[4e] What do you like about being a 4E player?

[SPoD]

What are the things you like about being a player 4th edition?

Not DMing it...I know all about the reduced prep time and such. I mean as a player; I'm trying to gather facts before going into my first 4e game. And you can be as specific as you want, as in, "I like how class X can now do action Y!" because I imagine I will have a huge selection of options that I don't know anything about, and any guidance on something that works well would be helpful.

I'm asking this here even though there are other forums I frequent where there are more 4e players precisely because I expect that most people around here do NOT play 4e, or do not love it as much as 3.5. What I'm looking for are your "grudging respect" moments. The things you have to admit you like about it, even if 3.5 is still your favorite.

Most importantly, I am not looking for the things anyone doesn't like about playing 4th Edition. I know most of them, and I'm sure I'll figure out the rest as I go.

So, to make sure we don't turn this into an Edition War, let's recap:

DO post what you like about being a player in 4e.
DON'T post about what you don't like about 4e.
DON'T post about what you like about being a DM in 4e.
DON'T post anything about 3.0/3.0/Pathfinder at all. Phrase your responses as positives about 4e, not negatives about 3.X.

[The J Pizzel]

I like the idea of being able to cross class several times to make a truely unique character....

Ha, no I'm just kidding.

Seriously I love 4E and I'd have to say one of my favorite things about the few times I've played it (usually I'm DM) is that everyone feels insanely useful. The fact that the classes are, for the most part, balanced means rarely does anyone feel like they're not contributing. Not to say everyone can't contribute in any table top, it just seems like in 4E it's practically inherited in the system.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, I like that I can read the rules and know what they mean :smallamused:

Seriously. The ability to walk to a table and build & run a character without worrying about whether or not my abilities can do what they say they can do is great. This was brought into sharp relief with a 4e game I recently joined with a novice DM.

ANECDOTE
The man means well, but even as a Player he never showed much interest in understanding how the game was supposed to work. As a DM, naturally, this lack of interest in the rules means he usually has ideas for how an encounter is supposed to work without having a clue as to what it means mechanically.

As an example, in the very first Encounter I stepped on some ice and he said "you fall." I asked "well, can I make an Acrobatics check to maintain my balance?" He looked at me funny and asked why. When I pointed out the Balance rules in the PHB he acquiesced to the roll but despite a roll of 25+ I found myself sliding all over the place. It turns out he had designed "magically slippery ice" to work like an Ice Puzzle from a video game (e.g. Pokemon) and didn't think about how that would mean from a rules standpoint.

Oh, he's gotten better since but it brought back bad memories from other times.
That said, it makes the times that someone tries to run some poorly worded Dragon Magazine power or feat past me all the more galling - such as a silly Seeker combo that may or may not give infinite shots on a miss :smallsigh:

Also: In before Edition Warz :smalltongue:

[randomhero00]

Favorite things:
Reduced ridiculousness with grappling monsters (screw you CR "3" Crab)
Easy character creation if you have the character builder. The DM doesn't even need to check your sheet.
Easy power descriptions/clear cut. Read the power, and its understandable. Not open to interpretation in almost all cases
More variety of monsters (artillery, controllers, brutes, solos..) that are more easily used
Less annoying traps
While PCs are less varied group variance can be huge. You can make a party full of healers and still be very effective. Or a party full of controllers, etc.
Balanced. Or about as close as one can come with such a big game.
Better at creating (balanced) monsters
Actions are very clear cut
Most classes work in a similar way, so it is easy to pick up for new players
edit: Oh and I don't need to think about or count out skills so much

[SPoD]

Maybe I should clarify some more. I mean things that you notice and prefer when sitting at the physical table playing.

Things like "more variety of monsters" is not a benefit to players, because your DM is only going to throw certain monsters at you during the course of the game anyway. The fact that there are 1,000 more in the book doesn't really come up during the game.


Well, I like that I can read the rules and know what they mean :smallamused:

This is something that should be assumed to be true of any game. If it is not true of another game, then that's a fault of that other game, not a benefit of 4e.

--------------

To be clear: I want to know what parts of the system work are particularly fun or clever or entertaining or whatever because I need help picking what sort of character I want to have. I want specifics, not generalities about how you feel when you play. If 4e makes everyone who plays it feel useful, that's cool, but then I will feel useful no matter what character I play...and therefore, that doesn't help me make any decisions.

Does that help?

[KingFlameHawk]

First things first tier equality. In 4e the vast majority of classes are all more or less equal in ability. 3rd to 4th teir according to the system. This allows people who play classes like fighter (like me), rouge and even monk to be very powerful right up to the end. Wizards and such are still probably the most powerful over all but the difference is far less now.

I also like the class synchronization that happens in 4e. Because each class has a role it means that the players need to work together a little bit more then in previous editions. So instead of having one class killing everything before the others can really do anything every encounter everyone has a part to play. I also can lead to interesting builds if a role is not present in a group, for example my current group lacks a controller so I have been taking powers (another thing I love is the fact that each class can take powers and not just basic attack each turn) that allow my fighter to simulate controller abilities so I can attack many enemies at once.

Third I love the fact that they got rid of alignment restrictions for all the classes. This really does make a lot of sense as say a paladin is a warrior of his god but not all the gods are lawful good. So now I could make a chaotic evil paladin of gruumsh that would be completely legal for use.

Fourth more + less -. Now when you choose your race instead of the old +2 to one and -2 to you get a +2 too two abilities (except for humans) allowing for stronger player characters.

Fifth better defence scores. In 4e when determining fort, ref, and will instead of taking the mod of one ability score to determine the def you now take one of two abilities. This allows for say a character with low wisdom but high charisma to have a high will defense.

[Mordokai]

It made me like the bard class. It made me found out that, after some careful consideration, even a 3.5 bard is awesome and insanely fun class to play. For that, I am grateful to it.

[valadil]

Out of the box, your character will be effective. You don't need to know how to make a good build to feel like you're contributing. There's still plenty of building to do if you're into that, but they make it much easier to throw together a character and have fun with it even if the rest of the part is better optimized and higher level than you.

There's less to read. Okay, there are a lot of powers. But you can read only what applies to your character. Feats too. If I'm playing a fighter I can scan through all the fighter feats at once. I can ignore the feats that only work for other classes. It lets me focus on my character and ignore the rest. I like not being required to do homework in order to make my character.

You have choices every turn. On my turn I want several possible actions. In 3.5 I only played casters because melee characters just didn't offer enough choice. In 4th I've always got 5 or 10 different things to do unless I've used up my powers. (As a sidenote, what I don't like in 4th is having characters with obvious choices. I retired my Invoker because after 3 sessions he had a script for combat. He always did the first 4 or 5 turns the same way because it was straight up the best option. That said, I prefer obvious choices over no meaningful choices at all.)


Your skills will matter. Skills are all now roughly the same scope. They come up a pretty even amount of the time. No longer will forgery rock under some GMs and be a waste under others.

Niche protection. Everyone has a clear and distinct job. I don't like competing with my friends. I want to work together. If I do my job, their jobs become easier and vice verse.

[SPoD]

It made me like the bard class. It made me found out that, after some careful consideration, even a 3.5 bard is awesome and insanely fun class to play. For that, I am grateful to it.

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.


There's less to read. Okay, there are a lot of powers. But you can read only what applies to your character.

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

[tcrudisi]

To be clear: I want to know what parts of the system work are particularly fun or clever or entertaining or whatever because I need help picking what sort of character I want to have. I want specifics, not generalities about how you feel when you play. If 4e makes everyone who plays it feel useful, that's cool, but then I will feel useful no matter what character I play...and therefore, that doesn't help me make any decisions.

Does that help?

Healing as a minor action. Wow. It's ... brilliant. A healer is no longer that annoying class that no one wants to be stuck with. "I move into position, swinging my sword at the goblin's knees, jerking it forward while tripping him. ... Oh, I'll heal Bob the bloodied too." It's just an after-thought to heal and that makes playing Leaders so much more fun to play (as in, now they actually ARE fun to play).

Page 42 of the DMG. All you need to be a real swashbuckler is to be decent at Athletics and Acrobatics. Those rules aren't used very much, but when they are it's truly a blast. They are so simple to use now, too.

Defenders can actually defend. It's annoying when, in other games, the Fighter-type doesn't have any way to actually encourage the target to attack them. That's a thing of the past. Now, the Fighter stands in front of the monster and says, "Attack me ... or else." And they finally mean the "or else." It's brilliant.


What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

They are leaders. Their primary job is to make the party better. They do this through healing (as a minor action, so they still get to move and attack) and buffing their allies. The buffs come in the form of attacks. So, for instance, you attack the monster. If you hit it, you do some damage and all your allies within 5 squares (25 feet) can score a critical hit on an 18-20. Neat stuff like that.


How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

As long as you understand the primary roles, you'll be fine. For instance, know that:
Leader = healer/buffer
Defender = tank
Striker = damage dealer
Controller = debuffer/makes DM's cry

Each class will say their primary role and secondary role. For instance, Paladins are primary defenders and secondary leaders. This means that they are very good at making themselves the target of the monsters and kinda good at buffing their allies.

Once you know that system, understanding the classes becomes easier. Also, it'll help once you see them in action.

[ShaggyMarco]

-I like how a fight might seem to be going completely down the tubes, feeling like maybe this time the DM screwed up and threw something at us we just can't take...and then some PC, (usually the leader, but it can be anyone) pulls out a Daily power hey just picked up (or have had for a long time, that we've all forgotten about) and the tide just SHIFTS in our favor. Fights don't always landslide one way or another...good tactics (and well placed Daily powers) can completely change the course of a fight going bad.

-I like how completely unpredictable the monsters are. As a PC, I never know quite what the monsters will be capable of, since they don't follow the well-known and well-explored PC-side rule-set. Anything can happen-that creates a certain sense of wonder when adventuring. Conversely, it's cool to figure out how a certain type of enemy works and incorporate that knowledge into future tactics.

-I like exploring the battlefields. I know that this is more a hallmark of a good DM than a 4ed-only deal, but I like that fights generally spill into multiple parts of the battlefield, and that 4ed makes it easy to get to all of the cool zones in a battlefield through push, pull, and slide effects, teleportation, separate move/standard/minor actions, and cool movement powers.

[SPoD]

Healing as a minor action. Wow. It's ... brilliant. A healer is no longer that annoying class that no one wants to be stuck with. "I move into position, swinging my sword at the goblin's knees, jerking it forward while tripping him. ... Oh, I'll heal Bob the bloodied too." It's just an after-thought to heal and that makes playing Leaders so much more fun to play (as in, now they actually ARE fun to play).

Page 42 of the DMG. All you need to be a real swashbuckler is to be decent at Athletics and Acrobatics. Those rules aren't used very much, but when they are it's truly a blast. They are so simple to use now, too.

Defenders can actually defend. It's annoying when, in other games, the Fighter-type doesn't have any way to actually encourage the target to attack them. That's a thing of the past. Now, the Fighter stands in front of the monster and says, "Attack me ... or else." And they finally mean the "or else." It's brilliant.

Thanks, these are spot-on in terms of the kind of advice I was looking for. Those are definitely things that sound cool about those specific character types.

Keep it coming, folks!

[LoneStarNorth]

I like that everyone in the party is useful no matter what their character is. Nobody is a win button and nobody is an audience. Even if you make the absolute worst choices possible in making your character, you can contribute.

As a result of the above: less time poring over a dozen books, more time playing the game.

Easy to learn and understand.

Characters last. The threat of death is still there, but you won't have to reroll a new character five times in one session.

Encounters are fun and interesting so long as the DM is willing to put some thought into them.

[ShaggyMarco]

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

4ed Bard is no longer 2nd best at everything. There are things he is VERY GOOD at-he serves a specific role, but he does it in a very cool and flavorful way.

Bards are excellent leaders, handing out bonuses and healing like they are candy. The "Hit Point Pinata" and "Damage Pinata" powers are favorites at our table, turning the tides of many a battle with a brutally tough big-boss. This means they will be good in every single fight. They also can be great at providing combat mobility to allies.

Beyond fighting, they are still super-versatile with their bonuses to untrained skills and ability to multi-class lots of times, maintaining their Jack of All Trades trademark, without making them 4 incomplete, sub-par classes rolled into 1. They still excel in interaction skills as well. Also, ritual support is handy.


How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

Figure out what character type you wanna play (or decide what kinds of things you wanna do in a fight)-ignore the powers for now. After you have a character idea, start looking at the class descriptions and see what best fits your idea. THEN start picking powers. If you find no powers that fit what you wanna do, look somewhere else.

Reading EVERY SINGLE POWER is like feeling the need to read EVERY SINGLE SPELL before playing a sorcerer in 3.5. It's not THAT important, just get a feel for what sort of spells it has by looking at the at-wills, and first tier or two of encounter, daily, and utility powers.

[Mordokai]

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

For starters, they are the only class that can multiclass freely, unlike every other class(without Traveler's Harlequin PP, at least), who can only take one multiclass feat. While wasting your feats on a lot of multiclassing is usually a bad idea, it allows for a much more versatility, which is a cornerstone on which the whole class is built. The bard is really almost a perfect controller/leader combo on it's own. While it will never be as good controller as wizard or as good leader as cleric, it can substitute each of them admirably and the party will be hard pressed to notice the difference.

I could probably go on, but it all boils down to this. Bards are really the jacks of all trades, but masters of none. Sure, depending on your choice of feats, powers and everything else, you can specialize them towards certain role heavier than the others. But they will always be the one class with a trick up their sleeve nobody expected.

[Sipex]

What about the 4e bard makes it fun? I only have access to the first PHB right this second, and the bard is somewhere else. But I love bards in 2e and 3.5e, so I'm curious what the 4e bard is like.

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

The Bard is found in the Player's Handbook 2 and is a leader class character. Leaders have the ability to heal and buff their allies with some debuffing thrown in as well (but usually nothing as good as a Controller will have). Your average Bard without Arcane Power will be focused on melee attacks which provide buffs at the same time or ranged magic attacks which usually provide debuffs or do interesting things.

Bards are also very good at sliding allies and enemies around, constantly giving their allies the tactical advantage (their heal spell automatically lets an ally slide 1 square as well).

Bards still sing too, don't get me wrong. Using either a wand or an instrument (of which there are plenty interesting ones) or simply your voice your bard has songs which they sustain the entire battle which can buff your allies or musical attacks which damage an area of enemies. In addition they have unique performance rituals which do different things (like make people sleepy and such).

When deciding on a class you first need to ask yourself "What do I want to be able to do in battle?" then compare it to the list below:

Striker: I want to be able to kill enemies quickly and efficiently. I will be the lord of all damage.

Defender: I want to keep the enemy occupied and away from my allies. I want to be able to act as a physical wall who punishes the enemies foolish enough to look away.

Leader: I want to aid my allies by healing them and passing around buffs. I'll still be able to support them in battle though as I usually end up wearing hefty armor and having some cool spells.

Controller: I want to attack several enemies at once and pass around status effects like candy. I'll have to stay behind the stronger allies and my forte won't be damage but I'll know I'm doing a good job when the DM's face turns red from frustration.

[SPoD]

Figure out what character type you wanna play (or decide what kinds of things you wanna do in a fight)-ignore the powers for now. After you have a character idea, start looking at the class descriptions and see what best fits your idea. THEN start picking powers. If you find no powers that fit what you wanna do, look somewhere else.

Hmm. I guess the problem I have is that I have played so many D&D characters across so many editions over the years, that I have fallen into the habit of finding a cool battle shtick first, and then building the character's personality around it. I've played so many fighters that I don't have any ideas left on "what sort of fighter" I want to be. I need inspiration, and I usually find that inspiration by trolling sourcebooks until I find something. I felt like that won't really work with 4e, and it sounds like you're telling me that yes, that's true.


Reading EVERY SINGLE POWER is like feeling the need to read EVERY SINGLE SPELL before playing a sorcerer in 3.5. It's not THAT important, just get a feel for what sort of spells it has by looking at the at-wills, and first tier or two of encounter, daily, and utility powers.

I played a lot of 1e and 2e in my youth; when I first tried 3e, I was able to read the list of spells and estimate the effects that many of them could do based on the fact that they used the same names. Most of the names in 4e are new, so I have no idea what they do. So I've never been in this position before.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This is something that should be assumed to be true of any game. If it is not true of another game, then that's a fault of that other game, not a benefit of 4e.
The funny thing is that it isn't true of other games. Allow me to explain.
Pre-WotC D&D, pretty much every system out there was written as a series of guidelines. Yes, there were usually some clear rules in place but they were almost always couched in language that made it clear that the rules as written were unlikely to be the rules of the game. GMs were expected to have a series of house rules and specific rulings unique to the games at their table - or the games were run largely on GM Fiat, lightly tempered by the rules in the book.

Even the games which were more "simulationist" frequently had rules which conflicted with rules from splatbooks or sometimes even with other rules within the same book. And these systems, in an attempt to have rules for everything, often threw in poorly thought-out rules for peripheral portions of the game which were simply ignored in the long run.

WotC started a trend in creating what I would call "legal rules" for RPGs with 3e. These are rules that are constructed like formalist legal contracts - they use defined Terms of Art to provide clarity and rely on short, clear sentences to spell out the rules of the game. Instead of arguing over semantics or grammar a Player can read a rule and then cross-reference it with other definitions in the system to get an unimpeachable reading of the rule. IMHO, 4e expresses the "legal rules" approach the best of the systems out there today - and it's one reason I like it.

EDIT: Oh ho, I seem to have missed the point of the thread. Apologies to the OP for not being terribly helpful :smallredface:

[Surrealistik]

Vastly superior balance, both between the classes and overall.

Overall clarity of the ruleset.

Relative ease and rapidity of character generation and play.

Superbly defined class/build roles.

Fun and tactical combats.

[valadil]

How do you reconcile this with choosing what character to make, though? Don't you have to read everything at least once to figure out whether that's what you want to play? One of the reasons I posted this thread is that I looked in the PHB and was overwhelmed with the amount of reading I would have to do to even figure out what each class does.

I usually have some idea of what I want to play ahead of time. If I don't, I'll pick a role or a power source. If I choose to play a leader, that cuts the reading time down to a fourth of what it was. Then I check what races make sense or each class in that role and see if any of those appeal to me. Last time I did this eladrin warlord and half elf bard both appealed, but we already had a bard so I went with the warlord.

Beyond that I pay attention to how other peoples' builds work. I make a mental note to try the ones that look fun. While I'm enjoying the warlord, I'd still like to try a bard. And barbarians look like a really good time because I enjoy movement and bonus attacks. Playing 4e gives me a lot of "next game" syndrome, in that each time I join a group I see at least one class I'd like to try next time.

The other way I deal with this is by cheating. I read the handbooks on WotC's forums. Just look at the gold or sky blue powers. If those look fun, I play the class. That also helps cut down on reading time, but it's not something I do exclusively with 4e.

[Galdor Miriel]

4E is the best simulationist roleplaying game there has ever been.

Stop, don't panic, this is true if you assume that you are trying to simulate the heroics of fantasy literature, rather than our mundane reality. Yes magic is all powerful from a campaign perspective, but the stout hearted fighter can shake off its effects and still defeat the all powerful wizard.

That is what I love about 4E, in the hands of a good dm, anything can happen but the PCs save the day. It starts in the low levels and gets even more so in the higher levels, though I have only played into paragon levels.

[Shyftir]

The death rules are fun and exciting.

I like the nitty gritty battlefield details. It plays as a small team tactics game in combat and I enjoy that kind of thing.

One of the common complaints about 4e is one of my favorite parts. People say their is less RP in the system. They are right!
It makes Role-Playing something you do through actually thinking through what your character does and says instead of reducing it to a few rolls of the D20.

[Draz74]

Melee characters who actually have mechanics to help them defend their allies. Fighters especially -- it's refreshing how the basic "Fighter" is one of the better classes in the game.

Bards having a hint of Factotum flavor mixed into them.

Not having to keep track of combat spells and non-combat spells in the same categories; keep those Rituals off in their own part of the game where they belong.

[nightwyrm]

Hmm. I guess the problem I have is that I have played so many D&D characters across so many editions over the years, that I have fallen into the habit of finding a cool battle shtick first, and then building the character's personality around it. I've played so many fighters that I don't have any ideas left on "what sort of fighter" I want to be. I need inspiration, and I usually find that inspiration by trolling sourcebooks until I find something. I felt like that won't really work with 4e, and it sounds like you're telling me that yes, that's true.

I played a lot of 1e and 2e in my youth; when I first tried 3e, I was able to read the list of spells and estimate the effects that many of them could do based on the fact that they used the same names. Most of the names in 4e are new, so I have no idea what they do. So I've never been in this position before.

A method that I've come to like to use when choosing a class is to take a look at the paragon paths available for that class instead of the class powers. The PPs write-ups tends to be a bit more flavourful and/or highlight some of the more common or obvious schticks available to that class.

[Fox Box Socks]

Aside from liking that I don't need to worry about how effective my character is going to be in relation to how effective other characters are going to be, what I really, really like is that combat is tactical rather than strategic. Even if a single combat takes an hour, that's an hour where people are doing stuff, not an spending 10 minutes figuring out what buffs you want to cast, then another 10 adjusting everyone's sheets, then another 20 in actual combat.

[Master_Rahl22]

If you really want things to help you pick a class to play, I'd agree with Sipex. Decide which role you want to play (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) then go from there to which classes can fill the role you want to play. Also, note that some builds straddle the line between some roles. Fey Pact Warlocks tend to be half Striker and half Controller with the status effects they can impose on enemies. Polearm Fighters tend to be Defender|Controller crosses in that they're good at tanking but can move enemies all around them and knock them prone whever they want to. Dragon Sorcerers are Strikers that can pretend to be Defenders for a few encounters a day since they get some PPs and powers that can mark. Primal Predator Druids that focus on Beast Form are Controller|Striker mixes since they hand out some pretty decent damage with their control. Those happen to be some of my favorite builds, so if nothing else you could check them out to see if you like them.

[cupkeyk]

It's cheaper. Older editions had people buying books over books or stealing them lol-pirates but 4.0 has CB which you can subscribe to once and never renew until you need it again.

[stabbitty death]

all my freinds play it. Now here are the reasons I don't like it.
after the four roles every class feels like a reskin.
this is to allow balance but the powergamer has proven that it can be broken!
If I wanted simple I could be a barbarian in 3.5 who has to keep track of 1 active ability and 7 feats as opposed to 23 active abilities and 16 feats.

[valadil]

It's cheaper. Older editions had people buying books over books or stealing them lol-pirates but 4.0 has CB which you can subscribe to once and never renew until you need it again.

WotC errata'ed that. Too many people went for the pay once, have CB forever build. Now the CB is a website that requires an active DDI account to login. Granted, those of use who have the old CB still have it, but you can't legally get a new copy of it anymore.

[randomhero00]

Thought of another thing.

Despite there being less combos, multiclassing, gestalting etc (so far anway...) in3.5. In a way the 4e classes are more distinct to make up for it. In 3.5 a wizard and sorc, in an average game, play almost identical.

In 4e they play (or at least hint very strongly to the player to play optimally) very distinctly. Even though they each have a bit of the others role. A sorcerer is a master at AOE damage at range (although you can build a close one too). A wizard can be similar but its better at controlling the battlefield, that is, playing a game similar to chess, making the enemy use up more resources faster than their team.

Another good example, a rogue and an assassin play very very differently.

[randomhero00]

And another thing...

The races are so much much better. They all have character. And more important racial powers that make them feel very distinct in combat and out.

[cupkeyk]

WotC errata'ed that. Too many people went for the pay once, have CB forever build. Now the CB is a website that requires an active DDI account to login. Granted, those of use who have the old CB still have it, but you can't legally get a new copy of it anymore.

But even the webbased CB allows you subscribe briefly, finalize your entire groups characters in the one month sub AND print out your sheets and pwers for all thirty levels. Still vastly cheaper than 14 bucks of more every other month for a new core/splatbook.

[Kiero]

The Martial power source (the only one I play) and being able to be awesome without any magic powers.

[WitchSlayer]

Some of the flavor that they put in their books is awesome.

Like Gruumsh slamming his plane into Bane's and them then having an eternal war. Or the three gods of whose name I forgot playing TF2 with their angels and exalted.

[DragonBaneDM]

4e brings teamwork to DND. I can powergame all I want, but at the end of the day there's going to be a fight or skill challenge where my friend's gonna outplay me cause he's a different role than I am.

Also, the magic item system rocks. I love having easy access to them, having them in the PHB, and knowing that my character's going to be decked out in stuff that I can personalize as much as I want. The creation rules are great, but what it all comes down to is equality.

Call me a Communist, but I love the fact that I don't have to sit there and watch the guy who had the better class tear everything to shreds. Having PCs at a different level is just seen as silly in 4e, which makes me so happy.

Everyone is doing something. Everyone is contributing, and everything is having fun.

EDIT: Got rid of a bit of a rant I had in order to avoid wars. This is a very feel-good thread that I don't want to help ruin.

[Cerlis]

well all i can say is

-I loved when i found out you can have a brute like Rogue. Abilities that go off strength and toughness rather than dexterity. If i wanted to make this in 3.5 i'd have to use 2 varients from the Unearthed arcana for a fighter. despite being a "rogue" I dont have to be a rogue. Instead of being some weak agile little skill monkey i can be a more Bouncer/Bruiser type character who is as smart as he is brutal in combat (wouldnt you be suprised when the musclehead in your group knows how to pick a lock or all the dirty secrets of the underworld). I got this idea when looking at rogue powers

-for the one 4.0 game i did play involved me playing a female elf barbarian. I loved the idea of a skinny blond beauty who could give an animalistic yell and stomp the floor and everyone fall down. which i guess would reflect on the ability of 4.0 of making almost any class race combination. Some races are better for some classes, but none are terrible.

[Kurald Galain]

The wizard class.

[Zaq]

I like that I can make a build in an hour and a fleshed-out character in an evening.

I like that it's difficult (possible, of course) for one character to end up being truly useless.

I like skill challenges, especially the whole "roll initiative, and everyone (yes, everyone) has to contribute somehow" bit. Makes it much more interesting than "OK, we need a handful of Nature checks, so we'll just let the Druid keep rolling until we're clear."

I like how few prereqs most things have. With few exceptions, you can really take each level for what it is and not think about how you're setting yourself up for next level (or worse, four levels down the road). Sure, feats and powers synergize with each other to varying degrees, but you don't have to say "well, I have to take X so I can qualify for Y" very often.

[Katana_Geldar]

I love how party members have specialities that have to work together as a team, with individual roles.
I love how two people with the exact same class/race combo can have almost completely different characters.
And I love 4E bards, they're not as a effective as Clerics or Warlords at healing, or Wizards at casting, but they're great compared to practically any other ruleset.

[Telasi]

I like the greater variety of ways to fill the typical party roles. It means not every party is Cleric/Mage/Thief/Fighter/something random.

I like the fact that I can find physical copies of the rulebooks without much trouble.

I like the fact that I can easily find a group to play in where I live.

I like playing a cunning sneak rogue.

I like the fact that drow are viable without losing class levels.

I like the character builder.

[Surrealistik]

The wizard class.

It sure is great fun, but those dailies need a damned nerfing.

[DragonBaneDM]

I also enjoy how Pacifist builds can be very, very fun, and I don't just mean the Pacifist Cleric. A wizard who doesn't want to deal much damage or a lazylord can sit back and wreak havoc.

Yeah, it's not exactly realistic, but I love that there's this very, very different subset of leaders and controllers that are great at their jobs without dealing much damage.

[kyoryu]

I like that all characters are effective. Wanting to swing a sword doesn't mean you suck.

I like the greater emphasis on cooperation.

I like the emphasis on tactical play - getting the best use out of your abilities, rather than just getting the "biggest" ones.

[dsmiles]

I like that...oh.

Wait.

I've only ever DM'd for 4e. This makes me sad. :smallfrown:

I do however love 4e, and wish I could find a regular group. Especially one where I wouldn't have to DM. All. The. Time.

[true_shinken]

I like my ex-knight character. He is a Brawler Fighter with MC Rogue. It would be very hard to get him to perform well in 3.5.
Well, it wasn't easy to get him to perform well in 4e as well, but I just like him. Sir Darien is awesome.



And I love 4E bards, they're not as a effective as Clerics or Warlords at healing, or Wizards at casting, but they're great compared to practically any other ruleset.
This... I completely disagree. Originally, bard was the first prestige class and it rocked. At 2nd edition, bards got levels faster and because of this got spells faster than wizard. At 3rd edition, inspire courage optimization made bards killing machinces. Even without that, nothing in 4e compares to Glibness or Fascinate. Bards are sadly at their weakest in 4e. They also don't have anything to do with music.
Sorry, Bards are one of the things I dislike the most in 4e.

[dsmiles]

Originally, bard was the first prestige class and it rocked. Best. Bard. EVAR! I long for the days of the AD&D bard.

[cupkeyk]

I like my ex-knight character. He is a Brawler Fighter with MC Rogue. It would be very hard to get him to perform well in 3.5.
Well, it wasn't easy to get him to perform well in 4e as well, but I just like him. Sir Darien is awesome.



This... I completely disagree. Originally, bard was the first prestige class and it rocked. At 2nd edition, bards got levels faster and because of this got spells faster than wizard. At 3rd edition, inspire courage optimization made bards killing machinces. Even without that, nothing in 4e compares to Glibness or Fascinate. Bards are sadly at their weakest in 4e. They also don't have anything to do with music.
Sorry, Bards are one of the things I dislike the most in 4e.


True and not true. I had a Use Magic Device Bard in AD&D (was it called that back then?) and a a rogue, my level was much higher than wizards so level dependent spells were much stronger. The bard has changed to become... more bardic in the Nordic battlecriers sense than they are in the AD&D sense.

[amaranth69]

As a player in 4ed, I really appreciate the fact that the attack powers utilize the primary ability score of that character type. A wizard adds his/her intelligence modifier to the attack roll.

[RTGoodman]

I like that everyone in the party is useful no matter what their character is. Nobody is a win button and nobody is an audience. Even if you make the absolute worst choices possible in making your character, you can contribute.

This. I've always preferred playing the defender/support/fifth-wheel role in D&D. I never particularly made bad choices for characters, but I never felt I was contributing that much in a lot of 3.5 games (especially in hack-and-slash fests). I like that in 4E I can play a Fighter and do a good job of defending, or play a Bard and be a GREAT leader, or play a Monk and not suck terribly, or whatever.

I also like the variety. Within each role I could find several classes I'd like to play, and for each of those classes there are several races I might enjoy, and within each race and class combo there are several different ways I could build the character. There might be particularly good options for certain classes (I'm a fan of half-orc heavy-blade Fighters myself), but you can really make a relatively good build from whatever you want.

[Sine]

Balance. I can play any class and race I want, and be a believable adventurer as long as I pay my feat taxes.

The Options. I don't have to be a hippie or a religious fanatic to heal. With the exception of martial controller, there's a class of every flavor for every party role.

Point Buy is Default. No rolling HPs, or anything else that doesn't deserve a roll.

No Byzantine Rules. No more thac0, no more percentile Strength, no different XP tables, no more grapple confusion, no more d6s to turn undead.

Fewer restrictions. No longer do paladin players have to read from The Galahad Clone Handbook. No longer are demihumans restricted to the classes that the writers think fit them.

“If none of the characters in your party uses a long bow, don’t put a long bow in your dungeon as treasure.” Wish lists I can take or leave, but if I could preserve just one bit of dungeon mastering advice for all future editions, it would be this.

[RTGoodman]

With the exception of martial controller, there's a class of every flavor for every party role.

Actually, I think the new Hunter Ranger build from Heroes of the Fallen Lands (or whatever the second Essentials players' book is called) is a Martial Controller. I haven't played around with it on the CB, but I saw it a few days ago.

[Fox Box Socks]

There are a lot of valid criticisms of 4e, but the 4e DMG isn't one of them. The book is seriously incredible, gives valuable advice for GMs of all systems, and is well worth picking up even if you never play anything other than GURPS or Brown Box.

[Urpriest]

Weapon types feel distinct without having complicated rules for each weapon like in GURPs. Hammers are used by big, stout people and hit solidly because of feats like Hammer Rhythm, Polearms are tricky and shove people around because of their feats, Axes are swingy, Swords are good for tricks and skill, Light Blades are stabby, etc. Basically, weapons really have coherent themes going.

You always feel useful. Enemies are almost never immune to your primary tactic, and you always have backup tactics anyway. At the very least you have two at-wills.

[MrSinister]

Monks monks monks

4e monks are almost like an apology for 3rd edition monks. They are technically Psionic Strikers, but my bro-in-law has made his into a fake martial controller. It's amazing. Their mobility is insane and flurry of blows is just extra damage and a side effect, not the "flurry of misses" we all love to hate.

And, I think its in Psionic Power, but a monk epic destiny is a direct shoutout to olden times D&D... Grand Master of Flowers. Tickled my old heart!

[Dimers]

Specifics:

I like wizards because the builds are so tremendously different from each other. Illusionists, menageries, blasters, movement specialists, mentalists ... plenty of material available for whatever vision of "wizard" you have.

I like sorcerers because they can gish pretty well. Unrelated: the sorcerer-specific feats mostly focus on at-will abilities and, to a lesser degree, critical hits, so it's easy to make a sorcerer whose "Old Reliable" tactic is better than other classes' are.

If you like charging, play a barbarian or avenger.

If you like to soak up insane amounts of punishment, play a warden. Particularly a dwarven or human warden: dwarves can heal themselves more easily than other characters during combat, and humans have access to feats that provide general defense and survivability.

If you like archery, look at ranger and seeker. The latter is full of trick shots and the former can deal loads of damage.

I like monks because they spread the hurt around, smacking everyone a little bit. I also like how easily they can get wherever they want to be.

Speaking of which, eladrin and shardminds have racial teleportation powers. Eladrin really focus on it, but either one is really helpful in almost any combat.

I like the psion for a few really overpowering status effects. That's just pure numbers; I don't feel much about them other than as a powergaming tool.

I adore bards for being able to pick and choose from every class's powers. There's a bard feat in Arcane Power that lets them use their main stat, Charisma, to operate any multiclass ability. You can cast wizard spells without Intelligence, cleave open enemies in melee without Strength, call up soul-draining powers from your core without Constitution, et cetera.

I dislike druids because I don't want to 'manage' what shape I'm in at a given time, and because I feel more of a divide between fluff and crunch in their powers than in most classes'.

I love the fact that anyone can learn rituals. Your party fighter, if he has basic training in matters arcane, can divine the future, place wards, and teleport the party from city to city.

I also love skill powers (from PHB2). In addition to powers for your class and sometimes your race, you can learn powers that expand on your skillset, and it just makes so much sense that you'd be able to develop that sort of ability.

I dislike a few builds, scattered among many classes, that demand ability scores with overlapping defensive properties. For example, I shy away from the bard build that focuses on Wis and Cha, because those are both Will defense stats (and they don't stack). That leaves your AC, Fortitude and Reflex weak as you level up. It's only three or four points of difference by the highest level, so I understand that my distaste is out of proportion, but there it is. I don't want a Wis/Cha cleric or paladin, a Str/Con warden, a Str/Con fighter, or an Int/Dex wizard (although that still increases two defenses so it's not as bad). I sometimes think about the associated defense as a way to decide which build I want within a class -- if I think of a character as mentally indomitable, I'll take the one with Wis or Cha secondary, while a tough-as-nails 'immovable object' sort would have Str or Con secondary.

[Inyssius Tor]

In the campaign where I played a rageblood barbarian, I felt like a berserker engine of destruction.

(Oh no, a pirate ship is about to reach the docks! What's that? I won initiative? I'll just charge a hundred feet to the very edge of the docks, leap thirty feet onto the deck of the galleon, swing up the rigging onto the crow's nest, and decapitate the lookout in one swing.)

(Oh no, the Necromancer is already casting his dark ritual--but between him and us stands his mighty lieutenant, the undying three-headed Skull Lord, on the other side of a ten-yard-wide field of necrotic energy and a wall of icy razors! What's that? I won initiative? I'll just charge through ALL OF THAT, screaming with rage the whole while, and slam into the Skull Lord with such damaging force that he's tossed back into the Necromancer, knocking them both to the ground.)

---

In the campaign where I played a cunning bard, I felt like the conductor of an orchestra or the director of a play. Fights would play out like choreographed musical numbers, my music leading both allies and enemies into exactly the right positions for whatever maneuvers we had planned. My direction would amplify enemies' failures and allies' successes, and if need be I could pause everything and straight-up tell the fabric of reality "no, I know this story, that's not what happens!"

(That orc doesn't just miss our rogue--she dodges out of the way, slicing at him as she moves! Can he stop his misaimed charge in time, or will he fall off the bridge to his death? The latter. Bye!)

(You know, I think this scene would be more dramatic if the hobgoblin general were over here by his warchanters and his archer was just a liiiittle closer to the other combatants. What's that, my warlock ally? If they were positioned like that, you could catch every single enemy in one devastating spell? How convenient--they are positioned like that! Have fun!)

(The fighter lost his footing and let go of the rope, leaving us to all plummet into the ravine below? Hmm. I think that scene could use more improvement. What do you think, fighter? You'd rather roll forward dramatically, grabbing the rope at the last second and saving all our bacon? Capital idea! I think you do that instead.)

And if I got tired of that, I could just turn up the volume and go murdering dudes with the seven shrieking dirges of Hell, watching them stagger about in pain as I drove a hail of sonic daggers into their minds.

[KingFlameHawk]

Actually, I think the new Hunter Ranger build from Heroes of the Fallen Lands (or whatever the second Essentials players' book is called) is a Martial Controller. I haven't played around with it on the CB, but I saw it a few days ago.

I have played around with the Hunter build on the CB and let me tell you that there is absolutly no way that it should be classified as a Martial character. Each and every Hunter power I could find had the primal keyword on them and by the time I was level 16 the Hunter could summon roots from the ground to make difficult terrian, create a zone of fire to burn enemies and conjure a 10 foot high wall of earth each once a day. This is not a martial class, this is a primal class no matter how it is labeled.

PS sorry about the rant.

[MeeposFire]

I have played around with the Hunter build on the CB and let me tell you that there is absolutly no way that it should be classified as a Martial character. Each and every Hunter power I could find had the primal keyword on them and by the time I was level 16 the Hunter could summon roots from the ground to make difficult terrian, create a zone of fire to burn enemies and conjure a 10 foot high wall of earth each once a day. This is not a martial class, this is a primal class no matter how it is labeled.

PS sorry about the rant.

He is a martial/primal controller (dual type sort of like the old school way of looking at it). His at will powers are martial and his utilities tend to be primal. basically I use my martial skill to mess your strategy up on a continuous basis and I use my primal based "spells" (to borrow an old school term) to to more extensive and long term effects.

I love the depth of classes that use similar mechanics but feel differently in play. For instance my brawler fighter feels very different from my arena fighter despite both being unarmed fighters (brawler controls by grabbing while my arena fighter is more like a striker and punches his way through enemies full time).

[Lord Raziere]

I like having a sorcerer that actually feels different from a wizard.

I like playing a fighter, monk, paladin and other such classes without some idiotic tier system or other thing that makes you feel useless compared to some other class.

I like at-wills. I like the tactical nature of all these powers.

I like having simple and fair rules to follow.

I like having races that can be any class, even if you don't receive any bonuses on the stats to them, cause you don't get any minuses either!

[Kallisti]

I like the encounter-and-at-will power setup. I think it's a decent base for a system, even if it does feel somewhat video-gamey to me. It does feel a little restrictive at times--like I'm just running down a checklist ("Used this one? Check. This one? Check. This one? OK, there's my standard action")--but a good DM can keep the combat sufficiently varied that I actually have to react to the situation instead of just burning through my encounter powers in order, then using at-wills. But I really, really like being able to have a decent variety of options available in every encounter, reliably. I think that's a big strength of 4e.

[KingFlameHawk]

He is a martial/primal controller (dual type sort of like the old school way of looking at it). His at will powers are martial and his utilities tend to be primal. basically I use my martial skill to mess your strategy up on a continuous basis and I use my primal based "spells" (to borrow an old school term) to to more extensive and long term effects.


I can't see him as martial/primal controller. His at-wills do use basic attacks but they do all have the primal keyword. To me Hunters seem kind of like the archer version of Barbarians (execept they are controllers not strikers). Barbarians also have at-will powers that could be seen as martial but also have the primal keyword but since both classes use primal magic in some form I just can't see either of them as being martial.

[Ertwin]

I like how multiclassing is done through feats, and not a massive investment. In my current campaign I have a dearth of AOE attacks on my fighter (wall of steel daily is my only one) so I just multiclassed Barbarian and swapped out one of my encounters for great cleave. Problem solved.

I also like how they finally fixed monks...I swapped my sorcerer for a monk the momment the PHB3 came out.

[Haberdashery]

I can't see him as martial/primal controller. His at-wills do use basic attacks but they do all have the primal keyword. To me Hunters seem kind of like the archer version of Barbarians (execept they are controllers not strikers). Barbarians also have at-will powers that could be seen as martial but also have the primal keyword but since both classes use primal magic in some form I just can't see either of them as being martial.

They don't, they have the Martial keyword. If they're listed as Primal, then it's an error in the builder. The book lists them as Martial.

[Mordokai]

-for the one 4.0 game i did play involved me playing a female elf barbarian. I loved the idea of a skinny blond beauty who could give an animalistic yell and stomp the floor and everyone fall down. which i guess would reflect on the ability of 4.0 of making almost any class race combination. Some races are better for some classes, but none are terrible.

You sir, are awesome! :smallbiggrin:

One more thing. I love how 4E finally made half elves a viable choice when it comes to choosing your race :smallsmile: In fact, they have become a pretty damn powerful race.

[MeeposFire]

I can't see him as martial/primal controller. His at-wills do use basic attacks but they do all have the primal keyword. To me Hunters seem kind of like the archer version of Barbarians (execept they are controllers not strikers). Barbarians also have at-will powers that could be seen as martial but also have the primal keyword but since both classes use primal magic in some form I just can't see either of them as being martial.

All his attack powers are martial. It says so in the book and in the compendium. So pretty much anytime you use your bow it is probably based on a martial attack power (rapid shot, aimed shot, and clever shot) or is a martial power (disruptive shot). His utilities, including his stances, are mostly primal.

[true_shinken]

One more thing. I love how 4E finally made half elves a viable choice when it comes to choosing your race :smallsmile: In fact, they have become a pretty damn powerful race.
Half-elves are only bad in 3rd edition. They were pretty awesome in AD&D with their multiclass possibilities.

[MeeposFire]

Half-elves are only bad in 3rd edition. They were pretty awesome in AD&D with their multiclass possibilities.

They were also the only race in core 2e that had an unlimited level progression in a class outside of human. Oh 2e bards how I enjoyed thee (and well every other bard since).

Back in the day did anybody ask how half elves could become 1e bards when that required dual classing and half elves can not do that (other than it is a magical exception to the rules I mean what if I decided after dualing to thief that I did not want to dual again to bard?)?

[true_shinken]

They were also the only race in core 2e that had an unlimited level progression in a class outside of human. Oh 2e bards how I enjoyed thee (and well every other bard since).
2e Bards are all shades of awesome. My best moment as a Bard was 'Oh, sorry. I just have one spell left. It's called Tenser's Transformation.' Enemy drow goes 'omgwtfbbq'.
Oh, I also miss 2e Tenser's...

[Mordokai]

Half-elves are only bad in 3rd edition. They were pretty awesome in AD&D with their multiclass possibilities.

I wouldn't know that, if I wouldn't play Baldur's Gate. And anybody who never played AD&D couldn't possibly know that. So yeah, it's refreshing to see something that sucked previously now be awesome all of a sudden.

[EccentricCircle]

what I like most about 4th edition is that you don't need to keep looking things up in rule books. once you write down your powers in a clear and concise manner thats all you really need to refer to most of the time.

ocasionally someone will have to look something up in the original text, or reference the wording of a feat or condition, but for the most part the PHB stays closed on the table. I've not looked anything up in mine for weeks,

I also like powers for Mele Characters more than I thought I would. because I think i've now got my head around what they are supposed to do. rather than being like spells they are tricks and stunts. (hopefully most people reading this understand this, but when all you know about the game is the stuff you read in edition wars it can be overlooked so its worth pointing out)

i'm not saying that they are perfect, personally I would like fewer powers with more variety rather than lots of powers that all read much the same.
that may come down to my choices and the fact that we only have the PHB options. (I'm playing a rog 15).
I'm going to stop before I get into how the system could be improved rather than what I like about it. I hope that that helps.

[potatocubed]

I love pushes, pulls and slides. It makes the battlefield terrain much more interesting when you can interact with it (or force other people to interact with it) more easily.

Although that said I also love the new fighter, especially the martial power 'sword and empty hand' fighter. It's fun to hold someone still and pound them, or toss them across the battlefield, or just to stand between the Danger Beast and the squishies at the back and actually be effective.

I love that I no longer have to give a spoon about alignment.

I love Dark Sun. :smallcool:

[SPoD]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. They've been very helpful. In particular, the bard sounds like something I wanted to check out, so I'm proud to say that I picked up PHB2 this morning, doubling my 4e library in the process.

I'm being dropped into an ongoing 4e game in a few weeks, and even though the DM has said she'll hold my hand and help me learn the system, I have a feeling a lot of it is going to whiz by my head at first. I started this thread partly because I'm going to be called on to make an 11th level character without having played the game before, so the choices before me are more than most people learning the system for the first time.

EDIT: If anyone wants to help me learn 4e in the PbP forum, I've put out the call here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188479)

[Fox Box Socks]

I love Dark Sun. :smallcool:
I was worried they weren't going to do Dark Sun very well in 4e. Imagine my shock when the setting surgically removed 90% of the metaplot and reset the setting back to what is basically the original box set.

They knocked that one out of the goddamn park.

[Sipex]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. They've been very helpful. In particular, the bard sounds like something I wanted to check out, so I'm proud to say that I picked up PHB2 this morning, doubling my 4e library in the process.

I'm being dropped into an ongoing 4e game in a few weeks, and even though the DM has said she'll hold my hand and help me learn the system, I have a feeling a lot of it is going to whiz by my head at first. I started this thread partly because I'm going to be called on to make an 11th level character without having played the game before, so the choices before me are more than most people learning the system for the first time.

I think I'll see if anyone wants to teach me via PbP in the forum here.

I've got a lot of experience DMing, we can run a short dungeon to get you used to things if you're interested. Should be easy enough to drum up a casual party. I just need to figure out an easy way to represent grids on here.

[Master_Rahl22]

@Sipex: You want the [ table][/table ] tag. I've seen it before but I don't remember all of the syntax. I'd be willing to participate in the introductory game for SPoD.

@SPoD: I'd recommend you make your character at level 1, then go through the PHB section on leveling up that comes before the races. That way you can be sure you don't miss anything that you should have at 11th level. You should also find a handbook for the class you want to play (I think you said Bard) as even if you don't go with a cookie cutter build, you can see what someone else thinks of various powers, feats, races, and items.

[Sipex]

Thanks Rahl, I got tables down now.

Just follow the link in SPoD's post. I've got creation rules up.

[Morph Bark]

The fact that I am not the DM.

Seriously, that's the biggest thing for me. With 3.5 I usually DM'd, so the switch gave me a nice breather. I wish my DM's style was different though and he didn't rely so much on pre-made adventure modules... I get too often that my plans don't work (granted, they are crazy, but some should have ended up having at least some effect) and that he is too merciful when it comes to death.

Especially since I wonder what kind of effect it would have on the other characters. Not so much RP-wise (since the group is too game-focused and not really roleplay-focused), but stuff like them not having his skills around anymore or the fact that only he knows he buried a plot-important item somewhere safe.

I kinda want to try a new character though, probably a Leader. We don't have one yet (2 Defenders, 1 Controller, 3 Strikers).

[KingFlameHawk]

All his attack powers are martial. It says so in the book and in the compendium. So pretty much anytime you use your bow it is probably based on a martial attack power (rapid shot, aimed shot, and clever shot) or is a martial power (disruptive shot). His utilities, including his stances, are mostly primal.

I don't have the book so I can't say what is in there or not so I will take your word on that but in the compendium the at-wills still have the primal keyword not martial so assuming you are right about the book then some one at WotC screwed something up.

[Dalek-K]

I love how if you are one person down then it is easy to pick up that player's character and be somewhat capable at using him/her

I was a Wizard and the party Rogue kept missing... I ended up playing both characters in battle really well.

Also it is funner to use tactics when everyone is useful... More people chipping in is great.

The best thing about 4e is the ease at which you can homebrew anything. I think it is actually encouraged in one of the books.... But when 4e first came out (that very month) I played a Paladin... And since there was no alignment restrictions... I played a Chaotic Evil Paladin of X god (forget her/his name). However doing radiant damage was a bit silly so I changed the key word to necrotic (and/or ice) and BLAMO Evil Paladin :)

4e also is a great system to switch up the DM, having a rotating cast of players each DM one night is almost to easy... Sometimes as a player I want to be behind the DM screen once or twice just to give my lovely party members a bash in the face :smallredface: for leaving my 0 hp dwarven wizard behind when they high tailed it out of the dungeon... :smallfurious:

haha :)

+1 for the new fighter... fricken awesome in a bag of holding +5

[tcrudisi]

I played a Paladin... And since there was no alignment restrictions... I played a Chaotic Evil Paladin of X god (forget her/his name). However doing radiant damage was a bit silly so I changed the key word to necrotic (and/or ice) and BLAMO Evil Paladin :)

Warning: pet peeve rant incoming.

Radiant: Searing white light or shimmering colors.

That's all that radiant damage is. It's not "holy" or "goodly."

Necrotic: Purple-black energy that deadens flesh and wounds the soul.

Good creatures can do necrotic just as easily as bad guys can do radiant. I mean, if you wanted to change the damage type because you want to do necrotic damage, that's fine. But to change it because radiant = good and necrotic = evil is incorrect. There's nothing that says that radiant is good and necrotic is evil.

Okay, rant done.

I'm glad you enjoyed the character!

[Mordokai]

@^ that may be so, but the wizards themselves actually proposed that change. Maybe it was DMG 1? Can't remember now, but it was that exact change and yes, it was hinted that radiant equals good while necrotic equals evil.

[Kerghan]

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet (if they have I apologize), but less emphasis on magical equipment. Character creation takes less time now, especially wizards (no having to set aside a percentage of my starting gold for mass amounts of spells that I later have to spend 25 gold a page carefully penciling in with a griffin's feather with ink from a Kraken on parchment made from a Sussur tree.). Epic level wizards were painful to create. Not sure if this process is required for ritual books, but those aren't necessarily required for basic gameplay and rudimentary spell use.

[Mando Knight]

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet (if they have I apologize), but less emphasis on magical equipment.

Well, less emphasis on having magical equipment on every limb of the body and in every pocket of the magical bag. You'll obviously still want your magic sword and armor, as well as the magic cloak/necklace/whatever (and in fact, since the Defense/Attack curve has changed, it's far more important), but the rest are all just useful items instead of strictly necessary items.

[Reverent-One]

Well, less emphasis on having magical equipment on every limb of the body and in every pocket of the magical bag. You'll obviously still want your magic sword and armor, as well as the magic cloak/necklace/whatever (and in fact, since the Defense/Attack curve has changed, it's far more important), but the rest are all just useful items instead of strictly necessary items.

Even those are unnecessary since you could just use the inherent bonus system.

[Dalek-K]

I love the condensed skill section. With this I don't have to worry about rolling for hide/move silently/don't trip over my own shadow ... I can just roll once and say what I'm doing.

Same thing with the rest of the skills.

With the homebrewing...

It was so easy to turn a wizard into a martial controller (even the power's fluff) that I absolutely love that class (called Black Belt... I'm going to put it on giantitp.com eventually)

[LikeAD6]

I like that I can play a bard and be incredibly useful.

I like that I can make magic items without losing XP.

I like that I won't be stuck with low ability scores or HP due to bad dice rolls at important times.

[MeeposFire]

I don't have the book so I can't say what is in there or not so I will take your word on that but in the compendium the at-wills still have the primal keyword not martial so assuming you are right about the book then some one at WotC screwed something up.

I am looking at the compendium right now.

Disruptive shot-encounter attack power-martial weapon

Aimed shot-at will attack power-martial (no weapon keyword)

Rapid shot-at will attack power-martial (no weapon keyword)

Clever shot-at will attack power-martial (no weapon keyword)


You are probably confusing the at will stances which are utilities (not attack powers) that are all primal. Those all use modify your basic attacks and then your martial attack powers give you additional ways to use your enhanced basic attacks.



In 4e I also love how ability score enhancers are gone. It was just so tiresome when you get hit by the awesome bull str spell that involved changing a large amount of stuff and then also having to deal with str damage and the like. So glad that is gone.

[KingFlameHawk]

You are probably confusing the at will stances which are utilities (not attack powers) that are all primal. Those all use modify your basic attacks and then your martial attack powers give you additional ways to use your enhanced basic attacks.


That was it. I still however say that the hunter should not be considered a martial class as it uses primal powers to create supernatural effects which none of the other martial classes can do.