An 18 intelligence isn't the whole story. Having a high intelligence doesn't mean you are automatically good at everything which requires mental aptitude.
For example I have a friend who is brilliant at languages and their use - he picks them up and understands them with amazing aptitude. However he's really not that good at maths.
I myself am very good at maths, but hopeless when it comes to doing crossword puzzles (and not due to lack of trying).
My view of 2ED dwarves is that while they can be very intelligent, they simply don't have the right mental approach to become mages. Hence no dwarf mages.
I've never met any dwarves or mages so I'm not going to attempt to provide a scientific theory for why this is the case. In fact since nobody has ever met a dwarf or a mage, nobody can provide a scientific theory as to why dwarves can't be mages. And if anyone tries to provide one I can immediately reject it as being untested (and indeed untestable).
An 18 intelligence isn't the whole story. Having a high intelligence doesn't mean you are automatically good at everything which requires mental aptitude.
For example I have a friend who is brilliant at languages and their use - he picks them up and understands them with amazing aptitude. However he's really not that good at maths.
I myself am very good at maths, but hopeless when it comes to doing crossword puzzles (and not due to lack of trying).
My view of 2ED dwarves is that while they can be very intelligent, they simply don't have the right mental approach to become mages. Hence no dwarf mages.
I've never met any dwarves or mages so I'm not going to attempt to provide a scientific theory for why this is the case. In fact since nobody has ever met a dwarf or a mage, nobody can provide a scientific theory as to why dwarves can't be mages. And if anyone tries to provide one I can immediately reject it as being untested (and indeed untestable).
Well the whole point is moot actually. Since 3e Dwarves can be mages (wizards) so they clearly have an aptitude for it. They couldn't in 2e because of an arbitrary rule saying they couldn't, it has been fixed in later editions.
The whole concept of restriction of classes and races is a matter of taste. Originally the idea in ad&d was that Most kingdoms where human, most players should choose to be human. Then again in pen&paper you have a wonderful thing called dungeon master than can do whatever he pleases. Rules are just guidelines , the dm can do whatever he wants and make dwarf wizards.
Now, as a matter of taste: (and yes, it is a matter of taste), I agree with goodsteve, i like class restrictions to races. For pen&paper I also like the idea that most pcs and players are human and other races should feel rare and "exotic" . It is just a matter of taste.
I also wouldnt mind exceptions if the story justifies them. For example if bg2 had a kit you couldnt play (unless cheating) that was paladin of arvorin just for mazzy but i couldnt choose it id feel it would be great.
And seriously class restrictions are just a choice, d&d 2e has other things that are objectivly not good, like the armor system (less is better) or the 25 being the highest you can get in one stat.
I also personally dont like the magic resistance system in 2e. I feel a powerful spellcaster should be able to avoid the magic resistance. In my opinion a level one viconia should never have a 50% chance of not being affected by elminsters meterstorm.
I also personally dont like the magic resistance system in 2e. I feel a powerful spellcaster should be able to avoid the magic resistance. In my opinion a level one viconia should never have a 50% chance of not being affected by elminsters meterstorm.
We will disagree on this point. Spell Resistance in 3rd edition was one of my points of irritation with the system due to implementation. Sure, it works fine if everyone is a pure-class caster; in fact, in that world SR will rarely ever matter if you take 2 feats (take 10 on caster level checks, +2 to overcome SR and suddenly your enemies' SR never matters). However, if you enjoy multiclassing your spellcasters you get screwed over *even more* than in 2nd edition. It goes from being a 50/50 chance or a 70/30 chance of success to potentially bottoming out the other direction, even to the point of it being impossible to overcome SR. 3rd edition did have more spells that ignored SR, to be fair (conjurations were considered "real" objects so conjuration attack spells often ignored SR).
Unlikely to happen, but given my choice, I'd want BG3 to be in 3.5 rules.
Version 4 rules are a blight on humanity, and I have little hope for Version 5, especially if its being tagged with the same 'NEXT' moniker being overused currently (i.e. Everquest Next)
I thought this thread was about what edition ruleset would be best for a hypothetical BG3. I came to read new posts, and was surprised by a discussion about why the dwarven race should or should not have mages. I find it really interesting, but didn't we already have a long thread about that?
On the tangential discussion about race, I agree with most of what @the_spyder has said. Having fantasy races be like their classical archetypes, which were conceived as rare, fantastical, supernatural beings, along with all the bonuses and limitations that go with that, makes for a colorful, flavorful genre game.
Having every race homogenized into a sort of "everybody's basically a human or a funny-looking human with variations, and everybody can do everything" hodgepodge, makes for an increasingly bland gaming world for every restriction you remove.
I am reminded of a quote from the villain in "The Incredibles." "When everyone is super, no one will be!"
On the actual thread topic, I already posted my opinion that I would like to see a new D&D game set in the Sword Coast, but it might not be a good idea to call it "BG3", and I don't think it should have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn Wars other than containing easter eggs, cameos, and lore references to that period.
In a way, discussing which edition it will use is moot, because any new D&D computer game in the style of the Baldur's Gate games is going to have to use whatever edition WotC says it has to use. Haven't the Beamdog/Overhaul devs already said that WotC only licenses new computer games based off their current edition at the time of signing? That means we're looking at D&D Next. At least it looks like 4th edition is going to already be obsolete before any new D&D computer project gets contracted, which is probably a good thing, given all the bad opinions of 4th edition that I've read.
Version 4 rules are a blight on humanity, and I have little hope for Version 5, especially if its being tagged with the same 'NEXT' moniker being overused currently (i.e. Everquest Next)
You're right, darn 4E getting rid of the ridiculous Linear Warrior vs. Quadratic Arcanist "balance," allowing heroes to pick themselves off their feet without healing magic as real heroes often do in media, streamlining the attacks and saving throws into a much more time-friendly attack roll vs. static defenses system, getting rid of 3E's overpowered multi-classing, and making the classes themselves more customizable and dynamic like allowing the Cleric to not spend an entire turn doing nothing but healing/buffing. Total blight on humanity.
On the tangential discussion about race, I agree with most of what @the_spyder has said. Having fantasy races be like their classical archetypes, which were conceived as rare, fantastical, supernatural beings, along with all the bonuses and limitations that go with that, makes for a colorful, flavorful genre game.
Having every race homogenized into a sort of "everybody's basically a human or a funny-looking human with variations, and everybody can do everything" hodgepodge, makes for an increasingly bland gaming world for every restriction you remove.
I am reminded of a quote from the villain in "The Incredibles." "When everyone is super, no one will be!"
Except all the races are still very different, have different benefits and disadvantages, racial powers, racial feats, skills they excel in, etc. in later Editions. All that was removed is the nonsensical restrictions on class. Dwarves are still stout folk with stern traditions who mostly live underground and hate goblins, even if they put on robes and fire off a Magic Missile or two. The argument that it somehow makes them more bland is blatant hyperbole that ignores everything that makes the race special besides the class restrictions.
In a way, discussing which edition it will use is moot, because any new D&D computer game in the style of the Baldur's Gate games is going to have to use whatever edition WotC says it has to use. Haven't the Beamdog/Overhaul devs already said that WotC only licenses new computer games based off their current edition at the time of signing? That means we're looking at D&D Next. At least it looks like 4th edition is going to already be obsolete before any new D&D computer project gets contracted, which is probably a good thing, given all the bad opinions of 4th edition that I've read.
Personally, I think the fact that 4E never got a proper game is all the more reason to make one. Plenty of people like 4E just fine. The hateful echo chamber going on in these forums is a poor indicator of 4E's popularity or lack thereof. Of course, as you say, the point is rather moot given that WotC would be foolish not to market their latest edition.
@Schneidend I don't despise 4th edition. I think it would make a great system where you explore a world map, then cut to a grid of tactical turn-based combat. You could even code in skill challenges for particular sequences to give skill-oriented characters a place to shine in the game.
I doubt it will happen now. 4th edition would have made a great digital game, where you can ignore some of the issues it has as a pen-and-paper game. Oh well.
@Schneidend I don't despise 4th edition. I think it would make a great system where you explore a world map, then cut to a grid of tactical turn-based combat. You could even code in skill challenges for particular sequences to give skill-oriented characters a place to shine in the game.
I doubt it will happen now. 4th edition would have made a great digital game, where you can ignore some of the issues it has as a pen-and-paper game. Oh well.
I wholeheartedly agree. And, unlike the grognards, I am certainly willing to admit that my edition of choice has its flaws. Pre-errata, for instance, many 4E monsters had way too much HP, particular the Solo boss creatures. Some article content doesn't really follow the changes laid out in errata and Monster Manual 2 & 3 that moved to correct monster issues, as well, so some supplemental content lends itself to monsters that break the logic of their classes or just have too much HP or too high defense for their level.
Except all the races are still very different, have different benefits and disadvantages, racial powers, racial feats, skills they excel in, etc. in later Editions. All that was removed is the nonsensical restrictions on class. Dwarves are still stout folk with stern traditions who mostly live underground and hate goblins, even if they put on robes and fire off a Magic Missile or two. The argument that it somehow makes them more bland is blatant hyperbole that ignores everything that makes the race special besides the class restrictions.
At the risk of propagating this further, only you and a few others think that the restrictions are nonsensical. I am not saying that they are the restrictions that I would have put on there, nor that I really and truly support restrictions. I am merely saying that the restrictions did come out of some logical train of thought, not random nonsense as you want to claim.
At the risk of propagating this further, only you and a few others think that the restrictions are nonsensical. I am not saying that they are the restrictions that I would have put on there, nor that I really and truly support restrictions. I am merely saying that the restrictions did come out of some logical train of thought, not random nonsense as you want to claim.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that it was poor, inane logic than a lack of logic, yes.
Diversity can exist inside a race as well. The next editions from 2nd, put this well imo(ok not SO well, but whatever).
Differentiality is important between races, but that doesn't mean that we need to homogenize the people of each race.
I understand that there need to be some distinct differences between races. However this means that you're gonna encounter 1000 elven wizards and 10 dwarven ones, because probably dwarves don't give a damn about arcane magic, maybe their culture finds it "not tough enough".
You will, of course, encounter dwarves that like being wizards, and that means that players should have the option.
In an ideal system, dwarven wizards would be distinctively different than elven ones, due to different cultures and how those approach arcane magic in general. They would be fewer maybe, even, but in general i don't agree with 2e restrictions, even if yeah, there was some logic behind them.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that it was poor, inane logic than a lack of logic, yes.
I'd go with 'different logic than you would use'. Anything else is a value judgement and one I am not prepared to subscribe to at this juncture.
My personal opinion is that I do not like the generic trends in 3E and what I have read about 4E leading towards the races being more similar than different from a character generation perspective. It smacks of trying to make things simply different looking humans with 'Extra' abilities rather than true race/social/cultural differences. Again, all in my personal opinion.
Never the less, let's hope, considering that Wizards is currently selling 2E rules sets, that they may open the door to a 2E BG game should it come to it. I can always hope.
give me any version of dnd and the game will probably be good though i do think there is a little bit too much cheese factor in 4e. I like 2e where arcane magic reigns supreme, why shouldn't it? I like how unbalanced it is with regards to mages because i think they should be able to wipe the floor with other classes. after all they are gifted with magic.
also I always thought it was common fantasy lore that dwarfs cant use magic... In warhammer dwarfs don't practice magic they use it in items and have no wizards In dragon age they don't dream, don't enter the fade and lack magical ability In the hobbit i never saw thorin or his crew casting spells i'm not saying i agree with it i really dislike how mages never seem to be able to use armour for a weak reason such as the metal interferes with channeling energy or they are to weak to wear armour when we all know its really just a balancing issue. so i see why you would want dwarves to have magic or at least some descent lore stating why not.
I'd go with 'different logic than you would use'. Anything else is a value judgement and one I am not prepared to subscribe to at this juncture.
My personal opinion is that I do not like the generic trends in 3E and what I have read about 4E leading towards the races being more similar than different from a character generation perspective. It smacks of trying to make things simply different looking humans with 'Extra' abilities rather than true race/social/cultural differences. Again, all in my personal opinion.
Most races live side by side with humans in cosmopolitan societies, magic exists and therefore not having wizards would simply be foolish, and basing racial restrictions on culture shouldn't affect outsiders, especially not in an eccentric and eclectic lifestyle as adventuring. There's just really no good reason to restrict class. There's no reason a dwarf who likes magic and has a talent for it wouldn't want to be a wizard, there's no reason for a halfling woodsman to not be a Ranger, or for a musical magician of any race to not be a Bard.
Never the less, let's hope, considering that Wizards is currently selling 2E rules sets, that they may open the door to a 2E BG game should it come to it. I can always hope.
I would much rather hope that 2E never gets another game again. I love the BG series, but 2E itself is my least favorite edition I have any experience with (I have no experience with the OG rules), and it's been done to death at this point. I would much rather hope for a 4E game.
give me any version of dnd and the game will probably be good though i do think there is a little bit too much cheese factor in 4e. I like 2e where arcane magic reigns supreme, why shouldn't it? I like how unbalanced it is with regards to mages because i think they should be able to wipe the floor with other classes. after all they are gifted with magic.
...What? How does 4E have too much cheese factor? You just admitted that arcane magic "reigned supreme" over classes that don't have it, and you like "how unbalanced it is." It sounds to me like you just don't like your Wizard being the strongest character on the table.
And "gifted with magic" doesn't do you much good if your arms are broken, your throat's cut, or you're locked in a grapple/pin with a pissed off pugilist.
It sounds to me like you just don't like your Wizard being the strongest character on the table.
yep i don't. they took away all the abilities that made this class fun away and they did the same to clerics too. by replacing the spell progressions with daily powers,encounter powers and at-will powers. its like transitioning from a complex game where you need to use mouse, keyboard and a brain to play, to a dumbed down console game with half the options missing so you can rely on 3 buttons.
in short to me comparing adnd or dnd3/3.5 with dnd4e is like comparing the pc version of baldurs gate to the xbox and playstation version, baldurs gate dark alliance.
@randyroo Actually, they gave Cleric MORE versatility by allowing the class to attack and heal/buff/debuff with the same standard action through its powers, allowing them access to rituals like Wizards, and also gave them Healing Word so they would have a minor action heal. 4E fixed the biggest problem with Clerics, that they were often reduced to walking healing potions.
Wizards are still the kings of versatility and battlefield control. They're the only class that starts with a spellbook, one of the few classes that start with rituals, and their powers do a lot of stuff that most classes either cannot do at all or can only do very rarely.
And, considering how many combinations of daily, encounter, at-will powers, and utility powers combined with feats, paragon paths, multi-classing, and themes, 4E doesn't lack for depth and customization. Intuitiveness and simplicity aren't bad things, and balance is certainly a good thing. Don't be the Edwin of your gaming group. Don't be that guy. Nobody likes that guy. 4E ensures that nobody can be that guy without trying REALLY hard to break the system.
Most of you are going to like 5th ed if you ever get to play it. I can't say much at all, but it FEELS very much like the natural progression from 3.5, or it's what 4e should have been. 5e will be the best version of DnD to date, although I'm sure things like sales wont reflect that due to the current state of the market and the regression of sales from 4e that forced gamers to competitors like Pathfinder
In hindsight, 4e was ahead of it's time. It was just too bold of a progression, and many gamers who were very satisfied with 3.5 (like me for the most part, although d8 rangers was stupid) didn't feel like it was time to reinvent the game. If you remove the name DnD from 4e and pretend it's a totally different game than DnD, it becomes an interesting game system that IS smarter than 3e in a few ways.
I can't wait until a video game uses 5e rules, I'll buy that game.
Everyone seems to think 4th edition is so rigid you can't make it customizable. I think of it this way: every class has a minimum of 4 different builds, often much more especially if you get into multiclass feats or hybrid classes.
First, each class has two "recommended" builds that are listed right there in the book.
However, just about every class has a third path that you can find for yourself that isn't outlined as a recommendation (star pact for warlocks, staff specialization with wizards, etc.). It has plain rules support, it just lets you discover it yourself.
What gets fun for me are what I call the "Crazy Uncle Larry" builds. My elven paladin specialized into Dexterity and light armor with a longbow who keeps enemies marked at a distance... that's an example. She still has high AC, and her specialty is being able to effectively play defender against artillery monsters. She is quite mobile compared to your average plate-wearing paladin and has taken feats to train up skills like Stealth and Acrobatics to give her scouting ability and yet more mobility and options.
You might say she's not your typical 4th edition paladin... in fact, not very typical of a paladin of ANY edition. She was surprisingly effective though, even though she often just made ranged basic attacks.
give me any version of dnd and the game will probably be good though i do think there is a little bit too much cheese factor in 4e. I like 2e where arcane magic reigns supreme, why shouldn't it? I like how unbalanced it is with regards to mages because i think they should be able to wipe the floor with other classes. after all they are gifted with magic.
also I always thought it was common fantasy lore that dwarfs cant use magic... In warhammer dwarfs don't practice magic they use it in items and have no wizards In dragon age they don't dream, don't enter the fade and lack magical ability In the hobbit i never saw thorin or his crew casting spells i'm not saying i agree with it i really dislike how mages never seem to be able to use armour for a weak reason such as the metal interferes with channeling energy or they are to weak to wear armour when we all know its really just a balancing issue. so i see why you would want dwarves to have magic or at least some descent lore stating why not.
These things are very campaign specific, but a good rules system should allow for all of the possibilities.
If you want to run a Middle Earth type of realm, like 2nd ed kind of was geared towards, then by all means don't allow dwarves to use magic spells. If you want to make it something totally unique, the rules should allow for it. You can always say that halflings are the ONLY ONES allowed to use magic, it's all up to you.
Everyone seems to think 4th edition is so rigid you can't make it customizable. I think of it this way: every class has a minimum of 4 different builds, often much more especially if you get into multiclass feats or hybrid classes.
First, each class has two "recommended" builds that are listed right there in the book.
However, just about every class has a third path that you can find for yourself that isn't outlined as a recommendation (star pact for warlocks, staff specialization with wizards, etc.). It has plain rules support, it just lets you discover it yourself.
What gets fun for me are what I call the "Crazy Uncle Larry" builds. My elven paladin specialized into Dexterity and light armor with a longbow who keeps enemies marked at a distance... that's an example. She still has high AC, and her specialty is being able to effectively play defender against artillery monsters. She is quite mobile compared to your average plate-wearing paladin and has taken feats to train up skills like Stealth and Acrobatics to give her scouting ability and yet more mobility and options.
You might say she's not your typical 4th edition paladin... in fact, not very typical of a paladin of ANY edition. She was surprisingly effective though, even though she often just made ranged basic attacks.
I can't say enough good things about this post. I hadn't even thought of a "Rangerdin" type of build before, at least not with a bow and Dexterity, but it's brilliant when you think about it. Could be especially devastating if you stood behind the melee members of the party, and marked an enemy to encourage them to charge past your friend for an opporunity attack.
@Schneidend I had fun working with an Avenger for most of that character's career. She could really irritate a monster by keeping it marked and never closing to melee with it. My buddy playing the Avenger was happy to keep it threatened while I shot it full of holes.
To use her normal paladin powers (smites and whatnot), she carried a polearm to attack from 2 squares away... she was really tricksy. ^_^
Comments
For example I have a friend who is brilliant at languages and their use - he picks them up and understands them with amazing aptitude. However he's really not that good at maths.
I myself am very good at maths, but hopeless when it comes to doing crossword puzzles (and not due to lack of trying).
My view of 2ED dwarves is that while they can be very intelligent, they simply don't have the right mental approach to become mages. Hence no dwarf mages.
I've never met any dwarves or mages so I'm not going to attempt to provide a scientific theory for why this is the case. In fact since nobody has ever met a dwarf or a mage, nobody can provide a scientific theory as to why dwarves can't be mages. And if anyone tries to provide one I can immediately reject it as being untested (and indeed untestable).
Now, as a matter of taste: (and yes, it is a matter of taste), I agree with goodsteve, i like class restrictions to races. For pen&paper I also like the idea that most pcs and players are human and other races should feel rare and "exotic" . It is just a matter of taste.
I also wouldnt mind exceptions if the story justifies them. For example if bg2 had a kit you couldnt play (unless cheating) that was paladin of arvorin just for mazzy but i couldnt choose it id feel it would be great.
And seriously class restrictions are just a choice, d&d 2e has other things that are objectivly not good, like the armor system (less is better) or the 25 being the highest you can get in one stat.
I also personally dont like the magic resistance system in 2e. I feel a powerful spellcaster should be able to avoid the magic resistance. In my opinion a level one viconia should never have a 50% chance of not being affected by elminsters meterstorm.
Version 4 rules are a blight on humanity, and I have little hope for Version 5, especially if its being tagged with the same 'NEXT' moniker being overused currently (i.e. Everquest Next)
On the tangential discussion about race, I agree with most of what @the_spyder has said. Having fantasy races be like their classical archetypes, which were conceived as rare, fantastical, supernatural beings, along with all the bonuses and limitations that go with that, makes for a colorful, flavorful genre game.
Having every race homogenized into a sort of "everybody's basically a human or a funny-looking human with variations, and everybody can do everything" hodgepodge, makes for an increasingly bland gaming world for every restriction you remove.
I am reminded of a quote from the villain in "The Incredibles." "When everyone is super, no one will be!"
On the actual thread topic, I already posted my opinion that I would like to see a new D&D game set in the Sword Coast, but it might not be a good idea to call it "BG3", and I don't think it should have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn Wars other than containing easter eggs, cameos, and lore references to that period.
In a way, discussing which edition it will use is moot, because any new D&D computer game in the style of the Baldur's Gate games is going to have to use whatever edition WotC says it has to use. Haven't the Beamdog/Overhaul devs already said that WotC only licenses new computer games based off their current edition at the time of signing? That means we're looking at D&D Next. At least it looks like 4th edition is going to already be obsolete before any new D&D computer project gets contracted, which is probably a good thing, given all the bad opinions of 4th edition that I've read.
I doubt it will happen now. 4th edition would have made a great digital game, where you can ignore some of the issues it has as a pen-and-paper game. Oh well.
I wholeheartedly agree. And, unlike the grognards, I am certainly willing to admit that my edition of choice has its flaws. Pre-errata, for instance, many 4E monsters had way too much HP, particular the Solo boss creatures. Some article content doesn't really follow the changes laid out in errata and Monster Manual 2 & 3 that moved to correct monster issues, as well, so some supplemental content lends itself to monsters that break the logic of their classes or just have too much HP or too high defense for their level.
Differentiality is important between races, but that doesn't mean that we need to homogenize the people of each race.
I understand that there need to be some distinct differences between races. However this means that you're gonna encounter 1000 elven wizards and 10 dwarven ones, because probably dwarves don't give a damn about arcane magic, maybe their culture finds it "not tough enough".
You will, of course, encounter dwarves that like being wizards, and that means that players should have the option.
In an ideal system, dwarven wizards would be distinctively different than elven ones, due to different cultures and how those approach arcane magic in general. They would be fewer maybe, even, but in general i don't agree with 2e restrictions, even if yeah, there was some logic behind them.
My personal opinion is that I do not like the generic trends in 3E and what I have read about 4E leading towards the races being more similar than different from a character generation perspective. It smacks of trying to make things simply different looking humans with 'Extra' abilities rather than true race/social/cultural differences. Again, all in my personal opinion.
Never the less, let's hope, considering that Wizards is currently selling 2E rules sets, that they may open the door to a 2E BG game should it come to it. I can always hope.
also I always thought it was common fantasy lore that dwarfs cant use magic...
In warhammer dwarfs don't practice magic they use it in items and have no wizards
In dragon age they don't dream, don't enter the fade and lack magical ability
In the hobbit i never saw thorin or his crew casting spells
i'm not saying i agree with it i really dislike how mages never seem to be able to use armour for a weak reason such as the metal interferes with channeling energy or they are to weak to wear armour when we all know its really just a balancing issue. so i see why you would want dwarves to have magic or at least some descent lore stating why not.
And "gifted with magic" doesn't do you much good if your arms are broken, your throat's cut, or you're locked in a grapple/pin with a pissed off pugilist.
in short to me comparing adnd or dnd3/3.5 with dnd4e is like comparing the pc version of baldurs gate to the xbox and playstation version, baldurs gate dark alliance.
Actually, they gave Cleric MORE versatility by allowing the class to attack and heal/buff/debuff with the same standard action through its powers, allowing them access to rituals like Wizards, and also gave them Healing Word so they would have a minor action heal. 4E fixed the biggest problem with Clerics, that they were often reduced to walking healing potions.
Wizards are still the kings of versatility and battlefield control. They're the only class that starts with a spellbook, one of the few classes that start with rituals, and their powers do a lot of stuff that most classes either cannot do at all or can only do very rarely.
And, considering how many combinations of daily, encounter, at-will powers, and utility powers combined with feats, paragon paths, multi-classing, and themes, 4E doesn't lack for depth and customization. Intuitiveness and simplicity aren't bad things, and balance is certainly a good thing. Don't be the Edwin of your gaming group. Don't be that guy. Nobody likes that guy. 4E ensures that nobody can be that guy without trying REALLY hard to break the system.
In hindsight, 4e was ahead of it's time. It was just too bold of a progression, and many gamers who were very satisfied with 3.5 (like me for the most part, although d8 rangers was stupid) didn't feel like it was time to reinvent the game. If you remove the name DnD from 4e and pretend it's a totally different game than DnD, it becomes an interesting game system that IS smarter than 3e in a few ways.
I can't wait until a video game uses 5e rules, I'll buy that game.
First, each class has two "recommended" builds that are listed right there in the book.
However, just about every class has a third path that you can find for yourself that isn't outlined as a recommendation (star pact for warlocks, staff specialization with wizards, etc.). It has plain rules support, it just lets you discover it yourself.
What gets fun for me are what I call the "Crazy Uncle Larry" builds. My elven paladin specialized into Dexterity and light armor with a longbow who keeps enemies marked at a distance... that's an example. She still has high AC, and her specialty is being able to effectively play defender against artillery monsters. She is quite mobile compared to your average plate-wearing paladin and has taken feats to train up skills like Stealth and Acrobatics to give her scouting ability and yet more mobility and options.
You might say she's not your typical 4th edition paladin... in fact, not very typical of a paladin of ANY edition. She was surprisingly effective though, even though she often just made ranged basic attacks.
If you want to run a Middle Earth type of realm, like 2nd ed kind of was geared towards, then by all means don't allow dwarves to use magic spells. If you want to make it something totally unique, the rules should allow for it. You can always say that halflings are the ONLY ONES allowed to use magic, it's all up to you.
To use her normal paladin powers (smites and whatnot), she carried a polearm to attack from 2 squares away... she was really tricksy. ^_^
A Paladin and an Avenger working together, eh? Was it a Divine party?