posted by [identity profile] sliceydicey.livejournal.com at 09:37pm on 01/07/2008
Kudos for playing the new edition Laura!

My thoughts:

Powers: I suppose these are samey in the sense that everyone has 2 at will-powers but they tend to do very different things, which really helps define the class. Clerics, for example, get powers that aid their allies when they hit (either with a bonus to hit the same enemy or with hps). Fighters get powers like Cleave and Reaping Strike, which encourage them to be on the front lines hitting things.

Healing Surges: Healing surges and second wind (which allows anyone to trigger them once per encounter) are pretty nice, but I think that getting someone to trigger your healing surges as part of an action (or through using a minor action) is the best way to get healing, since it doesn't cost a turn. Leaders (Clerics and Warlords) do that best. So while Clerics aren't essential I think a Leader is probably the most essential member in a party. You can do without one, but it will make things tougher.

Tieflings: Tieflings were in 3.5 as one of the low level adjustment races, and I think people liked them so they brought them in. I don't mind wandering devil people (they're easy to fit into a campaign world, at least), and they'll at least get more play than gnomes did.

Alignment: I think they ditched some of the alignments because they were trying to get rid of needless symmetry, and they figured Good was GOOD enough to cover neutral good and chaotic good.

Rapier: On the plus side with this one, rapiers are really awesome weapons and a good choice for rogues who like to take advantage of high weapon damage powers.

For me one of the biggest pros is that they really tried to nail the role based system, which they shied away from in 3rd edition. I like the idea that I can be AWESOME at something and that doesn't detract from your awesomeness because we're doing completely different things. This wasn't the case in 3.5, which for the most part encouraged everyone to make high damage builds to crush everything in their path. In most groups I found myself in, it wasn't hard to figure out who the bad ass in the party was, and then sort myself from there. Often that badass was the cleric or druid, since they were made VERY VERY powerful compared to other classes.

Now it's like, WOW, that rogue hit for 30+ damage with his sneak attack and ripped that one guy apart, but you don't feel bad because you just took out half a dozen minions using a well placed Burning Hands on your turn. Meanwhile, that Warlord was the guy who kept the rogue from dying and used his power to setup the flank in the first place. So it's less competition with other players and more teamwork, which is always a fun thing.
 
posted by [identity profile] laura-redcloud.livejournal.com at 09:55pm on 01/07/2008
I agree with your points, Rory, but I don't know what you mean about alignments. Why isn't good good enough to cover lawful good, then? I just feel like retaining chaotic ONLY for evil and lawful ONLY for good characters makes a real statement that chaos = evil and law = good, always, that is just incorrect.

I do like that rapiers are awesome. I took the feat mainly because I was trying to play the same character I had in 3.5 and he HAD a rapier, so it was for role-playing purposes, but now he does better damage. (Also, because 1st level is better in 4e. And so are rogues!)
 
posted by (anonymous) at 03:24pm on 02/07/2008
In regard to alignment, I think they were trying to simplify the system by highlighting the most important and noticeable distinctions between alignments.

When you think of the height of good you usually think about the knight in his shining armor who never lies and takes his promises very seriously. He's like the paragon of good!

Same goes for Chaotic Evil. A horrible twisted soul who kills and destroys for its own sake, driven by rage and hate and cruelty.

Some of the other alignments, like Chaotic good, do fit archetypes, but generally not as strongly. Like, is the dashing rogue with a heart of gold chaotic good, neutral good, chaotic neutral, or true neutral? I don't know!

Also some of the alignments are truly boring. Maybe it's just because they stuck neutral in front of it, but neutral good and neutral evil never excited me. So I'm neutral good... so that means I like to help people but I'm not as stuck up as a lawful guy or crazy as a chaotic guy? I guess... And lawful neutral seem more like an academic exercise than an actual character concept.


 
posted by [identity profile] sliceydicey.livejournal.com at 03:24pm on 02/07/2008
You talk the words right out of my head, anonymous poster!
 
I agree with cutting out neutral, I do. Largely for the same reason I favor cutting out half-races - the players should have to make a choice. But I really, really, really think you should have to choose Good vs. Evil, and then, independently, Lawful vs. Chaotic.

Then you only have four choices. I would argue that all of them describe equally interesting, different, and well-known archetypes.

Chaotic Good = thieves/rogues with hearts of gold; Robin Hoods; White Hat hackers; idealistic Marxists; fun-loving pranksters; hippies who chain themselves to trees

Lawful Good = paragons of wholesome goodness (paladins, etc.); non-renegade law enforcement; sweet-tempered non-boat-rocking milquetoasts

Chaotic Evil = nadirs of vile darkness; evil geniuses; demonic minions; rageaholics; raisers of dead for non-emotional reasons

Lawful Evil = profit-driven captains of industry; sociopaths; cruel, calculating villains in positions of power a la Cardinal Richelieu

Agree completely that adding a neutral option for both the law/chaos and the good/evil slot create too many options many of which are samey, but I think for most if not all players, choosing one of the above options would provide enough rigidity to add definition to their characters while being diverse enough to describe most characters. If necessary, just adding a single fifth alignments-- a general 'unaligned'-- as a catch-all would be sufficient.

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9 10
 
11
 
12
 
13 14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31