D&D 4E Mechanics and Artwork Discussion

[Nortar]

It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"

Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?

And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

If anyone sees Vancian magic, they immediately think of D&D. It is a mechanic that defines D&D, you cannot separate it and D&D.
There is absolutely nothing like that for martials. Nothing, not even close.

Come on Rusty, never expected you to turn on a dime
from "(4E) first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack" to a whole different magnitute of an agrument "there is nothing like vancian magic for martials".

There was enough options to make combat entertaining for melee oriented classes long before 4E, as Xamenos has pointed.
Introduction of cookie-cutter powers for martials (whoa, now everyone has the same number of same-ish quality of flashy things to do per encounter!) is hardly a redeemable trait for 4E.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"

Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?

And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

If anyone sees Vancian magic, they immediately think of D&D. It is a mechanic that defines D&D, you cannot separate it and D&D.
There is absolutely nothing like that for martials. Nothing, not even close.

Come on Rusty, never expected you to turn on a dime
from "(4E) first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack" to a whole different magnitute of an agrument "there is nothing like vancian magic for martials".

There was enough options to make combat entertaining of melee oriented classes long before 4E.
Introduction of cookie-cutter powers for martials (whoa, now everyone has the same number of same-ish quality of flashy things to do per encounter!) is hardly a redeemable trait for 4E.

I'm not saying introduce vancian magic for martials, I'm saying do something.
The only time you should play a martial in D&D is:

• You know the campaign will never go past level 4.
• You enjoyed eating paste as a kid.

 

[NJClaw]

You know the campaign will never go past level 4.

That's not a valid reason, casters are still more fun than martials even before level 4. With a druid you lose like a single point of BAB and a couple of hit points, but you gain an animal companion, a giant spell list, and better saves. With a cleric you lose the same things, but you gain cool domain powers, a giant spell list, and better saves. With a wizard you can do things like casting Fell Drain Sonic Snap with your level 0 slots.

Unless you take the Tome of Battle into consideration. With that you can play a martial and use FIVE-SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATING STRIKE.

I mean, just read it aloud.

 

[Xamenos]

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

I am amazed by your absolute confidence in things you know absolutely nothing about. Trip, like other Combat Maneuvers, were first introduced in the 2e Fighter's Handbook, which served as a prototype for many things that were added in 3e core. Just like 3.5's Tome of Battle that NJClaw directed you to served as a prototype for concepts in 4e. So in any case, 4e was far from the "first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack".

As for the rest of your quibbling, it's completely irrelevant. If your problem is really with fighters requiring STR (and why don't you have a problem with wizards requiring INT?), then you just move to Pathfinder. They solved this problem like they solved most other problems with 3.5. Pathfinder is still far from perfect, but it is far better than the abomination that was 4e.

 

[Grunker]

NJClaw book of nine swords was great, and in many ways the spiritual predessecor to 4E

 

[Lambach]

]Fell Drain

This looks useful if applied to a spell that deals damage across multiple rounds, but you'll be able to use this Metamagic only on Cantrips by level 4. A single level drained from a single enemy isn't that big of a deal when you could instead use that lvl 2 spell slot to cast something like Web.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I am amazed by your absolute confidence in things you know absolutely nothing about.

I was playing the game before you were born.

Trip, like other Combat Maneuvers, were first introduced in the 2e Fighter's Handbook,

What part of "I think" didn't you understand? Are you one of those retarded ESLs?
"Ah ha! He forgot one tiny detail! He knows nothing!"

My problem is that martials exist solely so that paste-eaters have a class to play.
"wow, being able to do a couple combat maneuvers is absolutely like casters being able to deal with every single challenge they ever come upon in combat or out of combat"
I get the feeling that you're one of those paste-eaters they're designed for.

If your problem is really with fighters requiring STR (and why don't you have a problem with wizards requiring INT?),

Because if you don't want to use int you can just play a sorcerer.
And if you don't want to use cha you can just play a cleric.
...

 

[NJClaw]

]Fell Drain

This looks useful if applied to a spell that deals damage across multiple rounds, but you'll be able to use this Metamagic only on Cantrips by level 4. A single level drained from a single enemy isn't that big of a deal when you could instead use that lvl 2 spell slot to cast something like Web.

That spell was fun in theoretical optimizations because with Easy Metamagic and Metamagic School Focus you could throw negative levels around without attack rolls or saving throws with a cantrip. Since most monsters at that level only have a single HD, this means effectively being able to kill 5 (6 with a focused specialist) enemies without ever rolling the dice at level 1. It's still probably useful at level 2 and 3, but after that enemies have too many HDs to rely on this strategy. Fell Drain is still a very powerful feat (and very well worth an Easy Metamagic) with spells like Kelgore's Grave Mist, that can deal hard to avoid AoE damage.

 

[Xamenos]

]Fell Drain

This looks useful if applied to a spell that deals damage across multiple rounds, but you'll be able to use this Metamagic only on Cantrips by level 4. A single level drained from a single enemy isn't that big of a deal when you could instead use that lvl 2 spell slot to cast something like Web.

That spell was fun in theoretical optimizations because with Easy Metamagic and Metamagic School Focus you could throw negative levels around without attack rolls or saving throws with a cantrip. Since most monsters at that level only have a single HD, this means effectively being able to kill 5 (6 with a focused specialist) enemies without ever rolling the dice at level 1. It's still probably useful at level 2 and 3, but after that enemies have too many HDs to rely on this strategy. Fell Drain is still a very powerful feat (and very well worth an Easy Metamagic) with spells like Kelgore's Grave Mist, that can deal hard to avoid AoE damage.

If you want to go full cheese when theorycrafting, add Snowcasting from Frostburn and Flash Frost from PHB2 to the mix so you can have any spell hand out negative levels. Use those with Fell Drain on Locate City, that has a range of miles/level, and you get the classic Locate City Bomb that can kill every single commoner in a whole city and surrounding countryside. No DM would ever let you pull this off, naturally, but it's fun to think about.

I was playing the game before you were born.

What part of "I think" didn't you understand? Are you one of those retarded ESLs?
"Ah ha! He forgot one tiny detail! He knows nothing!"

My problem is that martials exist solely so that paste-eaters have a class to play.
"wow, being able to do a couple combat maneuvers is absolutely like casters being able to deal with every single challenge they ever come upon in combat or out of combat"
I get the feeling that you're one of those paste-eaters they're designed for.


Because if you don't want to use int you can just play a sorcerer.
And if you don't want to use cha you can just play a cleric.
...

And if you don't want to use STR you can just play a rogue. So?

But apparently you played during 1e and the beginnings of 2e and somehow missed every single thing that was added in later 2e, 3.0, 3.5 and PF. It's no wonder you think

Because WotC barely puts any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"
WotC throwing martials a bone was one of the few things 4E did well.

This is the part that you spewed with absolute confidence while being absolutely wrong. Your deflections are cute, but nothing more.

 

[deuxhero]

Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?

Some of the ideas it had, like high level progression being a separate thing from normal classes, (so rather than trying to figure out what an epic level ___ looks like, they make various epic level progressions and everyone picks one) though it executed them poorly.

NJClaw book of nine swords was great, and in many ways the spiritual predessecor to 4E

It's actually based on an older version of 4E, just like Saga Edition, backported to 3E for testing rather than being the inspiration for 4E.

Design Work, Orcus I:June through September 2005
Team: James Wyatt, Andy Collins, and Rob Heinsoo.
Mission: Our instructions were to push the mechanicsdown interesting avenues, not to stick too close to the safehome base of D&D v.3.5. As an R&D department, we under-stood 3.5; our mission was to experiment with something new.
Outcome: We delivered a document that included eightclasses we thought might appear in the first Player’s Handbook or other early supplements, powers for all the classes, monsters,and rules.

First Development Team:October 2005 through February 2006
Team: Robert Gutschera (lead), Mike Donais, Rich Baker,Mike Mearls, and Rob Heinsoo.
Mission: Determine whether the Orcus I design (as wenamed it) was headed in the right direction. Make recommen-dations for the next step.
Outcome:The first development team tore everythingdown and then rebuilt it. In the end, it recommended that wecontinue in the new direction Orcus I had established.This recommendation accompanied a rather difficult stuntaccomplished in the middle of the development process: Baker,Donais, and Mearls translated current versions of the Orcus Imechanics into a last-minute revision of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It was a natural fit, since Rich Baker had already been treating the Book of Nine Swords as a “powers for fighters”project. The effort required to splice the mechanics into 3rdEdition were a bit extreme, but the experiment was worth it.

Second Orcus (Orcus II) Design Phase:February to March 2006
Team:Rob Heinsoo (lead), Bruce Cordell, James Wyatt.
Mission: Finish monsters and other areas that were weakin the first draft. Follow some new design directions suggestedby the development team.
Outcome: After the design phase ended, several weeks of playtesting left most of us unconvinced with where we weregoing. The system wasn’t working the way we wanted it to work.

One Development Week: Mid-April 2006
Team: Robert Gutschera, Mike Donais, Rich Baker, MikeMearls, and Rob Heinsoo.
Mission:Recommend a way forward.
Outcome: In what I’d judge as the most productive weekof the process to date, not that anyone would have guessed that beforehand, Mearls and Baker figured out what was going wrong with the design. We’d concentrated too much on the new approach without properly accounting for what 3.5handled well. We’d provided player characters with constantlyrenewing powers, but hadn’t successfully parsed the necessarydistinctions between powers that were always available andpowers that had limited uses.

Flywheel Team: May 2006 to September 2006
Team: Rob Heinsoo (lead), Andy Collins, Mike Mearls,David Noonan, and Jesse Decker.
Mission: Move closer to 3.5 by dealing properly withpowers and resources that could be used at-will, once perencounter, or once per day.
Outcome: A playable draft that went over to the teams that would actually write the Player’s Handbook and the Monster Manual.

Scramjet Team; Same Timing as Flywheel
Team: Rich Baker (lead), James Wyatt, Matt Sernett, EdStark, Michele Carter, Stacy Longstreet, and Chris Perkins.
Mission: Draft a new vision for the world and the storybehind the D&D game.
Outcome: A first draft of the story bible, notable for its new understanding of civilized portions of the D&D world as points of light threatened by enveloping darkness filled with monstersand other threats.

Player’s Handbook Creation:October 2006 to April 2007
Designers:Rich Baker (lead), Logan Bonner, and DavidNoonan.
Developers: Andy Collins (lead), Mike Mearls, SteveSchubert, and Jesse Decker.
Mission: Achieve design and development consensus onthe direction each role and class should take; make good onthe goals with playable mechanics.
Outcome: Oodles of powers. Semisolid rules set

Writing Phase: April 2 to May 11, 2007
Story Team: James Wyatt (lead), Rich Baker, BruceCordell, and Chris Sims (with advice and general nosinessfrom Bill Slavicsek).
Mission: Write prose manuscripts in the style we want touse for the finished products.
Outcome: The team turned over a 600-plus-page workingrules set on deadline and to specifications.

Magic Item Revision: May 2007
Mechanics Design: Rob Heinsoo, Mike Mearls, DavidNoonan, and Matt Sernett.
Mission: Re-create the vision for what magic items accom-plish in the new design, carve separate space for each type of item, and design them all.
Outcome: More magic items than our initial publicationscan use!
Full-On Playtesting: June 2007
Mission: With Dave Noonan handling the reins, all designers and developers and many other WotC employees donothing but playtest D&D 4E for three solid weeks. This led to ongoing playtesting using in-house groups and the personal game groups of most of the R&D staff that continues to the endof the year.

 

[Gyor]

4e art was horrible.

This is my rebuttal to that.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

4e art was horrible.

This is my rebuttal to that.

How is that a rebuttal?

 

[Murk]

Not commenting on the art, but I liked how the covers for the main 3.5 books were made to look like in-game tomes basically.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Gonna be honest, I always thought the idea of owlbears was stupid. It only gets a free pass because it's one of the classic monsters.
3e version looks best though

Tony DiTerlizzi illustrated the owlbear entry for the AD&D 2nd edition Monstrous Manual that replaced the Monstrous Compendium:

Though no D&D/AD&D depiction of the owlbear can hold a candle to the owlbear artwork from Dragon's Crown:

Spoiler

 

[Alex]

It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"

Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?

And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

If anyone sees Vancian magic, they immediately think of D&D. It is a mechanic that defines D&D, you cannot separate it and D&D.
There is absolutely nothing like that for martials. Nothing, not even close.

Come on Rusty, never expected you to turn on a dime
from "(4E) first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack" to a whole different magnitute of an agrument "there is nothing like vancian magic for martials".

There was enough options to make combat entertaining of melee oriented classes long before 4E.
Introduction of cookie-cutter powers for martials (whoa, now everyone has the same number of same-ish quality of flashy things to do per encounter!) is hardly a redeemable trait for 4E.

I'm not saying introduce vancian magic for martials, I'm saying do something.
The only time you should play a martial in D&D is:

• You know the campaign will never go past level 4.
• You enjoyed eating paste as a kid.

Or maybe you just like commanding armies?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"

Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?

And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

If anyone sees Vancian magic, they immediately think of D&D. It is a mechanic that defines D&D, you cannot separate it and D&D.
There is absolutely nothing like that for martials. Nothing, not even close.

Come on Rusty, never expected you to turn on a dime
from "(4E) first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack" to a whole different magnitute of an agrument "there is nothing like vancian magic for martials".

There was enough options to make combat entertaining of melee oriented classes long before 4E.
Introduction of cookie-cutter powers for martials (whoa, now everyone has the same number of same-ish quality of flashy things to do per encounter!) is hardly a redeemable trait for 4E.

I'm not saying introduce vancian magic for martials, I'm saying do something.
The only time you should play a martial in D&D is:

• You know the campaign will never go past level 4.
• You enjoyed eating paste as a kid.

Or maybe you just like commanding armies?

There's reasons you can play a martial, doesn't mean you should.
I made peace with it a long time ago and realized D&D just isn't for me and there are better ttrpgs.

 

[Gyor]

4e art was horrible.

This is my rebuttal to that.

How is that a rebuttal?

It's a piece of 4e art that IS AMAZING, it personally my favourite piece of official D&D art.

 

[Bara]

It's decent art Gyor but if some one didn't say it was from D&D or any other TTRPG I honestly wouldn't know doesn't capture that feel for me at all.

I heavily favor the classic art style of the older editions way more but I think 4e had some alright to good art none the less.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Also I assume both wotc and piazo were hiring from the same pool of artists cause I swear a lot of 4e art unless you told me otherwise I thought was pathfinder art.

Back on topic 4e had some pieces that at best left me with zero impact.

Spoiler

As for 4e's mechanics. It could be a tactical game and probably would have played it for the occasional one shot here and there or mini-campaigns but it just threw away too much of what made D&D awesome for me I didn't want to touch it.

 

[Glop_dweller]

Of the art on page #2: Bad composition, bad anatomy, bad perspective, bad color; most are cluttered, with no focal point. The Owlbears are not terrible.

This is my rebuttal to that.

*Not meant to slight, but... Demonic parts aside, it looks like a dude in transition. Other than the masculine facial structure —and the vomit themed color pallet, it's not terrible.

 

[Bara]

most are cluttered, with no focal point.

Yeah going through the books again a lot of it really does come off that way. Feels like they were trying to really up the colors and high fantasy to get more people in.

So much overly bright magic or weapons.

 

[Gyor]

Of the art on page #2: Bad composition, bad anatomy, bad perspective, bad color; most are cluttered, with no focal point. The Owlbears are not terrible.

This is my rebuttal to that.

*Not meant to slight, but... Demonic parts aside, it looks like a dude in transition. Other than the masculine facial structure —and the vomit themed color pallet, it's not terrible.

When did you first realized you were blind?

 

[Glop_dweller]

Not at all. I said it had a vomit (~ish) color pallete, and IMO it does.

Spoiler

I said it had a masculine face —or at least was implying that it is very androgynous, and IMO it is.
Look for yourself if you cannot envision it.

Spoiler

There is no change to the face itself, just removal of the horns and costume, and a change of neck and hair style. In the second version it looks like a dude with lipstick on. That's not saying that it's a drawing of a male, it's saying that it has a masculine face to it.

 

[laclongquan]

The jawbone is killer. Always notice the jawbones.

There's even a difference between female jawbones and male's. Even a square face woman is femine on that part, counting face alone

I grab the first twenty female face on my google square face woman and I hide their eyes/top part. Notice their jaw bones and lower face.

 

[Gyor]

Not at all. I said it had a vomit (~ish) color pallete, and IMO it does.

Spoiler

I said it had a masculine face —or at least was implying that it is very androgynous, and IMO it is.
Look for yourself if you cannot envision it.

Spoiler

There is no change to the face itself, just removal of the horns and costume, and a change of neck and hair style. In the second version it looks like a dude with lipstick on. That's not saying that it's a drawing of a male, it's saying that it has a masculine face to it.

Still looks like a chick with short hair.