class types to be precise)? I actually didn't know that. Now I want to go look it up! Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.
Carthain		#38	[-]
Posts: 13344 (06/13/08 07:07:41) Keeper of the FAQ Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Now you're just splitting hairs, Carthain. Those classes have been around in D&D for a long time, and the ability score requirements were something that (for one) a lot of people ignored or simply gave the minimums if someone wanted to play a particular class, and two, were removed in 3E because everyone realized it wasn't really that fun. I'm not splitting hairs ... I'm talking about how I view the classes, and what influences me as to what I determine to be a standard class or not. And the ability requirements were there -- regardless of them being adhered to or removed, they influenced what was a more typical class than others. I can't see how it's considered to be a standard class when the rules themselves state that they are optional. The fact is that they've been in the game for a long time, and as a result, they're familiar classes that are part of D&D to many people. That alone does not make them "standard" in my mind. Clerics, for a long time, couldn't use weapons unless they were bludgeoning. That doesn't make a sword wielding cleric "non-standard." The fact that Paladins had to have 17 Charisma doesn't change the fact that it's a traditional D&D class. See, you're using another word there that ends up being subjective: "traditional." Original D&D didn't have the paladin, so I can't see how people (when taking all of D&D history into account) can call the paladin a "traditional" or "standard" class. My first experiences were with the original/basic D&D box sets, so they influence how I look at things a lot when referring to what is "standard" about the rules. In 1E, if your ability scores were too high you couldn't be certain classes either. If your Intelligence was too high, you couldn't be a Fighter. That's a requirement too, though it works a bit in reverse. Does that mean the Fighter's not "standard" now too? You don't seem to be reading what I've said. The 2nd Ed Fighter also has a requirement -- but it's one of the easiest ones to achieve. As such maximums don't affect what I see as being "standard" at all unless they are very low -- because even with a Max Int of 15, it's still easier to be a fighter than to not be one. The general point is that the 4E PHB drops classes that have been around for a long time as part of the original PHB. A lot of people would expect those classes to be around...of all the editions that we've had (including non-numerical ones, like OD&D), only 2E and 4E have removed classes from prior editions from the class line-up (in the first PHB, at least). All of the others have maintained what was there and added to them in some cases (like the switch to AD&D adding Paladins, Rangers, and so on). Most of those classes are considered traditional D&D classes to many people. I know what your point is, and I have no problem with it. As I previously stated, I'm just picking over the word "standard" that you used. And for reference, "Traditional" makes me think more of the origins (basic D&D), so absolutely no Paladins/Barbarians/etc. there. Carthain. "Eschew Obfuscation."
Tiburon Silverflame		#39	[-]
Posts: 7509 (06/13/08 07:10:48) Enigma Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Paladin was a base class in 1E, and a brutal one...high XP requirements, and you had to have a 17!! Charisma.
Raithe the Dreamer		#40	[-]
Posts: 493 (06/13/08 07:27:56) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	All right, if your main problem is my use of the words "standard" and "traditional," can you propose a word that would work better? You said you understand what I'm saying, so perhaps you can find a better word than I can. If this was all really just an issue of semantics, you could have made that more clear. :P As for the "optional" designations on the classes, that's only occurred in one edition, and that idea was summarily abandoned in two later editions. I don't see how that has much bearing on what we're discussing. If OD&D is a large part of what influences your perceptions of the norms of the game, I understand that. OD&D came about before I was born, so it has less influence on mine. I'm personally of the opinion, though, that the game has grown in many ways since OD&D, and that includes the addition of classes to it, which allows it to encompass more types of characters. I think that a lot of the game's growth has become an integral part of what the game is. OD&D didn't even have the Thief, but I just can't see the game without the Thief/Rogue. Similarly, I can't see it without Paladins, Rangers, Druids, or Bards. Let me stay where the wind will whisper to me, where the raindrops as they're falling tell a story.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Kadh's Impressions of 4e

Quick Reply