Quote from: Batman;1103441What always boggled my mind is the often quoted "all characters are the same" complaint leveled at 4e. I just don't get how that is possible? Despite all PHB classes having the AEDU resource, they all have different things that make them unique. As an experiment I made three Fighters from the PHB, no outside sources. Here's what I got:

What I heard most oft from 4e fans, and particularly fanatics, was that the classes were very balanced.

I think what some mean when they say all characters are the same in 4e is that all characters in the same class can end up feeling very cookie-cutter-ish. Especially if using just the core. Just doing that basic chargen I did it was very evident that even for the warlock your options were oddly limited. Moreso due to the potential constraints that feats can and do impose depending on how you go about it. And since it is built to use primarily the array, that makes the characters even more potentially same-y within a class or path.

And I say potentially because you can create characters that are more organic rather than regimented. It is just that your options may potentially be restricted at some point.

From what I am seeing it is like every edition of D&D and probably every RPG ever. Very very YMMV due to the myriad variety of playstyles.

I have not yet looked at comparing 4e class damage outputs for example. But if the board gamers claim it is fairly balanced... then odds are it is. They'd have bitched incessantly otherwise.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103454To be fair, I also find 5E has inherited the problem of handling spells in the same way - they have to be laboriously written out and revised every time you level up. Or else you use spell cards. That's the reasons some of my players will never run a full spellcaster in 5E - they don't want to deal with the paperwork.

Um... since when? I've run various spellcasters and there is very little updating needed for most spells, or the updates are few and far between. Combat cantrips for example all update exactly 3 times. At levels 5, 11, and 17. A fireball does 8d6 damage. It never updates its damage. You can cast a more potent version using a higher spell slot. But even that is only needed to be noted once when you get the spell.

Yes, several spells gain range and such. But this too can be front loaded and no need to update after really unless you really dont want to do the math. In which case just note down at the start what the progression will be. Again, front loaded and done.

Quote from: Omega;1103521Then you have no idea of the lead times on MMO development.

I do actually, and in this case we have a further supporting data point in the form of the acquisition of Cryptic by Atari in 2009 (also, as stated, I've actually been following Cryptic Studios specifically since the City of Heroes and Star Trek Online days and you could always tell when they were working on an unannounced product because devs always got pulled off the currently active MMOs and that chatter crowded the forums). The development of Neverwinter was announced one year later (2010), but the actual game didn't release until June 10, 2013 (on a single platform) putting the development cycle at about 5 years if you presume they started after the purchase by Atari.

That's actually right about the average for MMO development (and certainly in line with other Cryptic MMO projects), particularly for a single platform (it was 2015 before you could play on another other a PC).

I get it... 4E is a video game, hur hur (like I haven't heard that a billion times before). But facts matter and in this case they don't support the notion that Neverwinter came first. Far more likely is development coincided with development of the Essentials line (c. late 2009) since the Neverwinter Campaign Setting was the only post-Essentials setting book released.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103454To be fair, I also find 5E has inherited the problem of handling spells in the same way - they have to be laboriously written out and revised every time you level up.

The F your players doing with their spells? 5e doesn't function that way unless they're doing something very strange. Have you tried telling them "Wrong hole!" when they revise their spells every level?

My apologies for not getting back to this quicker, Grave shift and all....

Quote from: TJS;1103445Well yes.  But you're the one trying to use 3 fighters to prove diversity not me.  If I wanted to make 3 4E fighters to prove diversity I'd use a Ranger, a Warlord, or a Fighter - because all of them fit easily into the "Fighter" mold of other editions.  From that perspective 4E is probably the best WOTC edition to have a Fighter dominated low magic party.

After all, half the classes in the 4E PHB were non-magical.  Something that is certainly not true of 5E

All of that is true and something I wholeheartedly agree with. It was a point made multiple times, especially how to make a really good "Bow" Fighter. I'd just suggest a Ranger, take out the nature-y sounding flavor, don't take aspects that are more Nature-oriented (like the Nature Skill vs. say Perception or Dungeoneering). Unfortunately back then that simply wasn't good enough *Shrugs*. And yes, 4E was probably the best Edition I can think of that can really do a non-magical party that really kicked ass despite not having access to it. A Warlord, Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, and Hunter has - to me anyways - a pretty cool commando-vibe. Add in unique ammunition to their arrows, consumables and equipment like blinding bombs and it's practically S.W.A.T. D&D.

I used 3 Fighters to emphasize that even within the same class there's some pretty good variations despite all being cut from the same cloth. Plus I like making stuff

Quote from: TJS;1103445Sounds very vague.  Maybe if you ask them to come and post here we can judge if you've successfully responded to their complaints.  Or better yet we can ask them.  (Although we'd probably - to be really sure - have to get them to actually play these characters through a game and see if they feel sufficiently diverse - I can't even remember what the powers you listed actually do so your point is lost on me - and, I presume, just about everyone else on this forum).  Absent that?

In hindsight, getting them on-board theRPGsite would've been an excellent idea. I'm sorry it sounds vague, they were casual conversations with randos at my FLGS (now a soon to be demolished mall) and a guy at Half-Price books when I was looking through the 4th Edition material there.

I would be totally on board with a one-shot adventure with a party of all the same class using only the PHB material. That's actually a very interesting and fun idea, so thanks!

Quote from: TJS;1103445I mean I imagine that the main complaint would be probably more be something about all classes using the same kind of resource management (WOTC seemed to think so given that this is what they played around with in regard to both the psionics system and later the essentials classes) but I don't really care.

I'm really not sure why you're re-prosecuting a decade old edition war in response to complaints from random people elsewhere.

It was a question as to where the notion really came from and the reason it gained so much traction. You're right though that it probably had far more to do with each class using the same resource management, the AEDU certainly didn't make a lot of friends. Also, I suspect it was a visual reaction to when they saw the colored boxes (Green, Red, Gray, etc) that I guess mimicked video game RPGs in terms of their powers. If you codify and color an option it has a bigger distinction than just a bold type text in a list. At least, that's my working theory.

Also, this seemed to derail into a free-for-all 4E threat, so that's why I threw it out there. Apologies if this threw the thread off the rails.

Quote from: Omega;1103523What I heard most oft from 4e fans, and particularly fanatics, was that the classes were very balanced.

I think what some mean when they say all characters are the same in 4e is that all characters in the same class can end up feeling very cookie-cutter-ish. Especially if using just the core. Just doing that basic chargen I did it was very evident that even for the warlock your options were oddly limited. Moreso due to the potential constraints that feats can and do impose depending on how you go about it. And since it is built to use primarily the array, that makes the characters even more potentially same-y within a class or path.

As far as the balance goes yeah its a lot better balanced than the previous edition, to which I feel is often compared the most with 4e. Balance against 3e/3.5/PF isn't really that hard to do though because it's a borked system in that regard. The cookier-cutter-ish approach - again IMO - can easily be laid at a lot of other Editions feet too. A 1st level Fighter in 2E get very little variation unless you're using Kits and a 1st level Fighter in 3.0/3.5 is going to likely also feel very same-ish. Now the skills can always be altered and you can put all 8+ ranks in say Craft (armorsmithing) and Craft (Weaponsmithing) or cross-class ranks to get Bluff, Move Silently, or Listen. How those skills's use is a whole different matter. The latter also pushed hard for elite array and point-buy as a starting point. I don't think that's necessarily bad - but when most of your actions and turns are "I move 5', attack the creature with my sword" it gets a tad redundant.

Quote from: Omega;1103523And I say potentially because you can create characters that are more organic rather than regimented. It is just that your options may potentially be restricted at some point.

From what I am seeing it is like every edition of D&D and probably every RPG ever. Very very YMMV due to the myriad variety of playstyles.

Yep, I've seen pretty cookie cutter characters from 5E - especially at lower levels. It's either that or everyone is playing a Variant Human because +1 to two stats + skills + feat > +1 in all stats so most people who play human start off in Variant-land.

Quote from: Omega;1103523I have not yet looked at comparing 4e class damage outputs for example. But if the board gamers claim it is fairly balanced... then odds are it is. They'd have bitched incessantly otherwise.

Well that's certainly the truth, lol.

Quote from: Omega;1103526Um... since when? I've run various spellcasters and there is very little updating needed for most spells, or the updates are few and far between. Combat cantrips for example all update exactly 3 times. At levels 5, 11, and 17. A fireball does 8d6 damage. It never updates its damage. You can cast a more potent version using a higher spell slot. But even that is only needed to be noted once when you get the spell.

Yes, several spells gain range and such. But this too can be front loaded and no need to update after really unless you really dont want to do the math. In which case just note down at the start what the progression will be. Again, front loaded and done.

By "updating spells" I mean adding new spells as you learn them. It's one of those things that's just accepted as convention with D&D games, but expecting players to write out every new spell on an ever-expanding character sheet, or looking them up in the rules whenever they're used, is bad design.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103628By "updating spells" I mean adding new spells as you learn them. It's one of those things that's just accepted as convention with D&D games, but expecting players to write out every new spell on an ever-expanding character sheet, or looking them up in the rules whenever they're used, is bad design.

No it's not?

Do you only play Ars Magica or the White Hack?

Quote from: Haffrung;1103628By "updating spells" I mean adding new spells as you learn them. It's one of those things that's just accepted as convention with D&D games, but expecting players to write out every new spell on an ever-expanding character sheet, or looking them up in the rules whenever they're used, is bad design.

You are bothered that players need to add to their character sheets when they FIND OR LEARN SOMETHING NEW?

Again, the F? How is this "bad design"? What would you expect, a sheet filled with everything the players could find or learn, and they check it off as they find it or learn it?

Quote from: Haffrung;1103628By "updating spells" I mean adding new spells as you learn them. It's one of those things that's just accepted as convention with D&D games, but expecting players to write out every new spell on an ever-expanding character sheet, or looking them up in the rules whenever they're used, is bad design.

Jesus wept that has to be one of the more pathetic statements I've seen leveled against D&D so far.

There's a reason half the people who play RPGs never play spellcasters. A lot of gamers want to be able to access everything their PC can do by referring a single-page character sheet, without referencing a book. And a lot have no interest in spending time outside the session transcribing content by hand from books onto PC sheets.

Spell/power cards help fix the issue, why is why an RPG publisher with an instructional design professional on staff would make those cards a core part of the product (of course grognards hate that shit, because it's new and efficient). This also isn't an issue for the growing number of players who simply use digital character sheets. Of course that raises the problem that you need the tool to be supported (which the 4E tool isn't any longer), and everyone needs a laptop or tablet at the table.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103691There's a reason half the people who play RPGs never play spellcasters. A lot of gamers want to be able to access everything their PC can do by referring a single-page character sheet, without referencing a book. And a lot have no interest in spending time outside the session transcribing content by hand from books onto PC sheets.

Spell/power cards help fix the issue, why is why an RPG publisher with an instructional design professional on staff would make those cards a core part of the product (of course grognards hate that shit, because it's new and efficient). This also isn't an issue for the growing number of players who simply use digital character sheets. Of course that raises the problem that you need the tool to be supported (which the 4E tool isn't any longer), and everyone needs a laptop or tablet at the table.

Or, yah know, you create it using DNDBeyond, and then PRINT IT OUT AND TAKE IT TO THE GAME. Which is how most people use it. Their Character Sheet prints very nice and has everything you need for your character.

But you definitely don't need it. It's not hard to write "Fireball: 150'R, 40'D, 8d6, DC 16 Dex 1/2" That translates easily to 150' Range, 40' Diameter, 8d6 Damage, DC 16 Dex Save for half damage. Though you can leave the DC 16 out as it's the same DC for all spells you cast.

Here is some more spell shorthand if you're having trouble.

I can't remember how many 4e books I actually purchased (I don't have them anymore), but I do remember hating the art. Ran it a couple times, felt a little like eating cardboard, went back to playing GURPS and haven't cracked a book since.

I see enough love for 4e online that I don't get the sense it's truly a "dead" game, but I'd be hard pressed to name a person in my circles who still owns any of it let alone runs/plays it.

The Art is seriously another thing that puts me off playing it again.

God was it awful.  - Especially the Dragonborn and Tielfings - they probably would have got far less hate if they hadn't made them so ugly.

Someone needs to make a retroclone with better art.

It's definitely not dead even though it is barely discussed online.

I'm the unofficial keeper of the offline tools and I'm sending out links 10-15 times each month. Sure, I cant tell who actually ends up playing but more than half say they're desperate for the links because they're either running a 4E game or about to run one (as opposed to simply requesting the links without explanation).