PDA

View Full Version : Brand new tp 4th ed



DefKab
2011-07-23, 02:13 PM
So, like the title says, Im brand new to fourth Edition. Ive been reading it over, prepping for a game tomorrow, and checking out the forums and have gleaned that its pretty evened out compared to 3.5, but Id like some definite answers.

Are there tiers here? I cant see Wizards being top dog anymore with their spellcasting times, and druids are just fluff now... So what to do you guys think about its balance?

Whats a good class for a new player breaking in? I got the PHB I, II, and III, and a few other books, so Ive got the idea of most of them, but which do you think is a good break in?

Skills seem pretty even across the board now... Is a skill junkie a necessary or even viable build anymore, what with the equalized trained skills?

I have so many questions...

Ramien
2011-07-23, 02:31 PM
I can't really speak as to tiers, since things are a lot more evened out, but every class has at least a shot at being effective, depending on build.

I can't give an answer as to what a good class for a beginner is, because it depends a lot on what people want to play. That said, most striker classes offer the most straight forward playstyle - it's mostly a matter of figuring out how to make sure you get your bonus damage each round.

You can still skill junkie to a degree through judicious applications of skill focus and other feats that give bonuses to individual skills, or play a bard and end up effectively trained in all skills, so you have something to contribute to any situation.

If you haven't taken a look through it yet, borrow or look through a copy of the Player's strategy guide - it gives a bit of different optimization options and ways to think about building characters towards different goals.

NecroRebel
2011-07-23, 02:57 PM
All the classes are more-or-less balanced. Whereas in 3.x, a flawlessly-optimized character would be billions of times as strong as an intentionally-gimped character, in 4e the former is maybe a couple four or five times as strong as the latter. The possible power discrepancies are so much smaller that a character that actually has even a little thought put into it, even by a novice, will be competitive.

There are arguments as to what class is most effective at a given role, but, again, these "tiers" aren't very well-defined and the difference between them is minimal. A Ranger, for instance, is more-or-less the best striker, but their average damage per round is maybe 10% higher than the other strikers'.

Ritual casting is open to everyone, but is more of a last resort if you can't succeed on a task with mundane skills. Saying that wizards aren't top dog because rituals take time kind of misses the point; a Fighter could be a ritual caster if they wanted, Wizards and some other classes just get it as a bonus feat.

It's very rare to have a single character with every skill, but having at least the majority of skills represented in a party is extremely helpful, and having doubles on some, like Perception, Insight, and Arcana (the latter for rituals) is always nice. Dedicated skill monkeys aren't necessary anymore.



For new players, Strikers and Leaders are probably the easiest roles to play. Strikers are mostly just there to deal damage, and most of them have class features that help with that. Leaders, at the most basic level, are useful even if they just heal and blast. Knowing who to give the various secondary benefits of their attack powers is more advanced, but still not terribly difficult. Defenders have to be able to successfully determine which enemy is most important to mark and how to prevent melee enemies from getting to the squishier targets, while controllers have to know how to place their control spells to actually be effective, so those two roles tend to be more challenging.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-23, 02:59 PM
Are there tiers here?
Not in the sense of 3E, no. On the other hand, there are clearly strong classes and weak classes. The game is reasonably well balanced, but at higher level the difference between a strong and a weak class, or a well-built and poorly-built character, can become an issue.



Whats a good class for a new player breaking in?
That depends highly on what you want, and what kind of player you are. Strikers are generally the most easy to play, and controllers the least. PHB3 classes tend to be less easy to play than PHB1/2 classes.


Skills seem pretty even across the board now... Is a skill junkie a necessary or even viable build anymore, what with the equalized trained skills?
Not really, because many skills can be used in the place of other skills, and because several skills are only needed on one character in the party.

Urpriest
2011-07-23, 03:19 PM
As a new player, the Archery Ranger is a good choice if you don't want to think very much about what you're doing. It won't make the game very exciting, but if you don't want to think beyond "who do I shoot" then it can be a good choice.

Dalek-K
2011-07-23, 04:16 PM
Heroic, Paragon, Epic :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness I would suggest playing a striker such as the Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer

tcrudisi
2011-07-23, 04:16 PM
1. Are there tiers here? I cant see Wizards being top dog anymore with their spellcasting times, and druids are just fluff now... So what to do you guys think about its balance?

2. Whats a good class for a new player breaking in? I got the PHB I, II, and III, and a few other books, so Ive got the idea of most of them, but which do you think is a good break in?

3. Skills seem pretty even across the board now... Is a skill junkie a necessary or even viable build anymore, what with the equalized trained skills?

1. Kinda sorta, not really. Certainly not in the sense of 3/3.5e. To put it a bit better: yes, there are tiers, but everyone is now tier 3 and tier 4. So, there can be slight differences, but not enough to matter in a game. There are a couple of classes which aren't very good, but they are that way only because they haven't received any extra support yet. As soon as they receive a few more articles or a splatbook, they'll be in line with everyone else.

2. Well, I'd look at the martial classes first and foremost. They tend to be the easiest (and still very, very effective due to having the most support) to play. The Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, and Warlord are a great, and strong, foursome. The Cleric is also easy to play and would come highly recommended. It would probably be easier to mention classes to avoid: Wizard and Sorcerer are the two I would strongly advise against. Both are good classes, they just require a bit more than the others of their role to play properly.

3. The skill junkie is not a necessary build, though it is extremely viable with the Bard. His un-capped number of multiclasses means that he can get skill trainings while still picking up useful powers. There is also a really good paragon path for him (name slips my mind) and he can just thoroughly dominate skill checks and skill challenges while still remaining viable in combat. This isn't necessarily a good thing, though, to have one player dominate the skill checks and challenges, so make sure that your group is comfortable having one player almost always making those rolls.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-23, 04:53 PM
There are a couple of classes which aren't very good, but they are that way only because they haven't received any extra support yet. As soon as they receive a few more articles or a splatbook, they'll be in line with everyone else.
While more support could certainly fix it, I don't think lack of support is the problem. Most classes work fine using just the book in which they were first printed, some classes don't. For example, you can make a great fighter using just the PHB1, but making a great paladin really requires more books.

Anyway, while it's possible that WOTC will print a Dragon article or splatbook fixing e.g. the Assassin, Binder, or Seeker, I don't think that's very likely, and nothing of the sort has been announced so far.

tcrudisi
2011-07-23, 05:37 PM
While more support could certainly fix it, I don't think lack of support is the problem. Most classes work fine using just the book in which they were first printed, some classes don't. For example, you can make a great fighter using just the PHB1, but making a great paladin really requires more books.

Anyway, while it's possible that WOTC will print a Dragon article or splatbook fixing e.g. the Assassin, Binder, or Seeker, I don't think that's very likely, and nothing of the sort has been announced so far.

As you said, splatbooks fixed the Paladin. The Runepriest is already a good class, it just needs some more class feats and powers to really shine. The others could be fixed like the Paladin was.

No, nothing is planned yet, but I'm optimistic that WotC will fix their ways and stop working on the Fighters and Wizards and instead work on the Runepriests and Seekers.

Surrealistik
2011-07-23, 05:42 PM
As you said, splatbooks fixed the Paladin. The Runepriest is already a good class, it just needs some more class feats and powers to really shine. The others could be fixed like the Paladin was.

No, nothing is planned yet, but I'm optimistic that WotC will fix their ways and stop working on the Fighters and Wizards and instead work on the Runepriests and Seekers.

And Sorcerers; what a horrible, terribly overshadowed class.

Hidden Sanity
2011-07-23, 06:13 PM
There's the differences... the Seeker, for example, is one of the 'weaker' classes, but it's core is solid; it just has bad power and feat support. A splat book or 3-4 dragon articles that give it some nice powers at it's 'dead levels' and maybe some decent paragon paths can really bring the class in line.

The Binder and Assassian, meanwhile, have problems with the features/core of the class, they will either need amazing feat/power support or errata. Then again, a solidly built Assassian or Binder will still at least compete with other classes... they'll almost never win, but they won't be too too far behind.

1of3
2011-07-24, 03:10 PM
Whats a good class for a new player breaking in? I got the PHB I, II, and III, and a few other books, so Ive got the idea of most of them, but which do you think is a good break in?

Stay away from PHB3. Other than that, you should be fine.

If you choose a class and race, we can help with the specifics.

Fox Box Socks
2011-07-24, 05:07 PM
And Sorcerers; what a horrible, terribly overshadowed class.
Chaos Bolt disagrees with you :P

Hidden Sanity
2011-07-24, 05:51 PM
Sorcorers are slightly overshadowed as a blaster by two specific races of wizard...while that same wizard has additional tricks.. but even then, the sorc is not hard to make pretty powerful

Kurald Galain
2011-07-24, 06:09 PM
Sorcorers are slightly overshadowed as a blaster by two specific races of wizard...
No, sorcerers are overshadowed by (1) the fact that, except for its class feature, every damage boost a sorcerer can use, a wizard can also take; (2) wizards having much better dailies and paragon paths; and (3) Enlarge Spell.

Nobody's saying that sorcerers are bad, but the point is that wizards are just better. Genasi and Tiefling are not necessary, they're just adding insult to injury.

Doug Lampert
2011-07-24, 07:45 PM
As a new player, the Archery Ranger is a good choice if you don't want to think very much about what you're doing. It won't make the game very exciting, but if you don't want to think beyond "who do I shoot" then it can be a good choice.

But you should never take the Archery Ranger style unless you're aiming for a particular paragon path.

The style gives you one marginal feat.
Two weapon fighting gives you a good feat and the ability to use any one handed weapon off-hand. Beastmaster gives you a meat shield. As best I recall the other styles all also give something useful.

DougL

DefKab
2011-07-25, 01:15 PM
But you should never take the Archery Ranger style unless you're aiming for a particular paragon path.

The style gives you one marginal feat.
Two weapon fighting gives you a good feat and the ability to use any one handed weapon off-hand. Beastmaster gives you a meat shield. As best I recall the other styles all also give something useful.

DougL

Is toughness really a good feat? 5 HP every 10 levels?

NecroRebel
2011-07-25, 01:30 PM
Is toughness really a good feat? 5 HP every 10 levels?

Compared to Defensive Mobility on a character whose entire schtick is staying out of arm's reach? Yes. And even in general, yes; at level 1, it adds probably about 20% of the hit points you would have had otherwise, and while it drops as you level, it still provides around 9% even at level 30. Remember, for a Ranger that 5 hit points is the equivalent of another level's worth every 10 levels. It works out to roughly +1-2 to all defenses and boosts your healing surge value; not bad.

DefKab
2011-07-25, 01:34 PM
Compared to Defensive Mobility on a character whose entire schtick is staying out of arm's reach? Yes. And even in general, yes; at level 1, it adds probably about 20% of the hit points you would have had otherwise, and while it drops as you level, it still provides around 9% even at level 30. Remember, for a Ranger that 5 hit points is the equivalent of another level's worth every 10 levels. It works out to roughly +1-2 to all defenses and boosts your healing surge value; not bad.

True... Is it just me, or are feats in 4th a little... Lackluster? Compared to 3.5 at least...
Maybe it's made up for in Powers...

NecroRebel
2011-07-25, 01:39 PM
True... Is it just me, or are feats in 4th a little... Lackluster? Compared to 3.5 at least...
Maybe it's made up for in Powers...

You can't compare the two games; they're almost completely different. The only things they have in common are the names (and that doesn't make 4E D&D in name only, because 3.x is even more different from AD&D, so it's just as guilty as that).

Feats in 4E are significantly weaker than they were in 3.5, but you get more of them, and they're actually, you know, balanced for the most part. Also, as the numbers in general are smaller, smaller bonuses mean more. It just means that what would be a meager bonus in 3.5, like for instance a gain of 1 HP per level, is actually significant in 4E because you can't get the same bonus and more a dozen other ways.

Sipex
2011-07-25, 01:39 PM
Yeah, all the 4th edition feats are reduced in power compared to 3.5 but for the 4th edition system, they work great. Also, yes, powers do tend to make up for the slack quite a bit.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-25, 01:45 PM
True... Is it just me, or are feats in 4th a little... Lackluster? Compared to 3.5 at least...

Yes they are, but you do get more of them, so it evens out. A 3E character gets 7 feats over his whole career, whereas a 4E character gets 18.

DefKab
2011-07-25, 01:56 PM
Yes they are, but you do get more of them, so it evens out. A 3E character gets 7 feats over his whole career, whereas a 4E character gets 18.

A whole career is also 10 levels more...

But a lot less XP earned.

How's that work? Do you find that the smaller XP difference between levels change anything? Leveling up isn't AS labor intensive, but doing it more often... I dunno. I still gotta play it.

NecroRebel
2011-07-25, 02:04 PM
A whole career is also 10 levels more...

But a lot less XP earned.

How's that work? Do you find that the smaller XP difference between levels change anything? Leveling up isn't AS labor intensive, but doing it more often... I dunno. I still gotta play it.

At low levels, 4E characters are significantly stronger than their 3.x counterparts. However, 1 level in 3.x means a lot more than in 4E. I've heard rough equivalencies between level 18 3.x chars and level 30 4E chars, and a level 3 3.x is probably about equal to a level 1 4E. Put it this way: 2 levels in 4E is much like 1 in 3.x and probably takes roughly the same time AFAIK (don't have 3.x books, so can't check xp numbers). It's a smoother power curve as you don't have plateaus as long, especially since in 3.x often you wouldn't get anything significant on even-numbered levels.

Sipex
2011-07-25, 02:26 PM
Also, monsters give different EXP totals in 4e too.

Fox Box Socks
2011-07-25, 02:50 PM
There are plenty of powerful, game-changing feats in 4e that utterly change the way you play, it's just that most of them come in Paragon Tier.

nightwyrm
2011-07-25, 06:36 PM
Also remember that you can retrain stuff. So if you took toughness at level 1 and then feels that you have enough hp at lv 5, you can retrain it to something else.

Sipex
2011-07-26, 08:44 AM
That's actually an interesting point.

Does retraining a feat like Toughness comlpletely reverse the benefits?

Sir Homeslice
2011-07-26, 08:47 AM
That's actually an interesting point.

Does retraining a feat like Toughness comlpletely reverse the benefits?

Remove the feat, remove the benefits.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-26, 08:49 AM
Does retraining a feat like Toughness comlpletely reverse the benefits?

Yes, of course. That applies to all feats, why wouldn't it?

Sir Homeslice
2011-07-26, 08:51 AM
That's actually an interesting point.

Does retraining a feat like Toughness comlpletely reverse the benefits?

Remove the feat, remove the benefits.

WickerNipple
2011-07-26, 09:41 AM
4e retraining is most amusing with languages.

Sipex
2011-07-27, 08:44 AM
Ah, I misunderstood what nightwyrm said, I thought he was implying something else which doesn't really make sense now that I think on it.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-27, 08:48 AM
4e retraining is most amusing with languages.
Or wizard spells. They magically disappear from your spellbook for no reason. Except if you're a mage.