After having read much of the 4th edition PHB, I found that mechanically, it surpasses any previous edition with regard to playability. Unfortunately, I have grave reservations about the ability of Eberron to coexist with such a system.
As we all know, Eberron is infused with magic at its very core, it permeates all aspects of life on this world. The level of magic available to even the most common laborer is truly fantastic. And I find that, without some serious rejiggering, it is unlikely such a thing could exist in 4e.
The one element that brings me some hope is the trio of rules presented in the 4e PHB, in particular, the notion that “Specific beats General”. If that is the case, one could assume that the specific setting of Eberron would in fact “beat” the more generalized setting of PoL. But, then there’s the problem of the “balance” idea.
WoTC has said on numerous occasions that their intention is to balance all player elements against one another, in fact not giving advantage to any one type of character. This is even apparent in the rules set, as once you strip away all the bonuses two combatants have, in many cases, it comes down to the random die element. As this is the case, will this balance be measured across campaign settings or simply within the setting itself?
Some information about intention on the part of WoTC would go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns that people like myself have for the future of Eberron. Although I do have to say, that with the continued contribution of Keith Baker aka Hellcow, I’m at least faintly hopeful.
Am I alone in my misgivings? Does anyone have info that I lack? I’m in fact begging to be swayed to a more positive approach so any comments are welcome!
To give you a hint of what you'll find, Keith has said that 4e is better suited to Eberron than 3e.
To be a bit more specific, remember that in 4e, the rules for PCs are not the rules for everyone.
One word: rituals.
Those are one of the elements I really enjoy in 4e. I find that they do allow for quite a bit of interesting RP with regard to how magic works. And yes, will be wonderful for inclusion with Magewrights, save for the level restrictions.
There's nothing in the rituals in 4e, however, that speaks to the use of summoning, an activity prevalent in Eberron, in both a PC & NPC sense. This is one of the areas that gives me pause. I'm hopeful that something will be addressed in the DDi prior to the release of the book next year (fingers crossed).
I'm currently frothing at the mouth for new Eberron material, thanks for the link to Keith's blog, AvonReKaes. :D
And yes, will be wonderful for inclusion with Magewrights, save for the level restrictions.
In my games NPCs don't have such restrictions. They can use whatever I want them to. Especially if they're not intended to be fought.
@JohnLynch: Absolutely, when dealing with scenery characters it's quite simple to ignore a level restriction. The area that I'm slightly concerned with, as it applies to NPCs, is the use of this application for foes of any kind. While providing great flavor, could potentially make them unbeatable, depending upon the competence of the DM.
While providing great flavor, could potentially make them unbeatable, depending upon the competence of the DM.
If you mean unbeatable in combat, then you won't need to worry about rituals making them overpowered as you can't cast a ritual in combat.
There's nothing in the rituals in 4e, however, that speaks to the use of summoning, an activity prevalent in Eberron, in both a PC & NPC sense.
Is summoning really that prevalent? I know that Forge of War outlines the Manifest Legion of mercenary conjurors, but gnomish elemental binding is ultimately more about magic item creation than independently active servitors. Did you have a specific NPC or organization in mind?
The Aspect of Orcus is summoned this way by Orcus's cultists. It's also how Aboleths turn people into slimey servitors. The non-PC ritual can do anything you want it to.
Also, keep in mind, if you need NPCs to summon something, they can just perform an "off-camera ritual"
Though this is obviously the way a DM can go with it, it robs the players of the chance of doing it themselves without a DM fiat. Being able to summon elementals in a world where the binding of those creatures makes most of the technology possible is an absolute must. Though I am a big advocate of the DM being able to just give NPCs what they need, I have trouble using that in such a way that it prevents the players ever achieving what an NPC can. Sure, maybe they will not be able to accomplish the same outstanding feats as the big bad at first, but eventually they should be on par with them and even learn something from them during their defeat, ie new ritual/powers etc. Add to the fact that one of the instrumental groups in Eberron were a sect of druids who prevented another invasion and the idea that they were incapable of summoning a chipmunk to their aid is kind of hard to swallow. Now, with more "player handbooks" eventually being released, I am sure the druid will get an aspect of this ability back when they are introduced, but what I am trying to say is that summoning is an intrinsic aspect of Eberron as I have viewed it since I started playing, so the lack of it can be problematical to say the least.
Being able to summon elementals in a world where the binding of those creatures makes most of the technology possible is an absolute must.
The elementals are bound into items (like armor, ships, and lightning rail coaches) which the player characters can create using the Enchant Magic Item ritual. Fitting elemental binding into 4th edition Eberron doesn't require conjuring rules yet if the elemental is going straight into a widget-- it just requires the players and the DM to determine the powers and properties of elemental-bound items. If the players want an independently operating elemental servant, then the game will require some additional adjudication... and a quest sounds like the right place to start.
I dislike the restrictions placed by 4E over spellcasters, but I also noticed that 4E, let's say, "copied" the skill system from the World of Darkness...
Really? How so? I'd have said the 4E skill system bears more resemblance to the Star Wars: Saga Edition than nWoD. Can you clarify the similarities?
The elementals are bound into items (like armor, ships, and lightning rail coaches) which the player characters can create using the Enchant Magic Item ritual. Fitting elemental binding into 4th edition Eberron doesn't require conjuring rules yet if the elemental is going straight into a widget-- it just requires the players and the DM to determine the powers and properties of elemental-bound items. If the players want an independently operating elemental servant, then the game will require some additional adjudication... and a quest sounds like the right place to start.
Though I can see your point, and agree to an extent, still one thing really stops me from proceeding in that direction. Where did the elemental come from in the first place? Sure, you can use the Enchant Item Ritual to bind that elemental, but also to summon it as well? Seems like in that case the ritual would be reaching, when it comes to pushing the limits of it's capabilities.
In my mind, as the 4e rules are currently written you would need to perform at least three rituals to create said item.
First, the Magic Circle Ritual, aligned to the elemental you are summoning so that once it arrives it can't just run off.
Second, the Planar Portal ritual, assuming your DM gives the proper sigil sequence, to open a portal to the correct elemental plane and then somehow lure the proper type of elemental through the portal, within at best 5 rounds.
And finally, once this easy task is done, you could then use the Enchant Magic Item ritual to bind said elemental to the item, but in my mind would need to add a skill challenge at the minimum to simulate the idea of having to bluff/coerce/force the elemental into the item itself.
Seems to me it would be a lot easier just to add summoning. Course, the age old answer is, let your DM come up with a method so you don't have to go though all this, but as a DM that gets a bit old. I would just like a simple ritual or two that fills this requirement. I don't think that's too much to ask. I understand that this is obviously not how any of us would ever go about simulating binding, but it's just to demonstrate that it can't realistically be done in 4e and as such the new ECS should take that into account and gives us a rule based solution. :D
Though I can see your point, and agree to an extent, still one thing really stops me from proceeding in that direction. Where did the elemental come from in the first place? Sure, you can use the Enchant Item Ritual to bind that elemental, but also to summon it as well? Seems like in that case the ritual would be reaching, when it comes to pushing the limits of it's capabilities.
I would rule that yes, summoning the elemental is part of the ritual that crafts the item. The summoning, the holding pattern, the infusing-- all part of the same process to create the elemental-powered widget. If that seems powerful for a 4th level ritual, keep in mind that the PCs use ritual components equal to the full cost of the finished product, and I can set the level they have to be to craft a particular item. So, the earth elemental bound armor is going to be available early on, while the Storm Galleon won't come until mid-paragon (depending on the level and price we set).
In my mind, as the 4e rules are currently written you would need to perform at least three rituals to create said item.
First, the Magic Circle Ritual, aligned to the elemental you are summoning so that once it arrives it can't just run off.
Second, the Planar Portal ritual, assuming your DM gives the proper sigil sequence, to open a portal to the correct elemental plane and then somehow lure the proper type of elemental through the portal, within at best 5 rounds.
And finally, once this easy task is done, you could then use the Enchant Magic Item ritual to bind said elemental to the item, but in my mind would need to add a skill challenge at the minimum to simulate the idea of having to bluff/coerce/force the elemental into the item itself.
I suppose you could handle it this way, but it seems overcomplicated when the end result is just going to be a magic item with a particular set of powers. Still, what you've outlined would in fact work great as the basis of an extended skill challenge. If you wanted the party to literally wrestle an elemental into the widget, you could play out the whole process as a dramatic scene with lots of Arcana, Nature, Endurance, and Intimidation tests-- beating the challenge means they can proceed to the Enchant Item ritual. Structuring binding like such an encounter would not only highlight the danger of the process, but the PCs would get XP for it, too (complete reversal!).
The Shadows of Yesterday game might discuss this difference as a matter of granularity. I view elemental binding as just a means to a particular end, and I'm content with a one-step procedure (the Enchant Item ritual) that covers the summoning, binding, and crafting in a lump. I'd only zoom in and play out those sub-steps as full-on character actions if I wanted the process to be a dramatic, memorable scene, one with a real chance of failure.
In fact, I could even have it both ways. Maybe the first time the PCs bind a fire elemental, I structure the whole process as a skill challenge. Once they've had their big "taming" encounter, we just skip through subsequent creation of fire-bound items as per the default ritual-- been there, done that, we're practiced. When the party decides that ice is nice, they have to go through a new skill challenge to tame the new sort of elemental. So on one hand, the first time players try a new binding, it's a really big deal (and they get XP for it). But going through the same drill every time could turn it into a drag, so we dial back the granularity for subsequent bindings. They perform the ritual, mark off their component supply, and move on to the fun part of actually employing the elemental bound items.
But, that's just how I'd do it. I'm not saying I don't want conjuring rules-- I do want some, and I expect to see some later. I'm just suggesting that a DM should consider what purpose the players want the conjuring rules for, and see if an existing mechanic can reach the same end.
@John_Lynch: While yes, given the casting time a ritual couldn't be used in melee combat, rituals could be used to fortify a lair or enhance minions, especially as said rituals are not restricted by the mechanics of 4e, they could prove rather troublesome to PCs like myself.
As it pertains to summoning, I was thinking specifically of the opportunities afforded to the PC classes. While I appreciate that much of the practical applications of magic in Eberron is just that (I don't know anyone who wants to play the Magewright who lights torches in Sharn), it does bear significantly on the Artificer as well as any magic class where summoning was a school of choice in 3.5.
I would like players to have the capability to summon monsters, animals, et al if for no other reason that it allows a specialty that is quite unique to the casting classes, particularly given how those classes in 4e are rather streamlined in terms of variety.
Additionally, without this capability inherent in the Artificer class, you are reliant on essentially recreating the same old available tech/magic items already presented in 4e, unless you have a kind DM that doesn't mind homebrewing for you. I personally do, but am certain many do not.
Either way, it is just something I'm hopeful we'll see in ECS or a future PHB/Arcane Powers book. :D
There's nothing in the rituals in 4e, however, that speaks to the use of summoning, an activity prevalent in Eberron, in both a PC & NPC sense. This is one of the areas that gives me pause. I'm hopeful that something will be addressed in the DDi prior to the release of the book next year (fingers crossed).
Here's a quote from this article about converting your Third Edition characters to Fourth Edition:
[indent]Like a few other classes, the 4E wizard has a narrower range of power options than the 3rd Edition wizard. Some of these powers are coming later (summoning and illusions, for example), while others simply aren’t appropriate for the character role.[/indent]
I would expect both powers and rituals for summoning and illusions - we already have a few examples of both for the latter, for instance.
For example, if you want to be an Archer in 4e, you pretty much have no choice but to be a Ranger. No other class gets any abilities with a bow of any kind.
For me, Eberron is much more about out of the box thinking and playing unique characters than it is running premade characters through modules. If premades and modules are all you use, I'm sure 4e will be a great system for you. Myself though, I'd rather be able to make something that isn't exactly like everyone else's character. So, for me, 4e and Eberron are not compatible.
That's not what 4E is about. It does focus on those core roles. Your fighter will fundamentally be a fighter at 10th level - even as they add more paragon paths, you're never going to have the flexibility of the fighter 2/sorcerer 2, where you can be right in the middle.
But with that said...
Myself though, I'd rather be able to make something that isn't exactly like everyone else's character.
What this says to me, Edy, is that you just haven't spent much time with 4E. I'm about to start my fourth 4E game. Having been playing for four months, I've made dozens of PCs... both for personal use, and simply to test out ideas. And this concept that "all fighters are exactly the same" is utterly wrong. To hit just a few reasons:
More feats, ease of skill training. You get feats every even numbered level, plus one at 1st, 11th, and 21st, plus another feat if you're a human. And in 4E, heroic feats have far less combat power than their 3E counterparts. As an archer, you simply don't have something like the Point Blank Shot feat tree, that's essentially a must take. Weapon Focus gives you a +1 to damage... OK, but hardly a must-have. Meanwhile, you have more colorful skills, like Long Jumper or Light Step... and beyond that, you have skill training, which makes it much easier to make a character with skills outside of his class. So at first level, I want to make a Fighter who use to be a bouncer at a bar in a bad part of town. Great, I spend my feat on Skill Training - Streetwise. It's not actually a crippling move to choose a noncombat feat (my 4th level paladin has spent all of his feats on skill-related choices so far)... and while you might say "But he's not going to be as good at it as the rogue with the high Charisma", because of skill challenges, it helps to have multiple people covering the same skill. The fighter in 3rd E could go for the Skill Focus Streetwise (+3 rather than +5, but still) - but for the 3E fighter, feats are a vital part of their combat capability; is your archer really going to sacrifice Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot for Skill Focus (Streetwise)?
Powers. At almost every level, you're making a choice, typically between three to five powers. Sure, if we're both choosing from the same pool, we MAY make the same choice - but odds are we won't.
Then there's races, paragon paths, etc. But in short, the further you go, the further you diverge from other characters of the class. The more feats you have, the more chances to diverge in power selection, and eventually paragon paths. In my Game Day game, I had two fighters in the party, and the two were very different. One was a big country boy with a little orc blood in his veins (human racially, but there for cosmetic flavor and explaining his size and 18 Strength). While he wasn't too bright, he had good common sense, which translated into excellent Insight and good Nature knowledge (part of his wilderness upbringing); this also tied into his ranger multiclass. He wore scalemail and loved his double-bladed axe, charging into the fray with abandon.
Then we had the dwarf fighter... not as strong as the human, but far more durable. He'd devoted a feat to getting plate armor, and fought with sword and shield; he was the pure bastion of defense, standing strong and taking whatever attacks were thrown at him. Like the other fighter, he had a decent Atheltics and Endurance score, but he'd focused on Heal; and in place of Insight or Nature, his background as a sergeant in the Last War resulted in Warlord training, which made him a student of History.
So in terms of feats, skills, and powers, the ONLY overlap between these two third-level characters was two skills (Athletics and Endurance) and one power: Cleave (and it's not as if Cleave wasn't a common choice for 3E fighters!). They use different types of armor. They fight in different ways, with the farmboy being more aggressive and the dwarf being more defensive. And out of combat, the farmboy knows nature and he knows people - while the dwarf knows history and how to bind a wound (and in skill challenges, there's lots of interesting ways to use Heal). Making a Thrane fighter and don't want to go paladin? Initiate of the Faith gives you your religion knowledge and the ability to call on the Flame to heal an ally in a time of great need. If I want to make the Aundairian fighter, Arcane Initiate won't make me a full-fledged wizard, but it CAN give me the sense that I am just what I sound like - an Aundairian fighter, whose nationality has caused him to dabble in the arcane and throw a minor fireball every now and then. If my Aundairian fighter further spends a feat on Ritual Caster, he can perform arcane lock or Tenser's floating disk as almost the equal of a Wizard - limited only by the fact that he's probably go a lower Int score.
So I absolutely agree: 4E is not as flexible as 3E when it comes to supporting character ideas that break from traditional class roles, and this is definitely a point that I feel can make or break 4E for people. However, I completely disagree that "Every fighter is just like every other fighter" - and I say that from the experience of having created many fighters, and having run many games. 4E offers lots of ways to make your character feel unique... you're simply a unique FIGHTER, not the full-fledged fighter 2/wizard 2 you could be in 3E.
I'm not going to get into an extended argument about 3E vs 4E, so I'll try to restrain myself to a single comment. And one of the things I've mentioned on my livejournal is that the flexibility of classes is one of the greatest strengths of 3E and a fundamental difference between the two - a reason I look at 4E as more of an evolution of 2E than an evolution of 3E. Third edition essentially focuses on moving away from class roles, and allowing you maximum flexibility in what you are - as Edymnion suggests, it's more a question of "What combination of classes do I need to make this idea" than "What class am I". Sure, two 10th level rogues may be similar, but by the time you're tenth level, you're likely to be a Rogue 5/Fighter 2/ Prestige Class 3... and given the vast array of prestige classes, there's a lot of flexibility there.
That's not what 4E is about. It does focus on those core roles. Your fighter will fundamentally be a fighter at 10th level - even as they add more paragon paths, you're never going to have the flexibility of the fighter 2/sorcerer 2, where you can be right in the middle.
But with that said...
What this says to me, Edy, is that you just haven't spent much time with 4E. I'm about to start my fourth 4E game. Having been playing for four months, I've made dozens of PCs... both for personal use, and simply to test out ideas. And this concept that "all fighters are exactly the same" is utterly wrong. To hit just a few reasons:
More feats, ease of skill training. You get feats every even numbered level, plus one at 1st, 11th, and 21st, plus another feat if you're a human. And in 4E, heroic feats have far less combat power than their 3E counterparts. As an archer, you simply don't have something like the Point Blank Shot feat tree, that's essentially a must take. Weapon Focus gives you a +1 to damage... OK, but hardly a must-have. Meanwhile, you have more colorful skills, like Long Jumper or Light Step... and beyond that, you have skill training, which makes it much easier to make a character with skills outside of his class. So at first level, I want to make a Fighter who use to be a bouncer at a bar in a bad part of town. Great, I spend my feat on Skill Training - Streetwise. It's not actually a crippling move to choose a noncombat feat (my 4th level paladin has spent all of his feats on skill-related choices so far)... and while you might say "But he's not going to be as good at it as the rogue with the high Charisma", because of skill challenges, it helps to have multiple people covering the same skill. The fighter in 3rd E could go for the Skill Focus Streetwise (+3 rather than +5, but still) - but for the 3E fighter, feats are a vital part of their combat capability; is your archer really going to sacrifice Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot for Skill Focus (Streetwise)?
Powers. At almost every level, you're making a choice, typically between three to five powers. Sure, if we're both choosing from the same pool, we MAY make the same choice - but odds are we won't.
Then there's races, paragon paths, etc. But in short, the further you go, the further you diverge from other characters of the class. The more feats you have, the more chances to diverge in power selection, and eventually paragon paths. In my Game Day game, I had two fighters in the party, and the two were very different. One was a big country boy with a little orc blood in his veins (human racially, but there for cosmetic flavor and explaining his size and 18 Strength). While he wasn't too bright, he had good common sense, which translated into excellent Insight and good Nature knowledge (part of his wilderness upbringing); this also tied into his ranger multiclass. He wore scalemail and loved his double-bladed axe, charging into the fray with abandon.
Then we had the dwarf fighter... not as strong as the human, but far more durable. He'd devoted a feat to getting plate armor, and fought with sword and shield; he was the pure bastion of defense, standing strong and taking whatever attacks were thrown at him. Like the other fighter, he had a decent Atheltics and Endurance score, but he'd focused on Heal; and in place of Insight or Nature, his background as a sergeant in the Last War resulted in Warlord training, which made him a student of History.
So in terms of feats, skills, and powers, the ONLY overlap between these two third-level characters was two skills (Athletics and Endurance) and one power: Cleave (and it's not as if Cleave wasn't a common choice for 3E fighters!). They use different types of armor. They fight in different ways, with the farmboy being more aggressive and the dwarf being more defensive. And out of combat, the farmboy knows nature and he knows people - while the dwarf knows history and how to bind a wound (and in skill challenges, there's lots of interesting ways to use Heal). Making a Thrane fighter and don't want to go paladin? Initiate of the Faith gives you your religion knowledge and the ability to call on the Flame to heal an ally in a time of great need. If I want to make the Aundairian fighter, Arcane Initiate won't make me a full-fledged wizard, but it CAN give me the sense that I am just what I sound like - an Aundairian fighter, whose nationality has caused him to dabble in the arcane and throw a minor fireball every now and then. If my Aundairian fighter further spends a feat on Ritual Caster, he can perform arcane lock or Tenser's floating disk as almost the equal of a Wizard - limited only by the fact that he's probably go a lower Int score.
So I absolutely agree: 4E is not as flexible as 3E when it comes to supporting character ideas that break from traditional class roles, and this is definitely a point that I feel can make or break 4E for people. However, I completely disagree that "Every fighter is just like every other fighter" - and I say that from the experience of having created many fighters, and having run many games. 4E offers lots of ways to make your character feel unique... you're simply a unique FIGHTER, not the full-fledged fighter 2/wizard 2 you could be in 3E.
I suppose a QFT is superfluous for this, all things considered, but ... QFT.
Personally, I don't think the two are compatible in that 4e does not really allow for creative freedom in making characters, or at least not as much. In 3e, you could essentially come up with whatever concept you wanted, and you could find some way to build it. In 4e, you are much more restricted in what you can and cannot do, and instead of building a character sheet based off a concept, you pretty much have to build a concept off of the character sheet.
One of the points that came up in our groups discussion on this very topic was the volume of 3.5 material. The flexibility in character design for a 3.5 character if all you have to use is the PHB isn't that great. (Granted we had one PC with 6 core classes at level 7 which was 'creative'). It wasn't until you had 4 "Complete" books, a few "Races of" books and an "Eberron:" book or two that you really could design from concept to rules. We all agreed that all of our latest characters were using feats or class substitutions from the last 3 "Complete" books.
I expect more classes, and more power choices for the 'core classes' to become available (as WoTC puts out more books). And by the time the Eberron world books come out, that flexability we're accustom to will be available.
Of course my wife won't like me buying all the books to do this . . .
Have Fun,
Kawnell
One of the points that came up in our groups discussion on this very topic was the volume of 3.5 material.
Nope, I typically run more or less a core game, the flexibility of 3e for class breaking characters is inherent in the system. You wanna make an archer, you can make it in a dozen different ways, using nothing but Core. Ranger with the archery tree, Fighter putting his feats into archery, Rogue using a bow to deliver ranged sneak attacks, elf Cleric with War domain buffing himself with his spells...
In 4e you get... the Ranger. Or you do the 4e equivolant of multiclassing into Ranger. Thats it. No one else can even get close that I've seen.
In 4e you get... the Ranger. Or you do the 4e equivolant of multiclassing into Ranger. Thats it. No one else can even get close that I've seen.
Which doesn't change the fact that two 4E archer-build rangers can be quite different from one another.
That's the only thing that annoys me about your posts, Edy. I completely agree with you: 3E gives you far more flexibility in breaking class roles and developing unique ideas. It's a great strength of 3E, and a path 4E deliberately chose not to follow; I had a goblin rogue-sorcerer in 3.5 that I just can't translate into 4E. However, this doesn't mean that all 4E characters are cookie-cutter images of one another, and that I'm unable to "make something that isn't exactly like everyone else's character."
Each system has it's strengths. 3E is far stronger in this respect. But you're blowing things way out of proportion with the assertion that there's no way to make a 4E character feel different from another member of his class.
Each system has it's strengths. 3E is far stronger in this respect. But you're blowing things way out of proportion with the assertion that there's no way to make a 4E character feel different from another member of his class.
Oh, I'm sure you can, but its simply not to the degree that I would find acceptable.
To bottom line it, I do not like classes.
I do not like the idea that you have to sit inside one of the little boxes someone else made for you. 3e, while very flexible, was still a class based system, but it intentionally (at least at first) tried to make those classes as vanilla as possible, to let you do as much as possible within the basic class idea. There are more ways to build a Fighter or a Rogue than any single player would ever even have time to play. But they are still inherently limiting.
IMO, the system you play with should not matter. I should be able to make whatever kind of character I can imagine, and then build it with any given set of rules. For example, lets take my Lyrander Stormlord character. Pretty easy concept, he's a marked lyrander sorcerer with all storm related spells. In 3e, I had to houserule in order to raid the Druid and Cleric spell lists for some of his spells, but I could make him with relatively little effort. I am literally incapable of making this character in 4e, because themed spellcasters like that just aren't possible without basically tossing out the entire Wizard as written and remaking the class from the ground up. But even to do that, I would have to write whole new spells to give that new class.
IMO, 4e is Diablo II. You pick your class at the start screen, go out and kill some stuff, level up, and then choose which skill to put your skill point into. Can you get two very different feeling amazons in Diablo II? Sure, there are so many kinds of ways to build your classes in Diablo II that they've gained dozens of sub-names for classes to describe them. But if your Amazon is using a bow, a spear, or javelins, its still an Amazon. A Necromancer that focuses on poison dagger plays very differently than a Little General Necromancer that raises tons of skeletons and his golem and revives to fight for him, but he's still a Necromancer.
In short, 4e went the exact opposite direction of what I enjoy in a roleplaying game. I like classless systems that give me perfect control over what my character can and can not do. Systems that focus more on being the backbone to what then turns into freeform roleplaying/storytelling with dice used to settle the "I hit you! No you didn't, I dodged!" moments. I do not like class based systems where you just plug and play the little lego blocks they give you. Don't have the right shaped piece? Well, either build something else, or go buy another theme box just to get that one piece.
Its one reason I really love Mutants & Masterminds 2e, its a point buy based system. No classes. I have yet to find a single character, regardless of genre or theme that I can't make in it, and make to a startlingly close level of accuracy.
But, WotC can't sell a million rules expansions for that kind of system, because that kind of system specifically does not support adding a bunch of new rules to it. This super-heavy class based system though, they can print up new classes from here till 5e, and people will snap them up. Want a non-Ranger archer? Just buy the PHB 37 for the Archer class!
No thanks, I'll just stick to 3e for old time's sake, and keep playing M&M2e for everything else. And when I get done converting Eberron to M&M2e rules, I'll probably dump 3e as well.
For example, lets take my Lyrander Stormlord character. Pretty easy concept, he's a marked lyrander sorcerer with all storm related spells. In 3e, I had to houserule in order to raid the Druid and Cleric spell lists for some of his spells, but I could make him with relatively little effort. I am literally incapable of making this character in 4e, because themed spellcasters like that just aren't possible without basically tossing out the entire Wizard as written and remaking the class from the ground up.
Actually, it's funny you should mention this.
One of the characters in one of my games is a Lyrandar heir warlock. She's mechanically an Infernal warlock, but our idea was that she was attuned to the primal powers of the storm... and potentially the Kraken princes spoken of in Lyrandar legend.
Did I make lots of new spells for her? Nope. We simply agreed that any warlock power that she took that normally did fire damage would instead do lightning damage, and renamed her powers with storm and Lyrandar themed names. So far it's worked great.
It's a house rule, yes - just like you house-ruled to raid other classes' spell list. But it's a trivial houserule (will neglible balance issues) that does give her warlock unique flavor.
Again, I'm not saying that 4E matches the character flexibility of 3E; it doesn't. It's a class based system, and that's something 3E intentionally shifted away from. It is an excellent reason for someone to dislike 4E, and the last thing I'm trying to say is "Try 4E! You'll like it!" Your point on disliking classes makes perfect sense. I'm simply saying that you seem to have a flawed notion of the level of differentiation that is possible in 4E. Over the last few months, I've watched three warlocks level along different paths. They're different mechanically, they're different in backstory, they're different in playstyle. You can certainly tell me that they aren't different ENOUGH for you; they've certainly got more in common with one another than a 3E warlock 3/rogue 3, warlock 2/cleric 4, and warlock 1/wizard 5, and that's before you even get into prestige classes. But you can't tell me that they're "exactly alike". Each player had a very different idea for their story - from the Lyrandar warlock tied to the power of the storm to the archaeologist cursed with visions of the Age of Demons - and they've made distinctive characters to match those stories.
I like classless systems that give me perfect control over what my character can and can not do.
Me too. Which is why I LOVE Over the Edge. In fact, I'm just getting ready to restart an Over the Edge campaign that's been on hold. I also love the Hero System, and played Fantasy Hero throughout college, because it's always let me do EXACTLY what I wanted to do. If I wanted to be a talking bear who happened to be a master of disguise, I could do it (well, I didn't, but I was in a party with someone who did... I was playing a brain eating doppelganger at the time).
I love classless systems. And I've never seen D&D in that light. Even 3E doesn't come CLOSE to what I could do in Hero or OTE; among other things, making truly flexible characters requires you to have a high enough level to put the right combination of classes and feats together. And even then, you'd have a tough time making the absent-minded pseudo-omniscient retired deity I played in one Fantasy Hero campaign - and that was on a starting point value.
So I don't mind 4E going back to the strong class roles, because I've expected D&D to be a classless system; if total character freedom is what you want, there's many better systems for it. Essentially, for me, the class roles are something that make D&D DIFFERENT from Hero or Over The Edge. When I get nolstagic about the old days of playing D&D with my buddies in high school, it's the party with the fighter, cleric, thief, and magic-user (yes, thief and magic-user, not rogue and wizard). People say "4E doesn't feel like D&D"; for ME, the return to strong class roles is something that MAKES it feel like D&D. I've never considered that a perfect system, which is why I played so much Hero and OTE (and Element Masters, and CoC, and Paranoia, and so on). But when I play D&D, it's what I have in mind. I just want to know that there's ways to make my fighter feel unique and different from your fighter - and there's lots of those.
To give you a hint of what you'll find, Keith has said that 4e is better suited to Eberron than 3e.
I'm sorry, could you point that quote out to me?
And that's the point of these posts: to explain why I think it actually works as well (or even better) for Eberron than 3E.
[...] In 3e, I had to houserule in order to raid the Druid and Cleric spell lists for some of his spells, but I could make him with relatively little effort. I am literally incapable of making this character in 4e, because themed spellcasters like that just aren't possible without basically tossing out the entire Wizard as written and remaking the class from the ground up. [...]
So a houseruled 3.5 is better than a RAW 4E? Talk about double standards right there.
I can just as well say: houseruled 4E is better than RAW 3.5.
Anyway, an simple example: let's make a cunning Dex based melee fighter ("swashbuckler") that is the runaway scion of a noble house in 3.5 core RAW. Ok, necessary - no, required - feats were Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, the Dodge tree (because of your light armor you were wearing), and the Weapon Focus tree (because of the "weak" weapons you were using). That's around 10 feats right there to get you even close to "effective" before even considering character options, and you're still far behind a classical "Power Attack and heavy armor" fighter in terms of efficiency.
However, you still lack some skills. That means, you had to multiclass into rogue to get them: Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble. Now, there were some problems right there. First, some skills - especially those that are used in opposed checks like Hide and Move Silently, or Escape Artist vs Grapple - required to be kept on max ranks or quickly become useless. Some other skills - those facing only static DCs, like Balance and Tumble - were only needed to hit a certain mark to assure success on a roll of 1. Second, you still lack any social skills that are associated with the swashbuckler stereotype: Bluff (for fooling some guards), Diplomacy (for sweet-talking their way out of - or into - trouble), Sense Motive (to avoid being seduc... uhhh... lured into a trap by the evil guy's girlfriend).
So, you had to go out of your way, waste a crapload of feats to even keep up, and still fail to meet the common stereotype of the character you wanted to play. Oh, did I mention that you don't have any skills related to your noble heritage? Like, say, Knowledge (history) or Knowledge (Royalty and Nobility)?
Now, how can we make a swashbuckling fighter in 4E? Start as a fighter. Take Reaping Strike and Sure Strike as your at-will exploits. Take Passing Attack as your encounter exploit. Take Comeback Strike as your daily exploit. Later, take No Opening, Precision Strike, Dizzying Blow, Defensive Training, Sudden Surge, Thicket of Blades, Last Ditch Evasion, Silverstep, as your exploits. Take the Swordmaster paragon path. Take Combat Reflexes, Fast Runner, Nimble Blade, Skill Training (Acrobatics) and Quick Draw for your feats.
That fits the "dashing swordsman" quite close right there. With a reasonably high Charisma the "+1/2 level" skill mechanic makes sure you can actually use Bluff and Diplomacy even if you're not trained in them. And if you want, two more feats (Skill Training) will take care of that. Same goes for Knowledge skills.
If you want to dive into the theme some more, you can take the multiclass feats related to rogue, and get some nifty powers from the rogue list without crippling your advancement as a fighter.
So, what's your point again?
So a houseruled 3.5 is better than a RAW 4E? Talk about double standards right there.
I can just as well say: houseruled 4E is better than RAW 3.5.
Gotta agree. Houseruled 4e is better than RAW 3.5, and I'm of the personal opinion that houseruled 4e is better than houseruled 3.5, and will only become even better after Martial Power and Arcane Power and the like come out. I'm also of the opinion that a classless game wouldn't feel like D&D.
However, I also, like Edy, prefer classless systems overall. Of course, I'd be on other boards if I wanted to discuss converting Eberron to a classless system, or promote using Eberron within a classless system. Settling for a less-fitting D&D system for Eberron because "it's not classless but it'll do" seems to me a little weird when you could just go classless and get rid of any discrepencies associated with D&D. But I digress. I like me some 4e, and so does most (if not all) of my group (I don't know if all of them do yet, haven't had a chance to talk to a couple of 'em about it).
Now, how can we make a swashbuckling fighter in 4E? Start as a fighter. Take Reaping Strike and Sure Strike as your at-will exploits. Take Passing Attack as your encounter exploit. Take Comeback Strike as your daily exploit. Later, take No Opening, Precision Strike, Dizzying Blow, Defensive Training, Sudden Surge, Thicket of Blades, Last Ditch Evasion, Silverstep, as your exploits. Take the Swordmaster paragon path. Take Combat Reflexes, Fast Runner, Nimble Blade, Skill Training (Acrobatics) and Quick Draw for your feats.
That fits the "dashing swordsman" quite close right there. With a reasonably high Charisma the "+1/2 level" skill mechanic makes sure you can actually use Bluff and Diplomacy even if you're not trained in them. And if you want, two more feats (Skill Training) will take care of that. Same goes for Knowledge skills.
If you want to dive into the theme some more, you can take the multiclass feats related to rogue, and get some nifty powers from the rogue list without crippling your advancement as a fighter.
If you're going to use a Light Blade, you might as well go Rogue (Artful Dodger). You pretty much have to if you want to have the skills listed (Acrobatics, Bluff, Diplomacy, History, Insight, Stealth) and even then it's going to cost you some feats.
Now, I do agree that the 4E Swashbuckler seems easier to create than the 3.5E one. But on the other hand we don't have the "Cunning Rogue" (read: Int-based). And Illusions will likely be pretty disappointing (there's a pdf that just came out in the online Dragon).
In conclusion: 3.5E and 4E both have good things to offer. (Yes, this is too mild a conclusion for an online forum. :rolleyes