WARNING: D&D TALK

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.

well,  don't knowa bout TGRR, but [iI've[/i] read parts of the new rules andI didnt like what I saw...
...The parts that I read before I got to th point whre I simply coudn't stand to read any more of it ranged frrom trite (eg. all of the fluff text, most of the rules), to offensive (eg. the revised alignment system)

[PopeTom]

One of my big complaints about 4th is that there aren't a lot of noncombat spells.

All classes have access to Utility Powers.  A quick glance at the Utility options the Wizard has compared to what the Fighter has show that the wizard has several Utility Powers that could find use outside of combat (be it a Skill Challenge encounter, or general role-play encounter).  The Fighter, however does not.  The introduction of Skill Powers that will be published with the Player's Handbook 3 should increase a player's options in this regard.

I mean yes, throwing fireballs is part of what a wizard does, but they also dig ditches and build fortifications when they need to.

Are you thinking of cantrips that allow a Wizard to dig ditches and build fortifications?  Because off the top of my head I can only think of spells that do so (Stone Shape, Move Earth, Wall of <Substance>).  Wall spells still exist but have been toned down to be more useful in a combat situation than used to build long term fortifications.  Personally I think that's a good move.  If you do not then it would have to be a point we just disagree on.

The rituals, Earthen Ramparts, Excavation, Iron Wood, Bolster Object, and Mordenkainen's Joining look like they could fulfill your goals of digging ditches and building fortifications.  But do so in a way that would require the caster have some help from the rest of the party. Another design goal for 4th Edition was to avoid one character being able to do it all.

 Some of its problem solving, but a lot of its roleplaying tools, and its those that 4th is especially weak on.  One of my favorite builds ever was a bard designed around the idea of using illusion spells as a form of performance.

I believe your Bard could be built under 4th Edition rules.  Depending on if you were relying on only cantrips or not to create your story telling illusions.  The 4th Ed. cantrip Prestidigitation can replace the functionality of the Bard cantrips (3.5) Dancing Lights, Flare, Open/Close, Prestidigitation, and Summon Instrument.

In pathfinder you can spam the level 0 spells endlessly, which means you have a host of flavor spells (which once in a blue moon solve puzzles, or if you're very lucky would be useful for killing rats) that you can use to do things at an RP level.

So far the most common use the Wizard in the game I am running has for for a cantrip (Prestidigitation) to to put himself out.  He seems to have a bad habit of setting himself on fire.

[PopeTom]

Gnomes are still playable, you just need the MM for the stats.

Or the Player's Handbook 2 if you want the stats and fluff.

Or a DDI subscription if you don't want either the MM or PH3.

[Requia ☣]

Casting a spell while on fire would be an interesting concentration check (does 4th still have those?).

And how many utility spells can the wizard actually get?  3 or 4?  Thats even worse than sorcerers do in 3.x.

[PopeTom]

well,  don't knowa bout TGRR, but [iI've[/i] read parts of the new rules andI didnt like what I saw...
...The parts that I read before I got to th point whre I simply coudn't stand to read any more of it ranged frrom trite (eg. all of the fluff text, most of the rules), to offensive (eg. the revised alignment system)

Well that's a start, at least you have something to base your dislike of the system on.

Though I am surprised you complain about fluff text.  There were quite a few people on the Wizard.com boards upset that 4th Edition didn't have as much fluff as 3.5, or other previous editions, did.

I don't think the concept of alignment has long to last as part of D&D (or any other RPG for that matter).  Unlike previous editions there are no powers/effects that key off alignment.  It is purely something for a player to base character role playing decisions on.

In my gaming experience at least alignment really had little to no effect on game play unless there was a Paladin in the party.

Might I ask where you stopped reading?

[PopeTom]

Casting a spell while on fire would be an interesting concentration check (does 4th still have those?).

And how many utility spells can the wizard actually get?  3 or 4?  Thats even worse than sorcerers do in 3.x.

There are no Concentration checks or Concentration skill in 4th Edition.  But there are still Attacks of Opportunity in 4th so the Wizard isn't going to want to be standing next to an enemy while casting spells if possible.  Though there are spells that can be cast w/o provoking.

EDIT: should have answered your 2nd question too.

The maximum number of Utility Powers any class can have is 7, this number is reached by the time characters achieve 26th level.

Rituals you can cast as many times as you like as long as you can afford the components.

[Cain]

I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

the cleric / warlord / shaman / bard is still very necessary, but they don't have to spend all their time playing a support role. In other editions, playing a healer was kind of like taking the bullet for your party. While they're doing the glorious monster slaying, trap disarming, etc, you're ... buffing them? hey, when do you get the spotlight?

"ahhh I just took 100 points of damage, cleric, come save me so I can keep fighting!"
"ah shit, I was just about to cast Flame Strike, but I guess I can heal you instead. Get a better AC you meat sack!"   

On the other hand, the new conception of healer as "leader", is a lot of fun to play. As a warlord, you're constantly shifting your party members around the battle field, giving party members healing or buffs when you hit. You definitely don't feel like you're riding in the back seat.

Caveat: Everything I say, I learnt from the different game mechanics between Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

Wouldn't plentiful Healing Kits kind of do the same thing in version 3.0/3.5?  I don't know if Healing Kits are part of the table top version of the game, but on the PC version, a healing kit was something you used, in conjunction with your Healing skill, to heal yourself of a certain level of damage.

Example: your character has just finished a tough fight, and has taken thirty seven points of damage.  He has however, a healing kit +1, which he bought before, and a Heal rank of 7.  Taking twenty, he can use the Healing Kit to restore 27 hit points of damage.

In combat, naturally, you cannot take twenty, so it becomes a little more chance-based.  But in the game, they come in +1, +3, +6 and +10 versions, and depending on your skill at using them and the DC of the effect, can also overcome poison and disease.  They're not so useful at higher levels, but at that point any cleric is packing some serious buffs in addition to any healing spells, so it doesn't really matter.

[PopeTom]

Caveat: Everything I say, I learnt from the different game mechanics between Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

Wouldn't plentiful Healing Kits kind of do the same thing in version 3.0/3.5? 

Healing kits were part of the mechanics of NWN.  I would guess because your party in that game could only consist of the PC and two NPCs.  Therefore it was quite possible to find yourself in a dungeon without sufficient healing.

In 3.5 the Heal skill was used for:

First Aid:  Stabilize a dying character.
Long-term Care: Allow a character to heal twice his/her HP from rest (proper no activities at all rest, not camping in the dungeon rest)
Remove the condition inflicted by caltrops and similar devices/spells
Treat Poison or disease.

While there were Healer's Kits in 3.5 they were there to provide a bonus(+2) to Heal checks to perform the above.

[Fuquad]

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Mutants and masterminds does not use hit points, and second edition doesn't have any optional rules for adding them in (first might, I have no idea where my first edition book is though).

WoD uses a combination hit point/wounding system.

First edition M&M has the optional rules for hit points. One of the sourcebooks for second edition does as well.

[PopeTom]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier in the thread or not but, regardless of if you are a fan of 4th Edition or not, I would recommend any D&D fan to download and listen to the PVP/Penny Arcade D&D Podcasts.

http://wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=resources&subcategory=podcasts

There are three series and I think they embody the reason why a lot of people game.  Because you spend time with your friends and have fun.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

Well, it did, a bit. In fact, you've hit on a very important point in regard to this whole matter. The reason why the early release of 4e is PARTICULARLY offensive is because they just pulled this same crap a couple of years ago, and just when I finally gave in and updated to 3.5 (well, a little bit afterward...but I digress...) they announced this new edition....Damnit!!

[Cramulus]

yeah it's really sad how you're not allowed to play old editions anymore

I tried to start a 3.5 game, but Mike Mearls kicked open my door and ripped up our character sheets




I kid, I kid

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.

It just becomes more things you need to keep track of though.  And I imagine in many games it would just degrade into <thing that can get hurt> points.

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Unearthed Arcana (the D&D 3.5  supplement) offered at least one optional system that didn't use hit points, as well as at least two optional fixes to the hit point system (including one that fixes the previously mentioned overreliance on clerics)

[Requia ☣]

Wait, you mean that vitality point system?

I'll admit that was kinda neat, but its still a hit point based system, just with the flavor better reflected by the mechanic.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

No,not the vitality point system. As I said, IN ADDITION to modified hit point systems such as the vitality point system, there was ALSO, if I recall correctly, also a system that linked fortitude saves to varying degrees of disability.