CE Paladins Of Umberlee In 4th Edition?

[Iso]

Any other drastic changes I should know about?

As it stands I don't like the systems they've made for 4th edition, and while I can understand the elimination of Blackguard and Gray Paladins gives rise to the need for other alignments for Paladins as they have to fill these holes, it looks good on paper and not when I say it outloud.

Can anyone tell me of other core concept changes of this nature they've added in 4th edition?

[Phantom Lamb]

To me, it's like when they rolled out MS Office 2007. Most everyone said "I hate it!" because the interface was so different. After using it a week or two, folks got used to the differences and were able to see its value.

Keep in mind, there are very few 4th Edition books out right now. All you're seeing is core classes. Paladins are a core class now, and they have no alignment restriction. They've expanded the definition of paladins to include more than the LG-type.

They've made some other changes that seem peculiar, like making tieflings and dragonborn as core races. From what I've seen so far in my campaign, they've fought very hard to make every class have value in every fight. No more does the wizard have to twiddle his thumbs and shoot his crossbow while waiting for something "big" to kill. No more does the cleric have to pretend he's a dumbass who's learned no skills in his tenure. Every class has a variety of skills, and every class has repeatable "at-will" powers that lend value to every fight. And every class also has "daily" and "encounter" powers, so it isn't only mages that can bring the thunder when it's needed.

To me, it looks like they crafted the system around many MMO's, where teamwork and class balance in your party is necessary to succeed.

I like the changes personally, but I was never someone who swore by 3.5. I think you'll find that those with the most negativity about 4 played 3.5 for a long time. I'd suggest you try to separate feelings between "this is new" and "this is bad" to get a real analysis of the game.

[Xeesheava]

When I played D&D 4th Edition, I made my judgement based in a future Neverwinter Nights and the usage of 4th Edition.

My personal opinion: I liked it, as far thte game will be more Hack & Slash, the online game will be fun and rich, with a lot of customizable things, a wizard will not be more a pain in the ass to play at low levels because they have unlimited magic missiles.

I will explain my experience with a wizard to the people who doesn't played 4.0.

- Five times more HP than another wizard of another editions.
- Spells treated like action are unlimited (Magic Missile, Light).
- Spells treated like "per encounter" are limited to one time in a fight.
- Spells treated like "per day" are limited to one time a day.
- "Per encounter" spells are slightly better than the unlimited ones.
- "Per day" spells are better and helpful with a good timing.
- Every character have 5 different AC (Natural AC, Armor AC, Fortitude AC, Will AC, Reflex AC)
- All attacks are oriented to a specific AC making the combat more tacticals depending the enemy the party is facing.

[etc...]

[Iso]

That brings up something I read a player griping about in the way D&D is evolving just last night. The player observed that a balanced party used to consist of a warrior, a thief, a priest, and a mage, and between those peoples they'd have a variety of ways to approach all kinds of situations.

It wasn't always about combat. Monsters were only one peril in a dungeon, where you'd end up facing puzzles, riddles, and traps as often as a rabid minotaur. Outside of combat, priests and thieves could negotiate and acquire and handle business, while a mage researched and studied for obscure information that would assist in their quest. The fighter would twiddle his thumbs in town unless someone got in trouble, but when it came time for combat he got to shine, because that's what warriors do.

The mages got to remove illusions, disenchant magical traps, research obscure lore, and complete tasks of intelligence the other characters just weren't smart enough to handle. If they happened to have a Fireball spell memorized they'd keep that as their big red panic button to use when all other avenues were already exhausted, besides, they were more often than not scholars. What use is hiring muscle if they don't get out there and flex it for you?

The thieves were all about guile and being tricksy. If there was a door or box you needed open, instead of risking leaving a pile of splintered wood and shattered glass you got them to work their nimble skills. Sure, a sword acted as a good crowbar, but sometimes making a ruckus wasn't going to cut it and occasionally picking someone's pocket avoided unnecessary bloodshed. When it came to traps, well what kind of person wastes their time learning those except someone who's planning on breaking and entering or stopping someone from doing the same?

Then you had your priests. The priests went along spreading the faith by any means possible. If they cast a healing spell on you they were sure to remind you it was a gift of their god that the said deity went out of their way to make available to you. Anything to remind heathens and faithful alike of who they really need to be thinking about. If it wasn't keeping people alive or smiting the opponents of their deity, they handled politics and other things requiring a good speaker.

Sure, this is a cliche group, but your average band is average for a reason. The point of the player was that D&D has shifted so far away from everything else that it's come to a place where if you're not able to rack up as many kills as a Fighter then you're doing it wrong. Doesn't matter if you're a desk clerk brought along to manage a mercenary company's bankroll, you have to be able to bring hell down on an ogres head or you'd better go re-roll.

This shift over time became painfully obvious to me personally when I was playing Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach at initial launch and made the painful mistake of being a Diviner. It took me two days to get out of the newbie zone and I only got out because a kind dwarf couple smuggled in some wands and scrolls to me to supplement my purely utilitarian spell selection, which is by the way a viable way of playing that game.

I eventually picked up a few more wands and had some returning +1 throwing daggers to let me join in the fights, but I was there to find all those secret doors and get all that beautiful, well hidden loot that was long forgotten in some dank dungeon by a band of thieves who were no doubt dead and gone or hanging in the gallows.

I look at D&D 4th edition and what I see is a NetHack/Diablo style game in the works. There were already alternative power point systems provided for spell casters in D&D 3.5, so if it's longevity in combat that was an issue that's where one can look to.

While they go and make everyone able to hold their own in combat as well as a plate mail wearing, axe swinging warrior, can someone fill me in on any details on how they've gone to provide more social options to all the combat-focused classes to put them on par with everyone else outside of combat? I mean, mages can cast enchantments and magically make themselves appealing and the rogue types could usually talk their way into or out of anything.

Can the warriors do that sort of stuff now too without threatening bodily harm or sinking all their focus into being a diplomat? I haven't seen much news on it so I'd be really relieved to see how that field has been leveled without going out to purchase the books (I have no one to borrow it from).

[Phantom Lamb]

No, classes still have "class skills." But they've opened it up so that, if you spend a feat, you can make any skill a class skill. A priest naturally excells at Religion, but if he CHOSE to get the feat in leveling-up, he could excel in Athletics. His stat modifiers might not help much, but the option is there for him.

Hm, what else? They've migrated many of the non-combat spells to "rituatls." They require components and time to cast, as opposed to combat spells.

Social components are there, and they've introduced something called "skill challenges." These are not perfect, but they are an attempt to quantify and measure success in social interactions. It turns social skills into a game themselves, rather than just an enhancement of a conversation.

[Lanemeyer]

The wizard part seems nice to me, but I didn't like the paladin stuff

The cool thing I liked in paladins was that LG-Type of char

[Iso]

Those skill challenges sound fun.

I am slightly disappointed to hear that everyone became a killing machine for what seems to be free, while the original slayers didn't gain that non-combat utility without great cost to their combat potential.

[Jai_V]

Paladin's should never have been simply "Lawful Good."

They were supposed to be the paragon of their religion. Since the creation of the class, there should have always been Paladins for every god, limited to the alignment of their god.

Of course, that's just an opinion I've always held. :-D

[Iso]

Well in all fairness there were several Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral deities that have Paladins. I understand why they did it, they've rolled a lot of redundant classes under the roof of the Paladin.

[PatriotBob]

Personally I'm sad to see what Wizards did to DnD with 4th edition. There are plenty of Hack 'n Slash RPGs on the market and that's what they're moving DnD to be like. Previously DnD seemed to be one of the few real Role Playing Games left. Now with the reduction in skill sets, simplification of caster classes and changes to play style it seems to me the aspect that suffers most from the changes is the role playing.

I'm all for making DnD more approachable, and wizards in previous editions (like 2nd) were more complicated than need be. But by 3.5 edition, which I absolutely love, wizards were fine. They were no more complicated than they needed to be. The only reason you couldn't pick up DnD and start with a Wizard is because it required a firm grasp of the ruleset to be played well, we're as a fighter could do with understand BAB and AC and he's good to go. He'll pick up the rest on the way.

There were some nice changes, such as the save or die effects, that made playing a little less well traumatic if you failed your Fort save. Good change, but nothing that couldn't have been changed in a alternative ruleset like presented in Unearthed Arcana etc.

Another big problem I had, can be found on a quick scan through the Players Handbook. First, Gnomes are now a monster, and Tieflings a standard player race... ?? I'd don't get that one, but ok... I've played gnomes and found them fun... but a Tiefling? Apparently Humans and Devilkin been gettin' it on in mass numbers lately. And Second, Druids, Monks, Bards, and Barbarians have been removed from the Players Handbook. They're just flat gone. I don't know about you but that really pisses me off.. they straight removed 3 classes I love to play.

They added some other things like a marking system and taunts... well if you've ever played World of Warcraft it starts to look strangly similar. And in play it clutters the game board even more in my opinion.

If I had to sum it up. If you play 3.5 edition PnP DnD and love it stick with it, 4th edition is 3.5 simplified, hack 'n slash, for dummies. Take your pick. But if you find DnD complicated but want to try it, 4th edition is for you. I've been playing for since 2nd edition and I'll stick with 3.5. I find it worlds better than 4th. In 4th I find you have to modify campaigns to fit the ruleset. In 3.5 it free reign, I'm unrestricted in what I can do.

It seems they've gone back to the old 2nd edition thing. They used to Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragaons. They canned Dungeons & Dragons because everyone used Advanced. Now it seems they've tried to release a "simple" version again in hopes to widen the player base.

Just my very long 2 cents...

[Phantom Lamb]

Yeah I was baffled by tieflings and dragonborn, too. But fear not--gnomes will become a playable race in the next book. Keep in mind, there will be more content to come, and they will add more classes and races as they go. In fact, they've already added a few, like Spellknight (SP?) and Beastmaster.

[gbbishop]

that's how they get you... want to play a gnome? buy our next book! it'll be out in month. only 35 bucks slugger!!! what a frickin crock. wizards of the coast will get no more of my money... heck i stopped buying 3.5 books after complete adventurer. when i realized that they were just getting out of hand with power builds... and a fair amount of gimmicks.

DAMN THE MAN! SAVE THE EMPIRE!!

also for those still diggin on 3.5 monte cook (unearth arcana) is continuing to publish for it!

[MKartMaster]

To me, it's like when they rolled out MS Office 2007. Most everyone said "I hate it!" because the interface was so different. After using it a week or two, folks got used to the differences and were able to see its value.

Keep in mind, there are very few 4th Edition books out right now. All you're seeing is core classes. Paladins are a core class now, and they have no alignment restriction. They've expanded the definition of paladins to include more than the LG-type.

They've made some other changes that seem peculiar, like making tieflings and dragonborn as core races. From what I've seen so far in my campaign, they've fought very hard to make every class have value in every fight. No more does the wizard have to twiddle his thumbs and shoot his crossbow while waiting for something "big" to kill. No more does the cleric have to pretend he's a dumbass who's learned no skills in his tenure. Every class has a variety of skills, and every class has repeatable "at-will" powers that lend value to every fight. And every class also has "daily" and "encounter" powers, so it isn't only mages that can bring the thunder when it's needed.

To me, it looks like they crafted the system around many MMO's, where teamwork and class balance in your party is necessary to succeed.

I like the changes personally, but I was never someone who swore by 3.5. I think you'll find that those with the most negativity about 4 played 3.5 for a long time. I'd suggest you try to separate feelings between "this is new" and "this is bad" to get a real analysis of the game.

*hugs and praise*

I'm so used to lurking the WotC forums that I'd forgotten people aren't all bigots who denounce the use of one edition over another on nothing but gut instinct.

I personally like 3.5 and 4e, but on different merits (as cliche as that may sound). I like 3.5 for when I want to try my hand at optimizing a character concept, or having rules/spells/feats/classes/etc for just about anything I could imagine. 4e, however, IMO, is a great way to simply get together with some friends, throw down some minis, and hack our way through a dungeon, laughing our merry way through pools of goblin blood.

Mathematically (as far as I've seen), 4e is a much tighter system than 3.5, but it's short on books at the moment and there are still flaws in the system.

My favorite part of 4e, however, is something I (personally) first saw crop up in the Psionics section of the WotC forums- the concept that flavor is mutable. It doesn't matter what your magic missile is named or looks like, so long as it's INT vs REF for 2d4+INT damage; it could be a giant **** made of force that flies at your opponents' faces for all the mechanics care. 3.5 had this same idea, of course, but the myriad interactions of fluff and mechanics could sometimes cause unforeseen consequences or interactions that create difficult situations for DMs and players.

[EDIT]: But I hate rituals. There are like 3 that are actually worth the time and money to cast. I mean, seriously, 10 minutes of chanting outside the enemy stronghold to "stealthily" create a 30-second hole in the wall or point out the hidden door in the cave that you knew was there but couldn't see?

[EDIT2]: For those of you complaining about them "removing" classes from the PHB, start by making sure they weren't "added" to it in the transition from 1st or 2nd edition. Then, suck it up and get the later PHB's for the cool classes you want to play (it's what you did in 3.5, right?).

[Zoberraz]

After DMing two 4th edition adventures and getting my player group up to level 4, I feel generally pleased with how my games went. Overall I've a good impression of the Fourth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons and do plan to keep going with it.

That's not to say that it's absolutely perfect, but I understand many of the design choices, why they were taken and the pros and cons of each. For example, the Tiefling was put there for the players whom enjoyed the thought of playing an archetype similar to the drow elf - the bad guy adventurer with a stigma/bad side to him; while the dragonborn was put up for those whom liked to play half-dragons for the thematic flair that was behind such a race.

Likewise, WotC wanted to push forward new classes... and if they wanted to promote some getting more limelight then it meant changing priorities upon the presentation... which is what I felt they did with the Warlock and the Warlord being pushed to the forefront as core classes.

Deity-wise, I more or less approved with what they did in Core 4e DnD, though I've had a hard time swallowing Bane's presence in replacement to Hextor. However, after seeing an article recently put up on DnD Insider, I warmed up a lot more about him being there.

Skill-wise, I'm content. Skills have sort of been hybridized between how it was in the 2nd and 3rd editions. I could roleplay just fine with the skills I had in 2e D&D, so I actually view it as an improvement. It's well streamlined and if I want to expand on it, nothing prevents me or a player from reasonably doing so.

Feats not providing tactical abilities and rather just augmenting what a character could do was also something I approved of. They've put an emphasis on small bonuses being/feeling more important than they were before and I sort of agree with it.

I've noted in the modules that our latest games have been heavily combat centric and less roleplay inclined... but on the other hand the roleplay part is much more the business of the Dungeon Master and his playerbase anyhow - since I noticed that, I made some adjustments to help combat flow better/faster and I've tried to get my descriptions more atmospheric/evocative/descriptive as well. Basically, I can't blame the system; it's my job to promote that, not that of the sheets of papers I buy... WotC merely provides a sandbox.

The most frequent complaint I've seen raised by my playerbase (actually, just one player - the one with the halfling rogue) was related to the amount of hit points the monsters have in contrast to 3rd edition (it was a bit of a shellshock to see kobolds have at the least 22 hit points). Basically, they no longer die in a single good hit and even a epic level character might not be able to kill the level 1 kobold crossbower in one hit. On the other hand, I find that the heightened endurance of the monsters allow me much more opportunity to get to use the cool gimmicks each of the monsters can do - which means more fun for me as a DM because my monsters are not being pushovers.

By level 4 and after seeing the options of the player characters expand, I'm no longer as worried about the monster HP gripe, since my players have since then learned the hard way that they had to work together to effectively and swiftly put down opponents. At least I find myself less inclined to fudge rolls in the favor of monsters because I find a battle too easy for the PCs; so far, they always feel in danger and that they have to do their best to stay on the top and that feel rather gratifying from the perspective of the DM's seat.

[Iso]

By level 4 and after seeing the options of the player characters expand, I'm no longer as worried about the monster HP gripe, since my players have since then learned the hard way that they had to work together to effectively and swiftly put down opponents. At least I find myself less inclined to fudge rolls in the favor of monsters because I find a battle too easy for the PCs; so far, they always feel in danger and that they have to do their best to stay on the top and that feel rather gratifying from the perspective of the DM's seat.

That at least gives me some joy. I always thought combat took players out of the setting and just became a moment to whip out the calculators to see who needed to have a time-out in 3rd.

What else can people who've been playing 4th share with me? That example above repaired my views quite a bit.