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

[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.

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.