# Removing homogenity from 4e



## jmucchiello (Aug 30, 2009)

In the parent thread, BryonD laments how homogeneous 4e classes are. And the response notes that 5e will probably not bring back more complexity to D&D.

Well, there's no reason you can't have complexity in 4e. You could have non-conforming classes in 4e that work alongside the standard classes. In fact converting some 3rd party 3e classes to 30 levels and modifying their class abilities to 4e terminology would work a lot better in some cases than doing a full 4e conversion. (I've often wondered if a 1e Wizard could be converted with just a boost to hit points.)

Of course, you can't publish such things with the GSL so you won't see anyone doing this. But calling 4e flawed because all the classes have to be the same is wrong. They don't have to be. But I doubt WotC will ever explore this avenue and it is cut off from 3rd parties.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Best way to remove homgenity from 4E is to play it without shallow preconceptions. It plays a whole lot different than it reads, and its not the mechanics but the tactics that make characters different. Put in a small effort to understand 4E, and the homogenity vanishes.


----------



## malraux (Aug 30, 2009)

jmucchiello said:


> IWell, there's no reason you can't have complexity in 4e. You could have non-conforming classes in 4e that work alongside the standard classes.




I kinda hope that once all the power sources have been well tapped for PHBs WotC will do a line of Unearthed Arcana, Unearthed Martial, Unearthed Divine, etc, that does exactly that.  There isn't any reason you couldn't do a more Vancian wizard in 4e, just as there isn't any particular reason why you couldn't make the martial classes more at-will/combo based.  It would be a great way to keep things fresh without having to toss out the whole system.  Clearly they are experimenting with this in the Psionic classes


----------



## Dannager (Aug 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Best way to remove homgenity from 4E is to play it without shallow preconceptions. It plays a whole lot different than it reads, and its not the mechanics but the tactics that make characters different. Put in a small effort to understand 4E, and the homogenity vanishes.



This.

The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.

It doesn't need to be removed.  It was never there to begin with.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

Dannager said:


> This.
> 
> The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.
> 
> It doesn't need to be removed.  It was never there to begin with.



I'm going to have to throw in my lot with this as well.  If you play a fighter, than a wizard and still think the classes are the same, you're probably not paying attention.  Every character using the same system for their abilities doesn't do the slightest thing to discourage versatility or a varied play experience.  Ask a Warmachine player about how different warcasters are, and then bring up that they all must be similar because they use the same rules.  Then watch him laugh at you.


----------



## Aramax (Aug 30, 2009)

Dannager said:


> This.
> 
> The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.
> 
> It doesn't need to be removed. It was never there to begin with.



 YAH!What he said!


----------



## Nifft (Aug 30, 2009)

Yeah, having played some 4e, I'm going to throw my hat in with "they play distinctly even if they build similarly".

It's like every class using the same XP table in 3.x rather than using a different XP table for every class. It just isn't an issue.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rechan (Aug 30, 2009)

*cough* Psion or Monk *cough*

To an outsider, the classes in 4e are similar. But then, to an outsider, D&D and White Wolf games are similar. But the closer you get, the more details are present that the comparison just doesn't work. 

The 3e melee classes all rolled a d20 to attack, used a weapon, added their strength to the attack and damage, and wore armor*. They all had feats. Yet if I said "they're too alike", most who play 3e would consider me quite wrong.

*Okay, the monk didn't use weapons or wear armor, but the monk just didn't work either.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Best way to remove homgenity from 4E is to play it without shallow preconceptions. It plays a whole lot different than it reads, and its not the mechanics but the tactics that make characters different. Put in a small effort to understand 4E, and the homogenity vanishes.



Everything is relative.  There are games out there with vastly more variety built in to the mechanics.  Compared to those games, 4E is quite homogeneous.  

I understand 4E very well.  And the homogeneity is shining bright.

Perhaps, if you wish to actually contribute to a solution oriented discussion, you will quit offering shallow preconceptions of your own regarding other people's experience with the game you enjoy.  Because, you are wrong.  Deeply wrong.

I think you claim regarding mechanics vs tactics is pretty sketchy at best.  But even with that, why can't we have both?

Also, I'll clarify that it is the game I referenced as homogeneous, not specifically the classes.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Also, I'll clarify that it is the game I referenced as homogeneous, not specifically the classes.



I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a bit of clarification on this.  In what way to you see 4e's mechanics as being homogeneous, and how is this a bad thing?


----------



## Ktulu (Aug 30, 2009)

I've played a wizard, rogue, avenger, fighter, and paladin thus far.

I see no sameness in the classes.  Each plays out distinctly different, does different things, uses different styles, weapons, and effects.

I agree with all the above posters that the game is not homogeneous if you look beyond the fact that they all get at-will, encounter, and daily powers.  No more the same than in 2e when they all got hit points, and used Thac0.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> If you play a fighter, than a wizard and still think the classes are the same, you're probably not paying attention.



Oh no, I agree completely.  The fighter and the wizard play quite differently.

I also think that the numbers 7 and 12 are very different.  But when I'm used to comparing 1 and 100, the space between 7 and 12 seems much smaller.



> Every character using the same system for their abilities doesn't do the slightest thing to discourage versatility or a varied play experience.  Ask a Warmachine player about how different warcasters are, and then bring up that they all must be similar because they use the same rules.  Then watch him laugh at you.



I agree with this.  But 4E goes beyond the same system.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2009)

Rechan said:


> *cough* Psion or Monk *cough*




Those appear to be decent efforts to undo the problem.  But there is such vastly superior starting points out there that it doesn't matter.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I agree with this.  But 4E goes beyond the same system.



This is something I'll have to disagree with you, unless I'm not understanding your statements.  The powers and abilities of every class are extremely different, to the point that you can look at the effects of two given powers and have a really good idea as to what class they belong to without it being stated.  I really would like to know what you mean when you say the system is homogenous though.  It seems that most posters think you mean "every class plays the same," although this is obviously not the case.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Perhaps, if you wish to actually contribute to a solution oriented discussion, you will quit offering shallow preconceptions of your own regarding other people's experience with the game you enjoy.  Because, you are wrong.  Deeply wrong.



The OP pretty clearly implied that 4th Edition was homogeneous and lacked complexity, which (apparently) everyone here but you and the OP disagrees with.

Our point is that though all characters are rooted in the same system, each of them plays in a very distinct manner which strikes a nice balance between depth of characterization and ease of learning and play.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 30, 2009)

I personally never really saw a difference in play between a barbarian, fighter and a ranger in 3e (or 2e for that matter).

4e has really been able to make them feel different in play rather than just look different on paper.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I agree with this.  But 4E goes beyond the same system.



No, I really don't think it does.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 30, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a bit of clarification on this.  In what way to you see 4e's mechanics as being homogeneous, and how is this a bad thing?



Sorry, but I've been through this easily a hundred times in the past two years.  

There are people who can see it and people who can't.  But recycling the argument all over again isn't going to be productive.

I was stupid and starting responding here because I was called out in the OP.  
I should not have.

I am truly glad that 4E provides a great, fun experience for many people.

There are also a great many people who find it homogeneous and underwhelming.  

The other thread was not about how to fix 4E.  It was about how to make a product that would attract people who are no longer sending cash WotC's way.  I answered that question.  I'm not interested in fixing 4E.  I'm happy with my games and I'm going that direction.

If *you* want to bring more people into the game you love, you may want to consider an open-minded assessment of what some people do find wrong with it.   But you have no obligation there.


----------



## Mort_Q (Aug 30, 2009)

nevermind.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If *you* want to bring more people into the game you love, you may want to consider an open-minded assessment of what some people do find wrong with it.   But you have no obligation there.



I don't understand how I've been anything but open minded.  I really do want to know where the core of the homogeneous argument comes from, and I've yet to hear an argument that forms an actual argument and isn't just a buzzword.  I haven't seen your arguments, and I'd like to have an actual discussion on the matter.  There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what you mean, and I'd like it cleared up.  I'm asking for a simple definition, not a dissertation on RPG design.  Believe me, I've got a very open mind about gaming as a whole, and pidgeonhole myself to a specific game or system.  There are a lot of asinine arguments on both ends of the edition war, and they're difficult to filter out at times.  I'll never claim 4e is perfect, and I'll be the first one to say there are things I'd do differently, but I still play the game and don't see it as being this often derided, childish MMO boardgame that it's claimed to be.

I like hearing opposing statements, as I may learn something from them, or at least see a perspective that I may not on my own.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 30, 2009)

"It's homogeneous!"

"How?"

"Stop being close minded!"

You are welcome to your opinion. But, if you state that opinion and don't back it up with anything, and others offer an argument with more, well, argument, expect to not be taken seriously. You need to actually explain WHY you think what you do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 30, 2009)

"They're not really the same! It's all in your head! You're doing it wrong! Everything has immense variety!"

...not exactly a helpful response to the very real problem of same-ness present in a lot of 4e. I'm a player and DM of 4e, and I have experienced it. Often, frequently, and annoyingly (now, no one has played the psion yet, but I do like how the psion and monk start to loosen up the strict powers system). Saying "Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about!" is not a very constructive discussion point, and basically just ends up making you sound like a condescending jerk.

Now, that same-ness might not be a huge problem for you -- people want different levels of variety, and it's entirely possible that 4e is diverse enough *for you*, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's very diverse. True 20, for all it's keen-ness, isn't very diverse (to put in another system that isn't as edition-warz-y). You can play almost anything with the system -- giant fighting robots or intrigue-based spy games, or even a passable Call of Cthulu, or whatever. But it isn't extremely diverse. 

4e is more diverse than that, but less diverse than 3e. It is far less accepting of things from out of left field -- the crux the balance teeters on is much narrower than it was before (if it even was before). 

It's okay to say "4e is plenty diverse for me! I get diversity in areas X, Y, Z, Q, and R! Maybe try to focus your attentions there?"

It's less helpful to say "4e is diverse, and if you think otherwise, clearly you are wrong."

See the distinction?

Now, about the OP, I agree that 4e certainly could stomach totally non-powers-based design. It's true that we probably won't see it from WotC, and we probably won't see it under the GSL, but there are ways it could be done (an alternate "level advancement" keyed to these other abilities instead of powers, for instance). 

But without anyone actually doing anything about the problem of same-ness in 4e, it will remain a problem, and other systems that handle diversity better will be a better choice. 

It won't always be a problem for everyone, of course, and trying new things within that system (like with the psion) is a good idea that might broaden the variety significantly. It seems the 4e designers are aware of the issue, and would like to alleviate it a little bit.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Lets break this down...



Kamikaze Midget said:


> "They're not really the same! It's all in your head! You're doing it wrong! Everything has immense variety!"




Never said anything about immense variety. I said that homogenity was a misnomer, coming from a jaded point of view.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...not exactly a helpful response to the very real problem of same-ness present in a lot of 4e. I'm a player and DM of 4e, and I have experienced it. Often, frequently, and annoyingly (now, no one has played the psion yet, but I do like how the psion and monk start to loosen up the strict powers system). Saying "Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about!" is not a very constructive discussion point, and basically just ends up making you sound like a condescending jerk.




I said exactly what I was talking about, in one sentence actually. *I said that the variety in 4E lies in tactics, not mechanics*. Tactically, 4E makes 3E look like Rock/Paper/Scissors, or at the very least the Rocket Tag it tends to become at high levels. If you require variety in your mechanics, thats a problem, but varied mechanics didn't really amount to much in 3E when it came to actual game play.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, that same-ness might not be a huge problem for you -- people want different levels of variety, and it's entirely possible that 4e is diverse enough *for you*, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's very diverse. True 20, for all it's keen-ness, isn't very diverse (to put in another system that isn't as edition-warz-y). You can play almost anything with the system -- giant fighting robots or intrigue-based spy games, or even a passable Call of Cthulu, or whatever. But it isn't extremely diverse.




This all depends on how you define variety. Variety of build or variety of outcome? If you are hell bent on only accepting variety of build as the definition of variety, than variety of outcomes won't mean anything to you, and brings close mindedness into the other side of the discussion. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e is more diverse than that, but less diverse than 3e. It is far less accepting of things from out of left field -- the crux the balance teeters on is much narrower than it was before (if it even was before).




One, your bringing in the "I'm a special snoflake" mentality here. People tend to miss that this can have a negative impact on the rest of the table. The other is modularity, and I would argue that modularity isn't what D&D has ever been about, and is not what most people want. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's okay to say "4e is plenty diverse for me! I get diversity in areas X, Y, Z, Q, and R! Maybe try to focus your attentions there?"
> 
> It's less helpful to say "4e is diverse, and if you think otherwise, clearly you are wrong."
> 
> See the distinction?




I'm not arguing with the OP, or his opinion. I'm arguing with his terms, and the fact that the word homogenity and 4E as a system have no correlation.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, about the OP, I agree that 4e certainly could stomach totally non-powers-based design. It's true that we probably won't see it from WotC, and we probably won't see it under the GSL, but there are ways it could be done (an alternate "level advancement" keyed to these other abilities instead of powers, for instance).




OGL talk here. I eagerly await the day when people who don't want to play D&D can find innovative and unique systems that serve them, instead of some d20 clone. If you want to play D&D, play D&D. If you want to play something else, play something else.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But without anyone actually doing anything about the problem of same-ness in 4e, it will remain a problem, and other systems that handle diversity better will be a better choice.
> 
> It won't always be a problem for everyone, of course, and trying new things within that system (like with the psion) is a good idea that might broaden the variety significantly. It seems the 4e designers are aware of the issue, and would like to alleviate it a little bit.




If you want variety of mechanics, you should most likely play something other than 4E. If you want variety of an unspecified nature, 4E provides that just fine.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 30, 2009)

If he wasn't talking about PCs being different from each other, then I'm afraid I didn't understand the initial post.

Could I get a few examples of "diverse" vs. "homogeneous"?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Oh no, I agree completely.  The fighter and the wizard play quite differently.
> 
> I also think that the numbers 7 and 12 are very different.  But when I'm used to comparing 1 and 100, the space between 7 and 12 seems much smaller.




Look at it this way:

The numbers 7 and 12 are very different, as are the numbers between them. If all of these numbers have their own unqiue result, you have six outcomes.

The numbers 1 and 100 are more different, and the space between them is vast. But yet if the outcomes of these numbers is simply based on whether the number is even or odd, you only have two outcomes despite all the options.


The results of options are more important than the options themselves.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 30, 2009)

Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.

You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go. 

Your fighter suffers a terrible fate brought on by Irontooth. Time to roll up a new PC. "Screw tanking" you think, I'm gonna play a wizard. 

So you roll up a first level wizard. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 dailies (of which you can only have one at a time). You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy an implement and cloth armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level wizard, ready to go. 

See what just happened? The steps feel EXACTLY the same. Sure, your powers have different parameters (1[W]+Str vs. 1d6+Int), your weapons and armor is different, and your class abilities are different to fit your role, but in the end, both classes are the same skeleton with different clothes thrown on them. 

The feeling gets worse as you level up. No class has new exclusive class abilities to look forward to; just another encounter or daily power at the EXACT same level as everyone else. In 3e (and earlier) classes gained unique powers at different levels (rogues get evasion at 2nd, rangers at 9th) or spells were different levels depending on class (Animate Dead: 5th level MU, 3rd level Cleric). Now? You get rituals at the same level no matter if your a wizard, cleric, warlock, or a fighter with Ritual Caster. 

When all you have staring down the pipeline are more/better attack powers and a 1/2-dozen utility powers (most of which are just combat abilities minus the attack roll) The classes seem to blur. Who cares if the daily power you got was Fireball or Flame Strike; they're both Atk vs. reflex cubes that deal Xd6 + stat amount of fire. 

It also doesn't help that every class gets better at fighting, casting magic, skill-use, AC and defenses at the EXACT SAME 1/2 level rate. Sure, it makes for easier math, but before the fighter had the best to-hit, the rogue had the best reflex save (by miles, not by +2) etc. 

"But Remathilis." you say, "What about roles? Clearly a fighter doesn't share the same role as the wizard, ergo he doesn't share the same play-experience?" True, to an extent. Sure D&D has four roles (and they've always had them, more or less) but while a wizard might be in the back rolling to hit with magic missile and a fighter up front rolling to hit with tide of iron, another lingering element bubbles up:

Each role feels exactly the same. All defenders have a mark. Each mark might do a different effect, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if your a swordmage, warden, or fighter, your main purpose is to run-up, attack, mark, and repeat. Same with leaders: Every leader has a XXX Word-like power that, as a minor action, gives healing surge + extra hp back. The individual amounts and methods vary, but sure as the sun is hot, if it says "leader" you'll find it has some variant on the Healing Word power in its class list. 

Oddly, one role has avoided this straight-jacket: Strikers. Some deal Xd6 damage, some grant 2 or more ability score mods to damage, some just have insane [W]s to each power. A barbarian DOESN'T feel like a rogue because if D&D did anything, its created hundreds of permutations on ways to deal damage. Its also the reason controller doesn't feel unified; it lacks a strong-enough mechanical element (heal, tank, damage) to keep it unified. "Crowd Control" doesn't work well on its own. 

Lastly, I originally thought getting rid of different "subsystems" would streamline the game and make it easier to play. Why learn a new mechanic just to play a wizard, psion, warlock, etc? Well, here's why. They played different so the game FELT different. A fighter could be a crafty tactician, or he could run up a kill-kill-kill. A wizard needed careful resource management and a more patient player (at least to be effective). A rogue needed to know the ins-and-outs of the skill system, etc. In essence, they were all little mini-games. Those mini-games are gone, and every class is poorer for them. 

I think no one (except the most stubborn h4ter) would argue you could roll up a elf druid an play him EXACTLY as a dwarf fighter, but there is a lot of sameyness in the new "one class frame to rule them all" method of advancement. Classes like the psion (which eschews encounter powers for PPs) earlier would have fixed I think a number of complaints (for example, making wizards more daily-heavy while making fighters masters of encounter-powers).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> Never said anything about immense variety. I said that homogenity was a misnomer, coming from a jaded point of view....I said exactly what I was talking about...




Notice how I didn't quote anyone? Yeah, that was intentional. The general "You're just wrong" argument doesn't help anyone run a better game. The argument itself -- no matter who is espousing it -- doesn't actually address the issue. No one is going to go "Oh! Well, I guess I'm just wrong then!" It's just gonna degenerate into a pointless internet debate about subjective perceptions. That's not a conversation that is generally worth having. 

Meanwhile, the "where can diversity be found?" discussion and the "how much diversity do we need?" discussion and the "how is Wizards adding diversity even now?" discussion are pretty useful.

If you think I'm talking about you when I dismiss that kind of argument, then you should probably stop making that kind of argument. If you don't think I'm talking about you, then, guess what, I'm probably not. 

An example of a pretty good conversation?



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> I said that the variety in 4E lies in tactics, not mechanics.




I mean, I don't really understand what that _means_ ('cuz tactics are mechanical), but at least it is a "Here is somewhere that I have found diversity!"

Now, I haven't seen it in my experience. 4e combats are more tactical (what with the moving and the shifting and the big rooms and the traps and whatnot). This doesn't necessarily translate into added variety. Anyone using a lot of terrain in any other edition or game could also achieve this tactical variety. 4e combats are tactically various, but I haven't found them to be exceptionally different than any other game. 4e certainly doesn't lack variety there, but I would hesitate to argue that it's MORE diverse.

Since that's just my experience, I suppose I could be doing it wrong.



> If you are hell bent on only accepting variety of build as the definition of variety, than variety of outcomes won't mean anything to you, and brings close mindedness into the other side of the discussion.




Man, I don't know why we're degenerating into semantic rabbit-holes with this. Variety is a broad, over-arching effect of the entire game system from character build to play at the table over the course of a campaign. And, yes, 4e feels largely homogeneous. I'm sort of under the impression it kind of _wanted_ to. It's more consistent that way. It's easier to balance the combats. Nothing is swingy, nothing is out of left field, nothing is weird or unusual or incompatible with the core system. It's like how you know no matter what McDonald's you visit, the hamburger is going to taste the same, but if you go to some local burger joint, you might hate it. Consistency has it's advantages and disadvantages, and given how binary 3e combats could be, 4e wanted to integrate more consistency. Generally, I'm a fan of the goal, though I think they might have gone too far, because it does seem kind of dully similar to me in a lot of ways.



> One, your bringing in the "I'm a special snoflake" mentality here. People tend to miss that this can have a negative impact on the rest of the table. The other is modularity, and I would argue that modularity isn't what D&D has ever been about, and is not what most people want.




Now you're just arguing with yourself.  Read what I write and try not to get caught up in what that might mean about my inner psychology. You don't know me. I didn't make any case for specialness or modularity. What I said was 4e is less accepting of more exotic options. This is true. For instance, in 3e, I could play a character who could not be magically healed except with a special niche spell designed specifically to heal only my character. In 4e, that would not be allowed -- healing heals everyone equally. There are advantages to this (no one needs to play a special "heal that guy" class), and disadvantages to it (my ability to reflect a totally different biology, mechanically, is more limited, since one size fits all). 



> I'm arguing with his terms, and the fact that the word homogenity and 4E as a system have no correlation.




Semantic arguments are just about as useless as "you're just wrong" arguments, mostly because they are "You are just wrong, because you're not defining your terms in this way that I've set up to understand them." Maybe more useless because then the argument becomes about esoteric linguistic rabbit-holes and not about the actual dilemma of people who think 4e is too "everything's the same" for them.



> OGL talk here. I eagerly await the day when people who don't want to play D&D can find innovative and unique systems that serve them, instead of some d20 clone. If you want to play D&D, play D&D. If you want to play something else, play something else.




What's this soapbox have to do with anything? The OP says we're not likely to see diversity added through the GSL, and I agree, I don't think we will. Do you disagree? If so why, if not, why not? If you'd like to talk about the OGL and d20 clones and what people who "want to play D&D" actually play, and keep a hawkish eye on any seditious "OGL talk," there's another thread with your name on it somewhere. 



> If you want variety of mechanics, you should most likely play something other than 4E.




Part of the OP's case seems to be that mechanical variety is not necessarily incompatible with 4e, but that the designers have chosen to avoid it. I agree with that assessment. 4e could theoretically have diverse mechanics. It's not likely to, however it has been making some progress. Maybe we play something other than 4e, or maybe we keep talking about it so that WotC designs future supplements with an eye toward adding variety while still playing and trying to add variety to 4e through house rules, or maybe we do both at the same time. Abandoning 4e is one solution, though it might not be the most rewarding solution for everyone (particularly if they mostly enjoy 4e, and just have niggling problems like this).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Everything is relative.  There are games out there with vastly more variety built in to the mechanics.  Compared to those games, 4E is quite homogeneous.




Homogenous mechanically, maybe. Homogenous in play? Not so much. 



BryonD said:


> I understand 4E very well.  And the homogeneity is shining bright.
> 
> Perhaps, if you wish to actually contribute to a solution oriented discussion, you will quit offering shallow preconceptions of your own regarding other people's experience with the game you enjoy.  Because, you are wrong.  Deeply wrong.




People who like 4E should play 4E. People who do not like 4E should play something else. Problem solved.

People who do not like 4E and wish that another system was the big dog, or that there were OGL/GSL satellites which can bask in the glow of the big system(currently 4E), I don't know that anybody can solve that problem. I'm happy playing 4E and when I'm so inclined, playing not-4E.



BryonD said:


> I think you claim regarding mechanics vs tactics is pretty sketchy at best.  But even with that, why can't we have both?




Its called unnecessary complexity. If you can accomplish X with one system, accomplishing X with 12 systems is unnecessary complexity. 12 systems is what we in the RPG world tend to call clunky.



BryonD said:


> Also, I'll clarify that it is the game I referenced as homogeneous, not specifically the classes.




Classes being homogenous is what the OP focused on, which is what I replied to.


----------



## malraux (Aug 30, 2009)

Edition war fight!!!!

[picks up chair, smashes guy next to me]


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

malraux said:


> Edition war fight!!!!
> 
> [picks up chair, smashes guy next to me]




A bit late to the party?


----------



## Rechan (Aug 30, 2009)

Ow, my head!


----------



## Dannager (Aug 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Each role feels exactly the same. All defenders have a mark. Each mark might do a different effect, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if your a swordmage, warden, or fighter, your main purpose is to run-up, attack, mark, and repeat.



Stopped reading here.

The idea that a swordmage functions, as a defender, in a similar way to a fighter is simply wrong.

A fighter's modus operandi is to remain _within reach_ of the target's he's marked, and use that to both keep them marked and take advantage of his mark's abilities.

A swordmage's modus operandi is to mark something _and then get as far from it as possible_, focusing his attention elsewhere while trusting that the distance from his marked target will encourage it to attack an ally, triggering that mark's abilities (which are _vastly_ different from the fighter's) from a distance.

Claiming that the two "feel exactly the same" demonstrates to me (and no doubt to most other experienced 4th Edition players reading this thread) that you are speaking from ignorance, and have not actually had any experience with - or even looked closely at - the classes in question.

This only lends more credence to the notion that those who decry 4th Edition's supposed homogeneity are those who don't actually know enough about the game to make claims like that.


----------



## Tallifer (Aug 30, 2009)

Someone has thus far conceded that 4e strikers all play very differently.

I assert that defenders play very differently as well. So far I have played a paladin and a fighter and what a paradigm shift!

The paladin, relying on his charisma, is the diplomat and interrogator of the party. In combat, he must decide when and how to use his ranged prayers without provokign opportunity attacks. He must figure out how to mark and make it stick with his divine challenge and sanction. Also, he heals. His will is stubborn, his reflex clumsy and his fortitude mediocre. So he is never dominated or afraid, but he can easily be burnt.

The fighter is not particulary good at any skills, although his perception is decent. Marking and defending is easy and impressive. But when the dragon flies upwards, he is stuck with throwing a javelin. His will is mediocre, his reflex clumsy and his fortitude like a rock. He is never frozen or slowed, but he burns like toast and sometiems runs away.

The paladin is a human. Action surge, an extra feat, an extra at will, an extra skill, needs eight hours and makes a lousy guard. Plus it sucks when the ranger wakes him up to fight and he must put on his armour.

The fighter is warforged. Resilience, warforged tactics, never sleeps, wears his armour all the time and guards everyone else.

As for "get a feat, get a daily, blah blah." I cannot think how to reply to someone who cannot see how different each class's daily powers are. Yes, soem things have similarlities, but that was the same in every edition. I remember my eyes glazing over as a 1st edition wizard: "Bleah a new level, a new damage spell, a useful spell, and a whole pile of obscure, complicated, remotely useful spells." The other more wizardly players could not understand my lack of enthusiasm. And they were right, just as it is right to dismiss claims of homogeneity in 4th edition.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 30, 2009)

Dannager said:


> Claiming that the two "feel exactly the same" demonstrates to me (and no doubt to most other experienced 4th Edition players reading this thread) that you are speaking from ignorance, and have not actually had any experience with - or even looked closely at - the classes in question.




Played a swordmage from 1st to 4th level through Spellgard. Does that count?

As a former player, DM, and advocate of 4e, I am extremely insulted that since I had the audacity to point out that, to me, a swordmage felt similar to a fighter, I am somehow ignorant of the game. Try again.

Secondly, I pointed out that there is SOME diversity among classes filling a role, but not enough IMHO. An assault swordmage sure is better off marking and running (though a shielding or ensnaring can certainly be used as a tanker-character). Sure, every mark is different. A fighter gets attacks, a warden shifts enemies closer, a paladin deals damage, and a swordmage either teleports or reduces damage dealt, but at the end of the day what does the class do? It marks a foe (shutting them down) and then focuses on other enemies. You might say, "Thats a defender's job" and I say "right, which is why they all feel the same; they all do the same job."

Compare this to the 3e prototypes of the classes: duskblade and fighter. Plays differently, has different goals, and can be built to fit a variety of concepts. 

Listen I was in your camp solidly a few months back. I liked the fact every leader got a minor-action heal power so that healing flowed no matter what leader class I was. Except when I switched from a cleric to a bard to an artificer, I felt like I was doing the exact same thing, only the clothes were different. Attack, buff ally, heal as needed. Lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its called unnecessary complexity. If you can accomplish X with one system, accomplishing X with 12 systems is unnecessary complexity. 12 systems is what we in the RPG world tend to call clunky.




Seems to give away the argument right there, IMNSOO.

Accomplishing X with one system instead of twelve systems is_ ipso facto_ more homogenous and less diverse.

It may indeed be better, but it seems a bit disinegnuous to say, "What homogeniety!?" and then proceed to extoll the virtues of One System X.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 30, 2009)

Tallifer said:


> Someone has thus far conceded that 4e strikers all play very differently.




Well... not ALL differently. There are three types of strikers.

* Archers (archer-ranger, beastmaster-ranger, warlock, sorcerer) do as much damage as possible while standing as far away as possible from the target. 
* Skirmishers (two-blade ranger, rogue) do as much damage as possible in melee by using flanks, shifts, and other movement to avoid reciprocal strikes.
* Tactical Nukes (barbarian, avenger) do as much damage as possible to a single target as quickly as possible. 

Still, that's a lot more diversity than leaders or defenders have. Controllers (as I pointed out) don't seem to really fill a unique niche; they either act as defenders (stopping foes from attacking others), strikers (doing large damage) or leaders (granting allies bonuses to rolls), often at the same time.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Seems to give away the argument right there, IMNSOO.
> 
> Accomplishing X with one system instead of twelve systems is_ ipso facto_ more homogenous and less diverse.
> 
> It may indeed be better, but it seems a bit disinegnuous to say, "What homogeniety!?" and then proceed to extoll the virtues of One System X.




Again, for the 3rd time, it depends on where you are looking for variety. Variety in design or variety in results. What is really accomplished by having 12 ways to achieve the same result.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.


I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic.  Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own.  I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.

Others in my group have no interest in that form of mini-game and generally choose character-types that avoid it.

Still others prefer a lessened role and bulid hybrids or choose character types with a limited set of strategic choices.

I dislike heavy positional play on the battlefield.  I *don't* like looking for the optimal position my character should occupy on the battlefield and continually re-evaluating the geometry and reacting to forced movement.

4e's emphasis on tactical positioning, and it's de-emphasis on strategic preparation makes the characters feel the same to me.  I know my choice of race, class, and ability set will affect the battlefield positioning that makes the character effective, but the amount of strategic preparation is similar and bland regardless of character choice.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 30, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Again, for the 3rd time, it depends on where you are looking for variety. Variety in design or variety in results.




If there are no problems represented by screws or bolts, you won't miss your screwdrivers and wrenches.

You will learn to love the hammer, all the new and exciting ways you can grip it, swing it, and pound nails.



> What is really accomplished by having 12 ways to achieve the same result.




It is mind-boggling to me that you feel this is the best way to present your argument.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Well... not ALL differently. There are three types of strikers.
> 
> * Archers (archer-ranger, beastmaster-ranger, warlock, sorcerer) do as much damage as possible while standing as far away as possible from the target.
> * Skirmishers (two-blade ranger, rogue) do as much damage as possible in melee by using flanks, shifts, and other movement to avoid reciprocal strikes.
> ...




Actually, there are three types of strikers, though you have it all wrong. 

Archer Ranger is actually most effective at point blank range, ducking in and out of melee and trying to be as close as possible.

Beastmaster Ranger is a melee weapon using character

Warlocks are best even closer than Rangers, especially Fey and Infernal Warlocks who can pretend to be Defenders. Warlocks excel at being pests above all else.

Sorcerers do tend to stand back and fire, but don't have to. They are also unique among strikers in being able to nuke groups.

Skirmishers(Rogue, Ranger) don't avoid reciprocal strikes so much as they avoid being attacked by multiple enemies. They are perfectly capable of trading hits with one enemy. Rogues care about position and advantage, while the Ranger can just run up and trade hits if he wants.

Barbarians are chargers, who get to do chain attacks when they crit or kill things. It bears saying that Barbarians have almost no control over their nukes.

Avengers deal less damage in a single round than any other striker(calling Avengers high damage is something I haven't heard before), and are all about consistency and pretending to be a Defender



There are three basic types of controllers though:

1. High Damage/Low Control--Ranger, Barbarian
2. Medium Damage/Medium Control--Rogue, Sorcerer
3. Low Damage/High Control--Avenger, Warlock


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Nagol said:


> This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.
> 
> 
> I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic.  Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own.  I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.
> ...




This is all well and good, but it has little to do with whether or not 4E is homogenous or not.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 30, 2009)

Aand folks forget the monk.​


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

Nagol said:


> This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.
> 
> 
> I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic.  Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own.  I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.
> ...



This is the type of post that I look for when searching for dissenting opinions.  Nagol, you have just expressed exactly what it is about the system that you don't like, but didn't disparage those who play the game and admit that the game isn't for you, but may be for other people.  XP for you.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> It is mind-boggling to me that you feel this is the best way to present your argument.




Its mind-boggling that you're having so much trouble with it.


----------



## lutecius (Aug 30, 2009)

:sigh: This could have been an interresting thread without reactions like:


> Best way to remove homgenity from 4E is to play it without shallow preconceptions.





> The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.





> I've yet to hear an argument that forms an actual argument and isn't just a buzzword.





> People who like 4E should play 4E. People who do not like 4E should play something else. Problem solved.
> 
> People who do not like 4E and wish that another system was the big dog, or that there were OGL/GSL satellites which can bask in the glow of the big system(currently 4E), I don't know that anybody can solve that problem.







thecasualoblivion said:


> Classes being homogenous is what the OP focused on, which is what I replied to.



 I don't think the OP's question was "Do you think 4e is homogeneous?" or even "Do you think it's a good thing?"

Like BryonD said, this has been debated to death for two years. I don't think people will change their mind now.

Every class before the psion used the same "ressource management" system. There is no mechanical distinction between mundane abilities and magic anymore. This is too much homegeneity *for some* and yes, many of them have actually played 4e.

Classes may still play differently to you, 4e may offer more variety in other areas but this is besides the point.  

I believe the OP's question was "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" not "how can you prove them wrong?"


----------



## Rechan (Aug 30, 2009)

> "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?"



No.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 30, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I think the OP's question was "4e is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" not "how can you prove them wrong?"



The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion.  I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 30, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Sigh, this could have been an interresting thread without reactions like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The thing is, 4E is what it is, and it isn't OGL. There likely isn't going to be a variant 4E. It isn't going to be solved. WotC's business model is in effect, "take it or leave it". It could be solved by one of the most extensive houseruling projects conceived by man, but why would you do that when you can just play something else. 

A core part of any discussion is the validity of the initial premise or question. 

If I was to answer the question "4E is too homogeneous for some, do you think it can be solved?" I would answer no. The general design is too tightly focused to comfortably accomodate these different tastes, WotC is almost completely unlikely to do so, and the lack of an OGL prevents anyone else from doing so. Those who find 4E not to their taste are best off finding something else.


When I look at a discussion like this, I think of three things:

1. WotC has committed to 4E for the long term. At this point feedback will not change 4E, only sales.
2. WotC has made it clear that the era of D&D supporting the OGL is over, and it isn't coming back. Thinking of things in OGL terms(an alternate version of 4E for people who have issues) isn't really realistic.
3. For those who hope to hasten the release of or have a role in influencing 5E, it bears saying that 4E was designed based on feedback from people who were actually playing 3E, not naysayers who disliked the system. If 4E maintains an acceptable level of sales, naysayers will be ignored when it comes to 5E.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 30, 2009)

It's like I fell asleep, and it's 2008 again all of a sudden.

-O


----------



## TheNovaLord (Aug 31, 2009)

i think he means homgenous in this sense by the following

I am a 1st level X, and my race is Y

I have some at will powers, encounters powers, and a daily power

to use them i roll a d20, and add about +7, and does some dice damage plus about +5 damage and one of maybe 10 different effects

whether im an orc, ranger, wizard, dwarf or warlock...this is how it works for us all. Mostly

occassionally i can do a minor thing that can change the above

-this is my assumption of the OP.


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You will learn to love the hammer, all the new and exciting ways you can grip it, swing it, and pound nails.



This reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:
_"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"._
That and an ex-girlfriend who exemplified that quote by trying to hammer in the screws that held her TV cabinet together. Man that thing had a vicious lean on it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

AngryMojo said:
			
		

> The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion. I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.




I can't speak for the OP, but Remathilis did a bang-up job of demonstrating a lot of why 4e feels "homogenous" to me. While not exhaustive, it's pretty demonstrative of the "sameness" I feel.


----------



## Tallifer (Aug 31, 2009)

Nagol said:


> This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.
> 
> 
> I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic. Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own. I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.




Take a wizard. Give him the Class Feature Tome of Readiness. Give him the feats Expanded Spellbook and Improved Tome of Readiness. Do not leave your ritual book at home. Tada! More spells to choose from every day!

(By the way, this will be my next wizard. he promises to play very differently from my orb wizard.)


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> When I look at a discussion like this, I think of three things:
> 
> 1. WotC has committed to 4E for the long term. At this point feedback will not change 4E, only sales.
> 2. WotC has made it clear that the era of D&D supporting the OGL is over, and it isn't coming back. Thinking of things in OGL terms(an alternate version of 4E for people who have issues) isn't really realistic.
> 3. For those who hope to hasten the release of or have a role in influencing 5E, it bears saying that 4E was designed based on feedback from people who were actually playing 3E, not naysayers who disliked the system. If 4E maintains an acceptable level of sales, naysayers will be ignored when it comes to 5E.



Further, WotC would only swing in the opposite direction of 4e is if they believe that it's worth it, from a consumer standpoint. When you make a new edition, you have to consider how many you'll lose vs. how many you gain. If the number you gain is more, win for you. If it's less, loss for you.

So the question of "more complexity with 5e" is: Would WotC gain more of those that dislike 4e and want more complexity than those that they would lose? And would that more complexity gain them more, or less, new players (newbs or converts from other systems)?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I can't speak for the OP, but Remathilis did a bang-up job of demonstrating a lot of why 4e feels "homogenous" to me. While not exhaustive, it's pretty demonstrative of the "sameness" I feel.




Its also indicative of the shallow approach to the game those of us who have disagreed with the OP have described.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 31, 2009)

TheNovaLord said:


> i think he means homgenous in this sense by the following
> 
> I am a 1st level X, and my race is Y
> 
> ...



If this is actually what the OP and others mean by homogeneity, this discussion was doomed from the get-go.

The above is not an accurate depiction of how 4th Edition gameplay works.

It is a slanted, piecemeal summary designed not to faithfully explain how the system works but rather to make it look like a particular viewpoint has more credence than it actually does.

If you want to improve the game, _start by criticizing it honestly_.


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

As someone who has played/run a lot of 4e (more than once a week, on average, since it was released last year), across all 3 tiers of play, I don't see how anyone can honestly claim 4e isn't homogenous.

I see 3 main areas where this is clearly demonstrated:
1) character creation/advancement, as shown by someone a couple of pages ago.
2) scaling across the tiers - low level play feels much the same as high level (except the numbers are bigger - higher defences, more damage, more conditions).
3) individual character choice in combat.

The first two are clearly more homogenous than most other systems and (as Wulf pointed out) have been touted as "features" of 4e by WotC and fans, so I don't see how people can claim otherwise.

The third is more about the fact that every character chooses a suite of powers which basically define what they do. Other than daily powers, they have this suite available for each combat - it's sort of like a pre-programmed list of actions they can/will take in combat. I haven't seen a lot of tactical variety in 4e. Most combats play out the same for most characters, because of the set of powers they have that defines what they do. The best DMs can do a lot with opponents and terrain to disrupt the "program" of actions, and make the players really think about their actions, but they can't (and shouldn't, IMO) do that every combat.

I think the third point may be the source of a lot of the frustration that some people feel with 4e. I'll admit I'm not sure about what can be done to fix it... Psions certainly are a step in the right direction, although I'm worried that monks actually make the problem worse (not only are your standard actions "pre-programmed", but your move actions are too!)


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

I still say that finding and discussing a game you do want to play is healthier than discussing how to change an existing game many are satisfied with to serve you.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

"Man, those 4e players. Would you believe that they have forty words for PC?" 

Can we take it as a given that some see the 4e classes as homogenous and others don't, and get back to the discussion of how to add variety to the 4e classes?

One way that I think we can add customization and variety to the 4e classes is through the use of feats. Feats with classes or power sources as prerequisites could effectively become one way to add new class features to the game. You can even roll the old idea of talent trees back into the feat framework. 

Feats can even be used to tinker with the baseline power frequency framework - a feat to sacrifice an encounter power for an additional daily power, or vice-versa, for example.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion.  I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.



I think the best summation of this is from Remathalis (see below). For myself and most of my group, the homogeneity comes from:
- Everyone uses the same psuedo-vancian system will/encounter/daily (As a DDI subscriber, I like the look of some of the things on the horizon to enhance variety).
- The half-level bonus to just about everything bugs the hell out of me.
- Damage is the unifying mechanic.
- Everyone and everything has exactly the same chance of alleviating a particular condition.
- In an encounter, our groups tactics always seem to be the same, with one character's encounter power looking to bounce off another character's specific encounter power looking to bounce off...etc. rinse repeat. The optimal tactics always seem too obvious.
- Monsters do a small handful of things again and again. Incomparison, 3E monsters had more variety/complexity (but obviously too much for some which is why WotC reigned this in).
- A particular build of a class feels (to me) exactly the same as any other build of that particular class.
- The Races do not seem as mechanically differentiated as before. Sure, my Tiefling gets a token encounter power here or there, but that is nothing compared to the mass of powers that seem to more totally describe what the character does. There are two players in my group (compared to the other 5) who don't really roleplay their characters effectively. If I didn't have it written down on my sheet, I would have no idea that one of them was an Eladrin and the other an Elf - I'd just assume they were human. As to what weapon everyone uses, again I'd barely have a clue, we all seem to be using the same thing sort of.

While I don't enjoy 4E as much as I do previous editions, I still like to play it and find it enjoyable enough. Removing some of the homogenizing simplifications however would go a long way to me enjoying it more. So thecasualoblivion, I understand that I'm most likely not playing it right and that Wizards are not going to do anything to really help me here and I understand that this is your opinion... so, could you just ease back on the submit reply button and give some other people some threadspace to offer some interesting suggestions or houserules or ideas or something that might help, make me think or perhaps even entertain me on this issue. Your defending of 4E and your opinion can most likely ease up a little and make this thread a happier place. In essence, I think the topic is viable and does not deserve to be shutdown.



			
				Remathalis said:
			
		

> Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.
> 
> You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheNovaLord (Aug 31, 2009)

Dannager said:


> If this is actually what the OP and others mean by homogeneity, this discussion was doomed from the get-go.
> 
> The above is not an accurate depiction of how 4th Edition gameplay works.
> 
> ...




people seemed to be unsure what the OP meant , i just added a summary of what i thought he meant

i could have been wrong

....ive played a lot of 4e at cons and homeplay

it has quite a bit i like, and quite a bit i dont

for me this balance isnt enough to make it something i want to play anymore

BUT

if this thread comes up with things i can say "oh, good idea" and it make something i wanna play again, then i at least, will have got something out of a thread . i hope it keeps civil and doesnt get mod stomped, like much free speech is regularly beginning to on the forum, before some nice ideas can be gleaned from it


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.

Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.




I'd agree with that. This type of thread ("here is a perceived problem with D&D; let's come up with a houserule for improvement") never goes anywhere. At the end of the day, we aren't being paid to develop and playtest new rulesets and nobody will seriously volunteer their time. Therefore, the thread only survives only as long as people get to argue about whether the perceived problem actually exists or not. Once some consensus is reached, or people agree to disagree, there are a few half-hearted suggestions, and then the thread dies.



> Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.




Conversely, for those who are not happy with the status quo, the only way to effect a change is to protest on these and other forums. If these calls for change become prevalent enough, WoTC will pay hopefully attention. It's kind of like democracy that way, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.
> 
> Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.




Maybe the OP just wants it house ruled and will take whatever constructive suggestions come up in a thread like this. In this case, we don't need any blessing from WotC to make it happen. Just discuss some ways to solve it, like Firelance did.

I, for one, would adopt 4E if I had the necessary patience to rework everything I find lacking about it using house rules. I prefer to play other games, but I understand those who like its basic framework enough to try it, and I believe telling those people that their concern comes from not playing enough, or that their discussion won't help in anything is counter-productive.

If I had my way with 4E, I'd bring back non-adventuring skills (things like craft and perform), work into a set of martial classes with no vancian feeling (a bunch of at-will maneuvers and we'd be ready to go), and recreate the different class progressions of pre-4E D&D (with different classes having different features at different levels), but I know none of those work well with the 4E design philosophy, and work against the absolute class balance that they're trying to create (which I don't see as an important feature myself).

I'll keep following this thread, and really hope some neat ideas appear here, so I can't discuss them with my 4E DM.

Cheers,


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I, for one, would adopt 4E if I had the necessary patience to rework everything I find lacking about it using house rules.



And therein lies the problem: patience over the time and effort it would take to rework the system itself.

One of the reasons for the homogeneity is because it's hardwired. The complaint for instance of bonuses at every level, same universal bonuses, getting things at the same level, etc - are how the system is balanced. Once you take a hammer to that, then you're going to have a lot of effects.

To give an example, let's just say you don't like the +1/2 level to skills and attacks. Well, now you have to reduce monster defenses by 1/2 level, because that bonus is factored into the math of their defenses. Not to mention that even if you get rid of the +1/2 level, everyone's bonuses are still going to be the same.

Even something as varied as the Psion is really a lot like any other class - they have At Wills, Dailies, and Utilities, gain feats, bonuses, etc at the same speed. The only difference is that their encounter powers are broken into two halves, which you can use each half or put them together.

We're talking about a massive re-write of the system to satisfy the OP.

To put it to scope, it's like someone going into the 3e board and saying, "I don't like 3e's system of magic. How do you make an entirely different system of magic from scratch, integrate it into the system, and make it distinct for each spellcasting class?" and expecting it to be a snap. Because now you're breaking the spells that monsters use for SLAs, you're breaking the defensive spells used for combating monster effects (or god forbid, healing), you're going to have to address a huge chunk of the PHB (the Spells chapter) and how each class uses magic. Not to mention effected encounter design, because there's an assumed expectation of buffs and counter-measures against monster powers.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

How to alleviate sameyness (the re-write approach). 

You have two elements to a typical 4e character: power source and role. Role already plays a major part in defining your character, but power source is generally fluff (having less an effect on character mechanics). Lets make powersource define your rate of advancment.

MARTIAL: More at-wills and encounter powers, less dailies.
ARCANE: More at-wills and dailies, few encounter powers.
DIVINE: Few At-wills, more encounter powers & dailies
PRIMAL: Leave as is. Focus on dailies being shapechanging powers and having higher HP than other classes in a role.
PSIONIC: No encounter powers, power points augment at-wills. 
SHADOW: No Daily powers, but a BOATLOAD of Encounters that can "chain" to form daily-like powers.
ELEMENTAL: Use current system, but focus on summoning/animal control powers so that Elemental PCs usually work through intermediates (think Beastmaster ranger or shaman). 

Role would not only define hp/healing surges, but grant an overall bonus to attack, defenses, etc. 

Classes get "unique" abilities as they advance. For an example, look at a barbarian's "rage strike" which is gained at 5th level (and so far is the only class feature not gained at first). Additional abilities could include non-combat abilities (like detect evil, channel divinities, or evasion) or specific at-wills, encounter, daily or utility powers that are a bit more powerful than a typical at-levels to augment the "loss of choice" at that level.

Give ability scores more to do (Int granting skills or languages, etc) to give PCs a requirement to diversify beyond Primary/Secondary/Tertiary/Con/Dump/Dump. 

Use the Defenses mechanism to determine saves. The current "50/50" save roll is broken (orb-wizard, solos, etc)

Get rid of the "feat-tax" feats (Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise, Paragon/Might Defenses, Melee Weapon Training) and give feats a bit more versatility (something the XX Power books started). Most of these feats could be built back into the "defenders have a faster base attack" mechanic mentioned above.

Give monsters more than 1-2 at-wills and 3-5 encounters. Esp true of "NPC" monsters, elites and solos. Anything to avoid "grindspace". 

I doubt any of that will happen but they are my humble suggestions on what 4e needs to fix to make it truly great IMHO.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> And therein lies the problem: patience over the time and effort it would take to rework the system itself.
> 
> One of the reasons for the homogeneity is because it's hardwired. The complaint for instance of bonuses at every level, same universal bonuses, getting things at the same level, etc - are how the system is balanced. Once you take a hammer to that, then you're going to have a lot of effects.
> 
> ...




110% agree. Which is why even my humble suggestions are merely smoke. I couldn't re-write 4e to fit my tastes, nor would I want to. Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.



To which I say "So?" 

Just because it's the NEW version doesn't mean you have to like or play it. There are a ton of retro clones or d20 variants out there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> Its also indicative of the shallow approach to the game those of us who have disagreed with the OP have described.




"You're doing it wrong" is not useful advice. How would you fix the problem?



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> I still say that finding and discussing a game you do want to play is healthier than discussing how to change an existing game many are satisfied with to serve you.




Fixing the game so you have more fun (customization) has been part of D&D since Day 1.



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.




Hey, if the game changed, you could just customize it yourself or go find another game, right? Maybe more people would be happier with something other than the status quo, even!



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> To which I say "So?"




Man, if you don't want to see discussion about D&D, I'm not sure why you're at ENWorld.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Man, if you don't want to see discussion about D&D, I'm not sure why you're at ENWorld.



The key phrase is "the latest iteration". 

Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

What if a PC had access to a pool of powers, which they could then split into a number of at-will/dailies/encounter powers (following certain guidelines specific to each class)?

For a fighter, this equivalent to trying a few risky high flying kicks vs sticking to the basics for the duration of the fight... or giving it your all in the 1st fight and being tired in the 2nd fight vs pacing yourself for both encounters.

For an arcane user, this is a choice of unleashing your magic in all its fury or slowly siphoning it.

This would provide a mini-game for those who want it, and it's more realistic for those who don't believe that PCs should exhibit certain behaviors in "pre-programmed" ways.

I realize that this goes against the 4E philosophy of all PCs always contributing equally. However, at the end of the day, all PCs are equally important (and equally balanced), just not necessarily equally important at every single round


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Remathilis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This might be worth forking... I don't know but I think there is more to this than just saying, "find another game/game system/variant". When the D&D you used to know changed into something you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When a lot of the creative minds on EN World are mainly/only replying to the new D&D that again, you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When the new version gets some fantastic tools (DDI) but these don't support the game you prefer... it kinda sucks. When the two magazines that were a staple support the newest version of the game which you don't enjoy as much... it kinda sucks. My point is that there are a whole heap of ramifications of one's enjoying and participation of our hobby as a whole that "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to play it" does not cover. There are few enough of us who enjoy this hobby that splitting that group further and further and further... well it kinda sucks too.

Being told to "play what you enjoy" is generally not helpful advice in the context in which it is normally delivered. If someone can get something out of this thread that helps them enjoy 4E more than they are, then surely that is a good thing and deserves to be supported.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The key phrase is "the latest iteration".
> 
> Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.




I still have 3.5, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia to get my fix, but there is a piece of me sad that the game I enjoyed has moved on in a different way. I really tried to like it, it didn't work. 

Then again, I still use Windows XP, so perhaps I'm getting stubborn in my ways.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The key phrase is "the latest iteration".
> 
> Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.




Totally right. I would expect someone discussing a failing of the PS3 (such as "too expensive") on a place for Playstation discussions, though, to not be told "so what?" I might expect some reasons for it, some people debating the merits and flaws of a high price point, some possible strategies for overcoming the flaw, and, possibly, if Sony is clever and listens to their consumers, a PS3 priced at a cheaper cost.

I might even expect a few PS3 truefans to say something like "lol u want a cheap system buy a used game boy, welfare baby." It wouldn't be that helpful, but I'd probably expect it.

The Playstation fans got that result. People who are fans of complexity are getting some results, too (the monk, the psion, possibly more stuff in the PHB3 and DMG3?).

I mean, to me, it's pretty evident that the discussion of a thing's possible flaws and ways to alleviate them are part of how you make that thing better, or at least how you better meet the demands of your likely audience (and your goal is to meet as many of those demands as you can, for a fee). 

If you'd prefer not to discuss those things -- or don't care about people's problems with the game -- there's plenty of other places on ENWorld to talk about other aspects of the game. This thread seems to be about that problem, though.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2009)

gribble said:


> The third is more about the fact that every character chooses a suite of powers which basically define what they do. Other than daily powers, they have this suite available for each combat - it's sort of like a pre-programmed list of actions they can/will take in combat. I haven't seen a lot of tactical variety in 4e. Most combats play out the same for most characters, because of the set of powers they have that defines what they do. The best DMs can do a lot with opponents and terrain to disrupt the "program" of actions, and make the players really think about their actions, but they can't (and shouldn't, IMO) do that every combat.




I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game. To my eyes, the martial characters were all depressingly similar - each having perhaps two tricks in addition to "I hit him". Meanwhile, a wizard - although theoretically having a great deal of variety - needed to concentrate their spells all in a small area unless having reached a high enough level that they had enough spells to work differently.

Cheers!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> 110% agree. Which is why even my humble suggestions are merely smoke. I couldn't re-write 4e to fit my tastes, nor would I want to. Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.




Its a sentiment you hear a lot on the internet. I want to be a D&D player and be part of the D&D community, but I don't want to play the current edition of D&D.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> This might be worth forking... I don't know but I think there is more to this than just saying, "find another game/game system/variant". When the D&D you used to know changed into something you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When a lot of the creative minds on EN World are mainly/only replying to the new D&D that again, you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When the new version gets some fantastic tools (DDI) but these don't support the game you prefer... it kinda sucks. When the two magazines that were a staple support the newest version of the game which you don't enjoy as much... it kinda sucks. My point is that there are a whole heap of ramifications of one's enjoying and participation of our hobby as a whole that "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to play it" does not cover. There are few enough of us who enjoy this hobby that splitting that group further and further and further... well it kinda sucks too.
> 
> Being told to "play what you enjoy" is generally not helpful advice in the context in which it is normally delivered. If someone can get something out of this thread that helps them enjoy 4E more than they are, then surely that is a good thing and deserves to be supported.
> 
> ...




This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you. One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you. One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.




IIRC, in an interview in a recent Dragon issue, someone at WoTC admitted that there was a "grain of truth" (or some euphemism like that) to the "sameness" argument. This would indicate that:
a) WoTC admits (partially and/or grudgingly) that there is some validity to homogenity argument 
b) WoTC is actually listening to what people say on forums

So "complaining" may lead to change in the long run.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 31, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Monsters do a small handful of things again and again. Incomparison, 3E monsters had more variety/complexity (but obviously too much for some which is why WotC reigned this in).




Well I would like to make a counter point to that.  In 3.5, the general assumption was that a party of 4 PCs would battle one monster.  Therefore the monster could be more complex because that one creature was the only monster the DM had to control.  

In 4th, the general assumption is that there will be one monster per PCs.  Each single monster will be simpler to run because it's assume that the DM will run mutiple monsters.  Having mutliple monsters per battle also means you can combine monster A and monster B to create unique combinations of monster groups for your encounters.  You also have to consider synergy between monsters.  If monster A does this then monster B can do that.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

MerricB said:


> I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game. To my eyes, the martial characters were all depressingly similar - each having perhaps two tricks in addition to "I hit him". Meanwhile, a wizard - although theoretically having a great deal of variety - needed to concentrate their spells all in a small area unless having reached a high enough level that they had enough spells to work differently.
> 
> Cheers!



Hi Merric,

I think part of this is not just what they could do, but what they had to deal with and how they could react to it. Monsters could pull out some really nice surprises on a group. Some were just a bag of hit points, but others were just damn dangerous to deal with, and everything in between. You knew that if they grabbed you, you were gone (to the point of relying on other PCs to save your bacon). There was more variety and more danger that a basic martial character had to react to. I'm not talking save or dies (which as a DM, I always tried to control anyway), but stuff that felt nasty and could be. 
And so even though you only had a handful of different attacks, it is the myriad of circumstances in which they could be deployed and would need to react to that would keep the sense of tactical variety vibrant.

4E on the other hand puts a lot of variety (or perceived variety) in the hands of the PCs and less (or a more manageable amount) in the hands of the DM. The lethality of the game was toned down to be less swingy, but I'm not to sure that this is as greater feature as some make it out to be. For 3.x, rather than damage and a possibly ongoing condition, there just seemed to be more variety. This is not to say that 4E is completely lacking in this area (funnily enough, I found the goblins shift on a miss to be fantastic flavour-wise and variety-wise). I'd just like to see a marriage of the two, take some of the fantastic ideas from 4E and blend them in with 3E's scope to let them breathe rather than be constrained by the almighty balance deity.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

Man, I came to an edition war and a therapy session broke out! 

There are some elements to being "Left Behind" (or "Refusing to Move On") that seems odd. Its weird to support a game that isn't D&D (even if its D&D with a different name). Its weird to no longer get excited at the WotC product catalog. Its weird to find yourself in the world of OGL after being a solid "WotC-only" DM for so long. Its weird not to have an "official" magazine anymore, or to be labeled "grognard" by the new-kids. At this rate, I'll be embracing OSRIC and quoting Gygax!


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Well I would like to make a counter point to that.  In 3.5, the general assumption was that a party of 4 PCs would battle one monster.  Therefore the monster could be more complex because that one creature was the only monster the DM had to control. In 4th, the general assumption is that there will be one monster per PCs.  Each single monster will be simpler to run because it's assume that the DM will run mutiple monsters.  Having mutliple monsters per battle also means you can combine monster A and monster B to create unique combinations of monster groups for your encounters.  You also have to consider synergy between monsters.  If monster A does this then monster B can do that.



I obviously missed the memo on that one. Mixing and synergizing different monsters and terrain is what I thought D&D has always done and done well. 4E spells it out and makes it easier/more manageable for the DM but for me, it has always been part of the game. We've always been able to mix ranged foes with our melee ones haven't we?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you.



That "this sucks" perception is strongest when you first realize that you're no longer in step with the current thinking or trends or whatever.  However, once accepted, that break becomes kinda liberating.  In my case, I no longer see it as "sucking" at all.



> One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.



Both of those options implicitly accept the new paradigm.  Once you break away from it, it doesn't matter, and you're operating in a different paradigm.  With the Internet, there's no great obstacles to finding other "creative minds" who are more in sync with your gaming preferences, despite the pool being smaller.  There are other magazines and blogs.  The "suckage factor" quickly fades, in my experience.*

I stepped off the carousel some time ago.  At first, I thought the situation kinda sucked.  But as it turns out, I'm having more fun and playing with more new gamers (i.e. new to me, not necessarily "newbies") than I have in years.

* - There's one area where I still have a lingering "this sucks" feeling: when I go into game stores.  Browsing a game store does give me a sense of something lost, because so little in today's game store is relevant to me and my tastes.  I used to love browsing game stores.  So that's an actual loss.  Unlike playing what I like, or talking with like minded gamers, or reading about the games I enjoy, there's no real replacement for that in my "alternative gaming paradigm."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 31, 2009)

The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that *came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition *is mind bogglingly hilarious.



In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out.  I dislike being disappointed :<.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that *came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition *is mind bogglingly hilarious.
> 
> In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out. I dislike being disappointed :<.




There were at least 2 suggestions so far. They're already buried  Which so far proves my previous statement...



> This type of thread ("here is a perceived problem with D&D; let's come up with a houserule for improvement") never goes anywhere. <snip> the thread only survives only as long as people get to argue about whether the perceived problem actually exists or not. Once some consensus is reached, or people agree to disagree, there are a few half-hearted suggestions, and then the thread dies.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Man, I came to an edition war and a therapy session broke out!
> 
> There are some elements to being "Left Behind" (or "Refusing to Move On") that seems odd. Its weird to support a game that isn't D&D (even if its D&D with a different name). Its weird to no longer get excited at the WotC product catalog. Its weird to find yourself in the world of OGL after being a solid "WotC-only" DM for so long. Its weird not to have an "official" magazine anymore, or to be labeled "grognard" by the new-kids. At this rate, I'll be embracing OSRIC and quoting Gygax!




It's ok. We all get put out to pasture sooner or later.

The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

MerricB said:


> I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game.



It's getting a bit off topic, but seeing as you asked:

With earlier editions, your characters actions were a blank slate. You could pretty much suggest any action you wanted, and the DM would either have rules to adjudicate it or be able to come up with something to handle it. Wrestle (grab) the opposing wizard's wand out of his hand, disarm the opposing fighter, trip a fleeing opponent, etc.

Now I know 4e has the stunts rules, but unless you just want to deal damage to the opponent (and usually less than one of your powers can do) they're not really the same. I also know there were situations in earlier editions where any (or all) of the above weren't viable as well, but it still felt like you had a bunch of options besides standing there and full attacking.

Maybe it's a perception thing, but with 4e it seems like the only viable options a character has in combat are the powers in front of them - and most of them are the same every fight.

So a players/groups "tactics" are pretty much dictated to them by the cards in front of each player, whereas with earlier editions they were totally freeform and could conceivably (and usually viably) be pretty much anything.

I'll admit it's probably a mix of perception and the rules, but it certainly seems to be evident (regardless of the underlying cause) in most, if not all, of the 4e games I've played in or run. It's markedly noticable when I compare a group of players that I'm running 3.5 for compared to the same group of players when I run 4e...

Does it stop me playing 4e? No, it's a game I run/play and enjoy, but I definitely notice the predictablity and sameness of 4e compared to 3.5 & Pathfinder. In some ways it's a good thing, in other ways not so much, but to try and argue it doesn't exist is... well, unbelievable IME.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Aug 31, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.




Yeah... that's true, and I hate that. I strongly believe D&D missed a lot when it stopped being a flavor-driven game to become a balance-driven one.

Cheers,


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The "sameness" that many feel from 4E is simply a byproduct of attempted balance. There will be no major changes to the feel of play as long as that balance is a priority in the design.




I think 3rd edition also prioritized balance, but trying to balance classes was like comparing apples to oranges, and could be achieved (sort of) through rigorous playtesting and it was still more of an art than a science. 4E unified the mechanics for all powers and abilities. Now it's easy to compare and balance when everyone's a citrus fruit.


----------



## Thasmodious (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.
> 
> You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.
> 
> ...




Ok, here's why things seem "samey" to some.

You roll up a 1st level fighter.  You pick a race with a +2 to Str, put an 18 in the stat, and pick a dump stat for your 8.  You choose a couple of skills, a couple of feats.  You pick out a couple of weapons, some armor, and gear.  Then you fiddle with the math until you have a 1st level fighter ready to go.

...he dies...

You roll up a 1st level wizard.  You pick a race with a +2 to Int, put an 18 in the stat, and pick a dump stat for your 8.  You choose a couple of skills, a couple of feats.  You pick out a couple of spells, a robe, and gear.  Then you fiddle with the math until you have a 1st level wizard ready to go.

Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!

All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition...  Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Ok, here's why things seem "samey" to some.




If you are actually rolling up a character there is no guarantee that you will even have an 18 to put in anything.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!
> 
> All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition...  Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?




Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.



Or, more to the point, not different enough.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2009)

gribble said:


> Maybe it's a perception thing, but with 4e it seems like the only viable options a character has in combat are the powers in front of them - and most of them are the same every fight.




The problem I have with that argument is that it really boils down to "with a good DM, earlier editions run fine" - which can also be applied to 4e, strangely enough.  I've encountered enough AD&D games where fighters are only swinging their swords because it doesn't give rules for anything else to know how some people play with the rules as written and some go beyond them.

With 3.*e especially, it was very much my experience that a lot of the combat options it gave were illusionary. Yes, you could grapple someone, but unless you had taken several feats in grappling, you'd fail. Ditto Bull Rush, Ditto Trip, Ditto Disarm. And, where 3.*e fell into to terrible disorder was when that specialisation was taken as suddenly nothing could stand against your character and you continued doing that action every turn!

This is not to say that 3.*e was a bad game - indeed, for eight years of playing it (often twice a week), I had a lot of fun! Degenerate cases (as there will be in 4e, I'm sure) were quietly house-ruled away when applicable.

But that's my feeling about the matter.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.




Erm... I must have missed something in 4e - or rather seen something that wasn't there. Are you trying to tell me that Wizards don't have spells to pick in 4e? That 4e classes don't have rules and elements that are unique to themselves?

4e does change a few decision points. Domains disappear off to part of the feat system, as do the extra options with turning (channel divinity). The Thief Skill Point choices are reduced so that you aren't making thieves that suck at thieving any more (heh - back to AD&D, revised!)

Others are eliminated or reduced in stature.

Others are new.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that *came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition *is mind bogglingly hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out.  I dislike being disappointed :<.




Again, for the 117th time, it bears saying that the complaints that were listened to were criticisms from people who enjoyed and were playing 3.5E, not the anti-3.5E crowd.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.



In addition to the feat approach that I mentioned earlier, another way to re-introduce these "mini-games" into the classes would be to come up with alternate class features. The beastmaster ranger and the tome of readiness wizard are two good examples of this approach. Another possibility could be a fighter class feature that grants a bonus feat plus another class feature in exchange for the 1st-level fighter daily power. A fighter with this class feature would have one less daily power than a normal fighter of his level thereafter.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> ...Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!
> 
> All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition...  Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?



I'll disagree with you vehemently on that one. Expanding upon that vehement disagreeance would serve neither the thread, or anyone else for that matter. I think it is fair enough to say though that in creating a 3E character, there are generally different decisions to be made with different classes requiring different things, whether it be matching up feats (which were more significant) with equipment, selecting domains and a particular religious or alignment angle for a character, or selecting spells/weaponry that neatly fit in with a character concept. I think it equally fair to say that 4E homognizes this process to an extent to make character creation quick, simple and easy. If this 4E process was made more vibrant or if you like with greater complexity, it would make some people happy and others less so.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2009)

While I do believe that "in-play" there's way more variety among 4e classes than ever before, there _ARE_ some 3.x classes that played differently from the outset.

A scout and a rogue in my experience played much differently. A scout wanted to be constantly moving whereas if possible a rogue would move once and set up flanking and then you're good to go.

That's an example of "in-play" difference.

Difference between Constructed and Limited I guess when you look at pre 4E and 4e.

re: Racial abilities.

This is the one I'm a little bit suprised about as well. 4e is definitely the first version of the game where race has a fundamental effect on your character all the way up to 20th level.

In previous editions, once you get past level 5, I never really found much difference between a dwarf fighter and an elven fighter since the racial abilities get swallowed up by both class and feat abilities. In 4e, even at 20th level, an eladrin fighter is still going to be actively using their racial ability and the dwarf fighter will be using his in every combat.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

> Are you trying to tell me that Wizards don't have spells to pick in 4e? That 4e classes don't have rules and elements that are unique to themselves?




The difference between playing a 2e wizard and a 2e thief is very clear from a number of aspects.

The difference between playing, say, a 4e archer-ranger and a 4e sorcerer is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.

4e classes do have difference, but the difference isn't nearly as big as it has been in previous editions. That's a mixed bag, and, so far in the actually published material, hasn't been contradicted. The PHB3 seems to aim to correct some of that, but even the 4e psion is very similar in broad game mechanics to, say, a 4e fighter. 

It's all "pick x powers from category y that you can use z times before they recharge, repeat for all categories."


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

The crux of this whole thread is that some people value variety in mechanics and character building, and some value variety in tactical play. 

I can actually say that variety in mechanics and character building mean nothing to me if it doesn't lead to variety in play. I found that 3.5E while it had almost infinite variety in mechanics and character building, in play it ended up being spam your most powerful attack(that you most likely built your entire character around) and try not to die. I also didn't like how cumbersome 3.5E's infinite variations could make the game.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The difference between playing a 2e wizard and a 2e thief is very clear from a number of aspects.
> 
> The difference between playing, say, a 4e archer-ranger and a 4e sorcerer is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.




I'm fascinated that you don't keep the parallels going.

The difference between playing a 2E Fighter specialised in bow and a 2E Ranger specialised in bow is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.

The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.

(!)


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The difference between playing a 2e wizard and a 2e thief is very clear from a number of aspects.



Apart from the power structure (mostly at-will abilities vs. mostly daily abilities), what would you consider to be the other key aspects of difference that would not be covered by the mechanics or flavor of the current rogue and wizard classes?


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

MerricB said:


> The problem I have with that argument is that it really boils down to "with a good DM, earlier editions run fine" - which can also be applied to 4e, strangely enough.



I think more what I was saying is that if the same DM picked up the core books and played by the letter of the rules outlined in them, the 3.x experience will feel like the players have more options and the tactics will be a lot more free form than the 4e game, at least in my experience with the two systems.

That's my take on it. And I think at that point (having both expressed our takes on it), we should probably stop derailing the thread.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The difference between playing a 2e wizard and a 2e thief is very clear from a number of aspects.
> 
> The difference between playing, say, a 4e archer-ranger and a 4e sorcerer is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.




This is a prime example of what we're talking about.

A ranger is one that is constantly shifting/moving around the battlefield trying to get in close to active Hunter's Quarry/Prime Shot and all the while trying not to get swamped.

A Chaos sorceror with an Arcane Eye familiar has no good reason to move out of the back rows and should be much different in play (throw in his wild magic feature and the player is constantly looking at his dice).

Way different in feel Kamikaze Midget and I think this is what makes 4e fans pull out their hair at the claim of homogenity. In play, there's so much difference between characters that many feel 4e doesn't get enough credit.

Like I said, I never really found much difference between say a human barbarian and a half-orc fighter at 1st level in 3.x since n paper, they looked different but in play felt the same. Conversely, even at 1st level in 4e, the human barbarian plays differently than the half-orc fighter...

(As an aside, I just love the characer builder...Took me 5 minutes to build two 1st level characters to see what choices I had - Hell, I even made it simpler by using the same race - human)


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2009)

gribble said:


> I think more what I was saying is that if the same DM picked up the core books and played by the letter of the rules outlined in them, the 3.x experience will feel like the players have more options and the tactics will be a lot more free form than the 4e game, at least in my experience with the two systems.
> 
> That's my take on it. And I think at that point (having both expressed our takes on it), we should probably stop derailing the thread.




You know, I wonder about this.

One of my complaints about the previous editions DMGs was that they really didn't teach "HOW to run a game". They taught "how to make a world" but not actually running an effective game.

For example, in pre 4e when everyone operated on different paradigms (at-wills versus encounters versus dailies), the DMG shocking never talked about how to make this work.

Wouldnt you say that this should've been prime DMG advice?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The difference between playing a 2E Fighter specialised in bow and a 2E Ranger specialised in bow is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.




Pretty true, there. Of course, they had a lot of "fluff"-style abilities to tell them apart. They wouldn't feel the same when, for instance, tracking the Ranger's favored enemy over the land. They'd be almost the same when fighting that favored enemy, though. And 2e, remember, operated under the philosophy that fluff was part of the balancing mechanism, so you were "supposed to" play up the differences. Not that many did, but TSR attempted to design the difference into the classes.

In 4e, a fighter and a ranger are both pretty equally adept at the non-combat aspects of the game, leaving the only difference of note in combat.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.




True. For instance, you can no longer specialize in a bow as a fighter, and, in fact, if you want to use a bow in any meaningful way, you have to be a 4e Archer. Which means that every bow-user is the same (instead of one being a lightly armored skill-based tracker and another being a heavily-armored front-line bruiser who didn't have many other options). Which sort of brings it full circle, except without the noncombat dimension, which 4e makes nearly identical between all characters. 

Now, in combat, the two are indeed fairly dramatically different. But they still get the same number of the same type of powers, all with damage and other rider effects.

I mean, it's not too big of an exaggeration to say you could simplify every power from the big block of powers with only one power: "Attack," which lets you buff/move an ally, mark, impose a status/move an enemy, or just deal raw damage. Once per day, you can use it to deal a lot of damage, once per combat you can use it to deal more damage, and you can switch off between two effects normally (say, two specific statuses). 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Apart from the power structure (mostly at-will abilities vs. mostly daily abilities), what would you consider to be the other key aspects of difference that would not be covered by the mechanics or flavor of the current rogue and wizard classes?




Power structure is one of 'em. But there's also the mechanics themselves: as a wizard, you made your enemies roll dice to prevent you from wreaking havoc. As a rogue, you made percentile rolls and tried to avoid most kinds of combat (which you weren't that good at, except in the DM-subjectively-fiddly Backstab). This is sort of the difference that the 3e rogue tried to carry over (as the skill-monkey). There's the way you learned and accessed wizard spells through the vancian system and the way you learned and accessed thief skills throug point investment. Your approaches were different: thieves went in under the radar and ran away when discovered, wizards would cast a spell, and run away after that.

Now, it wasn't all good, but the other extreme that we have now isn't really great, either. It's well-balanced and dull, which is just the opposite problem of poorly balanced and varied.



> A ranger is one that is constantly shifting/moving around the battlefield trying to get in close to active Hunter's Quarry/Prime Shot and all the while trying not to get swamped.
> 
> A Chaos sorceror with an Arcane Eye familiar has no good reason to move out of the back rows and should be much different in play (throw in his wild magic feature and the player is constantly looking at his dice).
> 
> Way different in feel Kamikaze Midget and I think this is what makes 4e fans pull out their hair at the claim of homogenity. In play, there's so much difference between characters that many feel 4e doesn't get enough credit.




Ranger: "I shoot him and deal a lot of damage."
Sorcerer: "I shoot him (with magic) and deal a lot of damage."
Warlock: "I shoot him (with dark magic) and deal a lot of damage."
While we're at it,
Rogue: "I stab him and deal a lot of damage."
Barbarian: "I axe him and deal a lot of damage."
TWF Ranger: "I knife him twice and deal a lot of damage."
Beastmaster Ranger: "I hit him and also my pet hits him and we deal a lot of damage."
Also,
Cleric: "I buff and do damage."
Warlord: "I buff and do damage."
Bard: "I buff and do damage."

I've played many games of 4e. I've DMed many games of 4e. I'm not ignorant of the actual experience of 4e. I am still very bored with the lack of meaningful options for doing something new with a different class.

The differences are subtle; they're not dramatic and obvious and meaningful, they're fiddly and particular and detailed. There are there, but the similarities vastly outnumber them, and the similarities are what make me numb. Especially when compared to how dramatically different even 3e classes were (less different than the 2e classes, more balanced, but still bold enough to try power systems as different as Incarnum and Psionics).


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The crux of this whole thread is that some people value variety in mechanics and character building, and some value variety in tactical play.



 What's wrong with cake and eating it too? I value both highly and I don't think anyone's been taking the either/or line on this.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

MerricB said:


> The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.
> 
> (!)



I agree. If the Archer/Ranger handed his bow to the fighter, the fighter would say "what do you expect me to do with this?!"

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 31, 2009)

*And now a message from...hey who are you?*

Remathillis, you're argument is odd to me. For one thing, I agree that 4e is more homogenous that 3.5 and 3e. And thank goodness. I often felt that 3e kept taking simple concepts and making them unnecessarily complex just for the sake of making them different. Saves for spells are a good example. Making the spell an attack roll is more interesting to me, and more honest. (Honest in the sense that players of spellcasters often spent as much time trying to augment their save DCs as meleeers (is that a word?) spent augmenting their attack modifiers.



Remathilis said:


> The feeling gets worse as you level up. No class has new exclusive class abilities to look forward to; just another encounter or daily power at the EXACT same level as everyone else.



Well, to be fair, paragon paths and epic destinies have features. They have powers too, but they also give out new "class" features as the PC progresses through them.

That said, daily and encounter powers replace, in my mind, many of the class features 3.5 had. That 4e wizards and fighters both get a power at 2nd level doesn't seem, mechanicly, all that different from a 3.5 wizard getting a spell at the same level a fighter gets a bonus feet. In 4e, it's unified under a single word, in 3.5 the mechanics are split.

Now this ignores the differences between spells and feats, but many other 3.5 classes got major class features at the same levels other classes.



> In 3e (and earlier) classes gained unique powers at different levels (rogues get evasion at 2nd, rangers at 9th) or spells were different levels depending on class (Animate Dead: 5th level MU, 3rd level Cleric). Now? You get rituals at the same level no matter if your a wizard, cleric, warlock, or a fighter with Ritual Caster.



I never liked this. I hated, *hated*, that sorcerers got their spells later than wizards. Talk about trying to balance everything, I find that a worse example of poor balancing than anything in 4e.



> When all you have staring down the pipeline are more/better attack powers and a 1/2-dozen utility powers (most of which are just combat abilities minus the attack roll) The classes seem to blur. Who cares if the daily power you got was Fireball or Flame Strike; they're both Atk vs. reflex cubes that deal Xd6 + stat amount of fire.



Well, I care. For one thing, powers seem to me, on the whole, better than they Fireball/Flame Strike comparison you gave. The at-wills Cleave and Magic Missile are vary different in my mind and showcase how, even though everyone gets 2 at-wills, there is a lot of varity in the what those at-wills give you. The same goes for the encounter and daily powers.



> It also doesn't help that every class gets better at fighting, casting magic, skill-use, AC and defenses at the EXACT SAME 1/2 level rate. Sure, it makes for easier math, but before the fighter had the best to-hit, the rogue had the best reflex save (by miles, not by +2) etc.



Well, as I said above, everyone tried to increase their abilities. The 1/2 rate just makes the process more honest to me. Making the rate the same across the board allows players who don't want to spend a lot of time finding ways to be better still be viable. As a DM, I feel that my new players can start off reasonably well with un-optimized PCs than they could in 3.5 and 3e. My personal experience seems to bear this out. But I wouldn't be surprised if this is just bias confirmation on my part.



> "But Remathilis." you say, "What about roles? Clearly a fighter doesn't share the same role as the wizard, ergo he doesn't share the same play-experience?" True, to an extent. [snip] Each role feels exactly the same.



I think everything I have to say about this is covered by my discussion of powers above.



> Lastly, I originally thought getting rid of different "subsystems" would streamline the game and make it easier to play. Why learn a new mechanic just to play a wizard, psion, warlock, etc? Well, here's why. [With t]hose mini-games...gone...every class is poorer...



Sorry for editing, but this reply is a lot longer than I originally planed.

Anyways. I like playing wizards. Not because I like the mechanics behind wizards. The magic sub-system in previous editions of D&D was only o.k. for me. I liked it, but I would have loved the simple mechanics of a fighter with the flavor of wizard. 

You know what the best part of 4e homogeny is for me? The level mechanic. It replaces Level adjustment, effective character level, character level, and hit dice. I hated hit dice and level adjustments. I danced on their graves.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 31, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> What's wrong with cake and eating it too? I value both highly and I don't think anyone's been taking the either/or line on this.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




Maybe not in the strict sense, but many have taken the position that it either has variety in mechanics or it doesn't have variety, ignoring that variety can come from other places. 

I don't know that you can have your cake and eat it too. A lot of the good points of 4E come from how smoothly it runs. 3.5E's arcane complexities and endless options got in the way of a silky smooth running game in my experience. Just like 3E couldn't be balanced without tearing down the whole system, I don't really believe that 4E can be made so you can break the mold without losing what makes 4E special to those who like it. FWIW, 4E is still very complex and has a multitude of options(compare it to AD&D or oWoD/nWoD), and toes the line between having a lot of fiddly bits to play with and a smooth running game. Sometimes, 4E does cross that line(though I would argue that 3.5E never bothered with the line and just embraced its clunkiness). I don't think there is a lot of breathing room to fiddle with 4E without gumming up the works. It really is built around balance, and if you disrupt the balance it leaves a big gaping hole.

In an ideal world, some people would play their game, and others would play their own. In our world, only one of these games gets to be the current edition of D&D, and the current edition of D&D brings many advantages. Not being on board the current edition of D&D means you lose out on those advantages, but there's really no fix for that.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Power structure is one of 'em. But there's also the mechanics themselves: as a wizard, you made your enemies roll dice to prevent you from wreaking havoc. As a rogue, you made percentile rolls and tried to avoid most kinds of combat (which you weren't that good at, except in the DM-subjectively-fiddly Backstab). This is sort of the difference that the 3e rogue tried to carry over (as the skill-monkey). There's the way you learned and accessed wizard spells through the vancian system and the way you learned and accessed thief skills throug point investment. Your approaches were different: thieves went in under the radar and ran away when discovered, wizards would cast a spell, and run away after that.
> 
> Now, it wasn't all good, but the other extreme that we have now isn't really great, either. It's well-balanced and dull, which is just the opposite problem of poorly balanced and varied.



Right. So what are the good or at least neutral differences that are lacking 4e?

Some of the issues you mentioned seem easy enough to fix: returning to monsters making "defense rolls" against the wizard's spells is a fairly simple change which does not really mess with the underlying mechanics of the system. 

Some others are a direct result of the 4e philosophy that everyone should be able to contribute to combat. Hence, there are few abilities that are focused on avoiding combat and running away.

Others may be more complicated, but not impossible to add into 4e: for example, you could have a Skilful Rogue class feature (perhaps replacing Rogue Weapon Talent) that gives him a small number of bonus points +1 every odd level that he can assign to his trained skills to increase his skill modifiers.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2009)

re: Fireball vs flamestrike

Er, there's about as much difference in the fireball/flame strike in 3e as there in 4e.

3e Fireball is a 20' radius/ long range d6 per caster level damage spell *that needs* *Line of Effect*. Available to wizards by level 5 and caps by level 10

3e Flamestrike is a 10' radius/40ft high cylinder medium range that does d6 per caster level damage that *doesn't* *need line of effect*. Available to druids by level 7 and clerics at level 9 and caps by level 15.

Assuming I had access to both, main difference in play I found was that flamestrike's was that you didn't need Line of Effect thus you could  set up behind a wall of force or such effect and go to town.

(Never really found a situation where the added "height" of the flamestrike made a tacical difference and unlike 2e, where flamestrike might be your only attack spell, in 3e, I wouldn't bother using flamestrike against a fire resistant foe since you had so many better options)

4e fireball is an area burst 3 within 20 squares that does 3d6 + stat damage to *ALL creatures* that on a miss does half damage. Available to wizards at level 9

4e flamestrike is an area burst 2 within 10 squares that does 2d10 + stat damage plus 5 ongoing (save ends) to *ALL ENEMIES*. Miss does half damage but no ongoing. Available to clerics at level 9.

The biggest difference is that fireball you actually have to worry about your teammates whereas flamestrike allows you to slam it down even when your teammate is right there.  Furthermore, there's lots of options/incentives to modify the save ends portion of the spell for flamestrike. You can increase how much damage the ongoing does and also affect the actual save ends throw. Whereas a wizard wouldn't really care about this if he had a fireball.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2009)

I think the PHB 2 classes add a lot more "inhomegenity" to the game. 

The Spirit Shaman conjures a Spirit aid to his help. The Druid can shapeshift. The Barbarian has Rages. 

Everything still fits in the At-Will/Encounter/Daily scheme, but there can be no mistake about that - even before playing the game - that these classes are different. 

I think the "mistake" in homogenity is not really in the combat aspect, though. I think once you play the game, the characters still play very different from each other. You make different tactical decisions based on your classes abilities and even build.

The "mistake" is what KM notes -the similar abilities out of combat. It essentially boils down to the skills you have. A few utility powers (and at least with the Monk, even some attack powers) might add to that, but most of them seem more aimed at combat.

So I'd try to add more class features and maybe a new group of powers that belong to the specific class. Kinda like the SAGA and d20 Modern Talent System, but with _no_ combat relevance.

The Wizard gets free rituals every 5 levels. That's neat. But there could be more - the ability to perform rituals faster or cheaper or both, for example. The ability to research a ritual instead of buying a scroll or ritual book. 

The Ranger could get "Bounty Hunter" features that aid him in tracking down a target. Or he gets travel-related features. 

The Fighter and Warlord might get some features in regards to gaining followers. 

The Rogue might be able to enter rogue guilds and be better in finding someone taking the PCs loot, getting better deals out of it, or ensuring they find something at all. 

Of course, this can still be done in the current system to some extent - class specific feats could grant such abilities. But that also means you have to choose between combat and non-combat feats, and we know what this typically leads to.

It seems better to "silo" such abilities - they come as class features or class talents where the player has only choices between these "story"-related features.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 31, 2009)

I feel the need to point out that, every single time someone states "NO, 4e HAS LOTS OF VARIABILITY, YOU JUST HAVEN'T PLAYED IT," they immidiately bring up combat.

What.

Maybe I'm bizarro, but in many of the games I play, there's a *lot* of non-combat stuff going on, and I've found that the earlier your edition, the more the classes are different.  I mean, KM compared a 2e thief - based on his own unique thief skills that nobody else shares - and the 2e wizard - based on his own unique spells and spell system that wasn't shared.

And the comparison given back is "Yeah well, if you make two class that shoot things with bows, they're the same."

What.

Sure, the classes have different powers, but that's only applicable in combat.  Once the fighting starts, it suddenly becomes a jRPG where you're a single man walking across the map, waiting for random encounters.

So, to answer the thread's question on how to make things more distinct, I'd say that the key lies in giving classes things that other classes _cannot do_, and to base that around out of combat mechanics.  Yes, skill challenges have made it so everyone participates.  The problem is, _everyone participates_.  At no point do you shine.  You're just a member of the blob that is "The Party."  While you don't want to make it so that each player all but has their own private session, I think 4e went too far and made so that players don't feel like they shine on their own.

Until the battlemat comes out :\


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Again, for the 117th time, it bears saying that the complaints that were listened to were criticisms from people who enjoyed and were playing 3.5E, not the anti-3.5E crowd.




Because surely people who have problems with 4e are in the "anti-4e crowd."

The sooner this "4e trufans only!" BS fades, the better.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 31, 2009)

I disagree with ProfessorCirno (personally I should add.)

I like the fact that out of combat, that a wizard could be the party face.

I like the fact that the fighter could be the party sneak.

Throwing that out so that everyone has their own little minigame is not attractive to me as a DM. I don't really tailor my adventures to assuming certain classes are present since, by and large, any class can do the sneaking/face talking/searching.

Sure, a ranger is going to better at tracking (Expert Tracker feat) if he focuses on it, but I'm quite glad that even a wizard can do so now if they expend the effort (via Skill training/Focus)


----------



## Dannager (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes, skill challenges have made it so everyone participates.  The problem is, _everyone participates_.



_Oh no!_

They've gone and turned D&D into a game where everyone can participate in a meaningful way!

Quick!  Better stop them before they do something really radical, like making the game enjoyable at all levels!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 31, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I disagree with ProfessorCirno (personally I should add.)
> 
> I like the fact that out of combat, that a wizard could be the party face.
> 
> ...




Like I said, the big issue there is that the classes become *completely* interchangable outside of combat.  The problem isn't that wizards can track, but that they can, with almost no cost, become just as amazing as rangers.  I feel it should be allowable to, say, make the wizard able to track people like a ranger, but that it should come at a cost to the wizard.

One of the aspects that I think is problematic here is the 4e style of multiclassing.  At first I thought 4e was going to go for 2e multiclassing, which I still - perhaps foolishly - honestly love.  But it's some kind of weird not 3e not 2e variant thing.

The problem isn't exactly with multiclassing as much as the way the classes are set up.  There are almost no class-based non-combat activities.  I think this is one of those things where people go "Couldn't you have borrowed this from Star Wars Saga? :\"  The talent system there allowed for a *lot* of diversity within classes, and for a lot of cool non-combat related abilities and tasks.  4e, on the other hand, is very much ALL COMBAT ALL THE TIME with a few vague nods towards skills every so often as far as abilities, items, and feats go.

Again, the issue that others have mentioned, is that the BIGGEST problem with solving the homogenuity is that it's hard coded into the system itself.  So how do you solve an issue with a system that's hard wired as such?  You just lay your solution on top of it.  I think the best way to alter the game to fix the problem is to simply _add_ to it.  Give classes some kind of ability or bonus towards doing something out of combat.  Rangers can do some form of tracking that other classes can't, to give an example.  These non-combat bonuses can be gained possibly as a feat that's linked to the multiclass feat (I'm unsure on how balanced this would be, mind you).  That way, you can still have your wizard who can track like a ranger...it just has a cost to it.



Dannager said:


> _Oh no!_
> 
> They've gone and turned D&D into a game where everyone can participate in a meaningful way!
> 
> Quick!  Better stop them before they do something really radical, like making the game enjoyable at all levels!




That's not in any way what I said, and you know it.  Good try at shutting down a conversation with personal attacks, though.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 31, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> What's wrong with cake and eating it too? I value both highly and I don't think anyone's been taking the either/or line on this.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise



Exactly right

I have both now and I'm happy staying with that.

Rather than either/or, it is more accurately:

variety in mechanics, variety in tactical play, simplicity
PICK TWO


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem isn't exactly with multiclassing as much as the way the classes are set up.  There are almost no class-based non-combat activities.  I think this is one of those things where people go "Couldn't you have borrowed this from Star Wars Saga? :"  The talent system there allowed for a *lot* of diversity within classes, and for a lot of cool non-combat related abilities and tasks.  4e, on the other hand, is very much ALL COMBAT ALL THE TIME with a few vague nods towards skills every so often as far as abilities, items, and feats go.



I wonder if that's a bad thing, though. Instead of tying noncombat abilities more closely to class, I would rather go in the opposite direction, along the lines of what one poster suggested earlier - the complete separation of combat and non-combat abilities. Each character would then have a "combat" class such as fighter, rogue or wizard, and a "noncombat" class such as Diplomat, Athlete,  or Hunter.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 31, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Maybe not in the strict sense, but many have taken the position that it either has variety in mechanics or it doesn't have variety, ignoring that variety can come from other places.
> 
> I don't know that you can have your cake and eat it too. A lot of the good points of 4E come from how smoothly it runs. 3.5E's arcane complexities and endless options got in the way of a silky smooth running game in my experience. Just like 3E couldn't be balanced without tearing down the whole system, I don't really believe that 4E can be made so you can break the mold without losing what makes 4E special to those who like it. FWIW, 4E is still very complex and has a multitude of options(compare it to AD&D or oWoD/nWoD), and toes the line between having a lot of fiddly bits to play with and a smooth running game. Sometimes, 4E does cross that line(though I would argue that 3.5E never bothered with the line and just embraced its clunkiness). I don't think there is a lot of breathing room to fiddle with 4E without gumming up the works. It really is built around balance, and if you disrupt the balance it leaves a big gaping hole.
> 
> In an ideal world, some people would play their game, and others would play their own. In our world, only one of these games gets to be the current edition of D&D, and the current edition of D&D brings many advantages. Not being on board the current edition of D&D means you lose out on those advantages, but there's really no fix for that.




I'm still not going to get into a 4E discussion.  But I will agree with your core statement that it leaves little freedom for fiddling with.

I WILL stand up for 3.X though.  You say it didn't run silky smooth for you.  Fine.  It runs silky smooth for me.  I'm not interested in being constrained to simplifications I don't need.  

But I didn't loose any advantages when I walked away from 2E and the same is true now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I wonder if that's a bad thing, though. Instead of tying noncombat abilities more closely to class, I would rather go in the opposite direction, along the lines of what one poster suggested earlier - the complete separation of combat and non-combat abilities. Each character would then have a "combat" class such as fighter, rogue or wizard, and a "noncombat" class such as Diplomat, Athlete,  or Hunter.



I think there might be some issues with the class names. Rogue implies more than a combat style. I think the class design might be based on distinguishing the combat and non-combat role, but the individual class still has both roles fixed down.

For example: 
Fighter: Defender + Urban
Rogue: Striker + Urban
Ranger: Striker + Woodsman 
Warlord: Leader + Noble
Knight: Defender + Noble

Of course, one could make the second part two different talent trees or something like that. So the Fighter could gain in the "Knight" talent or the "Urban" talent tree.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out.  I dislike being disappointed :<.
> [/SIZE][/SIZE]




And of course, using gigantic frakkin text to make a point (however apt) is particularly conducive to non-confrontational discussions...



thecasualoblivion said:


> I found that 3.5E in play ended up being spam your most powerful attack(that you most likely built your entire character around) and try not to die.




More than a little responsibility for this "breakdown" is borne by the player.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I feel the need to point out that, every single time someone states "NO, 4e HAS LOTS OF VARIABILITY, YOU JUST HAVEN'T PLAYED IT," they immediately bring up combat.




There are only nails, and you only need a hammer.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2009)

> Right. So what are the good or at least neutral differences that are lacking 4e?
> 
> Some of the issues you mentioned seem easy enough to fix: returning to monsters making "defense rolls" against the wizard's spells is a fairly simple change which does not really mess with the underlying mechanics of the system.
> 
> ...




I think one of the things I miss the most is the different ways of acquiring and using abilities. 

Which means, for me, one of the more grievous similarities is "two at-wills, encounter, daily, then same advancement for everyone, always."

Which is, of course, the hardest thing to fiddle with in a balanced fashion.  

But many of these other tidbits could go a long way toward making things distinctive. And though Prof C mostly hits on the noncombat angle, I think the salient point is something he articulated pretty well: I should be able to do things as Class X that no one else can do. 

Where is the thing I can do as a rogue, or a wizard, or a fighter, that no one else does? It's not my combat role (others do that, though in different fiddly ways), it's not my out-of-combat role (others are basically my equal in this regard). What do I contribute to a party that is binary? That is "Oh, you don't have a Rogue, so you're going to suck at X."

I think this is a harder balancing act than even "power acquisition" rules, because part of 4e's philosophy is that everyone can contribute in some meaningful way all the time. Which isn't a bad philosophy, because it's boring sitting out a challenge you can't contribute to.

I dunno...there are some things that would alleviate the issue before we got to that point, I think. And maybe some sort of expanded roles system or whatnot is useful (In combat, a rogue is a striker! In exploration, the rogue is a trailblazer! In social situations, a rogue is a wit! The rogue is the only class with this unique combination; other classes have other combinations!) in just creating levels of difference. 

The more things I can point to on my character sheet and say "I am the only character who can do _this_," the better the class variety gets, I think. 

Which brings us to the OP. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem for 4e. Heck, talking like this, it seems that 4e could even probably accept some add-on systems to mostly solve the problem. And those that don't have a problem don't need to use any of the sub-systems. 

Hmm...brain churning...


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2009)

I think everyone's missing a key question here:

Why isn't this in the 4e House Rules forum?!?!

(I kid, I kid...)

-O


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

> I should be able to do things as Class X that no one else can do.



We get that with class features, though. And the class features really do make the classes (within their role) feel very different to me:

A fighter seriously rocks the mark. No one else gets free attacks any time a monster LOOKS at someone nastily. Compare that with the Swordmage, who can reduce damage dealt to an ally. Nobody can reduce damage. While Paladins get auto-damage. 

Druids get to shapechange. And not the shapechanging Wardens get. 

Shamans get a Buddy (that can very much rock the casba with proper positioning). Which works very different from the Buddy that beastmaster rangers get. 

Warlords boost people's initiative and give them beenies when they use action points. Bards 1) get bonuses to heal you outside of combat, 2) can multi-class into multiple classes, 3) get bonuses to untrained skills, 4) free boost to bluff checks. Clerics can heal like no one's business. That's not really their class feature,  but yeah.

Warlocks get extra stuff just for killing their target. Which can vary from teleporting around to getting temp HP. 



> What do I contribute to a party that is binary? That is "Oh, you don't have a Rogue, so you're going to suck at X."



The problem with that is that if you set it up in such a manner that the Party is going to Suck without X, then that means you gotta have that class or you're going to suck. See 3e Clerics and Healing. If rogues are the only guys that can do X, well you're boned if you don't have a rogue and the situation calls for X. 

That also means that if that class is the only class that can do it, that if you want to do that, then that's your only option. Part of what 4e wanted to do is that anyone of any role could stand in for any other character of that same role - you'll inevitably need a healer, but you have more options than just "Cleric", that actually can heal competently.

And while I see your point, KM, about "the progression is the same, ho-hum", I think one thing being neglected IS the Paragon Path/Epic Destiny. They add more class features, that can vary. Granted, they're not as potent as the class's initial features. 

So perhaps one avenue is to grant extra class features at each tier. Not suping up existing class features, but giving new, additional ones that differentiate a paragon Fighter from a Heroic fighter, aside from numbers, number of powers and PP.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Aug 31, 2009)

I don't know if someone already said that, but I believe the fact that 4E combat is almost exclusively designed around dealing damage also contributes to the feeling of homogenity.

I can't say I was not really disappointed when I saw the illusionist powers in Dragon and instead of creating interesting illusions to deal with the party enemies in new and different ways he was just dealing psychic damage to them.

It also appears that using hp damage as the basic combat currency of the game contributes to the so called grind. If everybody is doing damage every turn, you need monster of high hp, or they won't last more than a single combat round.

Cheers,


----------



## Mallus (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> It also appears that using hp damage as the basic combat currency of the game contributes to the so called grind.



Using HP as the universal combat currency just makes the system more transparent. Monsters with enormous hit point totals and comparatively low damage output cause the grind.


----------



## avin (Aug 31, 2009)

I'd like to add some weight on the "sameness" feel of 4E. 

Not saying it's worst or better, it just feels too similar, even comparing to things I dislike (2E's different XP for different classes, for example). 

The Psion is a nice step away from that feel and I welcome that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I don't know if someone already said that, but I believe the fact that 4E combat is almost exclusively designed around dealing damage also contributes to the feeling of homogenity.
> 
> I can't say I was not really disappointed when I saw the illusionist powers in Dragon and instead of creating interesting illusions to deal with the party enemies in new and different ways he was just dealing psychic damage to them.



It is quite possible that the "Pacifist" build of the Cleric might not remain the only option to go beyond damage. But what probably will never go away might be that you have to bring down your enemies hit points to 0 to beat him.

But there are already some illusion attack powers now that don't deal damage and are considered very strong. And there might come more...

Maybe there is a potential for "not dealing" damage and still dispatching an opponent in the end - but it won't be a "instant death" type effect. More something like: "Sustain this power and hit 10 times and the opponent is _killed/dominated/petrified_ for good."


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Aug 31, 2009)

My wife and I have been playing in a 4E campaign for six months now. Both of us feel the sameness to a degree. 

There are ways of mixing things up and making them different, but we both still feel more satisfied with 3.5. 

I think using the identical power structure and having the 1/2 level bonus to all classes is part of the homogenity we don't like. 

It's not that individual classes with seperate powers don't play differently, they do, its just that they all use the same system for determining those powers, and its more combat oriented than ever before. 

Yes, every edition of D&D is combat focuses, but 4E really _feels_ like it skimped on the non-combat aspects of the game.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Aug 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Using HP as the universal combat currency just makes the system more transparent.




I believe there are other ways to make the system more transparent.

3E never spent its time explaining that warriors were supposed to make the frontline of combat, or that rogue-types were supposed to scout and shine at skill-use, or that priest-types were supposed to use their best powers on party members instead of themselves, or that wizard-types were supposed to hide behind their friends and make their lifes easier with powerhouse spells.

Explaining that would have made a game transparent without the need of homogenity regarding character features, but they never did it, and I think that's a failure of the 3E era.

Making everything deal damage with almost every class feature is another way to make the game crystal clear, you can't go wrong gauging the power of character classes when all they do is deal damage in various ways. I just don't think is the best way to go, and I strongly believe it plays a heavy part in the feeling of homogenity that people describe here.

Cheers,


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> Making everything deal damage with almost every class feature is another way to make the game crystal clear, you can't go wrong gauging the power of character classes when all they do is deal damage in various ways. I just don't think is the best way to go, and I strongly believe it plays a heavy part in the feeling of homogenity that people describe here.



If that is true, it's easily fixed. All you need to do is to add more powers similar to the pacifist cleric powers in Divine Power.

As an aside, it seems that the solution to the homogeneity problem is just to add more options. In retrospect, it seems kind of obvious...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> Making everything deal damage with almost every class feature is another way to make the game crystal clear, you can't go wrong gauging the power of character classes when all they do is deal damage in various ways. I just don't think is the best way to go, and I strongly believe it plays a heavy part in the feeling of homogenity that people describe here.




I think it is still a trap that people can fall into that dealing damage is everything. Sure, in the end it only matters that you dealt enough damage to kill every enemy. But that's what always matters in combats. Even Save or Die abilities are not much more than saying "I deal enough damage to kill you, I just don't roll damage dice".
You have to goals in every combat - survive and beat the enemy. And you use tactics to ensure that you get to do both. And 4E is rich with abilities that facilitate tactical thinking and decision making. The homogenity is primarily on paper, but actual play what the homogenous slots that you have  - feats, powers maybe even magic items - make quite a difference.

And I think that's also where the classes - while similar in structure - really differ, because they allow or require different tactics.

Clerics and Wizards had a very similar structure in 3E, too. They have to prepare spells, they have a similar number of spell slots. And that is the majority of what defines their abilities in the game. But what these spell slots actually fill makes quite a difference. Wizards can cast spells like Magic Missile or Fireball, Clerics can cast spell like Cure Light Wounds and Restoration.
A Cleric doesn't play like a Wizard in 3E, and nor does he play like a Wizard in 4E.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Where is the thing I can do as a rogue, or a wizard, or a fighter, that no one else does? It's not my combat role (others do that, though in different fiddly ways), it's not my out-of-combat role (others are basically my equal in this regard). What do I contribute to a party that is binary? That is "Oh, you don't have a Rogue, so you're going to suck at X."
> 
> I think this is a harder balancing act than even "power acquisition" rules, because part of 4e's philosophy is that everyone can contribute in some meaningful way all the time. Which isn't a bad philosophy, because it's boring sitting out a challenge you can't contribute to.
> 
> ...




The problem (referring to the above something that only x can do) with this is that you can easily end up with circumstances that negatively impact the game, all for the sake of niche protection.

A prime example of this was 3.x rogue Trapfinding (which, IIRC, stated that only classes with trapfinding could find traps with a DC 20 or higher- most traps).  Your character could be a master trap maker with a +50 search check, but unless you took a level of rogue (or one of the few other classes with Trapfinding) you could locate only the crudest of traps.  It neither made sense nor benefited the game (IMO).

It was problematic because if you didn't have a trapfinder in the party, traps became that much more deadly (most DMs I knew simply would avoid using them without a trapfinder, because we weren't the biggest "Gotcha!" fans).

I think that a better approach would be to accentuate something that a particular class excels at.  For example, rather than declaring that only rogues can find traps I think it would be better for the game as a whole to simply give them a bonus to finding traps.  Of course, the pitfall of this is that it can easily lead back into the situation where either the rogue is the only one who can find the trap (because the DC is adjusted for a rogue with trapfinding) or the rogue automatically succeeds at trapfinding even when blindfolded (the DCs are calibrated so that anyone has a chance for success).  

One solution might be to offer the rogue a small bonus (such as a +2 which doesn't much unbalance the DCs), or a feature that guarantees he's one of the characters with the highest trapfinding ability (such as allowing him to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom when searching for traps) to reflect his expertise, but I imagine most would consider this insufficient differentiation.

Another possible solution that I've toyed with in my head would be to offer non-combat add on features (I think of them as Kits, akin to 2nd ed) that allow PCs to do something that they previously couldn't do.  One example would be a Noble who is automatically able to call in favors (on a limited basis of course) based on his family's prestige (the other PCs could still, of course, earn political favors to call in, the noble simply gets bonus favors for "free").  The biggest challenge that I can see for this is simply thinking of enough interesting new "abilities" that don't step on the PCs' capacity to adventure normally (in other words, avoiding things like the aforementioned Trapfinding).

As a parting note, I would like to point out that 4e does already possess such features to a limited degree.  For example, the Rogue Level 6 Utility Power, Chameleon, grants him a chance to remain hidden when another creature gains line of sight to him.  That is something that no one else can do.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 31, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> 3E never spent its time explaining that warriors were supposed to make the frontline of combat, or that rogue-types were supposed to scout and shine at skill-use, or that priest-types were supposed to use their best powers on party members instead of themselves, or that wizard-types were supposed to hide behind their friends and make their lifes easier with powerhouse spells.



Not rehash an old set of complaints --who am I kidding, that's exactly what I'm doing-- in 3e rogues can easily be out-rogued by spellcasters w/wands (and other sundry items), priests make wonderful self-buffers who can then go toe-to-toe better that fighters, and wizards don't hide so much as they render themselves immune to threats (via invisibility, flight, various explicitly defensive spells). This is kinda what I mean about transparency...


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So perhaps one avenue is to grant extra class features at each tier. Not suping up existing class features, but giving new, additional ones that differentiate a paragon Fighter from a Heroic fighter, aside from numbers, number of powers and PP.



Absolutely a great idea.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Aug 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Not rehash an old set of complaints --who am I kidding, that's exactly what I'm doing-- in 3e rogues can easily be out-rogued by spellcasters w/wands (and other sundry items), priests make wonderful self-buffers who can then go toe-to-toe better that fighters, and wizards don't hide so much as they render themselves immune to threats (via invisibility, flight, various explicitly defensive spells). This is kinda what I mean about transparency...




I believe you're right; that's not very transparent, and sounds like a design failure to me, I just don't believe that 4E fixes the problem; in fact, it just tries to ignore it by taking the feature out of the game (yes, I believe that different classes being effective at different degrees in various situations is a strong feature or previous editions).

Cheers,


----------



## Mallus (Aug 31, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem is, _everyone participates_.



This is never a problem for me. I've never seen a session ruined by too many players getting in on the action, whatever the 'action' might be. 

Maybe this is because I've traditionally DM'ed more that I've played. I don't like to have to worry who's going to shine during any particular part of the adventure. I don't like having to script 'rogue encounters', so the rogue has his moment in the spotlight. I like to let the adventure go where it (ie the players) will, and having to plan around narrowly-defined, niche-protected characters makes that more difficult. 



> At no point do you shine.



You shine when you have your character do something clever or entertaining. 

AFAIC, it's bad to have classes that by design can't make meaningful contributions in a given encounter type. You differentiate character classes by _how_ they take action, not by whether they can take action at all.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 31, 2009)

As an adjunct to my previous post, the simplest method might simply be to assign one or two "background perks" at character creation.

For example, the aforementioned noble might occasionally be able to call upon a political favor using his family's clout by making a successful Diplomacy check.  A cleric of nature might by able to summon seeds and accelerate plant growth with Nature.  The fighter might be an enforcer for the thieves guild, giving him access to a reliable fence in most towns using Streetwise, as well as knowledge of thieves' cant.  So on and so forth...

These ties would probably come, of course, with their own obligations.

I realize that this might not be defined or crunchy enough for some, but it would open player options beyond whatever list of "kits" the DM might otherwise come up with.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is never a problem for me. I've never seen a session ruined by too many players getting in on the action, whatever the 'action' might be.




Agreed. The opposite problem is far more common. Everyone just lets the X monkey do his thing. The problem is that almost all systems promote the "specialize or perish" method of resolution. Skill challenges at least attempted to fix things with multiple skills usable in a challenge. Even with that, there are times when a party member has no applicable skill and sits out a skill challenge for fear of bringing down the team. 

Some kind of mechanic that rewards taking action over inaction regardless of applicable skill would be a great way to encourage more participation. 

Would there be any huge problems with the game if every class got the same number of trained skills, none of which were restricted? 



Mallus said:


> Maybe this is because I've traditionally DM'ed more that I've played. I don't like to have to worry who's going to shine during any particular part of the adventure. I don't like having to script 'rogue encounters', so the rogue has his moment in the spotlight. I like to let the adventure go where it (ie the players) will, and having to plan around narrowly-defined, niche-protected characters makes that more difficult.




Nothing needs to be scripted if the DM concentrates on creating the problems and lets the players come up with the solutions. No matter how much you may plan for a certain ability to shine, players will find a way to get around the problem in a completely different way. 



Mallus said:


> You shine when you have your character do something clever or entertaining.




I agree 100%. It's too bad that game designs these days equate clever and entertaining with " 100% as damaging/badass as the player to the right."



Mallus said:


> AFAIC, it's bad to have classes that by design can't make meaningful contributions in a given encounter type. You differentiate character classes by _how_ they take action, not by whether they can take action at all.




Agreed again. The trick is overcoming the player mentality of "optimal action or no action at all." If the game has to maintain a minute to minute balance of equality then everyone shines equally bright in every situation and homogenization is the natural result.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is never a problem for me. I've never seen a session ruined by too many players getting in on the action, whatever the 'action' might be.



The extreme example of "not enough people in on the action" is Shadowrun. Its classes are _very_ specialized in a compartmentalized fashion. If you have a combat guy, a decker, and a rigger, then you have one hour where the combat guy gets in combat while the hacker and rigger sit on their hands, one hour where the decker hacks while the combat guy and the rigger sit on their hands, and one hour where the rigger drives and fiddles with machines while the combat guy and hacker sit on their hands. 



> Monsters with enormous hit point totals and comparatively low damage output cause the grind.



Indeed.

And with PCs that have a LOT of ways to heal, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. "He hits you for 20 damage." "The paladin grants me a surge and adds his cha bonus, I get 17 back." Things don't start getting tense until there's a limited amount of surges/ways to heal left.


----------



## NoWayJose (Aug 31, 2009)

> When all you have staring down the pipeline are more/better attack powers and a 1/2-dozen utility powers (most of which are just combat abilities minus the attack roll) The classes seem to blur. Who cares if the daily power you got was Fireball or Flame Strike; they're both Atk vs. reflex cubes that deal Xd6 + stat amount of fire.




Maybe some of us are bothered by the "illusion of choice" which conflicts with the reality of mechanical homogenity?

What if your wizard, for example, chooses to learn fire magic and that's that. As the wizard advances, he doesn't choose different fire-based spells with different names. He just gets better at fire magic (in terms of damage and/or control) and any spell name he wants to apply to his newfound ability is completely arbitrary and subjective.

So from the get-go, you know what to expect and nobody is trying to pretend that you're learning radically new powers. Now you can singlemindedly advance in fire magic, or branch out to new arcane paths.

I think this is also in line with reality and maybe even with Diablo-style games and ability trees. People generally don't gain brand new abilities all the time. Although its never too late to learn new tricks, people usually get better at what they already do by building on previous skillsets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what's happening _anyway_ in 4E except that the rules trying to gloss over this fact. However, if you don't feel that someone is pulling the wool over your eyes, you'll be more content with the system.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 31, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> The problem (referring to the above something that only x can do) with this is that you can easily end up with circumstances that negatively impact the game, all for the sake of niche protection.
> 
> A prime example of this was 3.x rogue Trapfinding (which, IIRC, stated that only classes with trapfinding could find traps with a DC 20 or higher- most traps).  Your character could be a master trap maker with a +50 search check, but unless you took a level of rogue (or one of the few other classes with Trapfinding) you could locate only the crudest of traps.  It neither made sense nor benefited the game (IMO).
> 
> ...




Funny you mention trapfinding; out of all the games I've played recently, this is one of the areas 4e botched when it came to "improving" on 3e.

The best trapfinder in the game is not a rogue; its a druid. The Druid is wisdom-prime AND has perception on his class list. Tack on a +2 wis race and/or a race with +2 perception (hello elf) and you have a trapfinder that can't be beat (extra cheese: throw on a background with a +2 perception boon). 

A rogue can't compete with that. Wisdom is a dump-stat for rogues (since it shares a load with charisma, which is infinitely more useful to all rogues, even brutals) and rogues get no bonus specifically to searching traps out. 

After 3 games with a minotaur druid and a human rogue, trapfinding became "Minotaur, do you see any traps I need to disable?"

I'll give you two examples on how trapfinding could have been better handled without resorting to "you must have this class ability to find traps". 

Pathfinder: Anyone can use perception to find mechanical traps. Only rogues can find magical traps without resorting to spells. In addition, a rogue gets a bonus equal to 1/2 their level to find traps of any type, insuring they'll always have a higher bonus than another class with a similar rank in perception.

Basic Fantasy: All classes can find traps 16% of the time (1 on 1d6). Thieves get the ability to find/remove traps (which begins at 15% on a d100) but increases with level, so that a 2nd level thief has 20%, a 3rd level 25%, etc. So while a fighter and a thief have roughly the same chance to find traps at 1st level (16%, +/- 1 pt), a 10th level thief has a 55% chance, while the fighter still only has 1 in 6. 

Both allow non-rogues/thief to search for traps, but maintain niche protection for the rogue/thief to be better at trapfinding. Ironically, 4e doesn't provide said niche protection to rogues, and thus rogues make worse trapfinders than any other class with a high-wisdom and perception training.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Funny you mention trapfinding; out of all the games I've played recently, this is one of the areas 4e botched when it came to "improving" on 3e.
> 
> The best trapfinder in the game is not a rogue; its a druid. The Druid is wisdom-prime AND has perception on his class list. Tack on a +2 wis race and/or a race with +2 perception (hello elf) and you have a trapfinder that can't be beat (extra cheese: throw on a background with a +2 perception boon).
> 
> ...




Actually, I did note this (though I admit it may have been easy to overlook):


> ...or a feature that guarantees he's one of the characters with the highest trapfinding ability (such as allowing him to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom when searching for traps) to reflect his expertise...




One of the games I'm in currently has both a goblin rogue and an elven druid, so I've seen the issue firsthand.

Nonetheless, it would be easy to fix if you simply allow the rogue to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom.  With that feature in place an elven druid would be, at best, a marginally better trap detector than the rogue (whereupon both would no doubt successfully search for traps).

The problem with the Pathfinder approach is that it still limits what a "fair" DM can use in the absence of a rogue.  Admittedly, I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder to know how trap detection via spells works, but it seems to me that many DMs would simply avoid using magical traps if the party has no rogue because the traps are otherwise unavoidable (assuming the party doesn't have easy access to spells for magical trap detection).  

Additionally, the 1/2 level bonus is also problematic.  At 1st level it doesn't guarantee superiority of any sort (since 1/2 of 1 is 0) and by 20th it grants a +10, meaning that an average check for the rogue becomes essentially impossible for the next best trapfinder (if the rogue needs a nat 10 to succeed the secondary trap finder requires a nat 20) and if the secondary trap finder has a reasonable chance of discovering the trap, the rogue cannot fail at all (if secondary guy needs a 10 then rogue cannot fail; I'm assuming Pathfinder doesn't use critical successes or fumbles for skills, though I can't be certain as I've only skimmed the Pathfinder rules).

Basic fantasy falls into the same problem.  A party without a rogue (or even with a low level rogue) is one that is more likely to stumble into a trap than to have a realistic chance of finding it.  Additionally, it seems reminiscent of 1st and 2nd edition in that one's character can't improve in certain areas regardless of how hard he tries (my fighter's main hobby and fascination might be traps, but unless I multi/dual class rogue, he'll never get any better at finding them).  That always used to annoy me back in the day.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the 4e approach is perfect (see above).  Just that (IMO) the Pathfinder and Basic Fantasy approaches aren't very good ones, at least for my gaming preferences.  While I have no problem with a trap-focused rogue having the best chance to find a trap, I don't believe that it should be massively greater than that of a trap-focused non-rogue, and I certainly don't agree that there should be traps that only a rogue can find.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Funny you mention trapfinding; out of all the games I've played recently, this is one of the areas 4e botched when it came to "improving" on 3e.
> 
> The best trapfinder in the game is not a rogue; its a druid. The Druid is wisdom-prime AND has perception on his class list. Tack on a +2 wis race and/or a race with +2 perception (hello elf) and you have a trapfinder that can't be beat (extra cheese: throw on a background with a +2 perception boon).




Really, it's probably the monk. You need the perception and thievery skills and good dex and wisdom to be a good trapfinder. There are wisdom-primary classes that get perception (Avenger, Shaman, Druid). There are wisdom-secondary classes that get perception (Ranger, Monk, Warden, Psion). There are dexterity-primary classes that get thievery (Rogue, Monk). There aren't any dexterity-secondary classes that get theivery (and aren't all that many classes that get thievery at all; rogue, warlock, artificer, and monk are it). You'll note the monk is the only class on both lists (artificer, monk, and rogue are the only classes that get perception and thievery, and monk is the only class with primary and secondary stats that line up right).


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 31, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Nonetheless, it would be easy to fix if you simply allow the rogue to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom.  With that feature in place an elven druid would be, at best, a marginally better trap detector than the rogue (whereupon both would no doubt successfully search for traps).



My personal fix is to allow a thievery check to find traps.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The extreme example of "not enough people in on the action" is Shadowrun. Its classes are _very_ specialized in a compartmentalized fashion. If you have a combat guy, a decker, and a rigger, then you have one hour where the combat guy gets in combat while the hacker and rigger sit on their hands, one hour where the decker hacks while the combat guy and the rigger sit on their hands, and one hour where the rigger drives and fiddles with machines while the combat guy and hacker sit on their hands.



Shadowrun is bad, but the problem is mostly the Decker and to a lesser extend the Mage.

There is no problem in using a combat drone alongside the combat guy. But the Decker better takes cover during that. But then, Rigger, Combat Guy and Mage can twiddle their thumbs when he does the Matrix stuff. The Mage can be problematic if he travels through the Astral Plane for scouting, but this is usually not taking very long. It would be fatal if he would engage spirits or something like that, though. (Probably for him, too.  )

Maybe that's the reason why at least in Shadowrun 3E Shotguns were ridicilously overpowered - you're normally not a combat guy? Take a Shotgun, open the choke and shout "Dodge This" and murderize everyone in the spread.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 31, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> My personal fix is to allow a thievery check to find traps.



That is a pretty good idea, I might even use that.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Funny you mention trapfinding; out of all the games I've played recently, this is one of the areas 4e botched when it came to "improving" on 3e.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...




Actually, that's great. Now you have 2 players involved in the "trap encounter" instead of one. 4E promotes teamwork!


----------



## Storminator (Aug 31, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> My personal fix is to allow a thievery check to find traps.




Were I DMing instead of playing, I'd go with trained in Thievery allows Perception for trap finding. Trained in Nature allows Perception for wilderness tracking. Trained in Dungeoneering allows Perception for underground tracking. Trained in Streetwise allows Perception for urban tracking.

Perception is appropriate for all those skills, but I like to have "setting training" before it can be widely used.

PS


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 31, 2009)

So, I posted a thread 27 hours ago. I wonder if there were any responses....

I would like to thank those who stuck with it and posted ideas for doing things differently. Some of them might even be feasible within the GSL. I did not know about the Monk and Psion so that was an eye opener. If one of them had been in the PHB I wonder if the perception espoused by KM in this thread might have been mitigated a little.

I also liked the idea of more class abilities. But with the number of existing classes it's a little late for that.

What do I think is homogenius about 4e? It doesn't matter. That was the thread I forked from. I wanted to know what could be done to reduce that perception. If you don't perceive it, don't post (or state politely you disagree). BryonD was the person I quoted so his response there is a good starting point. Also, KM provided excellent insight into the definition.

At the risk of perpetuating the edition war: Most of the folk who say 4e is tactically varied point out that this class hangs back and this other class runs around looking for flanks. I fail to see how that didn't exist in older editions. But then, I've been using a battlemat for combat since 1e so tactics have always been important in combat. Characters always had combat roles, they just were not strictly tied to class.

Anyway, I don't have to respond to specific posts. Carry on.

And no, I have not played 4e. I haven't played anything in two years. Woe is me.


----------



## gribble (Aug 31, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Not rehash an old set of complaints --who am I kidding, that's exactly what I'm doing-- in 3e rogues can easily be out-rogued by spellcasters w/wands (and other sundry items), priests make wonderful self-buffers who can then go toe-to-toe better that fighters, and wizards don't hide so much as they render themselves immune to threats (via invisibility, flight, various explicitly defensive spells).



Hate to burst your bubble, but these probably aren't terribly good examples of things that 4e does "better"...

Wizards in 4e can "out-rogue" the rogue - they still get things like expeditious retreat, jump, fly, invisibility, etc which are usually better than the equivalent rogue utility powers (even if the better wizard ones are dailies and the rogue ones tend to be encounters).
A 4e strength build cleric can go "toe-to-toe" with enemies just as well as a 4e fighter. In fact, just like 3e they're usually more effective at dealing damage and laying conditions on enemies (whereas the 4e fighter focuses more on marking and disrupting enemy movement & attacks).

I think the best things 4e can do to reduce the homogenity are to concentrate on different classes/builds that promote a different approach than "set-up and use encounter powers, then spam at-wills while deciding whether to blow dailies and/or action points" approach to combat. IMO, the psion is a good example of what should be done - the monk a poor one (because now your move as well as standard actions are pre-determined by your choice of powers). The pacifist cleric is a good example - while he generally fits the above pattern, he will be approaching combat from a different slant than most PCs. Hopefully the skill powers from PHB 3 might also improve things in this regard.

I also really like the idea of giving the classes out of combat abilities to differentiate them. Maybe add one per tier to each class or something like that?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 31, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> I think that a better approach would be to accentuate something that a particular class excels at.  For example, rather than declaring that only rogues can find traps I think it would be better for the game as a whole to simply give them a bonus to finding traps.  Of course, the pitfall of this is that it can easily lead back into the situation where either the rogue is the only one who can find the trap (because the DC is adjusted for a rogue with trapfinding) or the rogue automatically succeeds at trapfinding even when blindfolded (the DCs are calibrated so that anyone has a chance for success).




Or...

You let Rogues roll and then may roll again taking the 2nd roll. I think this is the classic mechanic that suits this situation. You don't muck around with the DCs in terms of the entire party but you still allow the rogue to be more proficient (higher percentage outcome of success). Win/Win.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 1, 2009)

> The problem (referring to the above something that only x can do) with this is that you can easily end up with circumstances that negatively impact the game, all for the sake of niche protection.




True, and I think the problem of "accidental suck" was something that certainly needed to be mitigated. It's no fun when you can't contribute to the adventure, but it's ALSO no fun when no one gets to contribute something special and distinct. The roles system, while useful, kind of exacerbates the problem, because it basically means everyone is doing one of four things, and that is all anyone ever does. 

I thought of how "accidental suck" was handled before 4e, and I got the impression that it was basically up to the DM. You're supposed to know your characters, and adjust the game to them. If you don't have a rogue, go easy on the traps. If you don't have a fighter, go easy on the combats. This was immensely fiddly, and, by and large, I'm glad to have a system to handle what was a very important and very subjective judgement call in earlier editions. 

Here's an idea I'm thinking of: *Power sources give you access to all classes within that power source*. You can change your class during a short rest.

Power sources in 4e are pretty distinct. Divine power sources are radiant and helpful, primal power sources are wise and strong, martial power sources are quick and tough, etc., etc. They are also distinguished by noncombat role: divine characters get power from their gods, martial characters get power from themselves, arcane characters get power from science-magic, etc.

There are a few downsides to this that I might be able to pave over, but that bear mentioning:

#1: I'd still like a different "minigame" for each power source. A distinctive mechanical schtick. Something like "all Arcane characters use a spellbook, and can swap out powers" or "Divine characters gain one extra power chosen randomly or by the DM" or "Primal characters must choose powers appropriate to the terrain/season/weather they are in" or something. 

#2: This could become messy, stat-wise. I might choose a primary and two secondary stats for each power source. This is close to being done already, but this can formalize it (Primal = Wis + Str/Con; Arcane = Int + Cha/Con; Martial = Str + Dex/Con; Divine = Cha + Wis/Con; whatever). 

#3: Each character gains a MESSLOAD of powers. This could be crazy intimidating and confusing, even with only one class in use per battle (barring multiclass feats). Perhaps use the minigame mentioned above to limit the potential power palette based on some power-source options (Divine characters are limited by their gods; Arcane characters are limited by their Sacrifices; Primal characters by their Totems, whatever).


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 1, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Nonetheless, it would be easy to fix if you simply allow the rogue to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom.  With that feature in place an elven druid would be, at best, a marginally better trap detector than the rogue (whereupon both would no doubt successfully search for traps).




This reminds me of a lot of the problems Melee Weapon Training opened: After a while, you only need one ability score (2 at most) and everything else is seed. First off, a rogue would naturally use his dex instead of his wisdom since his dex is going to be his highest score. So now the rogue has his dexterity covering exploit-attacks, basic attack (MWT: Dex), Init, Reflex Defense, Stealth, Thievery AND Perception checks, and AC. His Cha is covering Will Defense, and he can safely dump his 8 in Wis as long as he doesn't care about Insight or Nature checks...

What about other classes? Wouldn't a ranger want to use his Str to perception to track? Clerics use Wis to Religion, etc. 

Lastly, How do you use to Dex (or Str, or Cha) to be more perceptive. It becomes hard to rationalize (again like MWT, I attack you with my CON!) and eventually the concept of ability scores meaning something breaks down. 

While I have no problem with the 3 defenses, 2 scores each method, I think the "use X for Y" can be oversold too much by things like this.



Fanaelialae said:


> The problem with the Pathfinder approach is that it still limits what a "fair" DM can use in the absence of a rogue.  Admittedly, I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder to know how trap detection via spells works, but it seems to me that many DMs would simply avoid using magical traps if the party has no rogue because the traps are otherwise unavoidable (assuming the party doesn't have easy access to spells for magical trap detection).
> 
> Additionally, the 1/2 level bonus is also problematic.  At 1st level it doesn't guarantee superiority of any sort (since 1/2 of 1 is 0) and by 20th it grants a +10, meaning that an average check for the rogue becomes essentially impossible for the next best trapfinder (if the rogue needs a nat 10 to succeed the secondary trap finder requires a nat 20) and if the secondary trap finder has a reasonable chance of discovering the trap, the rogue cannot fail at all (if secondary guy needs a 10 then rogue cannot fail; I'm assuming Pathfinder doesn't use critical successes or fumbles for skills, though I can't be certain as I've only skimmed the Pathfinder rules).




Actually, its 1/2 level, min +1. I left that out. 

Trap detection via magic means either using Find Traps (Clr2) or simply using Detect Magic to look for magical auras, which can be dispelled if needed.

And yes, not having a rogue means the DM has to alter the traps he uses. He may have to lower the DCs to search, provide alternate means to disarm or avoid traps, or simply use weaker traps. Really no different than before, except now he can use traps with DCs above 20 and someone has a chance of finding it. 

Oh, the +10 does mean easier traps become a nuisance, but it also helps in finding them at farther range, scanning an area quickly, and other DC-upping tasks. 



Fanaelialae said:


> Basic fantasy falls into the same problem.  A party without a rogue (or even with a low level rogue) is one that is more likely to stumble into a trap than to have a realistic chance of finding it.  Additionally, it seems reminiscent of 1st and 2nd edition in that one's character can't improve in certain areas regardless of how hard he tries (my fighter's main hobby and fascination might be traps, but unless I multi/dual class rogue, he'll never get any better at finding them).  That always used to annoy me back in the day.




Well, Basic Fantasy mimics Basic/Expert D&D, so there is a LOT of Class X does Y mechanic. I just pointed it out as a way of allowing others to do something normally reserved for one class without destroying the thieves role. (1 in six ain't much, but its better than 2e's No-way, no-how).



Fanaelialae said:


> Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the 4e approach is perfect (see above).  Just that (IMO) the Pathfinder and Basic Fantasy approaches aren't very good ones, at least for my gaming preferences.  While I have no problem with a trap-focused rogue having the best chance to find a trap, I don't believe that it should be massively greater than that of a trap-focused non-rogue, and I certainly don't agree that there should be traps that only a rogue can find.




Well, its not perfect, but I think we both agree a rogue needs something to get "trapfinder" back in his title. The "use thievery" method might work.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 1, 2009)

The topic of traps is kind of funny. I've found that no one ever bothers to DISARM the trap. 

It takes usually 4 uses of thievery to disarm the trap. Usually, 1 guy has thievery. While the thief is using his disarm skillz, the trap continues to attack.

It usually takes 4-6 good whacks with a sword to destroy said trap. There's usually 5 guys who can possibly whack that trap. 

Which do you think they're going to do?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 1, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The topic of traps is kind of funny. I've found that no one ever bothers to DISARM the trap.
> 
> It takes usually 4 uses of thievery to disarm the trap. Usually, 1 guy has thievery. While the thief is using his disarm skillz, the trap continues to attack.
> 
> ...



So, a Thievery check should just deal damage? 

Seriously though, it's a good point. The advantage of everything being on one "track", as it were, is that it allows everyone's successes to contribute cumulatively to the same goal. If a Thievery check doesn't deal damage, then it should have an effect on the trap in line with what a pacifist cleric can do - lowering defenses or attack rolls, or even preventing it from functioning for a round.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2009)

The problem with removing homogeneity is that there are also other goals that the system wants to achieve. The system aims at a balance between characters. And this balance is seen "short-term" - e.g. per encounter as the smallest relevant unit. I think going away from this goal is not desirable. You are just removing one issue and replace it with another. 

One take to deal with the homogeneous is to change the rules for resting.
For example, let's say in the current setup a at-will has the power of X, an encounter power has the power of 2X, and a daily power of 3X.
A typical combat might be 8 rounds. Character A has 3 encounter powers and one daily power. Character B has 1 encounter power and 2 daily powers.
Character A has a total power of 4X +6X +3X (=13X) in one encounter, and 4X + 6X(10X) in every other. Character B has 4X + 2X + 9X (15X) in one encounter and 4X + 2X (6X) in every other that day.
If the characters go through 3 encounters before taking an extended rest, Character A is better of (power = 33X). If the characters go through 1 encounter and then take an extended rest, Character B is better off (27X). 

So, it is in interest of Character B if they take an extended rest early. It is not exactly a bad idea for Character A to do it, too - he has, after all, a daily resource. (And that is true with 3E hit points or 4E healing surges). But in gameplay, it turns out Character B is more effective then Character A.

If we remove the concept of extended rest/sleeping as the way to recover long-term resources, we could get away from that. Say hello to Milestones.

Every time a character completes a Milestone, he could get back his "daily" powers. If we use the 4E definition of that, this means every two encounters. 
Character A could be  a Fighter. Being a martial character, he of course has no daily powers, that would be ridiculous and unrealistic, as everyone knows. 
He has 4 encounter powers (each 2X power). Between Milestones, this is 8X.

Character B is a Mage. Magic is very difficult. In combat, he usually swings a staff. Magic is difficult to control, and it takes a while for the mind to recover from casting a powerful spell. So he has 2 daily powers, each at 4X power. Between milestones, that's 8X. 

Character C is a Cleric. Divine magic is not as strong as arcane magic, but the gods provide simpler prayers that can be done in a few minutes by a true believers. C has 1 daily power at 4X and 2 encounter powers at 2X. Between Milestones, that 8X.

Of course, now multiclassing is probably a mess.  And does it make sense to have Healing Surges recover too at this pace?


----------



## ferratus (Sep 1, 2009)

It might be a good idea to recover a daily per milestone anyway.   The monsters have a lot of hit points and can probably take it (and would speed up combat by a round or two).  You generally want your dailies for the climactic encounter, which means you probably hoard them more than you should.  The barbarian is the only one who is encouraged to spend his dailies, because his rage lasts the entire encounter, and I believe he can only have one going at once.  

This also might be a horror to some, but I hate spell resource management.  I like managing healing surges more because I don't mind if the party retreats because 1 or more of the PC's has gotten the snot beat of them.  The party retreating because they've run out of spells or even worse "dailies" seems rather anti-climactic to me.  

As for the wider issue of "homogeneousness" I seem to remember all the character builds in 3e being about maximizing outgoing damage and minimizing incoming damage no matter what class you played.  I also remember combat as being a lot more static and uninteresting as well.  So it plays as less homogeneous to me because the narrative is more varied (in my games anyway) both in combat and out of combat.  I'm afraid I can't really mourn differing mechanics and subsystems as long as the narrative needs are met.   It would just be too meta for me to care about differing mechanics between weapon and caster classes for resolving attacks.   As long as a foe is zapped with a spell or  hit with a weapon, I don't care whether the underlying mechanic is the same or not. 

In short, I don't appreciate mechanics in and of themselves, I only notice them when they don't work.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Sep 1, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Everything is relative.  There are games out there with vastly more variety built in to the mechanics.  Compared to those games, 4E is quite homogeneous.
> 
> I understand 4E very well.  And the homogeneity is shining bright.



Frankly, I can't even see the homogeneity in the mechanics. And I spent quite a bit of time looking at and thinking about the system when it first came out, not simply in order to run a game, but in order to teach a university class on RPGs that included a number of academic papers on RPGs and other media. I mention this only to try to establish that I really, really, have spent a lot of time and effort onstudying this system. (At least that semster, it was paid time!)

4E uses a number of different strategies for every class (and within each class) to produce the game experience. The fighter alone, with the differences in weapon types, has a great variety internal to the class.

Does 4E have limitations? Yes. Do I sometimes look at a PC and wish that there were some other options at certain levels for that specific PC? Yes. However, I could probably get around that with the hybrid class rules if I really wanted to. As the publications for the product increase, there will be more and more options. I could sit down and write something up if I really wanted, or I could re-skin a power to give it the flavour I wanted and forget about some specific mechanic and focus on what it presented during play rather than how it shaped the course of the game in another way.


> Perhaps, if you wish to actually contribute to a solution oriented discussion, you will quit offering shallow preconceptions of your own regarding other people's experience with the game you enjoy.  Because, you are wrong.  Deeply wrong.



The issue is that there simply is no problem to address. At least not one that is well-posed. It might be that we can discuss ways to add different mechanics to 4E, but that discussion might better take place with specific design goals in mind to shape and assess the mechanic.


> I think you claim regarding mechanics vs tactics is pretty sketchy at best.  But even with that, why can't we have both?



We do have both. The tactics comes about because of the differences in mechanics.


> Also, I'll clarify that it is the game I referenced as homogeneous, not specifically the classes.



In a wider sense, the game is not homogeneous. The basic mechanic provides a core for play, indeed, it is called the "core mechanic", but much of the actual rules are very specific for circumstances and for the flavour of specific attempts. In skill challenges alone one can see a vast difference of how the core mechanic is adapted for differnt play goals.


----------



## Mircoles (Sep 1, 2009)

Homogeneous? I don't think so.

I've played a wizard, a feylock and currently I'm playing a chaos sorcerer. 

My play experience has been very different with each of them even though they are all arcane casters. One controller and two strikers. 

The feylock and the sorcerer are the most different in play,even though they're both strikers. The feylock is a striker/controller and during combat I was obsessed with cursing every enemy in sight. With the chaos sorcerer it's more a matter of "Now what!" oh, I blow up or something bad and interesting happends to the target and I need to keep track of what I roll on the dice, just even or odd, so not too bad. 

I'm having a lot more fun with the sorcerer, though I do miss cursing enemies. You get quite obsessed with it as a warlock.

So not homogeneous in play, just in how they are layed out in the book.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 1, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem is, _everyone participates_.




You know, I totally get the desire to shine and to take turns, but man, this sentence. Identifying "everyone participates" as a problems is just... well, I don't agree.

At any rate, it may be a matter of play style, but I don't see a contradiction between "people have a chance to shine" and "everyone participates." In any given skill challenge, I've found that everyone participates, but some people shine more in skill challenges that stress their character's strengths and "merely" pull their weight in others. Tracking some bastard across wilderness territory? The people with strong Nature and Perception shine, and everyone else participates. Negotiating with the canny madam of the high-rent bordello? The people with strong Diplomacy and Insight shine, and everyone else participates. Everyone has a shot at either "pulling your own weight" and "oops!", but super rolling or your skill build adds in the third possibility of "being really impressive." 

To get back to the original point, I don't really see 4e as a game rife with homogeneity, myself. But there's a caveat here that I think is important: I don't build D&D characters for fun. Never have. I have friends who take character-building as a hobby, and who like specialized rulesets to govern their world-building, and 4e just isn't good for them. The rules-monkeying away from play just isn't as robust of a "sub-game" in 4e. I think that's a powerful advantage, myself — I also like playing Blood Bowl with very basic teams and letting my tactics emerge in play, and I also love how Spirit of the Century makes character generation a group sub-game rather than a solo sub-game — but I absolutely understand how it's a disadvantage for the solo fiddler.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 1, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> You know, I totally get the desire to shine and to take turns, but man, this sentence. Identifying "everyone participates" as a problems is just... well, I don't agree.
> 
> At any rate, it may be a matter of play style, but I don't see a contradiction between "people have a chance to shine" and "everyone participates." In any given skill challenge, I've found that everyone participates, but some people shine more in skill challenges that stress their character's strengths and "merely" pull their weight in others. Tracking some bastard across wilderness territory? The people with strong Nature and Perception shine, and everyone else participates. Negotiating with the canny madam of the high-rent bordello? The people with strong Diplomacy and Insight shine, and everyone else participates. Everyone has a shot at either "pulling your own weight" and "oops!", but super rolling or your skill build adds in the third possibility of "being really impressive."




If by "pull your weight" you mean "aid another or sit and watch" then sure. The system as written encourages this.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 1, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> You know, I totally get the desire to shine and to take turns, but man, this sentence. Identifying "everyone participates" as a problems is just... well, I don't agree.
> 
> At any rate, it may be a matter of play style, but I don't see a contradiction between "people have a chance to shine" and "everyone participates."



 Very much agreed.

I did not like 3.x niche protection. ("Hey it's a trap guys! Everyone except the Rogue, sit on your hands.")

4e's skill challenges, when run well, allow spotlight on skill choices and good creative uses of unexpected skills & powers, but don't require that everyone other than The Chosen One leave the room for a smoke break.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 1, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If by "pull your weight" you mean "aid another or sit and watch" then sure. The system as written encourages this.




Not even a little bit what I meant, actually. Of course, my opinion comes out of practical play, so bear in mind that it's more about my personal experiences than anything else. Sometimes there's an aid another if somebody isn't feeling totally creative, but usually someone can find something to do wherein they have a fair chance of success, if not a splendid one. That's the point of the skill challenge, after all. 

I won't say the skill challenge system is perfect, of course; nobody says that. The main trouble I encounter with skill challenges is that too many of the examples given encourage too few skills to contribute to success. If you limit the number of skills that "count" for successes to only three or four per skill challenge, it will be a much different experience than if you say there are two to four skills that will give you successes on moderate DCs, and about three to eight skills that will contribute on hard DCs. I think Piratecat writes exceptional skill challenges, for instance. 

I hope DMG2 talks more about unscripted skill challenges, actually. I was glad to find out I'm not the only person who uses them, and they're absolutely fantastic. Set the problem, then say "This is going to be a skill challenge. Tell me what you're going to do to try overcoming it." This works _great_ with creative players: it's all that old-school creativity, but enough of a complicated framework to really feel like there's structure to the activity. 

Example: A villain has a hostage out on a promontory. He's expecting a given NPC to show up and do a prisoner exchange. The PCs are then told "Okay, it's skill challenge time." In this example, the PCs used Nature checks to find natural tinctures and Bluff checks to disguise the dwarf so he could look like the expected NPC and approach from a distance, and then the more primal-aspected ones used Perception, Nature and Stealth to locate a back route and creep up on the villain and his hostage from an alternate direction. It was a splendid encounter, and all the players came away feeling like they shone. 

I could have scripted this out by only earmarking specific skills, but then it would have been _my_ plan, not theirs. I'd like to see more discussion in, say, the DMG2 about how to call unscripted skill challenges as a way to adjudicate proactive player plans. One of the things I really like about 4e is that it strives to make things easier to ad-lib; with a little more attention to skill challenges with that same spirit in mind, fewer players might come away from them feeling like their only option is to aid another.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 1, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I hope DMG2 talks more about unscripted skill challenges, actually.




Me too.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 1, 2009)

If I'm going to do overt "Here's a skill challenge and here is the rules", I'll go PCat's way.

Unscripted but Overt is nice.

Speaking of skill challenges, did anyone read the DMG2 preview that's up? Monday's was on skill challenges.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 2, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Speaking of skill challenges, did anyone read the DMG2 preview that's up? Monday's was on skill challenges.




By Rob "Spirit of the Century" Donoghue, no less.


----------



## Betote (Sep 2, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I did not like 3.x niche protection. ("Hey it's a trap guys! Everyone except the Rogue, sit on your hands.")




I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 2, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> By Rob "Spirit of the Century" Donoghue, no less.



You mean on his LJ, or on the skill challenge article?


----------



## Nifft (Sep 2, 2009)

Betote said:


> I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.



 I can't tell if you're serious.

Is that really the most memorable trap your DM came up with?

Oh well, -- N


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 2, 2009)

Rechan said:


> You mean on his LJ, or on the skill challenge article?




He's got credit in the article proper.


----------



## Henry (Sep 2, 2009)

Betote said:


> I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.




For our group, it was more like, _"OK rogue and ranger, sit on your hands while the wizard turns superiorly invisible, flies, and ethereally sneaks up on the entire party of opposing NPCs that was the crux of the adventure, and watch while he dismantles them with save or die spells for 20 minutes by himself." _ The rogue by contrast was damned good at sneaking around, and decent at traps when the cleric wasn't doing the whole "find traps" thing, but was better at just informing the wizard where the enemy was and letting the wizard do his thing.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 2, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> Frankly, I can't even see the homogeneity in the mechanics. And I spent quite a bit of time looking at and thinking about the system when it first came out, not simply in order to run a game, but in order to teach a university class on RPGs that included a number of academic papers on RPGs and other media. I mention this only to try to establish that I really, really, have spent a lot of time and effort onstudying this system. (At least that semster, it was paid time!)



Cool.  We both understand the game well and we have a difference in perception.
I strongly suspect it comes from a difference in core expectations.
I agree with pretty much everything you said about where there are differences.  And it does not even begin to move my conclusion.  You have not even told me anything I did not even know.
There are games out there which are far less homogeneous and I prefer them.

edit: to be clear, if you asked me what was wrong with 4E, being homogeneous would not be the answer I would give.  This thread kinda makes it sound like that is the beginning and the end of the pro/anti debate.  It is just one of many results of the design philosophy.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 2, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I can't tell if you're serious.
> 
> Is that really the most memorable trap your DM came up with?
> 
> Oh well, -- N



Be careful, maybe he is the DM


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> (1 in six ain't much, but its better than 2e's No-way, no-how).



Where is that "no way, no how" statement? I just now looked in the PHB and DMG, and did not find it. I _did_ find that 







> The thief is trained to find small traps and alarms. These include poisoned needles, spring blades, deadly gases, and warning bells. This skill is not effective for finding deadfall ceilings, crushing walls, or other large, mechanical traps. To find the trap, the thief must be able to touch and inspect the trapped object.


----------



## Tuft (Sep 2, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> You know, I totally get the desire to shine and to take turns, but man, this sentence. Identifying "everyone participates" as a problems is just... well, I don't agree.
> 
> At any rate, it may be a matter of play style, but I don't see a contradiction between "people have a chance to shine" and "everyone participates." In any given skill challenge, I've found that everyone participates, but some people shine more in skill challenges that stress their character's strengths and "merely" pull their weight in others. Tracking some bastard across wilderness territory? The people with strong Nature and Perception shine, and everyone else participates. Negotiating with the canny madam of the high-rent bordello? The people with strong Diplomacy and Insight shine, and everyone else participates. Everyone has a shot at either "pulling your own weight" and "oops!", but super rolling or your skill build adds in the third possibility of "being really impressive."




The problem is that "super rolling" has no effect on the skill challenge what so ever. Skill challenges are passed  by all members of the group avoiding failure rolls. If you pass with 2 or you pass with 20 does not matter in the slightest. 


To quote from Mearls himself in the recent Dragon article on Skill Powers: 


> I was playing a tiefling wizard with a 16 Charisma and training in Diplomacy and Bluff. It was fun serving as the party’s spokesmen, but that didn’t quite feel like enough. I wanted the option to do interesting things with my skills outside of the specific scenes and roleplaying moments that came up.






> Skill powers give us the chance to really reward characters who max out their bonus with a skill. When it comes to DCs, we can’t normally set them so high that we reward such a character with a slim chance at success. Instead, most DCs are set to reward such characters with near-automatic success. That’s useful, but it can prove a little anti-climatic.




Simply put, if you put a lot of resources into a skill, you are rewarded not with shine, but with anti-climax...

Unfortunately, the Skill Powers as listed in the article misses the mark; they do not reward good skill rolls either. (Only having utility power slots to spare, and who has that?)


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 2, 2009)

Tuft said:


> The problem is that "super rolling" has no effect on the skill challenge what so ever. Skill challenges are passed  by all members of the group avoiding failure rolls. If you pass with 2 or you pass with 20 does not matter in the slightest.




Well, super rolling has two basic benefits: one, it lets you pull off a Hard difficulty check, and two (though this really depends on the group), it tends to have some roleplaying impact. It might be improvised as a mechanical benefit — if you pass a Diplomacy check by 20, you may wind up making the target particularly impressed, and the next Diplomacy check gets a +2 bonus. Or maybe it's just a straight-up roleplaying thing wherein if you pass your Acrobatics check by 20, you look _damn good_. That is of zero utility to some groups, but in other groups, looking damn good is not only fun, but critical successes and critical failures can help shape how you see your character. 

Characters with maxed-out skills or lucky rolls tend to acquire a reputation in the games I've seen. There's almost a mystical reverence for the shifter priestess of the moon goddess who seems to perceive everything, and the feylock attracts friends easily because of his tendency to excel even on casual Diplomacy checks (before using Beguiling Tongue, no less).

I admit this is really dependent on the group, though. Whereas our group might really groove on a "critical" success or failure on a negotiation check or an athletic endeavor, and work it into roleplaying, others might just shrug and move on. 



> Simply put, if you put a lot of resources into a skill, you are rewarded not with shine, but with anti-climax...




And the ability to still succeed if you roll like the poop. That's worth a lot with the basic d20 resolution; it would be less significant if you were using 3d6 or something that rolled on a curve, but the ability to succeed on a 5 is more frequently relevant than I would personally like it to be.



> Unfortunately, the Skill Powers as listed in the article misses the mark; they do not reward good skill rolls either. (Only having utility power slots to spare, and who has that?)




I dunno if that's the intention. It seems more like the desire to make your skill choices relevant outside of appropriate roleplaying situations, and relevant in any combat you get into. It doesn't seem to be so much "man, I wish I had more reward for beating a check by 10" as "man, I wish I could use my training in Bluff in some way against this behir."


----------



## Tuft (Sep 2, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Well, super rolling has two basic benefits: one, it lets you pull off a Hard difficulty check, and two (though this really depends on the group), it tends to have some roleplaying impact. It might be improvised as a mechanical benefit — if you pass a Diplomacy check by 20, you may wind up making the target particularly impressed, and the next Diplomacy check gets a +2 bonus. Or maybe it's just a straight-up roleplaying thing wherein if you pass your Acrobatics check by 20, you look _damn good_. That is of zero utility to some groups, but in other groups, looking damn good is not only fun, but critical successes and critical failures can help shape how you see your character.




We used to have critical successes on skill rolls in the 3.5 game - if you first rolled a 20 and then confirmed with a second successfull skill roll, you got something extra out of it. That way one of my characters got taken for a goddess on a 20-20 diplomacy check, got involved in the religious life of the indigenes, and started her own cult - not to mention got a few religius conundrums herself... wonderful roleplaying times. 

It got removed in the shift to 4E as "not in the spirit of 4E" and "incompatible with the skill challenge mechanics"...  Now its just "what's the tally on this skill challenge..." - individual rolls does not matter  



> I dunno if that's the intention. It seems more like the desire to make your skill choices relevant outside of appropriate roleplaying situations, and relevant in any combat you get into. It doesn't seem to be so much "man, I wish I had more reward for beating a check by 10" as "man, I wish I could use my training in Bluff in some way against this behir."




The problem with that is that you probably already has something better in your regular powers for the behir...


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 2, 2009)

Tuft said:


> We used to have critical successes on skill rolls in the 3.5 game - if you first rolled a 20 and then confirmed with a second successfull skill roll, you got something extra out of it. That way one of my characters got taken for a goddess on a 20-20 diplomacy check, got involved in the religious life of the indigenes, and started her own cult - not to mention got a few religius conundrums herself... wonderful roleplaying times.
> 
> It got removed in the shift to 4E as "not in the spirit of 4E" and "incompatible with the skill challenge mechanics"...  Now its just "what's the tally on this skill challenge..." - individual rolls does not matter




The way we play it, individual rolls do matter, particularly outside of a skill challenge. (You probably don't have to have a straight-up skill challenge to make a Streetwise check to gather rumors, for instance.) It's just that in a skill challenge, one player doesn't "win" the whole thing for the entire group with a roll or two. It's sort of like combat — for all that some people complain about games that invoke frequent combat, combat is one of the things that engages every member of the group at once. That doesn't happen as often away from combat unless your players are very entertaining to watch; sometimes the rest of the group just tunes out when the bard starts trying to chat up the bartender. I definitely agree with the design goal of skill challenges as something that mechanically gets the entire group participating outside of combat. They shouldn't replace single rolls, they should just be set pieces. 

I tend to invoke skill challenges whenever I feel that it's something that could contribute to a milestone, something that the entire group should potentially get XP for, or if it just feels like a situation's too complicated to handle with a single die roll. 

This is part of why I'd like to see unscripted skill challenges addressed: how to call them, and how to know when _not_ to call them. 



> The problem with that is that you probably already has something better in your regular powers for the behir...




Generally speaking, yeah. Over on RPGnet they're discussing potential house rules to just grant bonus skill powers: for example, you can pick one per tier, and retrain it as you go up in level as usual if you feel so inclined. I think that's not a bad idea if your players don't have trouble keeping a higher number of powers straight.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Where is that "no way, no how" statement? I just now looked in the PHB and DMG, and did not find it. I _did_ find that




I'm talking about non-thieves. The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps, but other classes could only find them with magic (ie find traps) or by blundering into them. The "one-in-six" rule was for non-thieves (aka fighters, wizards, or clerics) to find a trap via their own perception. 

Compare

2e
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: You find nothing.
Thief: I search the door for traps.
DM: *rolls* You find a poison needle!

vs.

BFRPG
Fighter: I search the door.
DM: *rolls* You see something funny on the door, it might be trapped.
Fighter: Thief, can you disarm it?
Thief: I find and remove the trap.
DM: *rolls* Its a poison needle trap. You think you manage to disarm the trap.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I'm talking about non-thieves. The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps, but other classes could only find them with magic (ie find traps) or by blundering into them. The "one-in-six" rule was for non-thieves (aka fighters, wizards, or clerics) to find a trap via their own perception.
> 
> Compare
> 
> ...




So, wouldn't that make BFRPG closer to 4e?  Since, earlier in the thread it was mentioned, one character might make a better trap finder while a second might be a better trap remover?  In other words, in BFRPG, everyone has a chance to participate, which is similar to 4e?


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

> The golden rule was thieves (and thieves alone) could find traps ...



I'm not seeing that rule in the books. Thieves get a special chance to find the sort that would come up in their lock- and pocket-picking, and dwarves to find stonework traps, pits, and deadfalls. Other characters can find and deal with things just as you or I might.

Likewise, any character could fight -- but warrior types were better at it. There were qualitative differences such as armament by class (ability to use magic swords being especially big, magic arrows and bows being notable as well).

Now, there are heaps of different combat powers, and that seems to be where views focus. I think there's about as much (if not just the kinds of) differentiation as one might reasonably expect. It happens not to interest me enough to warrant the demands on time and energy, but that's another matter. I _like_ a simple "roll to hit, roll for damage" method most of the time, to _save_ time and get on with the adventure.

How about those 17 skills and however many feats? The number may be fewer than in 3e, and feats even more concerned with what might seem petty details, but is there really a dire shortage of "crunch"? There's certainly more than in the 1970s-80s.

Maybe the big, basic problem for some people is not that there are "wrong" mechanisms but that there is too much focus on them; maybe different ones or -- especially! -- _more_ won't solve the problem.

The bottom line for some may be that 4e is simply not the game for them. For others, perhaps the answer is to look elsewhere than the number-crunching, board-game moves, etc., for the variety that is the spice of life.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, wouldn't that make BFRPG closer to 4e?  Since, earlier in the thread it was mentioned, one character might make a better trap finder while a second might be a better trap remover?  In other words, in BFRPG, everyone has a chance to participate, which is similar to 4e?




Its a natural rejection of the 1e/2e/3e mindset where only one class can do something and the rest of you can bug off.  have no problem with letting others do something out of class (like trapfinding) as long as the class that is supposed to do that role is subsequently better at it than everyone else. Pathfinder removed the restriction, BFRPG removes it, D&D 4e does it. I. Each does it differently (my problem with 4e's method is that other classes do it BETTER than usually trapfinder class: rogue). 

(Then again, the rogue's main job isn't to be a sneak or trapfinder, but to deal massive damage in combat. So perhaps it makes sense after all...)

Speaking of which...



Ariosto said:


> I'm not seeing that rule in the books. Thieves get a special chance to find the sort that would come up in their lock- and pocket-picking, and dwarves to find stonework traps, pits, and deadfalls. Other characters can find and deal with things just as you or I might.




And how would that be? There's no rule for non-thieves (or dwarves in special cases) to determine a trap is set. NONE. Find me a quote, page #, or Dragon article that lets my fighter find a trap, and I'll agree. 

Oh, there is no rule for Pick-pocketing if your a fighter either. Its called Niche-protection. 



Ariosto said:


> Likewise, any character could fight -- but warrior types were better at it. There were qualitative differences such as armament by class (ability to use magic swords being especially big, magic arrows and bows being notable as well).




Yeah, but the PHB SPELLS OUT how badly a wizard can fight. He has the worst attack-rate, spelled-out poor weapon selection, and the -5 for fighting with a non-proficient weapon. I see no rule like that on trapfinding. Its really "Thieves can do this, dwarves in unique situations, and the rest of you are blind as a bat when it comes to trapfinding." 



Ariosto said:


> Now, there are heaps of different combat powers, and that seems to be where views focus. I think there's about as much (if not just the kinds of) differentiation as one might reasonably expect. It happens not to interest me enough to warrant the demands on time and energy, but that's another matter. I _like_ a simple "roll to hit, roll for damage" method most of the time, to _save_ time and get on with the adventure.
> How about those 17 skills and however many feats? The number may be fewer than in 3e, and feats even more concerned with what might seem petty details, but is there really a dire shortage of "crunch"? There's certainly more than in the 1970s-80s.
> Maybe the big, basic problem for some people is not that there are "wrong" mechanisms but that there is too much focus on them; maybe different ones or -- especially! -- _more_ won't solve the problem.
> The bottom line for some may be that 4e is simply not the game for them. For others, perhaps the answer is to look elsewhere than the number-crunching, board-game moves, etc., for the variety that is the spice of life.




Did you reply to the wrong thread? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, other than you don't like 4e. Fine, I don't either. I gots my Pathfinder and BFRPG, you got your thing. Cool.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Sep 2, 2009)

This thread has gone in various different ways, and I'm enjoying it a lot. It seems that it managed to avoid the mighty edition wars of doom. 

It's been a long time since I last followed a thread around here _post by post_ for more than half a dozen pages, and I've not even adopted 4E as my D&D of choice!

Now something I'm thinking of: how to bring the various older edition mechanic themes under the 4E system to offer more variety?

Psionics seems to be a step on that direction, but what I'd really like to know is how, for example, to discard the power system for a class without making it unplayable?

Do we have a book with information regarding how much average damage a character of a given role should deal per round during a 10-round combat to be considered balanced in a given level?

Cheers,


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> Do we have a book with information regarding how much average damage a character of a given role should deal per round during a 10-round combat to be considered balanced in a given level?
> Cheers,



There is no way to determine this without knowing how many encounters are done per day. And average damage is just a start. 

The problem with leaving the specific power framework is that the power balance changes depending on how long combats are or how often you fight each day. 3E was balanced under certain assumptions - assumptions that were easily broken.

I think another thing that might be possible is to create a type of "charging" powers. Instead of making an attack, a character spends his action to charge a power. That could increase the powers overall effect - damage, conditions, area - when it is finally. The end result of the power would be balanced against a character spending the charge actions making regular (basic/at-will) attacks and a normal power of that level. This isn't necessarily easy to balance, either, since you don't just want to deal more damage, you want also to benefit from conditional effects that you have sacrificed in charging the power. 


Another approach is to change the rules of resting or recovering powers, as mentioned above.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

> Find me a quote, page #, or Dragon article that lets my fighter find a trap, and I'll agree.



Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is _necessary_ to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous. 

Now, BFRPG has less in the way of game factors than 4e; in quantifiable terms, the latter thus appears to me less homogeneous. So, I am not surprised to find that such a vague characterization is not very helpful.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 2, 2009)

What game does BF stand for?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think another thing that might be possible is to create a type of "charging" powers. Instead of making an attack, a character spends his action to charge a power. That could increase the powers overall effect - damage, conditions, area - when it is finally. The end result of the power would be balanced against a character spending the charge actions making regular (basic/at-will) attacks and a normal power of that level. This isn't necessarily easy to balance, either, since you don't just want to deal more damage, you want also to benefit from conditional effects that you have sacrificed in charging the power.



I think that's how the assassin is going to work. Maybe not spending a standard action chargin his lazer but the damage supposedly gets bigger the longer you "observe your target".


----------



## billd91 (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is _necessary_ to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.




That's not the point of  his example. A character class can explicitly do a specific activity. A character race can do so under certain circumstances. Does that, or does that not, imply that others cannot do that particular activity? 
To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.

Regarding the bowl of stew, if a fighter had a 15% to eat a bowl of stew at 1st level and the advancement table said that he got 5% better per experience level... what would that say about a cleric eating a bowl of stew?


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is no way to determine this without knowing how many encounters are done per day. And average damage is just a start.




Indeed. The long-term resource management of milestones and encounter/daily powers makes it more difficult to break down "average damage per round" figures. This is particularly true because so many powers are built to capitalize on teamwork: try running the numbers for a rogue who is assumed to always have a party member helping her flank versus the numbers for a rogue who must rely on her own powers to achieve combat advantage. The latter is at a serious disadvantage.

Ironically, with a bit more homogeneity in 4e, this calculation would be a little easier to run.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Sep 2, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Ironically, with a bit more homogeneity in 4e, this calculation would be a little easier to run.




No, thanks. We have enough of it, already. 

Cheeers,


----------



## Nifft (Sep 2, 2009)

billd91 said:


> what would that say about a cleric eating a bowl of stew?



 Stew Clerics are broken and you darn well know it!

"_ChowDerzilla!_", -- N


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Sep 2, 2009)

billd91 said:


> To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.




As a 2E DM, I always looked at the thieving skills as a base chance of success that nothing could resist. I mean, everybody can try no move silently or hide in shadows, but a thief had a chance of doing so regardless of how good was the perception of those looking for him, that's why he rolled on a d% and all important modifiers were related to himself.

In the same manner, a fighter would be able to find a trap, but he goes purely on his own perception, working against the complexity of the mechanism and the degree of success of the one who set it there trying to hide it. A thief, though, with extraordinary skill, has his eyes especially trained to find them, much like the dwarf with the stone workings.

I don't know if this solves your problem, but it has always worked for me, and also make the thieving skills more extraordinary and interesting than class-exclusive non-weapon proficiencies.

Cheers,


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 2, 2009)

You cannot remove the homogeneity from 4E because the game itself is supposed to be a similar experience for every player who plays it.  It is undeniably the same game no matter whose table you play at.   If you choose the same options exactly as you did with your previous character, your character is near identical. If you purchase the same equipment, there is no mechanical difference.

The biggest reason for the experience of "same 'ol, same 'ol" is the diversity of game play is no longer at the strategic Class level, but at the tactical Sub-Class level.  Your role is no longer your Class.  Where magic-users sought out magic to explore and fighting-men combat, now every class is about one experience: the power-based fighter.  One's subclass within that is the 4E Role: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.  Further differentiation, a sort of sub-sub-Class, received the old title of "Class".  In truth, all players are playing the role of a combatant with the vast majority of rules giving differentiating PC abilities at that. 

The rest of the game: magic, religion, skills, etc., were all divorced away from that system.  If you want a less homogeneous game experience, focus your play on non-tactical combat elements. _~edited_


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 2, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> As a 2E DM, I always looked at the thieving skills as a base chance of success that nothing could resist. I mean, everybody can try no move silently or hide in shadows, but a thief had a chance of doing so regardless of how good was the perception of those looking for him, that's why he rolled on a d% and all important modifiers were related to himself.
> 
> In the same manner, a fighter would be able to find a trap, but he goes purely on his own perception, working against the complexity of the mechanism and the degree of success of the one who set it there trying to hide it. A thief, though, with extraordinary skill, has his eyes especially trained to find them, much like the dwarf with the stone workings.
> 
> ...




This pretty much sums it up. A fighter _tries _to find the trap and might succeed, with the level of success being variable and unknown. A skilled thief _does _find the trap, boom done.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is _necessary_ to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.




Really. Since there is no special rule that says my fighter CAN'T find traps, pick pockets, seduce princesses, eat rocks, control the weather, spontaneously combust or fly to the moon, I can automatically do all those things, right?


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Sep 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Really. Since there is no special rule that says my fighter CAN'T find traps, pick pockets, seduce princesses, eat rocks, control the weather, spontaneously combust or fly to the moon, I can automatically do all those things, right?




I always thought of rules as not telling you directly if you have the possibility of doing it, but rather what are your chances of doing, if you try. If the rules don't say how much of a chance you have, you may take it as meaning you have no chance, but I prefer to think of them as saying consult the DM to know what are your chances.

Cheers,


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 2, 2009)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I always thought of rules as not telling you directly if you have the possibility of doing it, but rather what are your chances of doing, if you try. If the rules don't say how much of a chance you have, you may take it as meaning you have no chance, but I prefer to think of them as saying consult the DM to know what are your chances.
> 
> Cheers,




Which is my point. Why have a special rule for thieves to find traps if, theoretically, anyone can do it?

More imporantly, how would I determine if the fighter can FIND the trap? Roll a percentile like thief skill? What's the threshold for success? 1%? 5%? 15%? Make it an ability check (which may/may not be better than the thieves % amount)? Allow the player to succeed/fail based SOLELY on the description of his method of searching (and if so, why stop at trapfinding: "I shoot him in the left eye to blind him.") Or how bout a purely arbitary method (flip a coin)?

While I can play a rules-lite game, I perfer to have SOME rules!


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Really. Since there is no special rule that says my fighter CAN'T find traps, pick pockets, seduce princesses, eat rocks, control the weather, spontaneously combust or fly to the moon, I can automatically do all those things, right?




IMO Remathilis is right.

I played quite a bit of 2nd edition and basic D&D back in the day, and I never found a DM who would grant anyone but a thief the chance to find traps (short of being a dwarf or using a spell, though I can't recall Detect Pits and Snares or whatever it was called ever being used successfully).  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you CAN'T do that under OD&D, just that it certainly isn't an explicit assumption on the part of the system.  You do have to be careful with something like this lest it undervalue the thief (allowing the cleric a Wisdom check to notice a trap, for example, wouldn't be very fair since at low levels the cleric has much better odds of succeeding on that Wisdom check than the thief on his Find/Remove Traps check).


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

Oh, Remathilis! I doubt that you really do not understand that one does not follow from the other.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

> ... at low levels the cleric has much better odds of succeeding on that Wisdom check than the thief on his Find/Remove Traps check ...



Actually doing what it takes right off the bat need not be limited to a mere 20% or 35% or 50% (or whatever) chance, either. Note that with two rolls needed, 20% to find becomes just 4% to find and remove (24 to 1 odds against).

So, players have hooked themselves onto this notion of stacking the odds against themselves and leaving their fates in the fickle hands of chance as a form of "niche protection" that in fact does not protect anyone but gets thieves killed.

You can lead a horse to water, and indeed the designers kept trying that right through 3e. If they've become at last utterly fed up and decided to reduce everything to dice-rolls ... with "homogenization" to minimize unpredictability ... then I cannot much blame them.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 2, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Actually doing what it takes right off the bat need not be limited to a mere 20% or 35% or 50% (or whatever) chance, either. Note that with two rolls needed, 20% to find becomes just 4% to find and remove (24 to 1 odds against).




Yes, I'm aware that it was a crappy approach that killed many a thief.  I was that thief many a time.



Ariosto said:


> So, players have hooked themselves onto this notion of stacking the odds against themselves and leaving their fates in the fickle hands of chance as a form of "niche protection" that in fact does not protect anyone but gets thieves killed.
> 
> You can lead a horse to water, and indeed the designers kept trying that right through 3e. If they've become at last utterly fed up and decided to reduce everything to dice-rolls ... with "homogenization" to minimize unpredictability ... then I cannot much blame them.




It isn't the _players_ that are doing it anymore than it's the DM.  It's the _system_.  Please direct me to the page in the 2nd edition PHB or DMG where it says that you can (or should) give players some kind of a check to succeed at finding traps even if they aren't a thief, or that you should role play the encounter entirely without dice.  I won't even ask for rules (since I'm 99% certain they don't exist), guidelines would suffice.

I can tell you where that page is in 4e; page 42 of the DMG.

No doubt, a competent DM might create a functional method (house rule) to allow a fighter a means to move silently while ensuring that the thief is still the best at sneaking.  However, it is a treacherous place to tread because if you give away everything the thief can do, what is he really left with?  He's a sub-par fighter who needs a little less xp and might (rarely) get an opportunity to backstab.

That you can somehow try to blame this on players seems utterly preposterous to me.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 2, 2009)

Moldvay Basic D&D grants any character 1 chance in 6 of finding a trap.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 2, 2009)

> ... where it says that you can (or should) give players some kind of a check to succeed ...



If "check" means "dice roll", then why? It's mighty anachronistic to expect the old game to advocate principles of the new. All the DM needs to give is what the characters perceive.

A fighter cannot do all that the thief can in regards, say, to creaking floorboards or squeaking hinges. Nor can the fighter so blend into dark areas, flatten himself or herself, and, by remaining motionless when in sight, go unobserved.

It is hardly necessary to turn everyone (including thieves with mere 10% or 15% chances in their special functions) into clumsy bumblers! That is most definitely a "house rule", for which those contriving it are responsible.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> If "check" means "dice roll", then why? It's mighty anachronistic to expect the old game to advocate principles of the new. All the DM needs to give is what the characters perceive.
> 
> A fighter cannot do all that the thief can in regards, say, to creaking floorboards or squeaking hinges. Nor can the fighter so blend into dark areas, flatten himself or herself, and, by remaining motionless when in sight, go unobserved.
> 
> It is hardly necessary to turn everyone (including thieves with mere 10% or 15% chances in their special functions) into clumsy bumblers! That is most definitely a "house rule", for which those contriving it are responsible.




You seem to have ignored the second half of the sentence of mine that you quoted, which seems to me like it should have been relevant to your response.  In case you are uncertain, I'm referring to the following:



> ...or that you should role play the encounter entirely without dice.




The system of AD&D/OD&D pretty much assumes that (low level) PCs are clumsy bumblers at a great many things by default!

Again, I'll ask you to demonstrate where in the AD&D PHB or DMG it was suggested that the players should be able to overcome challenges via free form role playing.  

Because I would say that "An Example of Play" on page 10 of the 2nd edition PHB seems to run somewhat counter to what you are saying here.  The DM rolled several checks for the players to locate the secret door, which barring the presence of an elf could have easily been failed.  The example explicitly _didn't_ have the PCs automatically succeed in locating the secret door when the cleric stepped onto the block and searched the ceiling; stepping onto the block merely gave him the opportunity for a 1 in 6 chance (I think that was the non-elven chance anyway) to find it.  Not very good odds, though I suppose it didn't matter for whoever wrote the example as I doubt they actually played through the scenario.

It isn't as obvious as you seem to imply (as my play experiences can attest to).  If it wasn't present in the books, then you are house ruling.  Don't be mistaken, I think that allowing your PCs to cleverly circumvent a 90% chance of failure is an example of good (or even great) DMing, but I'm 99% certain that it would also be a house rule under AD&D.

Free form RP is something that you can do with any game (or even without a game), be it 4e or AD&D.  4e just provides a robust and balanced mechanical system in addition to whatever free form RP, because when the DM is too inexperienced or simply uncertain whether a plan of action ought to succeed it's nice to be able to fall back onto something actually functional.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Oh, Remathilis! I doubt that you really do not understand that one does not follow from the other.




Quite right, but I'm dismissing the "10-foot pole" notion of trap detection because that is not a function of game rules. If all traps can be found with 10 poles, rolling rocks down hallways, and "I observe the keylock VERRY closely" method of trap detection, why have a rule about it in the first place? Why give a class a "roll to find" when anyone can find them with a good enough description of their search methodology and a few mundane tools? 

In the end, you have only three options: anyone can find a trap because they described finding the trap and the DM allows it (or doesn't, depending on his whim), anyone has a chance to find traps by the power of dies rolls (and the rogue may/may not have an advantage over other searchers) or rogues can find traps, everyone else can watch the rogue find traps. Personally, I find the first and last poor game design. We'll have to disagree on that.


----------



## Aramax (Sep 3, 2009)

I want the part of my life back that I lost reading this crap.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

Aramax said:


> I want the part of my life back that I lost reading this crap.




And yet you wasted more of it by actually posting. How interesting.


----------



## Henry (Sep 3, 2009)

Aramax said:


> I want the part of my life back that I lost reading this crap.




_Caveat Spector?_


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 3, 2009)

Well, the last was as a matter of historical fact not Gygax's design -- and someone has been arguing that such exclusivity is just what's missing in the "homogeneity" of 4e.

The first stands to common sense. If a covering of leaves is what keeps one from seeing a steel-jawed trap, then removing the leaves permits one to see it. A ranger, or a character with secondary skill as forester, hunter or trapper, might have a special chance of noting signs of the trap even while it is well camouflaged.

The surest way to avoid getting killed by poison is to avoid poison, and the blind can't be petrified by meeting Medusa's gaze. Having the second chance of a "saving throw" is handy, though! Getting a "save" where others don't is an advantage when failure often means death (as with booby-trapped treasure chests).


----------



## Betote (Sep 3, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I can't tell if you're serious.
> 
> Is that really the most memorable trap your DM came up with?




I work with the materials that you give me. Crappy example, crappy trap


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Well, the last was as a matter of historical fact not Gygax's design -- and someone has been arguing that such exclusivity is just what's missing in the "homogeneity" of 4e.
> 
> The first stands to common sense. If a covering of leaves is what keeps one from seeing a steel-jawed trap, then removing the leaves permits one to see it. A ranger, or a character with secondary skill as forester, hunter or trapper, might have a special chance of noting signs of the trap even while it is well camouflaged.
> 
> The surest way to avoid getting killed by poison is to avoid poison, and the blind can't be petrified by meeting Medusa's gaze. Having the second chance of a "saving throw" is handy, though! Getting a "save" where others don't is an advantage when failure often means death (as with booby-trapped treasure chests).




Yes, because all traps are ridiculously easy to find.  Yup, if all traps are simply leaf covered vice jaws, then sure, no problem.  Then again, why bother with a thief at all in that case?  However, IME, most traps are significantly harder to find.  Which, in turn, led to every group turning into special forces members, and all sorts of methods for opening a chest.

-------------------

Anyway, on the issue of mechanical homogeneity leading to homogeneous characters, I have to say I disagree with the basic premise. 

Step away from D&D for a second.  There are any number of systems where every character has access to exactly the same mechanics with no variation at all.  Most skill based systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds, for example.  In GURPS, every character is made using a pool of points and no character has any unique mechanics to differentiate one from another.  Same in Savage Worlds - 5 points between your stats, 15 points for skills, 1 major or 2 minor hinderances and possibly 1 edge.  Done.

Yet, the variety of characters in those systems is pretty wide.  I've never heard anyone complain about sameyness in their GURPS characters.  Yet, no GURPS character has any niche protection whatsoever.  Nor does any Savage World's character.

The "If all you have is a hammer" line has been repeated a few times here.  Yet, do we really need to use nails, glue and screws to build characters in order to gain uniqueness?  Does it matter if I put it together with a Phillips or Robertson screw?  To abuse the analogy anyway.  

The obvious difference between skill based systems and 4e D&D is the class system.  The question is, does the package of skills you gain with each class (and by skills I mean more than just things like stealth or perception, but also class abilities and powers, which are generally covered by point buy systems like Savage Worlds) provide enough uniqueness to distinguish one character from another?  

Some people are claiming that it does and others claim that it doesn't.  I'm on the fence.  I don't know.  

But, I do disagree  with the basic premise that mechanical diversity is required in order to make diverse characters.  Skill based, or point buy systems show that to be wrong.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I've never heard anyone complain about sameyness in their GURPS characters.



What part of GURPS is equivalent to +1/2 level to all skills, saves and attacks?



> Some people are claiming that it does and others claim that it doesn't.  I'm on the fence.  I don't know.



Who says there is one correct response?  It depends on what the persons wants from their gaming experience.



> But, I do disagree  with the basic premise that mechanical diversity is required in order to make diverse characters.  Skill based, or point buy systems show that to be wrong.



I strongly disagree that point buy systems in any way show this to be wrong.

However, I will agree that in a very general assessment it is true that mechanical diversity may be set aside without losing diversty.  
It is not true that all systems with unified mechanics are overly homogeneous.  It just happens to be true for 4E.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 3, 2009)

To the whole mechanical diversity thing here, what of the pre-3E Fighter? Take a single classed Fighter from any edition of D&D prior to 3E, and what really differentiated them from other Fighters? Take away stats, and focus on the class itself and what do you see?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> To the whole mechanical diversity thing here, what of the pre-3E Fighter? Take a single classed Fighter from any edition of D&D prior to 3E, and what really differentiated them from other Fighters? Take away stats, and focus on the class itself and what do you see?




Choice of Weapon to Specialize in?

The problem isn't that all fighters feel alike; that's a given. Its that other classes feel like fighters as well. They all resolve all their attacks like a fighter does. They advance levels like fighters do, gaining powers and feats at the same rate as fighters. They improve their to-hit, AC, skills and saves at the same rate as fighters. Heck, most of them have the same number of trained skills as fighters!


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 3, 2009)

"What of the pre-3E Fighter?" Just so! Mechanical diversity is just one aspect.

As to 3e, well, it does not have the 4e powers but it does have additional feats and skills. Presumably, one could add in those to taste.

Plus five for trained is a pretty good bonus. The +1/2 level ends up outweighing it in absolute terms, but I'm not sure those terms mean quite the same things in 4e.



> There are any number of systems where every character has access to exactly the same mechanics with no variation at all. ... Yet, the variety of characters in those systems is pretty wide.



That's my own experience, too. One feature built into 4e (and strongly encouraged in _Champions_) is that all characters are of the same basic type -- the "combat monster" -- that in other games might be just one of several.

The way the 4e powers system is set up may make it easier to figure out game balance among characters, but the desired balance itself is the reason for that common basic type (divided into controller, defender, leader and striker subtypes).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Choice of Weapon to Specialize in?
> 
> The problem isn't that all fighters feel alike; that's a given. Its that other classes feel like fighters as well. They all resolve all their attacks like a fighter does. They advance levels like fighters do, gaining powers and feats at the same rate as fighters. They improve their to-hit, AC, skills and saves at the same rate as fighters. Heck, most of them have the same number of trained skills as fighters!




This is(and I've said it before) a narrow view. Classes aren't defined by advancement or resolution of mechanics. They are defined by their level 1 class features and the tactics they use. The Fighter aggressively bullies people(Defender, non-Defenders don't do this) and can severely punish enemies they are bullying who try to move away from them(this is unique). 

Trained skills? You don't know 4E very well. Fighters have three trained skills, and only the Barbarian class shares this number. The rest have four or more.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2009)

Betote said:


> I work with the materials that you give me. Crappy example, crappy trap



 I didn't give any example.

By the way, being rude and then adding a smiley isn't sufficient protection around here. You may want to work on having a point without being rude. It'll make your stay more pleasant for everyone, emphatically including you.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Choice of Weapon to Specialize in?
> 
> The problem isn't that all fighters feel alike; that's a given.



 I actually feel like 4e's Fighters have some diversity. IMHO the Battlerager feels different enough from a shield-dude, and both are different from a glaive-spinning Polearm Gamble dude.

They all try to control the battle field, but they do it differently.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> What game does BF stand for?
> 
> 
> I think that's how the assassin is going to work. Maybe not spending a standard action *chargin his lazer* but the damage supposedly gets bigger the longer you "observe your target".




I was thinking more about "gathering Mana".


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2009)

BryonD said:


> What part of GURPS is equivalent to +1/2 level to all skills, saves and attacks?




To be honest, I don't have the books in front of me, so I cannot answer that.  But, then again, what part of D&D is equivalent to having a 100 point buy (or whatever) character?  The exact mechanics are not really the issue.  The point is, every single GURPS character starts exactly the same.  You have X points to create your character.  No character has any niche protection and all characters can access exactly the same elements and use the same mechanics.



> Who says there is one correct response?  It depends on what the persons wants from their gaming experience.




Agreed



> I strongly disagree that point buy systems in any way show this to be wrong.
> 
> However, I will agree that in a very general assessment it is true that mechanical diversity may be set aside without losing diversty.
> It is not true that all systems with unified mechanics are overly homogeneous.  It just happens to be true for 4E.




In your opinion of course.    Like I said, I don't know.  Is 4e "overly" homogenous?  I'm not qualified to answer that.  And, I highly suspect that you aren't either in anything more than a "for me" sense.

But, feel free to keep stating your feelings as facts.

---------------------------

Back to the OP.  Ok, so you want to add mechanical complexity to 4e in terms of character options.  First, I would suggest a couple of goals before you dive in:  

1.  Don't mess too much with existing mechanics.  If you're going to rewrite the system, use another system.
2.  Look for areas where you can add options where none, or at least few, currently exist.

Looking at 4e, I would think that a synthesis of the old 2e Kit system bolted on to the chargen system would work nicely.  The 2e Kits were, by and large, non-combat oriented which means they won't strongly conflict with existing 4e mechanics.  I would work to identify a number of archetypes and concepts that can be expressed through bonuses (or penalties) to skills, social interactions and perhaps some flavor balance in there as well.

For example, a Courtier kit might give you bonuses when dealing with certain people, and penalties when dealing with others.  It could open up a couple of skills a class skills and perhaps close off another.  I would probably have the kits scale by level, perhaps an encounter or daily level power every seven levels or so that is mostly non-combat.  Perhaps at 7th level, the Courtier could use a Daily power that lets him succeed at a knowledge check related to the kingdom or something like that.

I'll admit, I suck at creating new mechanics.  But, honestly, this would be the direction I would go.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To be honest, I don't have the books in front of me, so I cannot answer that.  But, then again, what part of D&D is equivalent to having a 100 point buy (or whatever) character?  The exact mechanics are not really the issue.  The point is, every single GURPS character starts exactly the same.  You have X points to create your character.  No character has any niche protection and all characters can access exactly the same elements and use the same mechanics.



I strongly disagree. Every GURPS characters starts as a blank slate (and even the starting point total is highly variable and campaign dependent). With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> I strongly disagree. Every GURPS characters starts as a blank slate (and even the starting point total is highly variable and campaign dependent). With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.




They might have different skills, but they still use the same skill system.  Both make similar "success rolls" despite that one is trying to remember Newton's Laws while the other is trying to punch a space monkey (not unlike the Wizard trying an Arcana check while the Fighter climbs a mountain with Athletics).  There's no arcane reason that the academic should need to roll a 1d20 while the martial artist rolls 2d10 (it's all 3d6; at least according to my 3rd edition GURPS book) nor any reason to believe, that I can perceive, that it would improve the game in any sense.

Also, because it is point buy, you could create a crippled academician named Rob and I can make a mechanically identical character named Bob (just as in D&D you could easily make a pair of identical fighters regardless of edition, excluding for the potential randomization of dice rolls).  You _could_, but I've yet to meet anyone who _would_.

The fact that you can make an academic and a warrior under GURPS is relatively meaningless as a comparison for homogenization because GURPS is generic (Generic Universal RolePlaying System).  4e, on the other hand, is a fantasy action-adventure roleplaying system that assumes some degree of combat as part of its game play.  

The more generic the system, the less homogenized the characters need be.  It is true but also somewhat misleading.  

Complaining that 4e is homogenized because you can't make a combat incapable character is like complaining that Earthdawn is homogenized because you can't make a spaceman or that Traveler is homogenized because you can't make a character who can cast Limited Wish three times a day.  Any game that limits itself to a specific genre and/or has a core mechanic will have homogenization, but I imagine we can all agree that allowing genre-inappropriate characters in a genre game is usually undesirable, and it has been shown that reliable core mechanics make for smoother and easier gameplay.

That a game works within the genre it sets for itself is good design, rather than an example of homogenization in any meaningful sense of the word.  Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Complaining that 4e is homogenized because you can't make a combat incapable character is like complaining that Earthdawn is homogenized because you can't make a spaceman or that Traveler is homogenized because you can't make a character who can cast Limited Wish three times a day.  Any game that limits itself to a specific genre and/or has a core mechanic will have homogenization, but I imagine we can all agree that allowing genre-inappropriate characters in a genre game is usually undesirable, and it has been shown that reliable core mechanics make for smoother and easier gameplay.




Said nicely, and I agree. This was something that niggled at me about the reference of Champions encouraging people to all play "combat monsters" — Champions encourages you to play _superheroes_, and within that type you can have combat monsters and very combat-weak characters at different ends of the spectrum. They're just part of the superhero spectrum, so the combat-weak gadgeteer who can be stunned by one 11d6 punch might still be able to handle three dockworkers with pistols. 

There's another factor besides more laserlike homing in on a "heroic adventure that would make a great summer blockbuster" substyle of fantasy.* They don't want to encourage characters who choose not participate in combat in exchange for being the only character who can participate in other areas of the game. As an outsider, I'd guess that the latter is far less to their tastes than the former, actually. You can still build a fairly ineffective character by the usual standards (consider a deva fighter who avoids dump stats and goes for 13-14 in everything, with feats sunk into picking up things like History). But they really don't want to have encounter-sized portions of the game where only one person is doing all the interaction, hence the "everyone participates" setup for skill challenges. 4e focuses heavily on the social unit, and good for it; there are certainly other games that have done so in the past, and they provide very rewarding experiences.

(Having worked on both forms of Werewolf, though, I _am_ biased.)


*Think of it as the "we'd rather not have anybody be the Marlon Wayans" clause.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 3, 2009)

While you can make a combat ineffective character in 4E, it really doesn't accomplish much. There really isn't anything to trade combat effectiveness for. Not even the illusion of something to trade it for. You're just making yourself weak for the sake of being weak.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 3, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> With those points you might build a crippled academician with no combat capability whatsoever, a martial art expert or the mind of a spoiled 5 years old downloaded into a spaceship... there is no sameness at all.



Also, not much utility (though I'm definitely stealing the 5 year-old ship mind as an adversary if I ever run an SF or supers game!). 

That is to say, how do those two characters have a lasting series of adventures together?


----------



## Betote (Sep 3, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I didn't give any example.




Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.

Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can *attempt* to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.



> By the way, being rude and then adding a smiley isn't sufficient protection around here. You may want to work on having a point without being rude. It'll make your stay more pleasant for everyone, emphatically including you.




I wasn't trying to be rude, and I don't think I was, but I apologize if I've hurt your feelings of beliefs in any way.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> While you can make a combat ineffective character in 4E, it really doesn't accomplish much. There really isn't anything to trade combat effectiveness for. Not even the illusion of something to trade it for. You're just making yourself weak for the sake of being weak.




I think that not having illusions within the system is a good thing.

Take, for example, a 3.x fighter who trades strength (12) for intelligence (18) because the character concept is that of a brilliant warrior.  Certainly, he qualifies for a few feats that he otherwise wouldn't, but none so potent that they make up for his lack of strength.  He gets a few more skill points per level, but is still severely limited by the fighter's class skills, so he's now both sub-par fighter and skill monkey.  

A good DM can still play to this fighter's strengths (of course) but it now requires quite a lot more tailoring (work) on the part of that DM.  The player of this character may very well end up disillusioned because of the illusion that such a character would be functional (I saw this happen time and again under 3.x with new players, and even some experienced players, who simply couldn't grok the system very well).

4e avoids this by dispelling the illusions and removing the traps (of character creation).  While it's certainly possible for a new player to create a sub-par character (impossible to completely eliminate without removing almost all choice), it isn't if he follows the advice in the PHB (which, while not always optimal, does create competent and functional PCs).

The point of a game is to have fun.  Illusions only make the game fun for those with the skill to penetrate the mysteries of the character creation mini-game.  I'm not saying that this is inherently a bad thing (as it can certainly increase enjoyment for those who have or can learn those creation skills) but it isn't necessarily well suited to D&D, which seems to be the RPG of choice for most newbies.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Betote said:


> Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.
> 
> Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can *attempt* to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.




You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.

The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything _could_ be trapped.  So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap).  I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.
> 
> The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything _could_ be trapped.  So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap).  I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.




This is why I like passive perception. Have the trap roll against the Rogue/Whatever's passive perception. The DM always roll d20s for no reason whenever, just to scare people and disguise the real rolls.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.
> 
> The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything _could_ be trapped.  So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap).  I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.




I find this interesting as... there is a "Behind the Curtain" section for traps in the 3.5 DMG that gives advice on the purpose and proper placement of traps for DM's.  Also didn't your Rogue ever take 10 (which is really just a form of passive perception in and of itself)?  Or did he roll for every possible corner explored?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This is(and I've said it before) a narrow view. Classes aren't defined by advancement or resolution of mechanics. They are defined by their level 1 class features and the tactics they use. The Fighter aggressively bullies people(Defender, non-Defenders don't do this) and can severely punish enemies they are bullying who try to move away from them(this is unique).




I'm going to claim that in my experience, this isn't always true. I played a warlord for a bit (1-3 levels) and felt my ability was always "hit, do 4 damage, give +4 to fighter, and heal as needed). When we tried another game after a TPK, I was an artificer which devolved to "shoot foe, grant bonus, heal as needed". I guess my characters were different; one stood up with the melee guys and the other stood back with the mages, but compared to the breath of options I had as a 3e artificer, it was very boring. 

My friend (a lover of casters) went from a wizard to an invoker. He couldn't tell you which class had which powers. Heck, he kept calling Sun Strike "Magic Missile" for 2 levels before giving up. The only thing he could recall as different "One dude wore chainmail and the other used mage-hand alot". 



thecasualoblivion said:


> Trained skills? You don't know 4E very well. Fighters have three trained skills, and only the Barbarian class shares this number. The rest have four or more.




Eh. Hang me for one skill; the single fighter I saw played was human; forgive me for forgettting that one detail.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I find this interesting as... there is a "Behind the Curtain" section for traps in the 3.5 DMG that gives advice on the purpose and proper placement of traps for DM's.  Also didn't your Rogue ever take 10 (which is really just a form of passive perception in and of itself)?  Or did he roll for every possible corner explored?




That particular DM ruled that because traps are dangerous/deadly they count as being "threatened" and thus rogues weren't allowed to take 10 when searching for traps or attempting to disarm them (because you can't take 10 while threatened or distracted).  So yes, once our paranoia was sufficiently provoked, the rogue began to roll for almost every possible corner explored... and it sucked.

I don't have my 3.5 DMG on hand atm so I can't say whether or not the DM followed the advice within.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I'm going to claim that in my experience, this isn't always true. I played a warlord for a bit (1-3 levels) and felt my ability was always "hit, do 4 damage, give +4 to fighter, and heal as needed). When we tried another game after a TPK, I was an artificer which devolved to "shoot foe, grant bonus, heal as needed". I guess my characters were different; one stood up with the melee guys and the other stood back with the mages, but compared to the breath of options I had as a 3e artificer, it was very boring.




Yes, if you pick two characters of the same role and pick similar powers you will have a similar play experience.

From what you've stated, I'm guessing your Warlord used Furious Smash a lot.  I'd also guess that your Artificer used Aggravating Force and/or Magic Weapon quite a bit.

I imagine you'd have had a very different experience if you'd first played a Warlord and then a Warlock (which play nothing alike) or even if your Warlord had focused on movement influence (Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics) while your Artificer used a buff/debuff combo (Aggravating Force and Static Shock).

No offense, but your argument sounds to me as if, in 3.x for example, you were to say that the Sorcerer and Wizard were identical because you played a character of each class and focused both on fire spells.  If you build two characters with the same role using similar choices, then yes they will be similar.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yes, if you pick two characters of the same role and pick similar powers you will have a similar play experience.
> 
> From what you've stated, I'm guessing your Warlord used Furious Smash a lot.  I'd also guess that your Artificer used Aggravating Force and/or Magic Weapon quite a bit.
> 
> ...




Preconceptions also come into play. If your concept going in is attack, buff, heal and build your character to do just that, you get what you put in.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2009)

Betote said:


> Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.
> 
> Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can *attempt* to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.



 Unless your DM is the type who says: "There's a trap here that only the Rogue can find. Rogue, one Search check please!", then you tend to make a lot of Search checks because of all the traps you don't know aren't there.

But that's not quite all. See, most PCs who aren't Rogues don't take Disable Device. So in general, traps require a majority of attention on a minority of PCs. That is bad.



Fanaelialae said:


> I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.






thecasualoblivion said:


> This is why I like passive perception. Have the trap roll against the Rogue/Whatever's passive perception. The DM always roll d20s for no reason whenever, just to scare people and disguise the real rolls.




Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> That particular DM ruled that because traps are dangerous/deadly they count as being "threatened" and thus rogues weren't allowed to take 10 when searching for traps or attempting to disarm them (because you can't take 10 while threatened or distracted).



 IIRC the rules on 10/20 were: you can't take 10 when harried (i.e. during combat), and you can't take 20 when there's a consequence for failure.

So searching for traps would be a "no take 20" situation, but taking 10 should generally have been okay.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Preconceptions also come into play. If your concept going in is attack, buff, heal and build your character to do just that, you get what you put in.




Preconceptions are built into the system.

A fighter is a melee meat shield.

A ranger fights with paired weapons or a bow. 

A rogue fights with a light blade.

These preconceptions can be ignored only at a crippling cost.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 3, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yes, if you pick two characters of the same role and pick similar powers you will have a similar play experience.
> 
> From what you've stated, I'm guessing your Warlord used Furious Smash a lot.  I'd also guess that your Artificer used Aggravating Force and/or Magic Weapon quite a bit.
> 
> ...




FWIW: Warlord: Furious Smash and Viper Strike. Artificer: Static Shock and Magic Weapon. In both cases, I found FS and SS vastly more useful than the other power. Same went for my wiz/inv friend who found magic-missile and Sun Strike so useful (and similar) he called one the other.

But doesn't that beg the question: If playing a leader isn't going to feel all the different from one another; why make a big deal about it. I recall arguing with another friend about druids-as-healers and why they sucked at the role (sure they got cures wounds, but at the cost of much better druid spells) and how 4e was going to fix it.

They did. They made sure every leader was good at healing by giving him the exact same healing power with a few changes (add 1d6! add your cha! add both!) and a different name. While it might be fun to say "I'm a cleric! I'm warlord! We're totally different people!" Wouldn't it be interesting to have a leader that grants fast healing? Or one who actually create little potions of healing (set at his healing surge) that character can carry around? (rather than a nonsensical you blow magic smoke at an ally or however Curative Admixture works) What about the idea that, ya know, SHOUTING at a guy to get up isn't as effective as CALLING ON YOUR GOD to heal him? 

Or how bout an illusionist that creates illusions, not just deals psychic damage (like a fire mage deals fire damage) and give him a -2 to hit. Why can my illusionist make an illusion of a foe falling through space and time, but not an illusion of a door?  

Perhaps some of those classes would be too powerful, or others would fall into accidental suck. All I know is that at least when I run my artificer, I wouldn't feel like someone gave my warlord a wand of magic missiles and told him to stand in the back, they'd play and feel different in their role.

One last note: Even if you built a sorc and wiz around the same spell selection, their would still be play differences. The wizard would have to be more cautious with his spells (because he has less of them per day) and might rely more heavily on wands and scrolls (esp for lesser-needed spells) while the sorcerer having many more spells per day is going to be a bit more free with using them and probably invest in metamagic to expand his spell options rather than item creation. Sure, you'll still be in the back casting spells, but the two would have a lot less in common. (This is EXTRA true if the casters didn't focus on the same spells; a sorcerer obsessed with polymorph feels very different than a necromancer-wizard. Try either of those characters in 4e.)


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Or how bout an illusionist that creates illusions, not just deals psychic damage (like a fire mage deals fire damage) and give him a -2 to hit. Why can my illusionist make an illusion of a foe falling through space and time, but not an illusion of a door?




Hallucinatory Item.

Last 24 hours.


----------



## rjdafoe (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> All I know is that at least when I run my artificer, I wouldn't feel like someone gave my warlord a wand of magic missiles and told him to stand in the back, they'd play and feel different in their role.




While I understand where your coming from, that is not anyone that I know experience. I have heard this said before, with the follow up after a few levels, these played totally different than I thought it would play, they look the same on paper but there not in play.

While I understand that you may only be using the PHB, the system has really opened up in the year that it has been around with lots of options. I agree there are not as many options in the PHB as 3.x, but I think that was by design. The base system is different. I will not get into why they did it that way, but I like it. I spend less money on material and get all of the benfits of all the options from DDI, for the price of 2 books.

If you only look at the piece of paper in front of you, and you tend to play all your characters about the same (we have a couple of people like that) then they will all tend to be very similiar in gameplay feel. This is especially true if you look at the powers, and come to that conclusion even before playing.

We have both of those characters in our 4E campaign, and they both play very different. 

One of the things that you will see in 4E, is that if you are an optimizer, then all your characters will feel the same. You will gravitate to the same choices. I feel that 4E does not have to be optimized on the character level to play well. Playing as a group alliviates this.

I am not saying that people do not like character optimization, I am just saying that 4E does not support that as well as 3.x and still feel different, IMO.

Of course, all of this is IME, of course.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> FWIW: Warlord: Furious Smash and Viper Strike. Artificer: Static Shock and Magic Weapon. In both cases, I found FS and SS vastly more useful than the other power. Same went for my wiz/inv friend who found magic-missile and Sun Strike so useful (and similar) he called one the other.
> 
> But doesn't that beg the question: If playing a leader isn't going to feel all the different from one another; why make a big deal about it. I recall arguing with another friend about druids-as-healers and why they sucked at the role (sure they got cures wounds, but at the cost of much better druid spells) and how 4e was going to fix it.




Because those two leaders don't _have_ to be the same.  They are only the same if you choose to play them the same.  It sounds like you have a particular play style when playing a leader (which is fine).  However, it also sounds like you're conflating _your_ preferred leader play style with an idea of how all leaders play.

Some wizards like to stand in the back and pelt enemies with spells.  Others like to get up in their face with Thunderwave.  Neither style is wrong but one might be preferred by a particular player over the other.  If you prefer the style of stand in the back and toss magic missiles, then every wizard you play will likely feel similar.



Remathilis said:


> They did. They made sure every leader was good at healing by giving him the exact same healing power with a few changes (add 1d6! add your cha! add both!) and a different name. While it might be fun to say "I'm a cleric! I'm warlord! We're totally different people!" Wouldn't it be interesting to have a leader that grants fast healing? Or one who actually create little potions of healing (set at his healing surge) that character can carry around? (rather than a nonsensical you blow magic smoke at an ally or however Curative Admixture works) What about the idea that, ya know, SHOUTING at a guy to get up isn't as effective as CALLING ON YOUR GOD to heal him?




I think that you would definitely fall into the problem that some of these would be too powerful and others would simply suck.  You can't replace healing word with fast healing because they are impossible to balance against each other.  

Having played a druid (a class that primarily uses fast healing to heal) in WoW, I know quite a bit about that.  Fast healers have to heal preemptively (predict where the damage will be) and can only deal with consistent, moderate damage (druids had a hard time against damage spikes in WoW, which is where the priest class shined).  Note that as of the time I quit WoW, druids had been shifted back towards skill with direct healing because Blizzard noticed that their fast healing focus relegated them to the status of backup healers (I have no idea what might have changed since I quit).

It worked, somewhat, in WoW because you can know ahead of time what you are getting into (the tanks need to grab aggro and thus will be the healing focus and you also know whether or not there will be incidental damage on the rest of the group that you will need to worry about).  It wouldn't work for D&D because you can't predict a fight the way you can in WoW (where you generally have predefined strategies that you need to follow in a choreographed manner).  

As an example, IME the 3.x druidic fast heal spells was virtually useless except as a means of healing _after_ combat.

Such differentiation would lead to one leader class being far better than the rest (or far worse) which seems to be exactly the sort of thing that WOTC wishes to avoid.  IMO, the only way this could be implemented would be to do it _in addition_ to the basic healing ability that all leader classes get (Fast Healing Word- you can spend a healing surge and also gain fast heal x until the end of the encounter).  I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we did see something like this at some point (assuming it doesn't prove overpowered).

I don't believe that it is possible to make the healing of leader types completely different without destroying the balance between them.



Remathilis said:


> Or how bout an illusionist that creates illusions, not just deals psychic damage (like a fire mage deals fire damage) and give him a -2 to hit. Why can my illusionist make an illusion of a foe falling through space and time, but not an illusion of a door?




The problem with not assigning mechanics to something like an illusion is that it places the burden of balancing an effect on the DM in question.  Some DMs are great at this.  Many are decent.  Most new DMs are terrible at it (no offense newbies).  

In my time as a player I've seen low level illusions that were allowed to be overpowered (often because the DM loved illusions) or completely sucktastic (because the DM hated them).  I've seen a monster blunder into the "pit of death" in his own dungeon because of an illusory floor, and I've seen NPCs who completely ignored an illusions because "everyone knows there are no Red Dragons in this region".

Free form illusions are (IMO) best handled via page 42, and even then I'd say they're best kept as a house rule because inexperienced DMs may still struggle with them.  D&D doesn't need to be Mage.



Remathilis said:


> One last note: Even if you built a sorc and wiz around the same spell selection, their would still be play differences. The wizard would have to be more cautious with his spells (because he has less of them per day) and might rely more heavily on wands and scrolls (esp for lesser-needed spells) while the sorcerer having many more spells per day is going to be a bit more free with using them and probably invest in metamagic to expand his spell options rather than item creation. Sure, you'll still be in the back casting spells, but the two would have a lot less in common. (This is EXTRA true if the casters didn't focus on the same spells; a sorcerer obsessed with polymorph feels very different than a necromancer-wizard. Try either of those characters in 4e.)




IMO, it's approximately the same level of differentiation.  We've only been comparing the at-will powers of the two classes thus far.  Once you move beyond those to encounters, utilities and dailies (especially once you have your full complement of powers) the two classes begin to feel very different.  Also, did you ever use the temporary hp version of the Artificer healing power?  That's quite different from the Warlord on its own.

Yes, I will grant that a polymorphing sorcerer and a necromancer wizard were two very different characters before 4e.  Part of it was that they had an enormous list of powers (spells) compared to 4e classes.  Unfortunately, that versatility and variety came at the expense of balance, where the wizard (especially) could have a solution for any problem imaginable and then some.

As Barastrondo pointed out, 4e recognizes that it is a team-oriented game.  It thus has to keep classes relatively balanced against each other.

To amend my prior thought: Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?


----------



## Storminator (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> They did. They made sure every leader was good at healing by giving him the exact same healing power with a few changes (add 1d6! add your cha! add both!) and a different name. While it might be fun to say "I'm a cleric! I'm warlord! We're totally different people!" Wouldn't it be interesting to have a leader that grants fast healing? Or one who actually create little potions of healing (set at his healing surge) that character can carry around? (rather than a nonsensical you blow magic smoke at an ally or however Curative Admixture works) What about the idea that, ya know, SHOUTING at a guy to get up isn't as effective as CALLING ON YOUR GOD to heal him?




I play a game with a Warlord and a Cleric. We play very, very differently. While Inspiring Word and Healing Word are pretty similar, that's not where it ends. 

The Warlord Daily is Lead the Attack - give everyone a huge bonus vs the target. That power drives our meleers to the front where we unload on somebody. 

My Cleric Daily is Beacon of Hope, which heals everyone and jacks my healing thru the roof. I'll have rounds where I heal 4 PCs 8 hp each, trigger my second wind to heal myself 8, and throw a Healing Word out for Surge +12 = 60+ hps in a round... at first level.

*shrug* 

PS


----------



## Derren (Sep 3, 2009)

Storminator said:


> I play a game with a Warlord and a Cleric. We play very, very differently. While Inspiring Word and Healing Word are pretty similar, that's not where it ends.
> 
> The Warlord Daily is Lead the Attack - give everyone a huge bonus vs the target. That power drives our meleers to the front where we unload on somebody.
> 
> ...




So those two leaders are very different. Once a day.....


----------



## Shroomy (Sep 3, 2009)

To be fair to Remathilis, the playtest artificer kind of played like the arcane lovechild of the warlord and cleric, which is why I'm glad that the final version is very, very different, especially in the healing department.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 3, 2009)

Derren said:


> So those two leaders are very different. Once a day.....




There's also the encounter powers, at-will powers, feats, and class features.  I assumed that Storminator used the dailies as an example and didn't bother to detail how every single power is different because it would take too much freakin' time.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> *SNIP*....but at the end of the day what does the class do? It marks a foe (shutting them down) and then focuses on other enemies. You might say, "Thats a defender's job" and I say "right, which is why they all feel the same; they all do the same job."




So WotC says up front that they have divided the classes into 4 roles and that each role will produce the same results.  This means that if you take a Fighter or a Paladin and they pick abilities to let them tank successfully, you should achieve the same level of results.  How are you surprised that classes of the same role do the same job?

In 3E if you wanted a close fighter that was strength focused you played a Fighter or Barbarian.  A close fighter based on Dex you picked a Fighter or Rogue.  A ranged fighter you would pick a Fighter or a Ranger.  Appropriate feat selection can cover a lot of ground, but one option will likely be better than the other.  In 4E You are still making pretty much the same choices.  I don't recall if Martial Power added a ranged option to Fighters or not, I know in the base PHB it was basically play a Ranger if you want to be a dual wielder or a ranged attacker.  

All classes within the same role should produce similar results.  Defenders should be the best at keeping enemies focused on you, leaders should provide the best party buffs and heals, etc.  Within that sub-category there is a lot of room for variety and I feel we are seeing that in class design.  I don't feel that 4E as a whole is homogenous.  4E took all the lessons of 3E, clarified them, cut off corner cases and helped increase balance and decrease "oh crap my character is useless in 80% of the game", no matter whether you run a mostly combat or a mostly intrigue game.  Character creation also takes less time w/the more streamlined approach. 

Every edition of the game has taken things that worked well and kept them or improved them further.  Every edition has taken things that were awful and reworked or ditched them.  Every edition has gotten rid of some things completely for no clear reason.  Each edition ahs had the words "Dungeon" and "Dragon" in the title.  Oh no!  Now the editions are homogenous to each other!! heh


----------



## alleynbard (Sep 3, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I still have 3.5, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia to get my fix, but there is a piece of me sad that the game I enjoyed has moved on in a different way. I really tried to like it, it didn't work.




I understand where you are at because I am going though much of the same thing.

I don't want to argue this because, honestly, this all about perception and none of us are going to change our minds. Some see it, some don't. I don't know what I could possibly provide to the debate.  But I felt you needed someone to say "yes, I do see what you are saying, I went through this when I ran 4e for 6 months and I agree."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 4, 2009)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> How are you surprised that classes of the same role do the same job?...All classes within the same role should produce similar results.




Well, there's the problem in a nutshell.

There's only four classes in the game now. There's only one ability ("attack") and it's various permutations. There's only one way to get abilities, and only one way to spend those abilities. There's one way to advance through the levels, and everyone gets equal rewards at each level. 

That's quite a bit more homogeneous than earlier editions. Regardless of the benefits of this homogeneity, the actual different options are much more limited (though there's a lot of variations on the few options that exist). 

I really wouldn't call 3,000 copies of the same picture in a slightly different tint "variety." Especially not when we're used to 3,000 different pictures.

The problems with accidental suck and overpower were certainly real, and needed to be addressed. That doesn't mean that the current model is the best middle ground, though.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 4, 2009)

And we reach hammers again .

One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat!  No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard!  Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!

Was it flawed?  _Yes_.  But it was an attempt at giving the game more focus then just "CHSSST CHSSST RANDOM BATTLE!"

And then 4e comes in and *:|*'s at this.

This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious.  We fight.  We fight.  We fight.  Skill challenge.  We fight.  By giving the non-fighting bits more rules behind them, the game shifted it's focus to include them more.  Again, yes, the skills system had its flaws.  But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching."  And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have *outside of combat* is even smaller.  Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e.  But once the fight is done, the first wizard *can't light things on fire*.  The second wizard *can't make illusions of doors*.

In before HOUSE RULES!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And we reach hammers again .
> 
> One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat!  No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard!  Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!
> 
> Was it flawed?  _Yes_.  But it was an attempt at giving the game more focus then just "CHSSST CHSSST RANDOM BATTLE!"




I've played 2E, 3E, and 4E.

Before 3E's skill system, all the skill stuff was pretty much based on ad hoc DM rulings and semi-arbitrary dice rolls. Played AD&D this way for years and enjoyed myself. Later on, 3E had this skill system, which was fun to play with on paper during character creation, but after playing 3E for years I realized that while it was a noble effort, the end result was inferior to the DM fiats of 2E. Last year of my 3.5E DMing found me disregarding the skill system entirely and doing it 2E style. We were all much happier for it, as whatever good points 3.5E skill system had, my contempt for it took away.

Now in 4E, we have a skill system halfway between more or less. I'm still running skills 2E style, but I'm using trained/untrained/high stat to guide my DM fiats and have some handy numbers for the dice rolls I occasionally ask for.


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And we reach hammers again .
> 
> One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat!  No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard!  Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!
> 
> ...



I don't understand what you're asking for that isn't totally served by Skill Challenges, narrative, or a combination thereof. Narrative is a huge part of 4E.

Rules are a crutch.



ProfessorCirno said:


> And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have *outside of combat* is even smaller.



And how many 3.5E Rogues didn't have Hide, Move Silently, Open Locks, Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist, and Disable Device? Neither of us have any statistics, but I suspect that more than two-thirds of all Rogue characters were trained in all of the aforementioned skills, meaning that skills certainly weren't what differentiated most Rogues. Since it's also obvious that Rogues didn't have much to distinguish themselves from one another in combat, most of the differences between characters must have been narrative, and narrative is exactly what 4E uses, in addition to a wide variety of combat powers.

Additionally, why do you say the skill list was cut "brutally short"? That's kind of like saying that improvements in car safety features has made driving "brutally dull".



ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e.  But once the fight is done, the first wizard *can't light things on fire*.  The second wizard *can't make illusions of doors*.



Sure they can: it's narrative.

Maybe instead of calling the game "lame and dumb", you should look to the folks you play it with...


----------



## Imaro (Sep 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I've played 2E, 3E, and 4E.
> 
> Before 3E's skill system, all the skill stuff was pretty much based on ad hoc DM rulings and semi-arbitrary dice rolls. Played AD&D this way for years and enjoyed myself. Later on, 3E had this skill system, which was fun to play with on paper during character creation, but after playing 3E for years I realized that while it was a noble effort, the end result was inferior to the DM fiats of 2E. Last year of my 3.5E DMing found me disregarding the skill system entirely and doing it 2E style. We were all much happier for it, as whatever good points 3.5E skill system had, my contempt for it took away.
> 
> Now in 4E, we have a skill system halfway between more or less. I'm still running skills 2E style, but I'm using trained/untrained/high stat to guide my DM fiats and have some handy numbers for the dice rolls I occasionally ask for.





Wait, I'm confused here...what exactly does a skill being trained, untrained or high have to do with using GM fiat?  I mean aren't the numbers in 3e and 4e based on DC... regardless of the actual skill?  I guess I'm trying to understand why 4e is a better fit for you than 3e... and what method you're using for skills?

Honestly it sounds like you more or less arbitrarily decide on success or failure when it comes to skills... if so why does it matter what skill system you actually use?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Wait, I'm confused here...what exactly does a skill being trained, untrained or high have to do with using GM fiat?  I mean aren't the numbers in 3e and 4e based on DC... regardless of the actual skill?  I guess I'm trying to understand why 4e is a better fit for you than 3e... and what method you're using for skills?
> 
> Honestly it sounds like you more or less arbitrarily decide on success or failure when it comes to skills... if so why does it matter what skill system you actually use?




Because granularity(what 3.5E offers that 4E does not) is of no use in that regard. You're either good at it or you aren't.

If a character is trained in Athletics, or has a high check thanks to stats, I don't ask them to roll to climb the rock wall with lots of handholds.

If a character is trained in Diplomacy, or has a high Charisma, I don't have them roll to see if they can talk the natives out of eating them.

ect.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious.  We fight.  We fight.  We fight.  Skill challenge.  We fight.




Why won't you take us at our word that our 4e game sessions aren't like this?   It makes me angry and sad to read it.  I don't mind criticisms that one doesn't like a particular mechanic, or that they would prefer if 4e had more of one element of play.   But when people have been telling you for over a year now that their games have the same mix of action and roleplaying that they've always had, and that 4e is not a barrier to it, why not believe it?



> But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching."



I have my problem with skill challenges myself, but not all 4e non-combat encounters are skill challenges, nor even the majority of them.  It is supposed to be specifically for a complex task that requires group cooperation.   That said, more options for out-of-combat resolution is always a good thing and something D&D in all editions has too long neglected.



> And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have *outside of combat* is even smaller.



I'm not so sure about this.  I suppose it was possible to make a pick-pocket focused thief who didn't know anything about locks and traps in 3e, but the pressure from your party to put ranks into those skills above all was pretty overwhelming.  So I think it was one of those "illusionary choices".  It was the case in 2e as well, where open locks and F/R percentile abilities were always maxed out first, followed by move silently and hide in shadows.

Plus I think you're underestimating the effect that different builds (and their associated ability scores) play on character options.  An artful dodger rogue is going to be far more about bluffing, diplomacy and other charisma related skills, while the brutal rogue will not.  That's quite a significant difference out of combat.   There is also the ability to choose a non-class skill with an appropriate background, which can help distinguish rogues from each other.

I do take your point that it would be nice to have specialized rogues who would say "I'm a cat burglar" or "I'm a safe-cracker", but I can't agree that it should come at the expense of a general level of proficiency in dungeon cracking skills.  As a rogue you have to be useful for the adventure too, as well as have fidelity to a character concept.



> Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e.  But once the fight is done, the first wizard *can't light things on fire*.  The second wizard *can't make illusions of doors*.



There are some illusion powers that simply disrupt or disorient foes, and there are lots of precedents for damaging illusion spells in prior editions.  Shadow evocation and Phantasmal Killer for example.  

I also can make a wizard light things on fire out of combat, or make illusions of doors without house rules.   I use the fire attack spell to attack an object.  

To make an illusion of a door I use a combination of prestidigitation and the bluff skill.   This isn't a house rule, it is just an expectation on how the new skill system works.  You don't just use bluff to tell lies, but you use it for any endeavor that involves deception.  A more recent option is to use the ritual that creates illusions of objects, which wouldn't have to be sustained by the concentration of the illusionist.

Two very simple ways to do exactly what you said 4e can't do without house rules, which means you don't know the system very well.  Which is why your posts are so infuriating to me.  When you say that 4e doesn't allow for x type of gameplay and I know otherwise, I get the sense that you are implying that I don't know how to run an engaging D&D game at all levels, which is why I play 4e.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

Some people tend to equate "I can't do it like I did it in 3.5E" to "It can't be done in 4E".


----------



## Imaro (Sep 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Because granularity(what 3.5E offers that 4E does not) is of no use in that regard. You're either good at it or you aren't.
> 
> If a character is trained in Athletics, or has a high check thanks to stats, I don't ask them to roll to climb the rock wall with lots of handholds.
> 
> ...




How does 3e interfere with this... you have a DC and if 10+Rank is equal to the DC you don't ask them to roll... I'm still not seeing how granularity interferes with what is essentially... "I will arbitrarily decide if you succeed automatically or not at a task"...  And honestly it sounds like you're arguing against the granularity of ranks...but 4e has quite a few ways to add to skills now, attribute/trained/focus/backgrounds/magic items/etc. I mean the granularity in ranks can be pretty high so I guess I'm not seeing the difference unless you're talking about the granularity in differentiation.... which again has no effect on your method


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

Imaro said:


> How does 3e interfere with this... you have a DC and if 10+Rank is equal to the DC you don't ask them to roll... I'm still not seeing how granularity interferes with what is essentially... "I will arbitrarily decide if you succeed automatically or not at a task"...  And honestly it sounds like you're arguing against the granularity of ranks...but 4e has quite a few ways to add to skills now, attribute/trained/focus/backgrounds/magic items/etc. I mean the granularity in ranks can be pretty high so I guess I'm not seeing the difference unless you're talking about the granularity in differentiation.... which again has no effect on your method




It isn't as good of a quick reference.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 4, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It isn't as good of a quick reference.




What?  Again this isn't making sense to me... what isn't as good of a quick reference?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Why won't you take us at our word that our 4e game sessions aren't like this?



I, for one, absolutely take your word for that.
Honestly, if a DM ran 4E that way, I would 100% expect they would run 3E that way as well.  

That said, at least you now know my frustration when everyone keeps trying to tell me how bad my 3E games must play.....

But seriously, a bad dm being homogeneous in how he runs the game offers zero insight into whether the underlying game is also homogeneous.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 4, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, there's the problem in a nutshell.
> 
> There's only four classes in the game now. There's only one ability ("attack") and it's various permutations. There's only one way to get abilities, and only one way to spend those abilities. There's one way to advance through the levels, and everyone gets equal rewards at each level.
> 
> ...




I think KM hits the nail on the head here.

Each "role" is synonymous with a classic class (defender=fighter, leader=cleric, striker=thief, controller=wizard). Thus, every class is just a variant on the "original" class. (A paladin is a fighter with a different mark, cha as a high-stat, and a healy power. An invoker is a wizard with more radiant powers and a few more buffs. Etc.) 

The exception (and perhaps 4e best example of where 4e homogeneity is limited) is the striker role: barbarians don't play like rogues which don't play like sorcerers. There is an easy reason for this: THEY DON"T USE A UNIFIED "STRIKER" MECHANIC! If barbarians were built around the concept of "add Xd6 damage per tier" like a ranger's prime shot or warlock's curse, I think they'd feel closer to each other. (Most likely, they'd feel like rangers who use 2handed wpns instead of a wpn in each hand). 

Yet a barbarian doesn't feel much like a 2blade ranger or a brutal rogue. Why? Well, they get their extra damage in a unique way (its factored into their powers, which do higher [w] damage). Sorcerers similarly feel different than a warlock because they don't declare a "target" of their Xd6 damage, they just deal 2 ability scores worth of modifier to an area. Even the rogue (who relies on CA) and the monk (whose full-disciplines allow for movement to matter in powers) show a diversity. MECHANICAL diversity. 

See what they did there? Now, why can't we have a defender that doesn't have to mark his foe? Why not a leader that doesn't have a XX-word healing power? 

More importantly, the psion showed us that we don't need every class to gain encounters, dailies, and/or utilities at the same rate. Maybe it'll open the door for classes flush with encounter-powers (at the expense of dailies) or one who doesn't get many attack-powers, but SCORES of utilities (a jack-of-all-trades class, anyone?)

I guess I feel terrible that these innovations come in year 2-3, leaving the classic classes of PHB 1&2 feeling bland. One wonders if we don't eventually see a "Warrior", "Thief", "Mage", and "Priest" class down the road that feels different from the blander "default" classes we have now...


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

I'd like to suggest to both sides here that the homogeneous appearance in prior editions or in this edition all depends on where you look and what bothers you.  It is homogeneous to say that all defenders have a mark ability that encourages enemies to attack them rather than allies.  But it is also homogeneous for all warrior classes in 3e (melee ranger, barbarian and fighter) have the mechanic of moving adjacent and relying on a high AC to save you.  It is homogeneous to have all the classes gain their levels of powers at the same time but it it also homogenous to have all divine and arcane spellcasters use the same spell lists and cast their spells in much the same way.   It is homogeneous to have 1/2 + level as a scaling indicator of character power, but it is also homogeneous to have all classes scale by 3 tiers of BAB.

I hear that some bemoan that 3e had mechanical subsystems for how to resolve attacks, or cast spells, or do skills.   However, 4e has mechanical subsystems too in terms of roles, classes, and powers.   Roles have different mechanical subsystems in that you are a tank, buffer/healer/, enemy plan disruptor, and high damage dealer.  

Within those roles there are rules subsystems known as classes.  For example, a Warden plays differently than a fighter because he has more immediate reactions and terrain altering powers.  A fighter plays differently from a paladin because a fighter does more damage while a paladin can take more punishment and negate or diminish enemy attacks.  

Within those classes there are powers which contain rules subsystems in and of themselves.  While it is true that powers have unifying elements, they also contain a modular approach to rules that makes each power slightly different from its brothers.  It matters which powers you take, and the more powers that are introduced, the more 4e can experiment with mechanics that provide differentiation.  For example, fighters were fairly monolithic in terms of what they did in the early days, but the more powers that are introduced, the more divergent fighters became.  It matters now what weapon you focus on.  A fighter that uses his shield as his primary weapon is different than a fighter who uses an axe, spear or sword as his primary weapon.

I can understand if it bothers someone that everyone gets their powers at the same levels, or if roles have certain abilities in common (like healing word), or that powers are largely made by mixing damage with a set (but flexible) list of conditions.   But prior editions had unifying rules elements too.   It bothers me in prior editions that rogues are not sufficiently mechanically distinct from fighters, in that both move adjacent to a target and rely on a high AC to keep them on their feet.   It bothers me that sorcerers and wizards use the same spell list.  It bothers me that you always had to use strength vs. AC to resolve a melee attack, and it didn't matter how nimble or fast you were.   Like I said upthread, I don't mind common mechanics as long as the narrative play is different.  If the mechanics are different, but the end result of narrative play is the same (you have to increase your defense abilities and maximize your damage output) then I couldn't care less about differing mechanics.  I take no special pleasure in figuring out different mechanical subsystems to achieve the same goal.    

I must also point out there was also some homogenization of mechanics that occurred in each subsequent edition as well.   THAC0 instead of a weapons table, 9 spell levels both for arcane and divine spells instead of 7 for clerics and 9 for magic users, and an increasing reliance on the D20 die.  Did it lead to greater homogenization?  In some ways, but you have to decide whether game balance and ease of comprehending the rules are as important as game complexity and wildly divergent play experience.

I would also like to suggest that homogenization of some rules elements also led to greater options in play as well.  For example, when fighters had a very rudimentary action resolution (roll d20 to hit, roll damage die) there wasn't much you could do to differentiate fighters.  Wizards and clerics on the other hand could be wildly different in play (schools and spheres) because they had spells.  Now that every class uses the powers system (which is one of the examples of homogenization) you can have fighters that look, feel and play much differently.

So I suggest to you all that 4e isn't more homogeneous than prior editions, it is just has mechanics that provide different subsystems of play in different places.   

For those that say that 4e's choices of where they chose to homogenize the rules led to less varied stories or play experiences as a whole, I will simply say that you are wrong, and I hope this very long post has convinced you of that.  I can assure you that our 4e games are just as varied in story and style as yours are, if you have a good DM.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> and I hope this very long post has convinced you of that.



Nope, not even a teeny change in position.



> I can assure you that our 4e games are just as varied in story and style as yours are, if you have a good DM.



I'm sure you are correct.  And I'm highly certain that vastly varied battlemat tactical options are present.
But you are still telling a story, ever bit as varied as mine, that is mechanically resolved by a system that puts "the math works" as the golden rule of design.  

You can role play on top of any rule set.  The question for me is, does some other system do a better job of building the character as I want to see it, rather than only as close as "working" math permits.  And quite simply, I don't pay for role play.  That comes for free.  I pay for the best mechanical model I can get.  The math works, as well as "simple" and "quick to prep", all require trade-offs some where.  

4E is fine.
Other games are awesome.
4E is fine.
If the builds of 4E were less homogeneous, it would be closer to awesome.
But, it isn't.  That's cool.  I played better games during 2e and that worked out great, and the alternatives during the 4E era are looking even better for me.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 4, 2009)

As Bryon D said, I don't doubt that your 4e games have roleplaying.  My 4e games, rare as they are, had roleplaying too!

The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically.  You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.

That's where the out of combat mechanics come in.  It removes the "fighting as a minigame" or the jRPG CHSSST CHSSSST problems.

When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.

And again, the non-combat rules we have are skill challenges and..._that's it_.  Yes, you can stand around and chatter, but - wait, no, the DMG tells you not to do that.  So hey.

Look, I'm happy your _houserules_ give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.

What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks.  Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills *and powers* more out-of-combat related!"  Let illusionists make _illusions_.  Let wizards light things on fire.

Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 4, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Nope, not even a teeny change in position.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you are correct.  And I'm highly certain that vastly varied battlemat tactical options are present.
> ...




4e is awesome.

You might not think so, which is fine.

Admittedly, I'm more concerned with how my game runs under the hood than how many colors I can get the shiny new paint job in.  Sounds like you're a paint job kind of guy, which is also fine.  Just different priorities.

*And the winner for "Best insult while trying to pretend you aren't insulting them" is...

Folks, please don't do this. It's fine if you don't agree with them, but taking dismissive and cheap sots isn't something we want here. If this is at all ubnclear, please shoot me a PM.  ~ Piratecat*


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

Best roleplaying I've experienced came from freeform 2E AD&D and Vampire: the Masquerade(yes Masquerade) games where we didn't really bother with out of combat systems, such as they existed. If you enjoy roleplaying better supported by mechanics, good for you, but it is far from the one true way.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As Bryon D said, I don't doubt that your 4e games have roleplaying.  My 4e games, rare as they are, had roleplaying too!
> 
> The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically.  You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.
> 
> ...




First, putting aside spellcasting for the moment, you can do anything in 4e that you could do in a previous edition (and if you are willing to use a bit of ingenuity, you can easily duplicate most of the spellcasting too, though it may admittedly require a bit more effort than saying a few mystic words).

Secondly, it's not a houserule, it's page 42.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 4, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> 4e is awesome.
> 
> You might not think so, which is fine.
> 
> Admittedly, I'm more concerned with how my game runs under the hood than how many colors I can get the shiny new paint job in.  Sounds like you're a paint job kind of guy, which is also fine.  Just different priorities.




Please, you're just marginalizing someone else's opinion.  Are you sad that they don't agree with you?  Good to know that, according to you, liking 4e = "I like to play actual games," whereas disliking it = "Oh, you just like to paint things, you don't care or really understand how the game works."



Can we please make it a bannable offense or something to claim that, in order to dislike a game, that person clearly must have never played it or has no experience about it, because _obviously_ if you _understood_ the game, you _have_ to love it?


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Nope, not even a teeny change in position.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you are correct.
> ...



hom
Oh I'm not trying to convince you that you should play 4e.  As long as people stop saying "4e uses combat as a hammer and all problems are nails" and such, I'll be happy enough.  It is the insult to my creativity that is implied by statements such as that which really get under my collar.   I want people to say what you just said, that 4e is a system that can tell a complex story.

I think it has advantages over prior editions in telling stories in fact, since it places such a strong emphasis on narrative.   I do not believe however that it is necessarily better for other DM's to tell stories with.   For example, "Come and Get It" bothers some DM's but doesn't bother me in the slightest.  I like the fact that powers describe _what happens_, rather than what the characters are capable of doing.   Another DM would be driven to distraction, because he can't tell the story without describing it in terms of what the characters do.

This is the same with the skill system.  I think it gives me more tools to tell a story than 3.5's skill system because it is more broadly encompassing and describes _what happens._  Other DM's hate it because it doesn't describe what a character can do.  They might hate the fact that use rope isn't a skill and assume that everyone has it, or that everyone can do it.  I don't view it that way at all.    In my games, the character has a skill if he uses it, not if the rules say he has it marked down as a trained skill on his character sheet.  A druid might mechanically have the ability to tie ropes or set snares, but if he never does it then obviously he isn't practiced in the skill because he would have used it to overcome obstacles.   What happens as a style of play rather than what the character can do works for my way of thinking and my way of storytelling.

I can say with complete confidence that you will have more fun at my table if you are playing a 4e game, even if you don't like 4e, than you would if I was DMing any other version of D&D.

To get back on topic, If I can convince people that 4e and 3e both have homogeneous and divergent properties in their rules systems, I'll be ecstatic.  I genuinely think people notice things that bother them more.  



> You can role play on top of any rule set.  The question for me is, does some other system do a better job of building the character as I want to see it, rather than only as close as "working" math permits.




And I can accept that your way of thinking and play style works better with another rules system.  I myself don't play 3e or Pathfinder because rogues (rogues are my favourite) don't act and fight enough like rogues for me.   I think 3e does the best job of portraying wizards and polytheistic clerics as I tend to think of them, but thanks to 4e using very modular rules and increasing number of character build options I think it is already a matter of time before 4e catches up.  (I have a house rule that makes 4e wizards as diverse in spell ability as 3e, but we're talking RAW here).

I'm left to wonder as well if the "what happens" vs. "what my character can do" mindset also contributes to the feeling of being homogeneous.  Having more character options for the latter type of player can definitely increase the feeling that all characters are same.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Please, you're just marginalizing someone else's opinion.  Are you sad that they don't agree with you?  Good to know that, according to you, liking 4e = "I like to play actual games," whereas disliking it = "Oh, you just like to paint things, you don't care or really understand how the game works."
> 
> 
> 
> Can we please make it a bannable offense or something to claim that, in order to dislike a game, that person clearly must have never played it or has no experience about it, because _obviously_ if you _understood_ the game, you _have_ to love it?




You mean the exact same thing that ByronD did to ferratus?

To recap, ferratus (to paraphrase) said "Some people like chocolate while others like strawberry so please stop saying that chocolate sucks" to which Byron responded (also paraphrasing) "chocolate is _okay_ if you like that sort of thing, but there's a ton of better flavors out there".  Perhaps I was mistaken (in which case I apologize), but I interpreted Byron's response as a passive-aggressive insult (and hence quite rude).

Could you point out where I said that Byron has no experience with the system, because I can't see where I said anything of the sort?

To recap, Byron said that he doesn't feel that "math that works" is worth a loss of character building options.  I, in turn, made a metaphor that equated the math with an engine and build options with a paint job.  You might not agree with the metaphor but...

As an aside, I don't believe that if you play 4e that you have to love 4e.  I've stated my personal hypothesis twice now (albeit once as the unamended version): 

Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?

Now, unless you're going to insist that you do indeed _love_ the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre, I can't see how that would imply that you must love 4e or you're an idiot.  If you do insist that you deeply love the aforementioned genre, then the theory seems a bust and it's back to the drawing board.  C'est la vie.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 4, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> Perhaps the major difference between many of those who see homogenization in 4e and those of us who don't is simply those who like the team-oriented fantasy action-adventure genre and those who don't?




I don't think it can be boiled down to just that dividing point. There's also:

- whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do

- whether or not you want "fewer options" as a class feature, such as the old-school fighter

and 

- whether or not character-building is one of the sub-hobbies you find within gaming.

Probably more than those four as well. But I think it's pretty well-established that 4e does not give spellcaster classes much more to do outside of combat than other classes get (though there's still no fighter equivalent to Beguiling Tongue or similar powers), there is no 4e class where you don't have to select powers, and 4e doesn't provide as robustly fiddly a character-building experience with its streamlined skill system and much-pared-down approach to multiclassing. These are all true things.

Of course, they're deal-breakers for some and vast improvements for others. And regrettably it leads to a lot of loaded language. (My least favorite at the moment: the "some people just can't see it" as a descriptor for a problem. There is a difference between "do not see it as a problem" and "cannot see a problem that factually exists," and a decided insult, however subtle, in using "can't see" instead of "don't agree".)


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 4, 2009)

The conflict comes from people getting upset that their game is getting crapped on.

People who prefer 4E get cranky when people crap on their game.

People who prefer previous editions get cranky because they feel that the release of 4E crapped on their game.


----------



## Derren (Sep 4, 2009)

And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.




 I do not understand.  Roleplaying has plenty of mechanical effects on the game.   You describe an action, and you roll either an attack (if it an attack action), you choose a ritual (if it is an out of combat spell) or you choose a skill, or you choose an ability check.  You either target a defense, or you target a DC decided by your DM.

It works almost exactly the same as it did in 3e.   More rules would be nice, but 4e does the job just as well as all previous editions of D&D did.



> That's where the out of combat mechanics come in.  It removes the "fighting as a minigame" or the jRPG CHSSST CHSSSST problems.
> 
> When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.



 I assure you that there is just as much in the way of mechanics in 4e for out of combat encounters as 3e. Describe an action and I'll tell you how to mechanically resolve it in 4e.

 Oh, and the jRPG crack is an example of your rudeness that makes me dislike you.  It is not witty to imply things about my play style.  Something witty is a humorous observation that gets me to see things in a different way.  Saying things like that just shows a lack of respect for me personally.
 Perhaps you should consider for example, that I might like the Illiad, so I'm using that as an influence to how I describe epic feats of superheroism.



> Look, I'm happy your _houserules_ give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.



 What I explained to you was not houserules.  It is how you are supposed to use the spells to light things on fire, and how you are supposed to use the skill system.

 I'm sorry that you never took advantage of those rules and assumed that they weren't proper applications, but the rules do exist.  The skill system is designed to be interpreted broadly, which is why so many 3e skills are under the umbrella of one descriptor.



> What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks. Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills *and powers* more out-of-combat related!"  Let illusionists make _illusions_.  Let wizards light things on fire.




 Again, it is quite easy to make illusions through prestidigitation and ghost sound.  That is what those powers are for, the skillful application of illusion magic.  Want to deceive someone with an illusion?  prestidigitation and/or ghost sound + bluff.  Want to make a terrifying illusion that intimidates your enemy?  Prestidigitation and/or ghost sound + intimidate.   It is part of the reason why high charisma gnomes make such sneaky, lying bastards.

 As well, there are rules for how to damage objects on page 65 of the DMG.  Do you think your fire spell can summon enough heat to melt an iron door into slag?  Well go nuts, it has 60 hp, a reflex defense of 5.  

 These are not houserules, they are there in in the PHB and DMG in black & white.  I just know about them because I've had more practice and 4e suits my way of thinking.  



> Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"



Nope, not yet.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....




Not my belief at all, but I honestly see caster classes cited far and away more often than the others. The "wizard cannot [use out-of-combat spell he previously had access to]" example shows up more often, at least in the places I browse, than "the fighter cannot [use out-of-combat ability he previously had access to]."

Would I like more out-of-combat utilities to select from? Sure! They're my favorite. I'd like to see more of them for martial characters in particular. Of course, what I'd really like to see for encouraging more non-combat stuff would require the monetary system to be completely decoupled from the magical item advancement system. That's a hard thing to introduce at this stage, as nobody wants to go back to the "DM fiat" method of creating magical items. But I don't see a better way to get PCs spending money again to buy taverns and sailing ships and strongholds. It kind of requires making money irrelevant to the process of keeping current on "magic items by level."


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....




I don't think entirely.   I think it is quite reasonable to want your characters do things mechanically differently if that is your cup of tea, and if you want to have a particular class solve particular problems.

I don't particularly care about that, I care about the narrative of the story.  I get enough difference between characters simply by the descriptive nature of the powers.  For example, a fighter can break down a door with brute strength, while a wizard can burn it down.  It accomplishes the same thing mechanically, but the wizard still has an ability that the fighter doesn't have.  He burns doors to slag with magic.

Take a wizard using magic to try and befriend someone.  A rogue or a bard might use his quick tongue, a cleric might give off an aura of good, and a warlord might give off a reassuring presence of leadership.  The wizard however, might use a prestidigitation to improve his looks, or speak with greater alacrity than he normally would.

Narratively, they still accomplish the same goal, but they are all doing things that other players can't do.  A rogue can't snatch a secret of the villain's greatest fear out of his head, but the psion doesn't know how to press a knife to the villains throat in just the right place to make him uneasy.  Both however, make the same intimidate check, using the same charisma score.  (No house ruling!)

But I'm beginning to think that I'm one of the few that understood this from the reading of the rules.   If so, I understand the feelings of anger over the lack of out of combat options in 4e.  If you think that diplomacy skill is about "speaking well" rather than _what happens_ which is that you influence someone positively, then there are scores of character archetypes that will never exist in your games.  If you assume that intimidate is only the threat of violence, bluff is only lying, perception is only having keen senses and so forth, it becomes tens of thousands of character archetypes never explored.  Thousands of minor spells that can be done with a standard action will never be used.  

I track with a find the path spell (skill check: nature).  I seduce the noblewoman by magically changing my appearance to look like a more handsome version of myself (skill check: diplomacy).  I try to use a minor spell to slow the descent of my fall (skill check: acrobatics).

You still need to be a worshipper of primal spirits to cast a find the path spell, or know how to present your magically enhanced appearance, or be nimble enough to use the spell to slow your fall, but it is the result that matters.  Again, it isn't what your character can do, it is what happens.  Narrative is king in 4e.

If you have a feat or a utility power that allows you to substitute one skill check for another, it also works in the favour of narrative.  Take Raistlin Majere and the utility power "arcane mutterings."  Raistlin isn't the most intimidating character around, being a scrawny and sickly minor mage.   Raistlin though has an ace up his sleeve, he knows how to make a curse sound like a curse, and knows how to come up with a terrifying name for a fictional creature.   So when he lays a phony curse on his belongings to terrify a bunch of goblins, they believe him.

I thought all of this was obvious as skills (and skill challenges) were described in the PHB and DMG.  If nobody else got this, I should immediately write up an article for dungeon.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks.  Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills *and powers* more out-of-combat related!"  Let illusionists make _illusions_.  Let wizards light things on fire.
> 
> Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"




I'm really not getting why you think wizards can't light things on fire.  They can summon flames at will (_Scorching Burst_) and _Prestidigation_ _specifically_ calls out starting fires as one of its abilities.  Dry papers are given as an example of something that that would be vulnerable to fire.  If you are claiming that this is house ruling then _Fire Shroud_ causes ongoing fire damage.  Why is it you think that they can't set things on fire?

As for illusions, one of the other abilities of _Prestidigiation_ is 

"Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn"

Thats actually not dissimilar to _Silent Image_.  Or _Minor Image_ if you decide to go for the other option

"Create a harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint music or a strong odour"

Its somewhat more limited in size, but you certainly can produce illusions.  At will even, and all wizards can do it!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.
> 
> And again, the non-combat rules we have are skill challenges and..._that's it_.  Yes, you can stand around and chatter, but - wait, no, the DMG tells you not to do that.  So hey.
> 
> Look, I'm happy your _houserules_ give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.



Well, here's a few things you can do in 4e that don't require house rules that help, mechanically, out of combat roleplaying.

*Rituals*
Hallucinatory Item allows you to make illusions of objects. 

In fact rituals, like Animal Messenger, are specifically designed so PCs can do cool things out of combat.

*Skills*
Nature allows you to forage for food, no skill challenge required.

Insight, intimidate, and bluff are quintessential roleplaying skills useful both in and out of skill challenges.

*Powers*
Speaking of skills, the ranger utility power Crucial Advice allows people near the ranger to re-roll the skill check with the ranger’s wisdom modifier.

Prestidigitation is specifically written to allow wizard’s to do magical effects out of combat. (Just like 3.x, it’s one of my favorite spells and, from an out of combat pov, really distinguishes wizards from other arcane classes.)

The rogue utility power Master of Deceit allows rogues to re-roll bluff checks.

Raven’s Glamor, a warlock utility power, allows the warlock to be invisible and leave behind an illusion in the location where the warlock became invisible. The out of combat uses of this should be apparent.

Wizards, as one might expect, have numerous non-combat powers. First, the get bunch up front. Along the way they can get such old standbys as Disguise Self, Invisibility, and (a personal favorite) Mordenkaine’s Mansion. 

Druid’s get a nifty little utility power, called Skittering Sneak, that let’s them turn into a tiny (e.g. a house cat or spider) animal and sneak around. It’s awesome.

*Items*
Wondrous Items are often sources or out-of-combat fun. 

Lens of reading allows you to read a language you don’t know for one hour a day.

Wondrous Lair items are rooms and furniture that are specifically designed to spruce-up the PCs home. The feast table, in particular seems stolen from Hogwarts. 



			
				Barastrondo said:
			
		

> I don't see a better way to get PCs spending money again to buy taverns and sailing ships and strongholds. It kind of requires making money irrelevant to the process of keeping current on "magic items by level."



Well Ethan, we don't have prices for tavern or strongholds yet, but we do have ships! That said, I don't think strongholds were priced and detailed at this stage of 3e's development. (IIRC the books governing those things came out just before the 3.5 core books came out.)

*Mic*
Wanna buy a longship? (I run a Norse campaign.) It’ll cost you 5,000gp. It’s 4 squares by 14 squares and has a “swim” speed of 5. (+/-4 depending on wind).

Of course, there’s the quintessential fantasy transportation: the airship. That’ll set you back 85,000gp. It’s got a fly speed of 12 (hover) and overland speed of 15.

Of course, maybe you prefer a plain old mount. If horses aren’t your thing, you can go Hannibal style and buy an elephant. Or you can buy a camel. Camel’s have some advantages over horses that shouldn’t be overlooked. 

These are some of the out-of-combat things a person can do in 4e. Most, if not all, of this stuff was perfectly doable in 3.x. It’s one of the reasons I play 4e, I can do all the cool out of combat stuff I liked doing in 3.x. I wouldn’t say most of it is implemented better, though some of it is. I think nature is better implemented than wilderness lore, survival, and Knowledge (Nature) were. I love the new prestidigitation. And rituals solve a lot of the problems I had conceptually with non-combat spells.

What I like about 4e isn't that I can do many of things I liked about 3.x (though that's a bonus), its the _homogeneity_ of the system. The simple design of the rules is a real bonus for me as someone who loves rpgs, but otherwise isn't really a hobby gamer. (I like board games like go and card games like euchre, generally speaking.) The homogenous rules are just easier on my poor brain.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2009)

Ferratus[/quote said:
			
		

> Narratively, they still accomplish the same goal, but they are all doing things that other players can't do. A rogue can't snatch a secret of the villain's greatest fear out of his head, but the wizard doesn't know how to press a knife to the villains throat in just the right place to make him uneasy.




Is there a _wrong_ way to put a knife to someone's throat to make him uneasy?  

I'd like to give more props to Ferratus, but I've already done him once this thread.  Can someone cover me?


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> And so we are back to "Everyone who wants something to do things out of combat just wants his caster character to shine and steal the spotlight from everyone else"....




Hyperbole.. Try again


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Is there a _wrong_ way to put a knife to someone's throat to make him uneasy?




Well if a wimpy psion put a knife to my throat and tried to intimidate me, I might try to wrestle it away from him.   If Vanchku the burly half-orc brutal scoundrel is holding the knife, I might reconsider. 

The psion though can not only read my mind to get my greatest fear, he can also make me hallucinate terrible monsters, or cause my body to release a flood of adrenaline into my system to increase my anxiety.   He can tell if I'm lying by snatching up my surface thoughts with an insight check, get me to like him by with empathic powers and a diplomacy check, or insinuate a psionic suggestion with a bluff skill check.  Psycho-metabolism channeling for athletics and acrobatics checks, etc.   Give me a skill and I'll show you how a psion uses his mental powers to make the skill check.  He still needs some proficiency in the associated skill, mind you.  All the telepathic power to beam images into heads in the world won't help him intimidate if he doesn't have the charisma to make particularly scary telepathic hallucinatory images.

The existence of a power or ritual with similar flavour text does not preclude using a skill check.   For example, the monk has a featherfall-esque slow fall ability, and you can do a slow fall with an acrobatics check.   Brother Joe is the master of the slow fall technique, while Brother Bob occasionally fails or has a limit on how high a height he can fall from.

The whole purpose of describing a skill check any way you wish is to have a creative and cinematic descriptions in the story.   That is why skills aren't about what you do, but about what challenges you overcome.  It is a deliberate design choice.   It is essentially doing for skills what we used to do in 2e with martial attacks.   The mechanic is very simple (roll d20 to hit, roll damage dice) but you were encouraged to come up with imaginative descriptions for what the combat looked like.  Of course, it usually defaulted to "you hit" because there was no way to inflict a crippling blow or forcibly move an opponent in the mechanics and people got tired of describing their attacks.  The only hit that mattered was the one where the enemy fell over, ran away, or surrendered because that is when your actions had a discernible impact on what happened next.

Now you can just roll skill checks without describing them too, but I think skill checks are better for a highly creative but mechanically simple and abstract mechanic than combat is.  A skill check is where a player describes an event beforehand, and the DM sets a difficulty.  So the DM merely narrates the next part of the adventure assuming that you have succeeded or failed.  I wouldn't want what a lot of people seem to be asking for, which is to to have more powers which replicate the results of skill checks with concrete descriptions of what happens.  I think one should have utility powers replicate skill checks when it is appropriate to the class, but mostly utility powers should do what skills can't.   I also like the new skill powers, which enhance what skills can do.  Goal oriented spells (overcome obstacle x, influence person x, identify magical aura x etc) are best covered by skills in my opinion.

(I wasn't preaching at Hussar, I just like talking about this topic.  This spiel was for everyone.)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2009)

Dammit F, stop being so reasonable.  You already got all my money.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Hyperbole.. Try again



Why do you encourage him? 

"Don't try that again" is what I say.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why do you encourage him?
> 
> "Don't try that again" is what I say.




I am a masochist at heart


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Well if a wimpy psion put a knife to my throat and tried to intimidate me, I might try to wrestle it away from him. If Vanchku the burly half-orc brutal scoundrel is holding the knife, I might reconsider.




You would? No edition of D&D has ever been able to model this sort of situation well without houserules. Scaling HP means that only the lowest level victims would even be slightly scared by such a situation.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 4, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Well Ethan, we don't have prices for tavern or strongholds yet, but we do have ships! That said, I don't think strongholds were priced and detailed at this stage of 3e's development. (IIRC the books governing those things came out just before the 3.5 core books came out.)




Oh, I know the prices for vehicles are out there, and I can jury-rig old prices by looking at books of previous editions if need be. The main trouble I have is that a longship sets you back 5000 gp that has been expected to be factored into your overall character wealth for items-per-level. A stronghold costs money that might mean you don't get your equivalent level NAD-protector or weapon. 

Mainly what I would like to see is a "magic economy" that doesn't cross over with a gold piece economy, so you might as well spend those chests of gold on luxuries, home improvement, and legendary debauches. It's doable with house rules, and I do my darnedest to make it work, but of course, it would be nicer if it didn't have to be done with house rules. (If for no other reason than it wouldn't inspire quite as much online fighting.) 

I imagine, though, that if I cite the "you can use your gold to upgrade your character with magic items" factor as a problem rather than a feature, it says a lot about me. Like (a) I run more often than I play, and (b) I got my nostalgic golden years of D&D gaming in before 3e ever came around.


----------



## Derren (Sep 4, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Hyperbole.. Try again




No, accurate translation of what was the intention behind 
"
- whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do

- whether or not you want "fewer options" as a class feature, such as the old-school fighter
"

where he tries to link people who don't like 4Es system with power hungry wizard players who don't like others (fighters) being able to shine.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Oh, I know the prices for vehicles are out there, and I can jury-rig old prices by looking at books of previous editions if need be. The main trouble I have is that a longship sets you back 5000 gp that has been expected to be factored into your overall character wealth for items-per-level. A stronghold costs money that might mean you don't get your equivalent level NAD-protector or weapon.
> 
> Mainly what I would like to see is a "magic economy" that doesn't cross over with a gold piece economy, so you might as well spend those chests of gold on luxuries, home improvement, and legendary debauches. It's doable with house rules, and I do my darnedest to make it work, but of course, it would be nicer if it didn't have to be done with house rules. (If for no other reason than it wouldn't inspire quite as much online fighting.)
> 
> I imagine, though, that if I cite the "you can use your gold to upgrade your character with magic items" factor as a problem rather than a feature, it says a lot about me. Like (a) I run more often than I play, and (b) I got my nostalgic golden years of D&D gaming in before 3e ever came around.




Heh, this is an issue that I've never been able to solve.  I love the idea that the players will spend their coin on ships and titles and whatnot, but, at the end of the day, D&D (at least 3e) doesn't do it very well.

Like you say, it can be done in earlier editions where magic items weren't tied to player wealth.

Out of curiousity, how do you do it?  I found myself just partitioning things off.  That ship or that castle just didn't count for party wealth and the money and resources to upgrade that thing were also kept separate.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 4, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I don't think it can be boiled down to just that dividing point. There's also:
> 
> - whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do
> 
> ...




Good point.  I might have been able to bodge the first in under the team-oriented concept, but the other two are pretty much their own thing.



Barastrondo said:


> Oh, I know the prices for vehicles are out there, and I can jury-rig old prices by looking at books of previous editions if need be. The main trouble I have is that a longship sets you back 5000 gp that has been expected to be factored into your overall character wealth for items-per-level. A stronghold costs money that might mean you don't get your equivalent level NAD-protector or weapon.
> 
> Mainly what I would like to see is a "magic economy" that doesn't cross over with a gold piece economy, so you might as well spend those chests of gold on luxuries, home improvement, and legendary debauches. It's doable with house rules, and I do my darnedest to make it work, but of course, it would be nicer if it didn't have to be done with house rules. (If for no other reason than it wouldn't inspire quite as much online fighting.)
> 
> I imagine, though, that if I cite the "you can use your gold to upgrade your character with magic items" factor as a problem rather than a feature, it says a lot about me. Like (a) I run more often than I play, and (b) I got my nostalgic golden years of D&D gaming in before 3e ever came around.




I'm sure I'm not the first to have this idea, but something I toyed with for a bit (which was inspired by a different idea one of my friends had) was reskinning gold as some form of mystical currency (residuum, for example).

You could use residuum for all the normal uses like performing rituals and creating magic items, and also use it to purchase them from craftsman.  No one buys magic items (or residuum) for simple gold (because magic is priceless).  On the other hand, only those involved with the mystic arts have any use for residuum (you can't buy a loaf of bread with it unless the local hedge mage also happens to be the town baker).  Residuum accumulates slowly within all beings, but is attracted to those who alter the flow of fate (people who can change the world, be it on a local or cosmic level; aka adventurers) and can be easily siphoned from a willing individual by any moderately learned practitioner of the magical arts.  If residuum doesn't work for you, you could always consider it mana, quintessence or something else entirely.

You could then add mundane gold (at whatever rate you feel is appropriate) into the campaign for purchasing things like horses and keeps.  As an added bonus, it adds an extra treasure type to reward the players with.  The main thing is that you'd have to keep the magical and mundane economies separate (ritual components can't be purchased with mundane gold because that would allow the conversion of gold into residuum).

Still, I think it could work (and for the right campaign, work very well) and the nicest part is that it seems like it would require only a minimal amount of houseruling.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

Aramax said:


> I want the part of my life back that I lost reading this crap.






Henry said:


> _Caveat Spector?_




I'd think _Caveat Lector_, but I'm no expert.

_Ave_, -- N


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> You would? No edition of D&D has ever been able to model this sort of situation well without houserules. Scaling HP means that only the lowest level victims would even be slightly scared by such a situation.




Again, stats in 4e aren't about what the characters and the monsters can do, its about what happens.   The fact that mechanically you'd have to stab the NPC 17 times before he'd die is immaterial to 4e's narrative assumptions.  What happened was you threatened an NPC with a knife, succeeded on an intimidate check, and he was cowed.

Some people don't like that 4e mechanics describe a scene rather than character abilities.  I love it.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Again, stats in 4e aren't about what the characters and the monsters can do, its about what happens.   The fact that mechanically you'd have to stab the NPC 17 times before he'd die is immaterial to 4e's narrative assumptions.  What happened was you threatened an NPC with a knife, succeeded on an intimidate check, and he was cowed.
> 
> Some people don't like that 4e mechanics describe a scene rather than character abilities.  I love it.



 Also, of course, the NPC could turn out to be a minion, and be only one small nick away from a PC-dug grave.

IMHO, 4e encourages a *suspension of mechanical disbelief* in a manner similar to 1e, but with a clearer set of rules behind it.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 4, 2009)

Ferratus, I tried to give you xp as well, but it appears you were among the last couple I gave it to.

I agree with a lot of what Farratus says, especially about 4e describing things in a way other editions of D&D haven't, but many other modern game systems do.  I think a lot of the problems some people have with 4e stems from this subtle shift in the narrative.  The old model was player says what they do, DM tells them if it works and what happens.  That's much less the case now.  Even in 3e with some spells that clearly described what happened, it still fell to the DM to confirm it (whether because he had a saving throw to make or spell resistance on the target).  In 4e, if the DM gives out the target numbers or confirms a "hit", the player then tells the group what happens to the DMs monster, based on the power - "He is blown backwards 10' and falls over and now he can't move".  Then the DM has to deal with that situation.  It's a small shift from the way 3e played and a bigger shift from the way earlier editions played.

Someone upthread a bit said it was a fact that 3e had more options than 4e in regards to character creation and action.  By the numbers this is true (hundreds of prestige classes, 60 base classes, etc), but despite all these menu options, I found 3e significantly more limiting than I do 4e for a number of reasons.

One is simple menu options.  There were many, many choices but even with all that choice if you created a concept without considering the menu available, you often found it very tricky to create the character you want.  You had to do some ridiculous contortions (1 lvl barbarian, 2 of fighter, 1 rogue, etc...) to get the mechanics you needed off the menu while ignoring most all the fluff that came with a lot of those choices.  No matter how big the menu grew, you still had to choose from that menu and the bigger it grew, the less room it had for out of the box concepts.  I much prefer the way all D&D editions except 3e (and 2e with kits) treated classes as broad umbrellas encompassing a number of different ways to go within that class.  

Second, 3e had a philosophy of mechanically representing all the things a character could do.  Not just as an adventurer, but as a person.  I found this severely limiting to what I could do with character backgrounds (and houseruled the heck out of it so my players could make the characters they wanted).  This was my problem with craft/profession/perform and why I was very happy to see them go away in 4e.  I do not think those aid roleplaying, but hinder it instead.  By way of example, a character I've talked about before here in one of my 4e games had a simple, dramatic concept that fit the campaign perfectly.  In every other edition, where backgrounds were open and based on RP more so than mechanics, the concept would work, but in 3e it required houseruling.  He is an Eladrin based very loosely on Elvis, more specifically on a line from Dogma ("Elvis was an artist. But that didn't stop him from joining the service in time of war. And that's why he's The King, and you're a schmuck").  He was an older Eladrin, alive before a great aberrant corruption caused the elvin people to fall from grace.  He was a famous musician, a celebrity of Eladrin culture.  Afterwards he turned to the arcane arts and quests to end the corruption and renew his people.  It's a couple of lines of background in 4e and when it comes up that he sings or plays (he does so often, in taverns to win over locals, at camp to lift spirits, to remind other Eladrin he encounters of the once greatness of their race, etc) we handle it without much mechanical need.  In 3e he would have needed a half dozen skills well above 1st level max ranks to justify the background.  I did not like that.  Same holds true for making a fighter that was good at anything else.  Hell, 3e in general was a low time for the storied fighter, he couldn't even excel at the one thing the system allowed him to do - fight.  Practically every other class, especially casters, far exceeded his fighting abilities.  Another example I've given before is a dwarf brewmaster I first played in 1e.  He was the first son, and heir apparent, in a clan of world famous brewers, his father being the head of the clan.  That was supposed to be his life, but he was struck with that wanderlust and thirst for adventure so many of our characters have.  He turned his back on that and became an outcast, as an adventurer he was a rare fighter/wizard.  This wouldn't work in 3e on several levels.  3e never did fighter/wizard well for one.  But the big one is I needed to, but couldn't mechanically represent his background as a master brewer. 

To me, 3e was the standalone edition here, the one that changed character conceptualizing into an overly rigid mechanical exercise.  I like the freedom of both earlier editions and 4e in leaving backgrounds open and focusing character mechanics on the central purpose for game rules - conflict resolution.

Which is another thing some seem to miss about 4e.  It is not all about combat.  The rules system exists to resolve conflicts (and build characters).  That's what you need in a rules system.  You don't need dice mechanics to determine if a fletcher can make arrows or if an NPC blacksmith makes money in a given week.  Those are details best left to story.  You need mechanics to resolve conflicts when the parties involved are at odds - when the PC wants to introduce steel to an orc and the orc politely wishes to refuse the introduction, or when a rogue seeks to climb a tower that has carefully designed itself to be very difficult to climb.  

I like that the game system gets out of the way and lets you play the game.  For me, and I would say others who don't see homogeneity in 4e, this is a major reason.  A game that constantly requires consulting a number of subsystems for simple task resolution is one that interrupts flow.  4e, with its unified mechanics, has tremendous flow.  My group barely ever cracks a book during gameplay.  Every once in a while a longer power or ritual description will require a peek over the card summary or a potion or other consumable that we don't generally make cards for might require a lookup.  But we rarely have to consult the books to apply the grapple rules, or remember all the steps for a disarm attempt, or have to pause the game to reference three spells to see how exactly polymorph works again.  

There are character concepts that work in one edition that don't work in others throughout the life of D&D and I had a great time played 3e and don't "hate" the system or anything.  It just was more restricting than I like and I much prefer the openness of a game system that emphasizes a broader, less focused approach.  I like broad skill systems (and I do like skill systems as opposed to "player skill"), broad class archetypes (I really prefer classless, but not in my D&D), love the way 4e encourages and enhances DM improvisation and tweaking (page 42, painfully simple monster modification, etc).

Ultimately, I especially agree with Ferratus in that I would simply like to see others who aren't fans of the game to stop referring to it with all the insulting code that has popped up - tactical minis game, all about combat, wow on paper, D&D without the roleplaying, etc.  It's one thing to discuss the differences between editions and another to simply bash someone's choice because its not the game for you.  The misinformation that abounds about what 4e is "really like" bugs me, like the OP stating that homogeneity in 4e is just an accepted fact.  This thread proves it clearly is not an accepted fact but a matter of perception.


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 4, 2009)

Nifft said:


> IMHO, 4e encourages a *suspension of mechanical disbelief* in a manner similar to 1e, but with a clearer set of rules behind it.




I like how Nifft expresses the point of half my post in a single line while owning me with his sig.  That was worth some xp.  And I agree entirely.  This is why a lot of older 4e players describe the game as having a healthy dose of old school in it.

Now, someone may well come back and reference Come and Get It or the dreaded 'knocking a cube prone' to challenge this notion.  To that I would refer to Ferratus discussing how 4e described what happened not what people can do.  And if you can't figure out how the modifiers under the Prone category would be applied to a cube, I refer you to the scene in Terminator 2 when Arnie puts an explosive round right into the middle of the T-1000.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> No, accurate translation of what was the intention behind
> "
> - whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do
> 
> ...




As the person who posted it: sorry, that's a highly inaccurate "translation" of my "intention." My intention was to post valid critiques of the system to show that people can have more problems with it than simply a preference for one form of genre or another.

For instance, the "fewer options" fighter is something I see requested by people who like to _play_ simpler fighters, not by spellcaster players trying to keep those uppity martial guys in check. Some people just want to write down a few stats and go. They don't like resource management of encounter or daily powers at all, with maybe the exception of tracking ammunition. Therefore it's a valid criticism of 4e, and also a divisive one because it can be a bug or a feature depending on your viewpoint.

Rein in the psychoanalysis, please. It's kind of insulting, particularly when you miss the mark completely.


----------



## Barastrondo (Sep 4, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heh, this is an issue that I've never been able to solve.  I love the idea that the players will spend their coin on ships and titles and whatnot, but, at the end of the day, D&D (at least 3e) doesn't do it very well.
> 
> Like you say, it can be done in earlier editions where magic items weren't tied to player wealth.




Therein lies the inspiration, of course. I started running fairly serious D&D in college with 2e, and was never allowed to stop, really. The campaign world has, at my players' request, remained the same even as we've adopted new editions. (Note to married gamers out there: if your wife really likes something about a game you run, you've got a great motivation to like it, too!) A few house rules and the occasional retcon have been inevitable to keep the mood generally consistent. So in a way, I enjoy 4e because in some ways it plays more the game I learned to run with 2e.



> Out of curiousity, how do you do it?  I found myself just partitioning things off.  That ship or that castle just didn't count for party wealth and the money and resources to upgrade that thing were also kept separate.




That's one way of doing it, yeah; treating deeds and captured ships and things like that as a different kind of "parcel" to track, sort of like letting PCs find ritual components that don't count against the party wealth so nobody has to pay a "ritual income tax." 

I've also tried to encourage the thought of magic items as sort of existing in their own economy. You don't sell those three +2 swords you liberated from the dwarven forge — you wind up going to the government and exchanging them at the state armories for something more your style, or (more frequently) to a powerful temple. I figure the potent temples are likely to accumulate magic items not quite in their priests' style via their adventuring templars, and are willing to make exchanges when PCs bring back other things. This allows for a more fair "market value" exchange rate, without having to muck around with residuum or whatnot, and encourages roleplaying with civic leaders besides.

It's an imperfect solution, mind, but I find it works much better in 4e with the much, much-reduced emphasis on expendable magic items. There's now much less reason for the party wizard to ask for a tithe from other party members to produce a bunch of _protection from fire_ scrolls so he can firebomb the bejeezus out of their immediate area. So far I've mostly been running low-level stuff, though; once I move back to Atlanta I'll have more experience with paragon tier forthwith. It should be educational!



Fanaelialae said:


> I'm sure I'm not the first to have this idea, but something I toyed with for a bit (which was inspired by a different idea one of my friends had) was reskinning gold as some form of mystical currency (residuum, for example).




(snipping the rest) Yeah, that actually would work well with many games. Ars Magica and Mage invoked the concept of Tass, for instance, essentially mana that's in material form. I have a Fantasy Hero supplement that talks about setting up your own approach to mana as a resource, from naming it in various ways (ten "points" of mana make a "star," ten "stars" of mana make a "constellation", for instance) to figuring out its relative wealth. 

I unfortunately never introduced such a concept to my game, so at this point I would be looking at retcon-time. It's something I'd want to talk to the group about, if introducing it would be jarring or if it would simply be bringing "what was happening all along" to the forefront, with a more technical look at the step after "acquire cockatrice feathers" — i.e., extract Tass or residuum or whathaveyou.

It's an intriguing concept, especially when it comes to figuring out neat ways for it to enter the "economy." Wouldn't it be interesting if particularly magical monsters had little bezoars of  Tass in their gizzards, or infused in their body parts? Or if a wizard's tower managed to, with the right equipment, bleed and coalesce a small amount monthly from the heavens, sort of like an arcane gold mine? Ideas abound. I must consider this.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 4, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> *Rituals*
> Hallucinatory Item allows you to make illusions of objects.
> In fact rituals, like Animal Messenger, are specifically designed so PCs can do cool things out of combat.




Hallucinary Item [sblock]
Hallucinatory Item
*Component Cost: 25 gp*
Market Price: 250 gp
Key Skill: Arcana
Level: 5
Category: Deception
*Time: 10 minutes*
Duration: 24 Hours
You create the illusion of a single inanimate object that appears, to all intents and purposes, to be real. You can use this ritual to create an illusory wall, door, weapon, or other object.
    Your Arcana check result determines the illusion’s maximum size.
Once you create the illusion, you cannot move it, and it can’t include moving parts.
    Creatures that view or interact with the illusion are entitled to Insight checks to detect the fact that it is false. This check’s DC equals your Arcana check result. A creature is allowed a check the first time it sees the illusion and each time it interacts with it. *A creature that touches an illusion automatically determines that the image is a fake.*[/sblock]
Silent Image [sblock]
Silent Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: 	Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: 	V, S, F
*Casting Time: 	1 standard action*
Range: 	Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect: 	Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration: 	Concentration
Saving Throw: 	*Will disbelief (if interacted with)*
Spell Resistance: 	No
This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.
*Focus A bit of fleece*[/sblock]

So now, my "illusionist" gets to pay 25 gp and spend 10 minutes casting a ritual to create a door THAT ANYONE TRYING THE HANDLE WILL KNOW IS FAKE!

Progress. Least he can still deal PSYCHIC damage with his illusions!

Animal Messanger, 3.5[sblock]
Animal Messenger
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: 	Brd 2, Drd 2, Rgr 1
Components: 	V, S, M
*Casting Time: 	1 standard action*
Range: 	Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: 	One Tiny animal
Duration: 	One day/level
Saving Throw: 	None; see text
Spell Resistance: 	Yes
You compel a Tiny animal to go to a spot you designate. The most common use for this spell is to get an animal to carry a message to your allies. The animal cannot be one tamed or trained by someone else, including such creatures as familiars and animal companions.
Using some type of food desirable to the animal as a lure, you call the animal to you. It advances and awaits your bidding. You can mentally impress on the animal a certain place well known to you or an obvious landmark. The directions must be simple, because the animal depends on your knowledge and can’t find a destination on its own. You can attach some small item or note to the messenger. The animal then goes to the designated location and waits there until the duration of the spell expires, whereupon it resumes its normal activities.
During this period of waiting, the messenger allows others to approach it and remove any scroll or token it carries. The intended recipient gains no special ability to communicate with the animal or read any attached message (if it’s written in a language he or she doesn’t know, for example).
*Material Component: A morsel of food the animal likes.* [/sblock]
Animal Messanger, 4e[sblock]
Animal Messenger
*Component Cost: 10 gp*
Market Price: 50 gp
Key Skill: Nature
Level: 1
Category: Exploration
*Time: 10 minutes*
Duration: Special
You target a nonhostile Tiny animal, such as a sparrow, a raven, a fox, or a carp. The animal must remain within 5 squares of you for the time necessary to perform the ritual. Once the ritual is complete, you whisper a message of up to 25 words to the animal and name a recipient and a location. The animal bounds off toward the location, in search of the recipient. The animal avoids danger along its path. Upon finding the recipient, the animal approaches until it is adjacent to the recipient, and then your whisper issues from the animal’s mouth, conveying the message. When the animal delivers its message or the ritual’s duration ends, your influence ends and the animal reverts to its natural behavior.
Your Nature check determines how long the animal is affected by the ritual.[/sblock]

10 minutes? Check. 10 gp? Check. I'm ready to cas... Hey, where'd the squirrel go?

Neither of these rituals are fast ("Quick, the ogre is coming! Make an illusion of a door!" Ok, can you hold him off for 10 minutes while I try?") both are expensive (costing gp per casting, whereas the 3.5 spells had negligible cost) and while Hallucinatory item lasts 24 hours (rather than concentration of the 1st level spell) it doesn't pass the sniff test the minute you touch, or interact, with it (whereas the 3e spell allows a will save to disbelieve).

You'd be better off spending 10 gp on art supplies and have the illusionist PAINT a door on for 10 minutes for as useful at that is!


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You'd be better off spending 10 gp on art supplies and have the illusionist PAINT a door on for 10 minutes for as useful at that is!



 He'd have to multiclass to gain access to a Martial Practice like that.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 4, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But once the fight is done, the first wizard *can't light things on fire*.  The second wizard *can't make illusions of doors*.




Why wouldn't you be able to set fires using Scorching Burst?

Why wouldn't you be able to create an illusion of a door with Illusory Wall?  "A seemingly solid wall materializes before your foes, dividing the battlefield with your convincing illusion."


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Neither of these rituals are fast ("Quick, the ogre is coming! Make an illusion of a door!" Ok, can you hold him off for 10 minutes while I try?") both are expensive (costing gp per casting, whereas the 3.5 spells had negligible cost) and while Hallucinatory item lasts 24 hours (rather than concentration of the 1st level spell) it doesn't pass the sniff test the minute you touch, or interact, with it (whereas the 3e spell allows a will save to disbelieve).



Well, to be fair, I was responding to someone who claimed that there weren't mechanics to back-up out of combat actions or roleplaying except for skill challenges. It was a very narrow response, not intended to address what ruleset is better for any given situation.

So, how about this: I agree with you, Hallucinary Item sucks for making a door to stop or slow ogres.

Anyways, it won't make a door, but Phantasmal Terrain can slow down an ogre. Given that an Ogre Skirmisher has a speed of 8, that seems like a worthy goal.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 4, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Anyways, it won't make a door, but Phantasmal Terrain can slow down an ogre. Given that an Ogre Skirmisher has a speed of 8, that seems like a worthy goal.




Only if there's already difficult terrain for the ogre to cross through (it increases the amount of extra movement for difficult terrain from 1 sq to 2 sqs.) Hopefully, the wizard has an ability to make rubble or a really good movement rate to get down an already difficult-terrain hallway, (maybe this is where all those short-range teleports come in handy?) because otherwise, he's no better off with Phantasmal Terrain than he was painting the door on the wall!


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> *snip* Tons of awesome stuff by ferratus.




Well said, and very eloquently explained.  XP for you sir!

I hadn't really thought of it the way you explained it, but you're absolutely right- 4e does tell you what happens rather than how you do it, and you are encouraged to make up the "how"of how things happen using the narrative or what makes sense for the character.  I loved your example of the psion vs the rogue using Intimidate to cow someone into submission- very eloquent and GREAT roleplaying potential.  In that regard 4e is much more of a successor to the spirit of OD&D, 1e, and 2e than 3e was.  Numerous people I've talked to have told me that 4e has a very "old-school" vibe to it, and I think this is one of the main reasons why.  I've always approached my games in this fashion, its probably why 4e plays and resonates so well with me, and why 3e seemed to fall flat on its face, feel restrictive, and be crushed under its own weight.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Only if there's already difficult terrain for the ogre to cross through (it increases the amount of extra movement for difficult terrain from 1 sq to 2 sqs.) Hopefully, the wizard has an ability to make rubble or a really good movement rate to get down an already difficult-terrain hallway, (maybe this is where all those short-range teleports come in handy?) because otherwise, he's no better off with Phantasmal Terrain than he was painting the door on the wall!



The Illusionist could also throw-up and Illusory Wall, it's still not a door, but hey it doesn't require the existence of difficult terrain!


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 4, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> In that regard 4e is much more of a successor to the spirit of OD&D, 1e, and 2e than 3e was.  Numerous people I've talked to have told me that 4e has a very "old-school" vibe to it, and I think this is one of the main reasons why.  I've always approached my games in this fashion, its probably why 4e plays and resonates so well with me, and why 3e seemed to fall flat on its face, feel restrictive, and be crushed under its own weight.




I feel the same way.  Even though old school players scoff at 4e players who feel the game encapsulates some of the best philosophy of the early editions.  I can understand their position, some of our game assumptions are entirely different (resolution through player skill vs. character skill for example), but it doesn't change the fact that a number of old school gamers playing 4e find resonance with the way we used to play.  I feel that of all the existing editions of D&D, 3e was the aberrant one in that it is the only one that went the complex, rule for everything approach and required mechanical representation for character details outside of class/adventurer roles (profession and craft skills).  Late 2e is where we saw the shift in that thinking (the Options material), I think, but it was a core assumption of 3e.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

I don't get what Rem is going on about.  The 3.5 spells Major Image and Illusionary Wall also are proven false when touched.  4e Illusionary Wall at least creates a barrier that can possibly stand up to being touched.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I feel that of all the existing editions of D&D, 3e was the aberrant one in that it is the only one that went the complex, rule for everything approach and required mechanical representation for character details outside of class/adventurer roles (profession and craft skills).  Late 2e is where we saw the shift in that thinking (the Options material), I think, but it was a core assumption of 3e.




There were NWP and Secondary skills that covered being a brewer or cook or farmer and so on in 2e.   Few ever took them, or 3e's craft and profession skills, but they were there.

I don't miss them myself.  If the character has any knowledge of farming or spinning wool, he'll let me know.  I'll let him buy his own farm, put in the crop and raise up the crop until amber waves of grain ripple in the breeze.  

Then goblins will burn his farm to ashes because of what he did to them back in first level.  Mwhahaha!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I don't get what Rem is going on about.  The 3.5 spells Major Image and Illusionary Wall also are proven false when touched.  4e Illusionary Wall at least creates a barrier that can possibly stand up to being touched.



_Silent Image_ (the spell Remathilis quoted in his first reply to me) is a more versatile spell in terms what the caster can create. It creates a "visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you..." Such a description includes both doors and walls. Illusionary Wall only includes (unsurprisingly) walls.

Silent Image is a first level spell, available to all wizards who wish to cast illusions. In fact if it lacks anything, it's specificity. Does a door or wall created by the caster block line of sight? Does seen the wall count as interacting with it? The spell is silent on that, but I think reasonable DMs and players can come to reasonable conclusions. My own answer to those questions is yes to both.

This reflects, I think, a design choice. Broad spells like silent image and polymorph have been broken-up into a multitude of different powers of very specific definition. Skittering Sneak, for example is possible under the broader 3.5 polymorph, but that no longer exists and it's functionality is spread out over various powers a druid possess. The same is true of illusions. Unfortunately, the designers neglected to give a general illusion power (similar to Wild Shape) that allows illusionists to create simple illusions. So, no doors.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 4, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> This reflects, I think, a design choice. Broad spells like silent image and polymorph have been broken-up into a multitude of different powers of very specific definition. Skittering Sneak, for example is possible under the broader 3.5 polymorph, but that no longer exists and it's functionality is spread out over various powers a druid possess. The same is true of illusions. Unfortunately, the designers neglected to give a general illusion power (similar to Wild Shape) that allows illusionists to create simple illusions. So, no doors.



It should be noted that PFRPG also breaks up Wild Shape/Polymorph into those types of things. I wonder how PFRPG treats illusions.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Sep 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Only if there's already difficult terrain for the ogre to cross through (it increases the amount of extra movement for difficult terrain from 1 sq to 2 sqs.) Hopefully, the wizard has an ability to make rubble or a really good movement rate to get down an already difficult-terrain hallway, (maybe this is where all those short-range teleports come in handy?) because otherwise, he's no better off with Phantasmal Terrain than he was painting the door on the wall!




It's admittedly a high level spell, but Spectral Vision (Wizard Utility 16 from Arcane Power) seems to be what you are looking for.  It can cause a wall to look like a door (and a lot more), and even resists attempts to pierce the illusion (you have to either make an insight check or be hurt by it to see through the illusion).


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 4, 2009)

What is a door but a wall with hinges?

The DM may rule that those who are bewitched by the illusion can't open the door, but to say you can't create the illusion of a door at all is needlessly restrictive, in my opinion - along the lines of being unable to set something aflame with Scorching Burst.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 4, 2009)

Derren said:


> No, accurate translation of what was the intention behind
> "
> - whether or not you want spellcaster classes to be able to do things out of combat that nobody else can do
> 
> ...




Assuming you are not a certified translator, I would probably not give up my day job.


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 4, 2009)

ferratus said:


> There were NWP and Secondary skills that covered being a brewer or cook or farmer and so on in 2e.   Few ever took them, or 3e's craft and profession skills, but they were there.




You know, I've forgotten that the NWP had a skill check mechanic, based on ability score.  I was thinking it was more just a codified system of notation so player's would be able to say to the DM "see, i planned on being good at armorsmithing all along, not just now when it became important."  Still, it is basically just what we were doing in 1e but dressed up as a mechanic.  By the rules, rolls were rarely required (as opposed to having to roll in 3e to successfully make arrows if you were a fletcher), the NWP represented things you knew.  But those rare times a need for task resolution arose, you had the mechanic of an ability check with a small modifier.  Which is what we did in 1e, and what some of us do now in 4e.  Player describes what he is trying to do, DM figures out what to tie it to (skill or ability score) and a roll can be made without a hard system of resource trade-offs between class competency and background details.  In 2e, NWPs were a separate system, you didn't have to give up class skills in order to weave baskets, you just picked the NWP.  I found this quote interesting while reading up on these again as it reflects how I came to feel about the craft umbrella in 3e - 



> ...this system [NWPs] is not without drawbacks.  First, NWPs are rigid.  *Being so defined, they limit the options of both player and DM*.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Silent Image is a first level spell, available to all wizards who wish to cast illusions. In fact if it lacks anything, it's specificity. Does a door or wall created by the caster block line of sight? Does seen the wall count as interacting with it? The spell is silent on that, but I think reasonable DMs and players can come to reasonable conclusions. My own answer to those questions is yes to both.




That wasn't the answer in my 3.5 days.  Illusionary wall specifically says it does not impede objects from passing through it.  It is specifically designed to break line of sight.  If Silent Image can do the same, what is the point of illusionary wall?  Being bigger doesn't justify three spell levels higher.

No I'm pretty sure silent image is an insubstantial, translucent image in 3.5.  It is just meant to display something.  Maybe you could use a bluff check to make it seem more realistic if the DM lets you, but it is more a 4e way of looking at things.  Silent image is supposed to display an image, not cause a combat effect.

Prestidigitation allows you to create images, and it is to cover minor magical spells that do not cause damage, or otherwise disrupt opponents.  So I see no reason why it can't create the same sort of images that silent image does.  Minor and Major image would be covered by some sort of bluff check in addition to casting prestidigitation, with the bluff check and page 42 covering distraction or interaction with those you are trying to fool.  

What we are actually missing is a ritual for a programmed illusion and simulacrums.   Other than those two spells, I think we pretty much got the 3.5 PHB covered.



> The same is true of illusions. Unfortunately, the designers neglected to give a general illusion power (similar to Wild Shape) that allows illusionists to create simple illusions. So, no doors.




I think it is covered, but if we actually need an illusion power that would allow someone to cast a sustained illusion of one square, a level 2 utility called "figment" could cover it.   I don't think you should create an illusion spell that makes the creature interact with it as if it was real, because that would essentially make the spell the equivelant to summoning a warrior, putting on a negative to attack rolls, blinding them, restraining them, or stunning and immobilizing them.  It is just too powerful a spell in that case, and isn't a good idea in 3e much less 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 5, 2009)

ferratus said:


> That wasn't the answer in my 3.5 days.  Illusionary wall specifically says it does not impede objects from passing through it.  It is specifically designed to break line of sight.  If Silent Image can do the same, what is the point of illusionary wall?  Being bigger doesn't justify three spell levels higher.
> 
> Difference: Silent Image; Duration Concentration. Illusory Wall; Duration: Permanent. Oh, and there is no size limit either.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shadeydm (Sep 6, 2009)

The worst part is 2 years later and I still cannot do a decent recreation of my bastard sword wielding rogue from 3.x. The closest I can get is make a fighter or ranger and pretend he is rogue, how sad is that?

I still play 4E every week (mainly because there are two people in the group who refuse to play anything else) and have fun but given the choice I would go back to 3.x in a heart beat. It let me make characters based on an idea instead of an idea fitting into a class.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 6, 2009)

Well if what you say is true, then if I ever join your game the first thing I'm going to do is play a sorcerer, and do nothing by silent image and all the other images in my low level spells.

If I can create anything that people will think is real based only on their will save, I'll spend all my time creating cages and pits, or clouds of dense fog around anything with a ranged attack, or bags over the heads of anything that needs eyes to see, and other various tactics that would essentially make your monsters unable to attack me and my party because they can't move or see.   Then we'd see how long you put up with it as my DM before you reign that in.

Image spells are just too powerful if they have that much of a combat effect.  That's why they say they are largely to "momentarily disrupt or confound."   The combat effect of these spells should be fairly limited.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 6, 2009)

I would point out that Silent Image doesn not create touch elements.  The door looks real, but, since it doesn't have any physical sensation, your hand would pass right through it.  The pit would look like a pit, but, the second someone touched it, they would realize that it isn't real.

Even the 3rd level Major Image still has no physical component, although it does have sound and heat.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 6, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Well if what you say is true, then if I ever join your game the first thing I'm going to do is play a sorcerer, and do nothing by silent image and all the other images in my low level spells.
> 
> If I can create anything that people will think is real based only on their will save, I'll spend all my time creating cages and pits, or clouds of dense fog around anything with a ranged attack, or bags over the heads of anything that needs eyes to see, and other various tactics that would essentially make your monsters unable to attack me and my party because they can't move or see.   Then we'd see how long you put up with it as my DM before you reign that in.
> 
> Image spells are just too powerful if they have that much of a combat effect.  That's why they say they are largely to "momentarily disrupt or confound."   The combat effect of these spells should be fairly limited.




Silent Image has a duration of "concentration" which means you must use a standard action to maintain it. Since the creatures will be making will saves against this, that seems a lot less useful than something like sleep. I don't recall anyone ever making the case that silent image or illusion spells were too good in 3e as you imply.

Edit: Hussar beat me to it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 6, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Difference: Silent Image; Duration Concentration. Illusory Wall; Duration: Permanent. Oh, and there is no size limit either.



I’m not sure what you mean by that, both have size limits:



			
				Illusory Wall said:
			
		

> The wall can be up to 8 squares long and 4 squares high.






			
				Silent Image said:
			
		

> visual figment cannot extend beyond four10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level



If anything, Silent Image creates a larger illusion than than Illusory Wall does.



Fanaelialae said:


> It's admittedly a high level spell, but Spectral Vision (Wizard Utility 16 from Arcane Power) seems to be what you are looking for.  It can cause a wall to look like a door (and a lot more), and even resists attempts to pierce the illusion (you have to either make an insight check or be hurt by it to see through the illusion).



 Wow, that spell is awesome.


			
				Spectral Vision said:
			
		

> Until the end of the encounter, you mask the terrain around you, changing the appearance of all unattended objects and terrain features. The objects are still visible, but you disguise their true nature, making them look, smell, sound, and sometimes even feel like something else. For example, you could make a pool of lava look like a plush carpet, or make a pile of coins look and feel like mud. If an object is removed from the area, this effect ends for that object.
> A creature can see through your deception by succeeding on an Insight check (DC 20 + one-half your level + your Intelligence modifier). A creature automatically sees through the illusion if it takes damage from a disguised object or disguised terrain (such as walking on an illusory carpet that is actually lava).



Hey, after I put the plush carpet over the lava pit (dude, you know I hate lava in dungeons, why’d it have to be lava!?”) can I put a Go board on it? O.k., how about a poker table?

Illusionsists really come into their own at 16th level, here’s another 16th level utility:


			
				Phantom Mask said:
			
		

> Until the end of the encounter, each target assumes the appearance of a humanoid creature of your size, even the appearance of a specific individual you have seen. You can choose a different disguise for each target. A creature can perceive a target’s true form by succeeding on an Insight check (DC 20 + one-half your level + your Intelligence modifier). As a standard action, you can modify this illusion to cause any of the targets to assume the appearance of a different humanoid creature.



O.k., so the plan is to make Bob look like the Duke and having him crash the party...


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Each "role" is synonymous with a classic class (defender=fighter, leader=cleric, striker=thief, controller=wizard). Thus, every class is just a variant on the "original" class. (A paladin is a fighter with a different mark, cha as a high-stat, and a healy power. An invoker is a wizard with more radiant powers and a few more buffs. Etc.)




This is not restricted to 4E.  Classes throughout the history of D&D have always been "a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit".  A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric.   



Remathilis said:


> See what they did there? Now, why can't we have a defender that doesn't have to mark his foe? Why not a leader that doesn't have a XX-word healing power?




It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class.  If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard?  If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role.



Remathilis said:


> More importantly, the psion showed us that we don't need every class to gain encounters, dailies, and/or utilities at the same rate. Maybe it'll open the door for classes flush with encounter-powers (at the expense of dailies) or one who doesn't get many attack-powers, but SCORES of utilities (a jack-of-all-trades class, anyone?)
> 
> I guess I feel terrible that these innovations come in year 2-3, leaving the classic classes of PHB 1&2 feeling bland. One wonders if we don't eventually see a "Warrior", "Thief", "Mage", and "Priest" class down the road that feels different from the blander "default" classes we have now...




I guess I don't agree about blandness.  I have no problem with the core classes being what they are.  Are some of the newer classes different?  Sure.  Good for them.  I don't feel a need to go back and change the base classes.  Key word there is base.  These are the core of any adventuring group.  You don't have to have any of them in your group, but they fulfill many of the basic fantasy tropes.  

Some people will want a caster who goes along a more standard PHB progression for abilities and such, someone would rather play something like a Psion.  Instituting more differences in the system as time goes on allows for people to get used to the 4E system and then branch out inside of it more as time goes on.  Think about it like this.  Most people in 2E and 3E would not recommend a wizard to a first time player, they would tell them to play a Warrior or Rogue.  This is the same thing.  Play one of the classes from the first PHB for a more basic approach to abilities and progression, look at the later books for more diversity.  Seems right to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2009)

> It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class. If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard? If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role.



In some ways, marking is just a limit to the powers and not just an enabler.

If the Fighter could wack anyone that's not attacking him, he would be still very capable of being a Defender. Maybe even more so as long as he can get adjacent to him. (Or if you expand the power to ranged attacks.)

If a Paladin could just pick an enemy that makes an attack against the wrong target to deal damage to, he would still be hard to ignore. 

The -2 to attack of course is an additional motivation, but it is not strictly required to achieve the ability to draw fire.

In some cases, it's necessary to reign in the abilities of the defenders. Imagine you had a Swordmage, a Paladin, a Fighter and a Wizard that don't have to use a mark, just spend an Immediate Interrupt or something like that to use their ability. 

Enemy strikes Wizard. Swordmage reduces damage. Fighter whacks him. Paladin irradiates him. 
Enemy strikes Paladin. Swordmage reduces damage. Fighter whacks him. 
Enemy strikes Swordmage. Paladin irradiates him, Fighter whacks him.
Enemy strikes Fighter. Paladin irradiates him, Swordmage reduces damage.
Enemy runs away. Fighter kills him. 

Where as now, only one enemy is targeted at the same. This means damage is spread around, not focused, prolonging the combat a little and making actual strikers more attractive, since they focus their damage on the targets they want to hit.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 9, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> This is not restricted to 4E.  Classes throughout the history of D&D have always been "a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit".  A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric.




Yeah, but typically "subclasses" didn't feel much like their parent class. Druids don't feel like clerics, despite being a divine caster with Cure Wounds spells on the list. Likewise, fighters don't at all feel like paladins, rangers, or barbarians. And rogue/thief and bard are as opposite as night-and-day despite having similar HD and skills. 

They did this through unique class abilities (wildshape, bardsong), different attack/save progressions, and occasionally borrowed mechanics (paladins turn undead for example). Its a very different beast when a druid can fill a wizard's role (better than the wizard can) or a bard is just a cleric in flashier clothes. 

Few people would claim that a 2e (or 3e) fighter played like a paladin. Sure, they both wore heavy armor and fought in melee, but paladins had divine abilities (both in combat like smite & out like detect evil) and a fighter had a boatload of feats (or in 2e, weapon specialization, granting them more attacks/round). 

Now? The difference mostly resides how they mark, the exact level of armor worn (fighters can't wear plate; wtf?) and a few minor class tweaks (fighters are OA masters, paladins can heal 2/encounter by burning their own surges). Without getting into a level-by-level breakdown of fighter vs. paladin powers (and what riders/energy those have) the differences end here. Cool divine powers like Turn Undead or Detect Evil? Gone. Paladin spells? Gone. Warhorse? Nope. Weapon Specialization for additional attacks? Not anymore. Bonus feats to specialize in more than one combat-path? Nah, too unbalancing. Chose sword-n-board or two-hander at first level and stay with it. (Want to dual-wield? That'll be $34.99 please. Oh, archery? Play a ranger). 

That is the homogeneity of the rules. When a paladin is nothing more than a fighter with a couple tweaked class abilities and powers with different names (which all still deal damage + status effect, with few exceptions) its balanced, its easy to run, and its dull as dishwater. (IMHO, of course).


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 9, 2009)

*Chuckle*

No matter how many times you write it Remathilis, I always scratch my head.

I never once found playing a 2e/3e fighter different than a paladin. Same thing with ranger and barbarian (the rogue was always the exception as even in 2e, you were always trying to move around and get position), as those things you call "non-homogenity" features didn't make a difference to me when I played the classes AT the table.

Conversely, playing a paladin now (especially visually) plays so much differently than a fighter.

For me I guess, a power that says Push 2 versus Slide 1 is much more of a difference in play than a fighter who gets 2 feats versus paladin who has Detect and Smite evil.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2009)

> That is the homogeneity of the rules. When a paladin is nothing more than a fighter with a couple tweaked class abilities and powers with different names (which all still deal damage + status effect, with few exceptions) its balanced, its easy to run, and its dull as dishwater. (IMHO, of course).



Obviously. In the end, having played both Fighters and Paladins and have seen them in play, they are just not that similar. Their class features are far more different to me then they seem to you. I don't know how this can be, since we probably played the same game and the same rules. But we are not the same persons, and I guess, the way how we perceive things are in fact different. 

I suppose WotC would love to understand the difference and find a way to appeal to both. But maybe that's not possible...


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, but typically "subclasses" didn't feel much like their parent class. Druids don't feel like clerics, despite being a divine caster with Cure Wounds spells on the list. Likewise, fighters don't at all feel like paladins, rangers, or barbarians. And rogue/thief and bard are as opposite as night-and-day despite having similar HD and skills.
> 
> Few people would claim that a 2e (or 3e) fighter played like a paladin. Sure, they both wore heavy armor and fought in melee, but paladins had divine abilities (both in combat like smite & out like detect evil) and a fighter had a boatload of feats (or in 2e, weapon specialization, granting them more attacks/round).
> 
> ...




Druids didn't turn up in our groups too often b/c if we wanted a healer, we wanted the better healer, and that meant a Cleric.  I can count on one hand all the druids I gamed with during the 3.x era.  Rogue and Bard were extremely similar, the Bard had spells and some other things the Rogue lacked while the Rogue had more damaging abilities.  Detect Evil was an alignment based power and thus canned in 4E, thankfully.  Alignment has always been one of the worst parts about D&D IMO and you would frequently wind up with one of a couple of extremes:

1)"Detect Evil only works on truly evil things, you won't catch someone thinking something bad"

or 

2)"You can tell the farmer is thinking of cheating on his wife, do you do something about it?"

Turn Undead was a nice ability, but it was always weaker than a Cleric's power to start with and Paladins have a lot more Radiant powers now, which damage Undead more than normal attacks.  4E Paladins are actually better equipped to fight Undead.

4E Paladins are the most heavily armored class, but Warriors have access to more weapons off the bat.  This was yet another way to allow characters to differentiate their characters via feats.  Paladin Warhorse was useless when WotC found most groups were spending lots of times in dungeons anyway.  Multi attacks were gotten rid of and seems to have been one of the early decisions that guided development.  Alternately to spending $35 to be a TWF, just play a melee Ranger and call him a Warrior 

I think we're just coming at the situation from diametrically opposed sides and our experiences don't sync up at all.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 9, 2009)

In 1989 if you didn't like a rule you would house rule it.

In 2009 if you didn't like a rule you complain about it on the internet.

That's progress.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

In 1989 (2E) we thought Paladins were an awful class with ridiculous/highly situational abilities so none of us played them.  In 2009 (4E) Paladins are great.  Progress.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 9, 2009)

In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.

In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.

This is not progress.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.



 ... who got XP for killing orc babies.



ProfessorCirno said:


> In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.



 Clerics are angsty anti-heroes?

"_I thought Paladins were Defenders_", -- N


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.



FYI, in my 2e campaign paladins were religious warriors whose alignments and abilities varied according to which of 17 religions they belonged to (I had a lot more free time back then...). They ranged from NE bodyguards to mage-priests to LG demon-killing crusaders to NG healer/judo masters. 



> In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero



I see what you've done here. You've turned "paladins are no longer _required_ to be Lawful Good" into "no paladins _are_ Lawful good". Pretty sneaky, sis.

My 4e paladin isn't an angsty anti-hero at all. He's a jovial and enthusiastic cross between Don Quixote, Peter Pan, a Gnostic, and Lizardman from Soul Calibur. He can be a touch... _violent_, but on the plus side, he has absolutely nothing against orc babies.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> For me I guess, a power that says Push 2 versus Slide 1 is much more of a difference in play than a fighter who gets 2 feats versus paladin who has Detect and Smite evil.



If you are only playing a tactical mini game then Push 2 vs Slide 1 is huge.

I find that Fighters and Paladins have had a lot of similarity in all editions, 3E and 4E included.  From a purely tactical mini pov 4E has probably done the best to remove this issue, in the particular case of paladin v. fighter.  

Though 4E paladins still always get better at climbing and sneaking no matter what and all their attacks and defenses are always within the same math approved window no matter what the character concept.  And so on...

But there are areas where 3E is certainly guilty of sameness and this is one.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 9, 2009)

I actually LIKE the Saga/4e (keep in mind, SWSE also uses it) method of increasing competence.

A 30th level paladin SHOULD be better than his 1st level self at sneaking/climbing since what the hell was he doing for all those 30 levels?

The only skill that trips my "Hmm, that doesn't work" is SWIM.

However, this is much more palatable to me than the reverse where unless you explicitly put points in a skill, you actually get WORSE at level appropriate skill checks. Even with PF collapsed skill system from 3.5, there's just way too many skills I find that a high level character is incompetent with.

Furthermore, from my own DM perspective, I like the fact that there's a much greater range over which I can construct skill checks that involve the whole party (I always hated the wide-range that skill points could create).

Chalk up for me a great point in the "Homogenity is NOT inherently a bad thing"

It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.

I actually get more non-combat usage of skills than ever before since the players feel more confident in using them even in opposed contests.

One thing about this discussion is how two people can see the same thing and get two different interpretations...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Furthermore, from my own DM perspective, I like the fact that there's a much greater range over which I can construct skill checks that involve the whole party (I always hated the wide-range that skill points could create).
> Chalk up for me a great point in the "Homogenity is NOT inherently a bad thing"



It is a feature not a bug.
I never said it was inherently a bad thing.
I said it was there and I said it was not a good fit for how I want to play.

I'm glad to see the discussion come to this point.  I've got no dispute with the idea that some people love the homogeneity.

I don't know if you saw my long post upthread or not.  But I explained why, to me, the wide-range of skills is a wonderful thing and forced consistency is a detraction.  It is cool that we are completely opposite on preference, but my position is explained if you want to see it.




> It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.



I don't think it is "only" a tactical mini-game".  I think (again for my personal tastes) it is only a really good tactical mini game and a fair to middling role playing game.

I prefer the choice to take history to be based on whether or not the character would know history.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

BTW, I do realize SWSE is the same.
I gave mine away because I knew I would never use it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.



Say what? A 4E paladin is only angsty if it's a shadar-kai. (I loathe shadar-kai). What are you on about?


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> BTW, I do realize SWSE is the same.
> I gave mine away because I knew I would never use it.




"Heathen!!!!"

(Just joshing you...I lvoe SWSE but just don't get to play it enough since for some reason, my SW friends are, in their own words "A boycott of Wars until Lucas excises the Prequels"

Seriously, these are 30+ year old people (male and female) and I'm like "Huh"


----------



## MerricB (Sep 10, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> "Heathen!!!!"
> 
> (Just joshing you...I lvoe SWSE but just don't get to play it enough since for some reason, my SW friends are, in their own words "A boycott of Wars until Lucas excises the Prequels"
> 
> Seriously, these are 30+ year old people (male and female) and I'm like "Huh"




LOL.

I'm currently playing in a Saga/DoD campaign, and it's interesting to see what bits of 4E we really miss. #1? Healing surges. Star Wars tends to be too binary in "hit" or "not hit", and for my low-HP noble, one hit and I tended to be out of the session... because healing is just too hard.

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.




Actually, this is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  

Keep in mind that I really like the idea of giving everyone some basic-level competency at doing tasks. This can even increase with level, and I'm not too worried (3e wizard has a bigger BAB at 20 than at 1, even though he never whacks things with his staff or shoots his crossbow). 

But the fact that everyone has approximately the same skill bonuses at every level means that you aren't left out, but also that nobody is anything special at doing anything. There's no meaningful difference. I could train in History, or not, and it wouldn't matter, because the guy who chose to train in, say, Perception, will get the same bonus to his skill challenge check as I do, assuming he bats his eyelashes right at the DM.

Now, this is something that 4e is changing. Skill powers, more rituals, tinkering with exclusivity, these are all great things that make having a different skill actually matter.

Of course, it still doesn't matter in a *skill challenge*, but that's honestly more the fault of the Skill Challenge system than anything else.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I don't think it is "only" a tactical mini-game".  I think (again for my personal tastes) it is only a really good tactical mini game and a fair to middling role playing game.



Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.




That's a common misconception.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's a common misconception.




Is it? There isn't much I would call roleplaying within the core 2E books, and yet I find that to be the system that enabled the best pure roleplaying during my RPG career. Vampire/WoD books are chock full of roleplaying in the books, and yet I didn't find that the roleplaying was significantly increased by this at the table.

Your statement is only true if you want your roleplaying to be X. If you want your roleplaying to be X, and X isn't in the book, you won't find satisfying roleplaying in either the book or at the table.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> Is it?




Absolutely.

2e has little to do with that misconception, as does the rather absurd notion that only by redefining what "roleplaying" is can I say that it is in a book. 

The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 2e has little to do with that misconception, as does the rather absurd notion that only by redefining what "roleplaying" is can I say that it is in a book.
> 
> The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.




I'm still not understanding this. Are you talking about roleplaying advice? The system itself? Setting/world information? 

What are examples of good/bad books?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.



Exactly true.  But Roleplaying *Games* are.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> I'm still not understanding this. Are you talking about roleplaying advice? The system itself? Setting/world information?
> 
> What are examples of good/bad books




I'm saying that the idea that roleplaying is not in books is a common misconception.

It's not that hard to follow. 

If you need proof, I can show you this. Indeed, if you'd like to find a whole two-year course on roleplaying that is generally found between the covers of books (but also in practice), you can go here. If you need it to be specifically table-top RPG-related (though the same principles generally apply), I can show you this. Also of use might be these, which are something of a middle ground, but are different than the other two in that between the covers of books is the ONLY place you'll find roleplaying there. Similarly (but more complexly), you'll find roleplaying between the 1's and 0's of this, this, and this. Not exactly the same, but kind of a natural evolution of the genre, anyway. 

Heck, 4e has alignments (as weird as they decided to make them). 4e has skill challenges (as flawed as I believe they are). 4e has archetypes (as similar as the mechanics behind them can be). They're right there in the book, in the form of races, classes, mechanics, and labels on a character sheet. 4e has roleplaying between the covers of its books. 

Unless you'd like to turn this into another semantic argument a la "Roleplaying vs. Storytelling," I think that makes a pretty convincing case for role playing being found between the covers of books (along with similar places). 

Now, you can use that notion to find a hole in Fifth Element's reasoning. ByronD said he thought 4e was a "fair to middling roleplaying game," Fifth Element countered with the idea that a game's books can't help you play a role, and I argued that they certainly can, and have, and arguably should. 4e does have roleplaying between the covers. It's not a lot (especially compared to the previous edition), and it's kind of flawed, but it's certainly there. 

And now that I've said "roleplaying between the covers," I need to go have a long talk with the lady-friend about what I learned on the internet today.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.



It isn't an "alien beast".  The game mechanics and the roleplay MUST engage.  But the roleplay itself comes solely from the players.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> It isn't an "alien beast". The game mechanics and the roleplay MUST engage. But the roleplay itself comes solely from the players.




I disagree for reasons presented in the above post.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, you can use that notion to find a hole in Fifth Element's reasoning. ByronD said he thought 4e was a "fair to middling roleplaying game," Fifth Element countered with the idea that a game's books can't help you play a role, and I argued that they certainly can, and have, and arguably should. 4e does have roleplaying between the covers. It's not a lot (especially compared to the previous edition), and it's kind of flawed, but it's certainly there.



Its Bryon.


But you may have missed the key point that Fifth Element (god I hated that movie) was jibbing me with my own catch phrase.


That aside, I completely disagree with your assessment.  See my sig.  Are you suggesting my daughter is not roleplaying because she does not have a book?  

There may be story and implied plot elements, but the roleplay itself is 100% up to the players.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I disagree for reasons presented in the above post.



shrug

So I can not roleplay an ad hoc rule-less system just as well as I can 3E or 4E?
I would reject any claim that I couldn't.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

Sorry about the name-switch, the ol' "people only look at the first and last letters" thing cropped up! 



> That aside, I completely disagree with your assessment. See my sig. Are you suggesting my daughter is not roleplaying because she does not have a book?




I didn't say roleplaying comes only from books. I do disagree with the idea that roleplaying is not found in books. To a huge degree, even casual fiction uses a sort of basic roleplay to immerse you in the story. I don't think books are required for roleplaying anymore than I think that they exclude it. 



> There may be story and implied plot elements, but the roleplay itself is 100% up to the players.




It's the "100%" and "entirely" bits I have trouble with. Which is part of why I didn't say roleplaying comes ONLY from books.

Something about a sith and absolutes comes to mind, but I didn't really like that move. 

OH! And so we stop posting past each other, let me roll your next post into this one:



> I'll still stand by the claim that any 4 year old can role play. So in the big picture, that is the end of it.




Totally agree. I just think they're still roleplaying if they write it down.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Actually, I think the fact that I took Fifth Element's quote as my own words may be part of this.  You have changed the term to "can't help you".  That gets pretty fuzzy.

I'll still stand by the claim that any 4 year old can role play.  So in the big picture, that is the end of it.

Now, lessons in improv, or simple confidence in speaking out in another character than yourself can enhance the experience.  But that has nothing to do with mechanics.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sorry about the name-switch, the ol' "people only look at the first and last letters" thing cropped up!



They got it wrong on my Master's Diploma.  I think I can forgive you.    lol



> I didn't say roleplaying comes only from books. I do disagree with the idea that roleplaying is not found in books. To a huge degree, even casual fiction uses a sort of basic roleplay to immerse you in the story. I don't think books are required for roleplaying anymore than I think that they exclude it.



Well, ok.  Putting Robert Frost at the end of the 4E PH would not make 4E more poetic.  The book would be, but the game would be unchanged.


Putting acting lessons at the end of the 3E PH would not make 3E a better acting guide.  The book would be, but the game would be unchanged.




> It's the "100%" and "entirely" bits I have trouble with. Which is part of why I didn't say roleplaying comes ONLY from books.



Ok, I still stand by my position.  If you take away the context of this being an RPG board then I'd probably need to say "Roleplaying is not between the covers of an RPG book"  



> Something about a sith and absolutes comes to mind, but I didn't really like that move.



What movie?  
I've always wondered why they never made any sequels for The Matrix or Highlander.  And why do the Star Wars movies start with #4?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

Perhaps a better way to say it is while the roleplay that we engage in is not solely found between the covers of a book, it is certainly _influenced_ by what we find between those covers.

The role play that we engage in while playing a rules lite, ad hoc system may (or may not depending) be entirely different from that which we engage in while playing some massive tome game.  Certainly the interplay between whoever is adjudicating the game and the person playing a role will be different, which, in turn, will influence role play.

Heck, even the focus of said role play can be driven by the book.  If I play, say, Dread or All Flesh Must Be Eaten, the things found between the covers of those respective games will drive my role play to a considerable degree.  While it's not the only thing, it certainly has a very large impact.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

Thats funny, your edited quote looks precognitive.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

I still say it all comes down to the statement "I want my roleplaying to be X". X is intertwined with roleplaying, and X is found more often from books than from the players. 

This is what I would call an example of X:



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Heck, 4e has alignments (as weird as they decided to make them). 4e has skill challenges (as flawed as I believe they are). 4e has archetypes (as similar as the mechanics behind them can be). They're right there in the book, in the form of races, classes, mechanics, and labels on a character sheet. 4e has roleplaying between the covers of its books.




This isn't what I would call roleplaying, but X. X is what you get books for. X puts a face on the roleplaying. X is also subjective.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 10, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I still say it all comes down to the statement "I want my roleplaying to be X". X is intertwined with roleplaying, and X is found more often from books than from the players.



For me that is all backwards.  You roleplay what you roleplay.
If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you.  If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you.  But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For me that is all backwards.  You roleplay what you roleplay.
> If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you.  If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you.  But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.




How about this.

A book can't roleplay for you, but it can define roleplaying for you. That definition can be very subjective, and some people equate the definition with roleplaying as a whole.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 10, 2009)

At this point, I'm exceedingly frustrated we can't even agree on _terms_. If we can't even agree on what _is_ the words we're using, there's nothing productive to be found in this discussion.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

> If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you. If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you. But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.




I think that if Lawful Good wasn't in the rules, though, you'd see less people playing it. 

That's sort of the idea of "role-playing rules" in an RPG. They help you play a role by making playing the role part of the game. Being Lawful Good is now a part of the game, because it is defined as a game element. You get to make an interesting choice about what kind of character you want to be, and this helps people decide how their characters will act going forward. In 3e and 4e it's not always a very significant choice (less so in 4e), but it's still there, helping people figure out how their imaginary character can behave in this imaginary world. 

You can look at Lawful Good and go "This isn't like me, but I can see my hero like this, so I'm going to try to play my hero like this." This makes the game better at encouraging roleplaying -- at encouraging you to take up the mentality of another character and play that character, rather than pretend to be yourself. 

Some people start with the "I want to act like a stereotypical knight in shining armor!" idea already fully formed and ready to go. Others might need to be lead there with things like Lawful Good (and the Paladin class from pre-4e). 

Not that it's a prerequisite, just that, in my mind, it helps make the game between the books better at enabling role-playing. I personally think 4e could use a few dozen more elements like that.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now I have to commit seppuku for entering this thread again and taking it off on yet another tangent.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For me that is all backwards.  You roleplay what you roleplay.
> If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you.  If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you.  But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.




But what about classes?  You roleplay a thief because that's the role you take in the rules.  There are very specific limitations you acquire when you choose a class in D&D.  Your role play in a classed based system has to be at least partially colored by your choice of class.  

---- damn, just scrolled down and saw I got ninja'd by KM.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

Going back to homogenity in 4e for a sec.

There's a point that occurs to me that  I don't think has been made in this thread.  If it has, sorry, I missed it, it's a long thread.  

3e uses non-combat abilities to balance combat abilities.  4e doesn't.  4e only balances combat abilities with combat abilities.

Now, in 3e if I want to make Suave McStabbity, that's no problem.  I take rogue and I'm off to the races.  But, if I want to make Suave McFightswell, then I have a problem.  Social skills and skills in general are balanced off against being able to mix it up in combat.  Thus fighters get only 2 skill points per level and don't actually get class access to Diplomacy.

So, if I want to make Suave McFightswell, I have two choices - paladin, which comes with HUGE amounts of baggage, or ranger, which again, comes with an animal companion and all sorts of other baggage.

In other words, because non-combat is balanced with combat, my choices are actually very limited for what classes I can take if I want to make a character that can do both combat and non-combat well.

OTOH, I can take pretty much any class in 4e and be Suave McFightswell.  At worst I can be Notbadtalker McFightsok.   

So, isn't that a case where 3e is more homogenous than 4e?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, if I want to make Suave McFightswell, I have two choices...



The notion that there are only two ways (and particularly _those_ ways) to model "Suave McFightswell" in 3e, with its incredibly robust multiclassing rules, is...erroneous at best.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Going back to homogenity in 4e for a sec.
> 
> There's a point that occurs to me that  I don't think has been made in this thread.  If it has, sorry, I missed it, it's a long thread.
> 
> ...




In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.

A 3e fighter can sacrifice fighting ability for diplomacy too. Take skill focus, and the +2/+2 feat, get 5 ranks in the synergy skills, and take diplomacy even though its not a class skill. There you go. Notbadtalker McFightsok. All you had to give up was 2 of your many feats and some skill ranks.

Maybe 4e lets you have a decent diplomacy more easily, but you have to give up some fighting ability in either edition. Both 3e and 4e tie your class to your out of combat abilities.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Sep 10, 2009)

Dannager said:


> This.
> 
> The homogeneity of 4th Edition is a myth perpetuated almost exclusively by those with little to no actual play experience.
> 
> It doesn't need to be removed. It was never there to begin with.




I played 4e for 6 months. pretty much all of my players got bored, partly becaue of the homogeneity, but mostly because the power structure interferes with immersion. Some people feel it is Homogeneous, some do not, but it is incorrect to say it is merely a misconception.

I found it to be extremely homogeneous and I am a tactics player.

Where 3rd edition would let you play R.O.Y.G.B.I.V the entire visible spectrum, 4e I found lets you play R.G.B. There are Differences in the roles sure just like there is a difference in a City of heroes controller compared to a scrapper. But within roles? I haven't found it, and there are a very many people who have not found it.

6 months of running 4e once a week is an adequate amount of time to form an opinion on a game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 10, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.




This is partially the reason I will be dumping the "class skills" restriction for my upcoming campaign. Since every 4E class can be decent in a fight I see no good reason to restrict skill selection. Each class will get the indicated number of trained skills but can pick from the whole list. This way the PC's can be trained in the skills they want without having to play class X or Y.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> The notion that there are only two ways (and particularly _those_ ways) to model "Suave McFightswell" in 3e, with its incredibly robust multiclassing rules, is...erroneous at best.



Heh... I find the notion that 3e has incredibly robust multiclassing --ie, a really flexible character generation system-- erroneous at best. 

3e can't hold a candle to M&M2e, which has the most robust character generation rules in all of d20. Though, to be fair, M&M doesn't really have multiclassing, it's character generation system is a classless point-buy. 

(hey, everyone has a game they like to pimp!)


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Its Bryon.
> 
> That aside, I completely disagree with your assessment.  See my sig.  Are you suggesting my daughter is not roleplaying because she does not have a book?




People mis-spell Hagen as Hagan or think it's my last name and Kirk my first all the time.  Heh.  My daughter turns 4 today and she walks up to me and asks me to hand her the invisible trophy or says she is looking for her invisible purse, filled with invisible makeup and lipstick.  She builds a pillow fort and calls it her castle and then her 1 1/2 yr old sister Maeve becomes "Monster Maevey" or Beryl comes charging into the computer room to tell me a dragon is attacking her castle.  

Roleplaying is alive and well any and everywhere and anyone could be doing it.  No rules to the 4 yr old version of roleplaying called Pretend


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But you may have missed the key point that Fifth Element (god I hated that movie) was jibbing me with my own catch phrase.



Indeed. (And the name's not from that movie, though I did enjoy it.)


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Heh... I find the notion that 3e has incredibly robust multiclassing --ie, a really flexible character generation system-- erroneous at best.
> 
> 3e can't hold a candle to M&M2e, which has the most robust character generation rules in all of d20. Though, to be fair, M&M doesn't really have multiclassing, it's character generation system is a classless point-buy.
> 
> (hey, everyone has a game they like to pimp!)




While M&M and other point-based systems are incredibly flexible, I don't think I'd equate an incredibly robust multiclassing system with the same kind of flexible character generation system that such systems provide. I don't really think you're speaking in the same terms.

Multiclassing implies a certain amount of flexibility wedded with a certain amount of archetyping. Holding up M&M as a standard for what multiclassing should be able to do is unfair since that is not what multiclassing is trying to do.

That said, the multiclassing in 3e is capable of providing the smooth talking warrior Hussar says he wants.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is partially the reason I will be dumping the "class skills" restriction for my upcoming campaign. Since every 4E class can be decent in a fight I see no good reason to restrict skill selection. Each class will get the indicated number of trained skills but can pick from the whole list. This way the PC's can be trained in the skills they want without having to play class X or Y.




Can anyone explain to me why, in 4e, different classes get different numbers of trained skills? That aspect of the design mystifies me. If the combat is so balanced and separated from non-combat issues, why don't all of the classes have the same number of trained skills?

In this case, why would you leave the indicated number of trained skills the same as in the book?


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> People mis-spell Hagen as Hagan or think it's my last name and Kirk my first all the time.



Try being named Iain Fyffe some time! I can't recall a day in my life I haven't had to spell it for someone or correct their mispronunciation of it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Try being named Iain Fyffe some time! I can't recall a day in my life I haven't had to spell it for someone or correct their mispronunciation of it.



What's your big problem? I get called by customers trying to complain about some stuff just because I have a common last name and share it with a guy in customer support!

You'd never get that!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

First off, the Diplomacy Fighter:

Half Elf

16 Str, 16 Con, 13 Dex, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha

Background that gives Diplomacy as a class skill

Level 1 with +10 Diplomacy

You won't be upping charisma to the max, but that's overkill. Fighter can get away with 16 in its main stat better than any other class, and while Wisdom gives bonuses to the Fighter, its also something that can be sacrificed without too much pain. This isn't the best Fighter in the world, but its solid.



Mournblade94 said:


> I played 4e for 6 months. pretty much all of my players got bored, partly becaue of the homogeneity, but mostly because the power structure interferes with immersion. Some people feel it is Homogeneous, some do not, but it is incorrect to say it is merely a misconception.




Its also a misconception to broaden the issue of homogenity to something most people find a problem and something that needs a fix. The OP did that.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 10, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.




Skill Training makes it a class skill, Skill Focus adds a +3 to the skill.  Play a Half Elf for added Diplomacy bonus.  2 Feats spent in those first couple of levels will be felt more strongly than when the character is level 14, but yes you would lose some fighting ability, provided you would have spent those feats on combat related feats.  If you were going to spend them on non-combat feats anyway, no loss 



As far as M&M goes, building characters in that is not multi-classing, there are no classes.  You are able to closely match a class and then add something that in another game would be a different class ability, but you can't multi-class if you have no classes.  Honestly I'm surprised more people who complain about how X class ability can't be used by Y class haven't started opening things up/  The abilities are all, in theory, evened out within each level.  Let a Rogue snag a Paladin daily if he really wants and has a convincing story for it.  I wonder how badly the system would get jacked if you did that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Can anyone explain to me why, in 4e, different classes get different numbers of trained skills? That aspect of the design mystifies me. If the combat is so balanced and separated from non-combat issues, why don't all of the classes have the same number of trained skills?




Good question. I was wondering the same thing.



billd91 said:


> In this case, why would you leave the indicated number of trained skills the same as in the book?




Its just easier to use the character builder.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> ...
> 
> 3e uses non-combat abilities to balance combat abilities.  4e doesn't.  4e only balances combat abilities with combat abilities.
> ...




I'm sorry but, like pg. 42 in the DMG being the answer to everything, this is another one of those things that gets under my skin.  If 4e doesn't balance combat ability with non-combat abilities...

1. Why does a Rogue have 2x as many starting trained skills as a fighter?

2. Why are Combat and non-combat feats grouped together?

3. And why is the distribution of classes/primary &secondary attribute skills not equal?


Edit: And I see i've been at least partially ninja'd


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> The notion that there are only two ways (and particularly _those_ ways) to model "Suave McFightswell" in 3e, with its incredibly robust multiclassing rules, is...erroneous at best.




So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.

Sure, I can get what I want _eventually_ but, what if I don't particularly want to wait three, four levels down the road to play the character concept that I probably should be able to play right out of the gate?

I mean, Suave McFightswell is hardly a unique snowflake here.  We're talking about an archetype that's pretty common, whether it's Wesley from The Princess Bride, or any number of other stories.  

Of course, this is the easy one as well.  It's not like we're dealing with casters in the mix.  I'm talking about a pretty bog standard character type that should not be at all difficult to make.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.




*Floor* it? By losing 1 or 2 points? Let's not get too hyperbolic here.

So why not take a level of bard instead and be able to inspire your friends with the quality of your oratory like good King Harry? He makes a reasonably good Suave McFightswell, his protestations to Katharine being more self-effacement than truth.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I don't think I'd equate an incredibly robust multiclassing system with the same kind of flexible character generation system that such systems provide. I don't really think you're speaking in the same terms.



I know, but... 



> Multiclassing implies a certain amount of flexibility wedded with a certain amount of archetyping.



... AFAIC, 3e doesn't offer archetypes, it offers a large number of class ability packages which you can freely mix and match. It's more of a clunky point-buy system than an archetype based one (say like 1e, or even 4e), especially when you consider the magic item economy, which is a naked point-buy superpowers system, where the points used to buy powers are commonly referred to as 'gold'. 

Also, can you really call a system with that many archetypes, well, archetypal? It seems to me the sheer profusion of so-called archetypes reduces them to mere 'bundles of stuff a PC can do'.

My experience of 3e character creation is you start with an idea/archetype, then you root through the books looking for the best mechanics to represent it (ie, the selection of the archetype precedes any engagement w/the rules). 



> Holding up M&M as a standard for what multiclassing should be able to do is unfair since that is not what multiclassing is trying to do.



Isn't it? What's the purpose of multiclassing if not to allow a greater variety of character types? 



> That said, the multiclassing in 3e is capable of providing the smooth talking warrior Hussar says he wants.



Out of curiosity, how would you do? It's been a long time since I played the 3e character-building mini-game, and I kinda miss it.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.
> 
> Sure, I can get what I want _eventually_ but, what if I don't particularly want to wait three, four levels down the road to play the character concept that I probably should be able to play right out of the gate?
> 
> ...




Wouldn't Wesley be a Swashuckler from Complete Warrior... in fact why not take a single level of Swashbuckler to gain Diplomacy as a class skill...for no loss of BAB?


----------



## Greg K (Sep 10, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> The notion that there are only two ways (and particularly _those_ ways) to model "Suave McFightswell" in 3e, with its incredibly robust multiclassing rules, is...erroneous at best.




There is also character customization from the phb


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Isn't it? What's the purpose of multiclassing if not to allow a greater variety of character types?




It does. But with the constraints of working within a class-based game, each class based around a basic archetype. 

Personally, I like going the King Harry route (fighter, bard), though given his behavior in the Henry IV plays, taking levels of rogue may work too.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

I'd rather be able to do it as a straight Fighter without sacrificing much. In 4E I can.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'd rather be able to do it as a straight Fighter without sacrificing much. In 4E I can.




You can do it with just one feat in 3.5 too. I think there's on in Eberron called Education. I've heard there's one in Rokugan called Versitile.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> You can do it with just one feat in 3.5 too. I think there's on in Eberron called Education. I've heard there's one in Rokugan called Versitile.



A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus. 

The difference is that 4E doesn't hide such options. Of course, it sometimes just doesn't have them at all, and then you're out of luck. 
"I want to play a shapeshifting nature priest" - "wait for PHB 2". At least it tells you: "THis is the book if you want a shapeshifting nature priest." I don't think the FR book came out and told anyone "this is the book to make a charming Fighter" (or, more general, a versatile skill user).


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.
> 
> But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus.
> 
> ...




Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...".  Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...

Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.
> 
> But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus.
> 
> ...




I'm not going to say that the Skill Training feat was a bad idea. It certainly wasn't and was long overdue to come out of WotC, if you ask me. Though, for those of us DMs who are accustomed to tweaking classes at player requests (as the DMG even addresses), trading a class skill out to make diplomacy a class skill was simplicity itself. No feat was required.

But I wouldn't say that WotC "hides" the feat options. They have a feat index available on-line. They weren't hiding any particular content. They may not have explicitly publicized all of the options buried away in books, but that won't change with 4e. They may have told people to wait for PH2 for the druid, bard, and barbarian, but then those were particularly high profile omissions from 4e's initial offering. What else did they omit from 4e's initial books that people might have wanted? Are they going to receive the same level of publicity as the druid, barbarian, and bard? I don't think so.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Personally, I like going the King Harry route (fighter, bard), though given his behavior in the Henry IV plays, taking levels of rogue may work too.



That's a pretty good way to go. 4 or so fighter levels, the rest in bard and maybe a PrC or two. You kinda have to start as a bard for the skill points (you really need them if you want all the Diplomacy synergies), AC will be a problem, and you'll never be more than a middling warrior, even with spell self-buffs, but all-in-all a reasonable stab at the archetype. 

The only real drawback is external; if the rest of the part contains more tightly focused/optimized characters -- of course, that's a problem with any bard...


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 10, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.
> 
> _snip_
> 
> Maybe 4e lets you have a decent diplomacy more easily, but you have to give up some fighting ability in either edition.



Here's an idea: take the Society-Noble background in PHB II and use it to make Diplomacy a class skill. Just don't make Cha a dump stat and voila! A fighter decent at Diplomacy. No need to take a feat. (Though as Mustrum points out, you can still take skill training, just like 3e. In fact I'm fairly sure that backgrounds were in 3e to.)

Another route would be to hybrid fighter and rogue, but I prefer the background way.



> Both 3e and 4e tie your class to your out of combat abilities.



Very true.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> [Education is a] feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.



Well, many of things that I now associate with 3rd actually started in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Epic levels, level adjustments, and effective character level are just a few. Also, some of my favorite spell casting feats came from that book. It wasn't until the 3.5 core rulebooks that those things became part of the core rules.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...".  Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...
> 
> Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype



4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!

(just a little help from the Cricket Gallery )


----------



## Rechan (Sep 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.



Your DM has to also allow the book.

A multitude of options mean little if you aren't allowed to use the source they come from.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The only real drawback is external; if the rest of the part contains more tightly focused/optimized characters -- of course, that's a problem with any bard...




Not just the bard but any character at a table with divergent style types between optimizer and more casual builders. And even then, if the optimizer is good at RP-ing things soft even while building for hardball, you might not have a conflict.

_Henry V_ figures large in my brain right now. Our local, but nationally respected, outdoor theater company (American Players Theater) has it in their schedule this year. Fantastic production. Great fun.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!
> 
> (just a little help from the Cricket Gallery )




So why is it okay to sub "Ranger" for my "Rogue" in 4e... especially since he doesn't get the Rogue's utilities... or backstab... or Paragon Paths, or...well you get the point.  But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Your DM has to also allow the book.
> 
> A multitude of options mean little if you aren't allowed to use the source they come from.




Isn't this true for any roleplaying game with supplemental books?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My experience of 3e character creation is you start with an idea/archetype, then you root through the books looking for the best mechanics to represent it (ie, the selection of the archetype precedes any engagement w/the rules).




And yet, when Imaro asks to play a rogue with a shortbow...



Mallus said:


> 4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!




Isn't that starting with an idea/archetype (thief with bow) and rooting through books to find the best mechanic to represent it (archer-ranger with rogue-skill training)? while absolutely ignoring the rangers own archetype fluff?

Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Isn't this true for any roleplaying game with supplemental books?



The issue here though is that 3e's being praised for it's extensive character creation method - but that character creation method is hampered by the fact it's highly dependent on supplements.

If 4e has fewer options (and those options are all the same), than it has fewer things to lose by denying supplements.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.
> 
> Sure, I can get what I want _eventually_ but, what if I don't particularly want to wait three, four levels down the road to play the character concept that I probably should be able to play right out of the gate?
> 
> ...




Play Pathfinder. They removed the skill point defect for cross-class skills (so all skill ranks add +1). Class skills get a +3 kicker as long as you have 1 rank, but even if you never take another class but fighter, you could still have a +20(+cha mod) at 20th level (vs. a character with diplomacy, who would have +23+cha). 

REALLY missing that +3 Class skill bonus? Take a level of a class with diplomacy as a class skill OR take Skill Focus for that extra +3.

As a bonus, you effectively get Gather Information for free, since its rolled into diplomacy. 

Oh, and if your hurting for skill points, declare fighter your favored class and take the +1 skill rank/level option (opposed to +1 hp/level).


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?



Of course they can. I never said otherwise.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Of course they can. I never said otherwise.




Well you never said otherwise because I wasn't addressing you originally... I was addressing Mustrum and assumed you decided to answer because you agreed with his points... otherwise why answer the question?

Edit: I think you're jumping onto comments concerning other points in this thread... I'm not even sure what your point is if it differs from Mustrum's...


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Isn't that starting with an idea/archetype (thief with bow) and rooting through books to find the best mechanic to represent it (archer-ranger with rogue-skill training)? while absolutely ignoring the rangers own archetype fluff?



Yup. Note there's less rooting involved in 4e, giving the changes made to multiclassing. 



> Pot, meet kettle.



Don't know what you mean by this, Rem. I think you're reading in what isn't there.

I made two claims...

1) 3e classes aren't really archetypal, primarily because there are so damn many of them, which dilutes the concept of 'archetype'. They're better seen as ability packages which can be used and/or combined to create characters that fit broader archetypes (which are no longer well-resented by the ever-increasingly fiddly and specific 3e classes/PrC's). 

2) You can make a thief with a bow in 4e using ranger + Thievery. I didn't mean to suggest 4e classes can't be viewed as mere ability packages. 

This is hypocrisy?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I'm not even sure what your point is if it differs from Mustrum's...



I think our points are basically the same. 

Mainly, I think 3e's flexibility in character creation is significantly _overstated_ --it's robust in the way it can be used to represent a wide variety of characters, it's not because quite a few of them won't be very good at the things they're supposed to be good at-- while 4e's is often _understated_ --hence my chipping in with an easy 4e bow-rogue.

Mustrums's spot-on about one of 4e's weakness, BTW. Either an outlier character concept is obvious and easy to create (ie, bow-rogue) or it's not supported at all (barring the release of some future supplement).

edit: I should probably add that I'm running 2 campaigns right now, 4e and fantasy M&M2e, so I get the best of both worlds, a more strongly class-based game and an extremely flexible game.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 2) You can make a thief with a bow in 4e using ranger + Thievery. I didn't mean to suggest 4e classes can't be viewed as mere ability packages.




Imaro asked for a "rogue whose competent with a shortbow" not a ranger. Being a ranger carries with it 30 levels worth of ranger powers. Is your argument that to be a shortbow rogue, all he has to do is give up all his rogue powers?


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So why is it okay to sub "Ranger" for my "Rogue" in 4e... especially since he doesn't get the Rogue's utilities... or backstab... or Paragon Paths, or...well you get the point.  But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?




It was Hussar who was complaining about somehow ending up with backstab and such.

There are 4 core archetypes for D&D and they are the Cleric (healer), Wizard (damage spells and utility), rogue (stabby death), fighter (2H or sword and board).  All other classes are permutations of these, by and large.

Rangers in 4E are pretty much your go-to if you want to be a ranged guy or TWF.  Paladin is Fighter+Cleric, Barbarian is a more wild Fighter, less tactics, bigger weapons generally, Sorceror is internalized instead of learned magic ability, etc etc.  Take one of the 4 base classes and add a schtick to them or combine them with another to some degree and you generally end up with any other class in the game.  You have to decide for yourself if the attachment is to the class name, all of the class abilities for sure or if you just need part of it.  If you want the thievery kind of abilities and to be a good character in a fight, plus lots of ranged focus, a Ranger cum Thief works well.  

3E was a game that ended up being able to be broken down to point buy w/o too many problems.  Dr Spunj had a great 3.5+Arcana Evolved point buy variant here on ENWorld too.  4E has gone another step toward point buy IMO, I'm just waiting for someone to produce the numbers.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> Imaro asked for a "rogue whose competent with a shortbow" not a ranger.



Isn't the character you wind up with more important than the names of the classes used to create them? 



> Being a ranger carries with it 30 levels worth of ranger powers.



30 levels of ranger powers that are primarily combat abilities. So this thief is _really damn good_ with a short bow. 



> Is your argument that to be a shortbow rogue, all he has to do is give up all his rogue powers?



What makes a rogue a rogue? If you want the 4e rogue powers, play a 4e rogue and use a short bow. Nothing prevents you from doing that. You'll have a high DEX, so you're basic ranged attack with be pretty good.

Now if you want a character than can sneak and steal, who also happens to be _really damn good_ with a short bow, go the ranger route.

edit: actually, if you want to play a short-bow shootin' rogue in 4e, play a rogue, then ask your DM to allow you to use the ranged rogue powers w/a bow instead of throwing stars (but only out to throwing star range). It's mechanically the same, a simple re-skinning. Like I said, easy-peasy!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 10, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...".  Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...
> 
> Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype



Rogue + Weapon Proficiency feat. Common man, you're not even _trying_. 

Of course, most of the rogue's powers in 4e require a specific list of weapons, hence the ranger suggestion. But what's important to you? The label, or the ability to play the kind of character you want?


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 10, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Rogue + Weapon Proficiency feat. Common man, you're not even _trying_.




Actually most Rogue abilities are quite specific that they are for Melee Weapons.  The ones that mention Ranged weapons are then quite specific to crossbow, light blade or sling.  So discussion with your DM or a possible feat/etc in another supplement would be needed.  Straight, by the book PHB, you won't get too many really neat bow shots off as a Rogue.  Weapon proficiency does not allow you to sub it in for a weapon listed in one of your powers just b/c you would like to use it.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 10, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The issue here though is that 3e's being praised for it's extensive character creation method - but that character creation method is hampered by the fact it's highly dependent on supplements.



I wouldn't say it is "highly dependent on supplements" at all.  I can make a perfectly good Suave McFightswell using nothing but the _Player's Handbook_.

A wealth of supplements makes it _even easier_ to create whatever type of character you want, but that will be true in any game system.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 10, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> Actually most Rogue abilities are quite specific that they are for Melee Weapons.  The ones that mention Ranged weapons are then quite specific to crossbow, light blade or sling.  So discussion with your DM or a possible feat/etc in another supplement would be needed.  Straight, by the book PHB, you won't get too many really neat bow shots off as a Rogue.  Weapon proficiency does not allow you to sub it in for a weapon listed in one of your powers just b/c you would like to use it.



I edited my post before I saw your response.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> I can make a perfectly good Suave McFightswell using nothing but the _Player's Handbook_.



For certain values of 'perfectly' and 'good'.

(much to my chagrin, I seem to have caught a case of the Optimization Bug from my players while running 3e. Damn dirty players!)


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Rogue + Weapon Proficiency feat. Common man, you're not even _trying_.
> 
> Of course, most of the rogue's powers in 4e require a specific list of weapons, hence the ranger suggestion. But what's important to you? The label, or the ability to play the kind of character you want?





Well actually, I would say the "feel" is most important.  I mean if the 4e classes really aren't homogeneous, well then a Ranger in play has got to feel totally different from a Rogue, right?  Otherwise for me too be able to switch out a Rogue with a Ranger and feel no real noticeable difference in feel... well that means they pretty much fell the same to play... so witch one is it?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> For certain values of 'perfectly' and 'good'.
> 
> (much to my chagrin, I seem to have caught a case of the Optimization Bug from my players while running 3e. Damn dirty players!)




Yet a 4e Fighter-Diplomat won't be optimized (for combat or Diplomacy) either... what exactly are you asking for, you seem to be evr so slightly shifting the goalposts.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 3e uses non-combat abilities to balance combat abilities. 4e doesn't. 4e only balances combat abilities with combat abilities.




IMXP, this is VASTLY over-stated as a problem with 3e. By and large, 3e DIDN'T balance combat abilities with non-combat abilities. That's a 2e hallmark (Kits: "Ah, nobody likes me, but I can be a complete badass? Done aaaaand done!"). The one area where 3e didn't manage to silo off the combat and the noncombat was in the skills system, where skills like Spot and Listen vied for points amongst themselves and also with skills like Craft and Knowledge (architecture). This was done, as far as I can tell, because a high skill bonus was never really meant to be a prerequisite for being a decent adventurer. You could have a mediocre Spot and do fine against anything except a twinked-out stealth character.

Now, in practice, this certainly went awry: twinked stealth = twinked spot, and at higher levels it just got more binary, where either you were twinked and so had a 50% chance, or weren't, and so basically had no chance.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> The issue here though is that 3e's being praised for it's extensive character creation method - but that character creation method is hampered by the fact it's highly dependent on supplements.




That seems like a weird argument given that 4e tells you straight up: "You will need every book to play this game." 4e is even more dependent on supplements than 3e was.

Not that it wasn't kind of a problem in 3e. But part of the issue there is that unless you want to go with some sort of class-less point-based system or something, you will ALWAYS be waiting for the right supplement to be able to play your character perfectly. You can mitigate it by having very broad classes, but only up to a certain point before you loose that class's archetype.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That seems like a weird argument given that 4e tells you straight up: "You will need every book to play this game."



Total BS.

Citation Required.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> snip
> 
> That seems like a weird argument given that 4e tells you straight up: "You will need every book to play this game." 4e is even more dependent on supplements than 3e was.
> 
> snip




Just want to point out that all you really need is access to the Character Builder with the classes you want to play. I am playing characters that I do not have the rule books for. The books are to an extent optional.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well actually, I would say the "feel" is most important.  I mean if the 4e classes really aren't homogeneous, well then a Ranger in play has got to feel totally different from a Rogue, right?  Otherwise for me too be able to switch out a Rogue with a Ranger and feel no real noticeable difference in feel... well that means they pretty much fell the same to play... so witch one is it?



Ok. You want each class to feel different when you play them. You postulated a hypothetical somebody who wants to play a rogue with a short bow, implying that it was hard to impossible to do, yet it's a common archetype.

Now here's the problem, I'm not the DM of this hypothetical person. No one on the thread is. (Though if someone's been in this situation, it'd be nice to hear from them.) So, I'm stuck, so to speak with a fact pattern in a hypothetical where, in order to answer it with any kind of specificity, more information would be very helpful. I can't ask a hypothetical person for answers. So here it is, this is how, in real life I would help a player who came to me and asked "how can I play a rogue who is competent in a short bow?"

First question: "how often do you want to use the bow?"
Technically, any PC of any class in every edition I've ever played can use any weapon he or she picks up. It's just that there are typically penalties. In 4e, the penalty is that the PC doesn't get the proficiency bonus. If the player just wants to use one once in a blue moon, then just buying one and keeping it for back-up might be the best option. If the player wants to get the proficiency bonus those few time he or she uses it, then I suggest the feat. Problem solved.

What if the answer is frequently?
Things get tricky. Next question.

Second question: "what do you like about the rogue class, the ability to pick pockets, disable traps, and sneak around, or do you want the benefits of things like sneak attack?"
If the player wants the pick pockets and be stealthy, then a ranger + thievery skill might work well. Another option might be to go half-elf rogue and pick up a power from another class that works well with the short bow (if the answer isn't so much frequently as often). There is also multiclassing from rogue into a class that give the rogue a power from another class that's useful with short bows. Also, the player can play a straight-up rogue elf, elfs get proficiently with short bows, then use multi-classing to gain powers useful with short bows.

Each option gives the a different feel. The ranger option gives the player thieving skills (assuming the appropriate feat or background was chosen) while a lot of powers that are very useful for someone who wishes to use the short bow almost exclusively. This creates a ranger who uses ranged weapons and can scout a head for traps and pick peoples pockets while in town. 

The various rogue options keep the PC in the fight with sneak attack. Rather than using say, twin strike, to deal damage with a short bow, this option allows the rogue to get up close and deal sneak attack damage. The short bow comes in handy when the situation calls for ranged shots or when up, close combat isn't an option.

Both options create different roleplaying characteristics. Is the PC a skilled archer who need thievery to survive as an orphan? Or is the PC a skilled trickster who used archery to hunt for food in the wild? Or maybe the PC is an elf who wishes honor his god by making good use of natural archery talent? (Even though his god may not look favorably upon stealing or sneaking.)

Third question: "where do you see your character in 5 levels?"
There are tons of answers to this question, but if the answer is complicated, with lots a possibilities for short bow, thieving, and sneak attack damage then I might sugest what I think of as the 3e option (because I saw this _a lot _in 3e): hybrid. Rangers and rogues are both strikers. One does so up close in melee combat, relying on classes like defenders to keep the monster occupied, while the other class relies on multiple attacks to do damage on a regular basis. By combining them, I should get a striker that can do both. Here the PC gets lots of ranged short bow powers, the skills necessary to pull off sneaky, and sneak attack damage. Such a hybrid should give the PC a different feel than either class alone, but without sacrificing effectiveness in combat.

I found ranger/rogue hybrids to be fairly common in my 3.x days, so I don't see anything wrong with it. I think those archetypes necessarily produce classes that work well together.

So my question to you is: what do you want do?


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 11, 2009)

Um, ranger/rogue hybrid at 1st level covers Ranger with Shortbow EASILY in 4e. This is a trick question right?

It's kind of weird the effect the characer builder has. You no longer really NEED to purchase the supplements to get the crunch. By far, its much easier AND cheaper to simply buy a 1 month pass, download the character builder and voila, you get all the options.....

The DDI feature of 4e I think has become a fundamental change to the issue of "using the supplement treadmill". I mean, a yearly subscription costs me $70 but it in effect means that I personally don't feel the weight of the hardcover treadmill many think of with 4e.

You know, let me do it with the character builder and see what I have...

Not even a couple of minutes...

(Interesting thing...there _IS_ a rogue at-will that allows one to use ANY ranged weapon)


> ====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
> Jonn, level 1
> Human, Ranger|Rogue
> Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Fortitude
> ...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2009)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Total BS.
> 
> Citation Required.




Okay, I was hyperbolic. But certainly a philosophy of "Three books and then add on whatever you want" is much less dependent on supplements than a philosophy of "expanded core," where new "essential" books will be added even five years into the edition. 



			
				ardoughter said:
			
		

> Just want to point out that all you really need is access to the Character Builder with the classes you want to play. I am playing characters that I do not have the rule books for. The books are to an extent optional.




A re-occuring monthly fee isn't a whole lot different from needing to buy a new book every month, supplement-wise. The DDI does a wonderful job of making all that supplemental material much more manageable, which is certainly a huge point in favor of the game leaning more in an online direction (since, again, every edition is going to need the supplement treadmill to a greater or lesser degree).


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> A re-occuring monthly fee isn't a whole lot different from needing to buy a new book every month, supplement-wise. The DDI does a wonderful job of making all that supplemental material much more manageable, which is certainly a huge point in favor of the game leaning more in an online direction (since, again, every edition is going to need the supplement treadmill to a greater or lesser degree).




$70 for a yearly subscription is equivalent to two books...

Yeah...I kind of will have to give the Spockbrow to anyone that complains about the "it's too expensive and takes up too much room to keep current".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> $70 for a yearly subscription is equivalent to two books...
> 
> Yeah...I kind of will have to give the Spockbrow to anyone that complains about the "it's too expensive and takes up too much room to keep current".




Well, the point I was making wasn't about the cost or the "room," but about the need for supplements in the first place. 4e is more dependent on them than 3e was, but simultaneously gives us a very useful way to handle all that supplemental material via the DDI. The quantity of supplements necessary essentially isn't an argument for or against the ability to make a given character archetype in either edition. Both editions need a parade of splats to make a variety of character archetypes viable. 

That said, I'd still find the above longbow-rogue rather unsatisfying, since I don't see anything rogue-like about them. But I have a tremendous bushel of problems with the 4e rogue being not very rogue-like to begin with, so I'm likely not the fairest of judges there.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, the point I was making wasn't about the cost or the "room," but about the need for supplements in the first place. 4e is more dependent on them than 3e was, but simultaneously gives us a very useful way to handle all that supplemental material via the DDI. The quantity of supplements necessary essentially isn't an argument for or against the ability to make a given character archetype in either edition. Both editions need a parade of splats to make a variety of character archetypes viable.




This has been true since D&D was created. Since D&D is class based (well, OD&D, 1e/2e and 4e are...3e was a fusion) of point buy and class. I mean, if you wanted to play a barbarian in 1e, you had to wait until UA which was a few years after 1e was created.

EDIT: I actually think the importance of supplements actually gets understated in 3e. Core-only melee classes WILL feel small in the pants past level 9 since they didn't really give them many GOOD options past then. Spellcasters of course made out like bandits (How come clerics and druids got such great love from transitioning from classes that only had 7 levels of spells to 9 LEVELS of spells - yet the non-magical classes got so few beanies)

As you pointed out though, DDI changes how "treadmilly" new editions will feel. 


Kamikaze Midget said:


> That said, I'd still find the above longbow-rogue rather unsatisfying, since I don't see anything rogue-like about them. But I have a tremendous bushel of problems with the 4e rogue being not very rogue-like to begin with, so I'm likely not the fairest of judges there.




Shortbow rogue who is a master diplomat created at 1st level. But yes, if your idea of a rogue is different than the base rogue, you're going to be out of luck.

Personally, I've never really subscribed to the idea of CLASS NAME = Actual character.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Okay, I was hyperbolic. But certainly a philosophy of "Three books and then add on whatever you want" is much less dependent on supplements than a philosophy of "expanded core," where new "essential" books will be added even five years into the edition.



Except that you don't *need* any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.

There's nothing that came later which was preventing you from playing D&D until it came out.

And before you say "Barbarians! Bards! Half-orcs," I retort: 2e AD&D. The 2e PHB's classes: Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin. Races: Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome. 

There's something you may WANT that you don't have, but you don't NEED it to play D&D.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Yup. Note there's less rooting involved in 4e, giving the changes made to multiclassing.
> 
> Don't know what you mean by this, Rem. I think you're reading in what isn't there.
> 
> ...




It came off sounding like "3e classes are just blocks of proto-class stuff that, if you take enough of one certain type you get something resembling an archetype vs. 4e, where archetype is tightly defined and regulated" so it seemed odd a few posts down your were reversing and essentially saying "Oh, you can play a 4e class as a collection of proto-class stuff too, just file off the names. See, isn't 4e versatile?"

Then again, I'm of the opinion that classes should be more generic and versatile (but not to the point of a point-buy system). For example, a FIGHTER should be good at different types of fighting: sword 'n board, two-handed weapons, twf, archery, thrown weapons, etc. (He can even be good at unarmed striking if he wants, though he shouldn't challenge the monk for the supernaturally good at it). 

In 2e, I could specialize in a melee weapon, a 2hander, or a bow. I could dual-wield (at a penalty negated by my dex, and later with a non-weapon prof).
In 3e, I could spend feats to become good at one (or more!) styles of combat, meaning I could switch from melee to range at no loss of effectiveness provided had the requisite feats. 
In 4e, I can be great at sword-n-board OR two-handed fighting. I cannot dual wield effectively unless I have Martial Power, and I cannot do anything with a bow except make basic attacks. The latter two fighting styles have been given exclusively to the ranger to make up for the fact rangers lost all their rangerly abilities (animal companions, spells, camouflage, tracking superiority, favored foes) they had in 1e, 2e and 3e. 

Same with the rogue Imaro mentioned. I played an elven rogue. Sweet, I thought, I get shortbow/longbow free! How elfy! Until I saw I couldn't use a single rogue power with either bow. So my elfy-elf rogue had a bow he couldn't use except for basics and he carried a crossbow so he could use sly flourish. How homoge... you get the idea.

(Oddly, eladrin can use their longsword for rogue powers. They can use their longsword with wizard-spells too, both for the cost of a feat each. Yet elves can't use their bows for rogue powers nor can dwarves use their warhammers. I guess WotC is happy to have a new kewl-elf race with a unique IP name so they don't have to share them with OGCers, Tolkienists, and WoW players.) 

And don't get me started on dual-wielding rogues. I have a dozen reaper and DDM "rogue" minis that I guess are rangers now!

Granted, few fighters did specialize in archery, and I saw plenty of rapier-crossbow rogues (esp. after PH2-3.5 came out) but now, if I plan on using my powers beyond "basic attack" I'm FORCED to give up ranged attacks as a fighter or I must use a crossbow, sling or thrown weapon as a rogue. Or play a ranger I guess.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 11, 2009)

Again, I should point out that there _IS_ a rogue ranged at-will that doesn't stipulate that it requires a crossbow.

As for the "in 3e, I could switch from ranged to TWO-handed or two-weapon fighter and be equally as effective"...

Er no. Two weapon fighting was a decidely subpar option and woe be to the joker that thought it was smart to actually try and put feats into BOTH. Come on Remathilis, this was a known TRAP for newbie players.

This actually I think is a 4e strength. If you want to be as effective as a ranger with a ranged weapon, it costs you 1 to 2 feats. Or, you could just use a hybrid character from the get go.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Except that you don't *need* any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.
> 
> There's nothing that you can't play D&D _without_ that came later. Nothing.
> 
> ...




Uh. First off, 2e's PHB was Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, SPECIALIST (Illusionist, etc), Cleric, SPECIALTY PRIEST (granted, they were guidelines more than a class), Druid, Thief, and BARD (Yes, they were there, and they kicked ass).

Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos. 

And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.

Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals. 

Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, I should point out that there _IS_ a rogue ranged at-will that doesn't stipulate that it requires a crossbow.
> 
> As for the "in 3e, I could switch from ranged to TWO-handed or two-weapon fighter and be equally as effective"...
> 
> ...




So the way to fix TWF being subpar to 2-handed weapons to to remove TWF from all classes but one? (Two, using a supplement).

And one At-Will. Woohoo! Now, how bout all those crossbow-friendly encounters or dailies?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This has been true since D&D was created. Since D&D is class based (well, OD&D, 1e/2e and 4e are...3e was a fusion) of point buy and class. I mean, if you wanted to play a barbarian in 1e, you had to wait until UA which was a few years after 1e was created.




Yep. I'm 100% not disagreeing with you there.  Which is why I think it's a wash -- you can't effectively make a "But you need supplement X to do archetype Y well!" case against any version of D&D, because EVERY version of D&D has that problem. 



> I actually think the importance of supplements actually gets understated in 3e. Core-only melee classes WILL feel small in the pants past level 9 since they didn't really give them many GOOD options past then. Spellcasters of course made out like bandits (How come clerics and druids got such great love from transitioning from classes that only had 7 levels of spells to 9 LEVELS of spells - yet the non-magical classes got so few beanies)




This I disagree with, but I'm willing to bet that experiences here are much more subjective than elsewhere. Because D&D has always been team-based, "small in the pants" was relative to the amount of spotlight time a given player of a given class was...er...given by the DM, such as by choosing enemies that targeted specific saves or whatever. My 3e games never had any issues with the fighters and other melee classes feeling like they could kick butt (example memorable 3e character: a frenzied berserker gnome who fell at terminal velocity into lava and WOULD NOT DIE), but I totally believe others did, and am on board with beefing up martial options regardless of my disagreement with that experience. 

Still, again, it's basically a wash. You can't really successfully argue "3e needed a lot of supplements!" and then turn around and say "4e doesn't need a lot of supplements!", nor can you really successfully argue the reverse. You could argue that both needed too many supplements, but that's a whole different bag of issues to deal with. 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Except that you don't need any supplements. You can play D&D with the 4e PHB, DMG and MM the same way you only need the three core books for 2e or 3e.
> 
> There's nothing that you can't play D&D without that came later. Nothing.
> 
> ...




Ah, your issue was with the word "need"? Okay, let's clarify a little.

4e has greater _implied need_ of supplements than 3e did, because part of 3e's philosophy was that everything supported three core rulebooks, while 4e's philosophy is that almost everything *is* a core rulebook, with "core" carrying the implication that you need it to play a fully-functional game. While you can play 4e without the PHBII, the game assumes you have the PHBII, and without the PHBII, your value in 4e overall decreases ("Primal Power" holds no appeal for you without primal characters, ferex), while 3e never assumed that you would use any particular supplement, but you could if you wanted to (well, with a minor exception in some later products, but certainly much more rarely). 

Technically, you don't need more than the three basic books in any edition, but 4e certainly places much more emphasis on people owning future books than 3e did.

Still, same conclusion: it's a wash, because both have a functional need for supplements (that is, in order to play a more fully realized range of archetypes, you need more supplements to do so). The DDI is an edge in this, though I think we can call the DDI more or less "edition neutral," since it's an organizational tool, not a true inherent feature of 4e itself.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos.
> 
> And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.



That doesn't prevent you from playing D&D. Just because you can't play a gnome doesn't mean you can't play D&D. 

It doesn't matter what specialty classes were missing: you can Still Play D&D with the first PHB. 



> Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals.
> 
> Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.



Again, the issue is not which edition's first books have bigger page numbers, more classes, more monsters. THe issue is "Can you play D&D without the supplements"? Can you run it? Are all the rules necessary to make the game function? Are there monsters to run 1-30 levels? Are the classes needed to play the game that have always been there - fighter rogue wizard cleric? Yes.

There is nothing that in its absence from the 3 books prevented one from playing D&D. By saying that you cannot play D&D without more than the first 3 books, then you are saying anyone who just use the first three are not playing D&D.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 11, 2009)

I never really understood the devotion towards core only. People stated their devotion to it in 3E, but always for the wrong reasons. People said core only was more balanced, when the opposite was true. What core only 3E did accomplish was a less untidy game easier for the Dm to control, not something more balanced.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I never really understood the devotion towards core only. People stated their devotion to it in 3E, but always for the wrong reasons. People said core only was more balanced, when the opposite was true. What core only 3E did accomplish was a less untidy game easier for the Dm to control, not something more balanced.




You do realize that balance doesn't equate to the most important thing for every player of D&D.  Perhaps it's moreso having a finite set of rules and reference books that everyone can in fact get a handle on and mastery of... that makes core appealing.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You do realize that balance doesn't equate to the most important thing for every player of D&D.  Perhaps it's moreso having a finite set of rules and reference books that everyone can in fact get a handle on and mastery of... that makes core appealing.




There's a difference between balance not being important and balance being a problem. 2E AD&D, Rolemaster, and nWoD/oWoD are less balanced than 4E, but a lack of balance isn't a glaring issue with those games. In 3E, balance tends to be a glaring issue unless the players and the DM work extra hard to avoid them.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Um, ranger/rogue hybrid at 1st level covers Ranger with Shortbow EASILY in 4e. This is a trick question right?
> 
> It's kind of weird the effect the characer builder has. You no longer really NEED to purchase the supplements to get the crunch. By far, its much easier AND cheaper to simply buy a 1 month pass, download the character builder and voila, you get all the options.....
> 
> ...




Yeah, this would have been a pretty good answer... only the dependence on supplements was criticized upthread... or at least it was as far as 3.x is concerned.  I understand people probably aren't going to read this whole thread, but there is an ongoing debate here and without its context some answers aren't really viable... well at least not in the context of the debate.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There's a difference between balance not being important and balance being a problem. 2E AD&D, Rolemaster, and nWoD/oWoD are less balanced than 4E, but a lack of balance isn't a glaring issue with those games. In 3E, balance tends to be a glaring issue unless the players and the DM work extra hard to avoid them.




Have you ever considered that the "glaring" issue doesn't really impede on a few/some/many/most/all people who enjoy playing 3.x?  Just a thought... isn't "fun" the most important thing?  And for those above... their "fun" isn't impeded by the balance issues of 3.x, or maybe they've fixed them to their own satisfaction (as opposed to spending $100+ for a new game)... or whatever.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Have you ever considered that the "glaring" issue doesn't really impede on a few/some/many/most/all people who enjoy playing 3.x?  Just a thought... isn't "fun" the most important thing?  And for those above... their "fun" isn't impeded by the balance issues of 3.x, or maybe they've fixed them to their own satisfaction (as opposed to spending $100+ for a new game)... or whatever.




It was a common complaint. The developers thought it was important enough to be the focal point of the next edition. The new edition hasn't failed horribly, and has appeared on major bestseller lists. I don't know...

Maybe it wasn't a "glaring" issue to a vocal minority who are upset the game went in a different direction. That sounds more reasonable. 

I only brought it up because it was the most common justification I tended to see from people who limited their game to the "Core 3"


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It was a common complaint. The developers thought it was important enough to be the focal point of the next edition. The new edition hasn't failed horribly, and has appeared on major bestseller lists. I don't know...
> 
> Maybe it wasn't a "glaring" issue to a vocal minority who are upset the game went in a different direction. That sounds more reasonable.
> 
> I only brought it up because it was the most common justification I tended to see from people who limited their game to the "Core 3"





Whoa, whoa, I never said 4e was doing horribly or anything like that.  Were their people who had a major problem with 3e's balance issues... yes, but they've probably moved to 4e or other game systems... as far as a  "vocal minority" ... well I guess everything is a minority in the rpg market when compared to D&D's share...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Whoa, whoa, I never said 4e was doing horribly or anything like that.  Were their people who had a major problem with 3e's balance issues... yes, but they've probably moved to 4e or other game systems... as far as a  "vocal minority" ... well I guess everything is a minority in the rpg market when compared to D&D's share...




I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.





Well for anecdotal evidence that's cool... of course forum goer's are not representative of the majority of gamers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well for anecdotal evidence that's cool... of course forum goer's are not representative of the majority of gamers.



But what do we have to represent the majority of gamers then? 

I am afraid while WotC can rely on its market research and surveys to get a sense of "majroity of gamers", we don't have anything at all. 

I think that WotC picked their focuses and based their design around such data. And since they don't seem to backpedal now, it seems they were right.

Maybe in 5 years, the prevalent opinions of the market have changed and the next design team will put different emphasis accordingly. Or - of course, this could be a pie dream - they find a way to expand their design to cover more people without compromising the goals of 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> It was a common complaint.



True.  

Kinda like how too much homogeneity is a common complaint about the current edition.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 11, 2009)

BryonD said:


> True.
> 
> Kinda like how too much homogeneity is a common complaint about the current edition.




Hey, that's just a vocal minority...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I imagine most people who are still playing 3.5E don't find balance a glaring issue. It was a glaring issue debated by many people who primarily played 3.5E during 3.5E's lifetime. I was there, as I'm the sort who is drawn to arguments. Back during my days on the WotC 3.5E forums, I was knee deep in all the balance discussions, where those who thought it was balanced ok were outnumbered by the combination of people unsatisfied with the balance and those who thought it was unbalanced but didn't worry about it so mucn.



Honestly, I was involved in a lot of arguments over balance.  It was constant.

And stating that this made it a glaring issue would be a gross mischaracterization.  First and foremost the debates were mostly regarding new material.  BO9S would be one of many, but a significant, example.  That si hugely different than a flaw built into the core of the system.

Second, the debates that did get more to the heart of the system would be most accurately described as between groups of people who loved the game but had differences of opinion about where the balance point should be.  

You characterize it as if everyone in the debates was unsatisfied with the game it self.  Part of the beauty of the game was how easy it was to make it be the game you wanted.  But then, of course, everyone wanted to convince everyone else that their balance point was the one true point of perfection.  So group A was upset with group B because group B loved playing 3E in a way completely different than the way Group A loved playing 3E.  They may have been at each others throats over balance, but they both went home and loved playing 3E.

I'm not saying that there were not plenty of people who hated 3E.  But the people who really had serious problems with 3E and yet were for some reason knee debate in balance debate after balance debate were a tiny fraction.

you are pointing at a bunch of people who argued over how best to love the game they loved and trying to present them as people who didn't like the game.  And that is way off the mark.

It is funny, quite of few of people I used to argue with all the time are now my 3E holdout "allies".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Hey, that's just a vocal minority...



So, maybe a common positive remark about 4E is how it unifies the characters abilities and balances them, without making actual play repetitive or boring. 

It might be a common complaint. But it's a problem of selective perception - from all the complaints, this is the most common. But how many complaints are there actually? How many people actually like what is complained? How many even disagree with the complaint?

Of course, threads like these can also illustrate that to some extent - without actually providing us with real numbers of how many like or dislike aspects.

I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general): 
- There is homogenity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh?  )
- Some people perceive this homogenity strongly, do not experience the differences in play and dislike it.
- Some do not perceive this homogenity strongly, see the difference in play and like it.

So, the next questions would be: Can we find a way to help the first group without alienating the second group? Is it worthwile to even risk alienating people in the second group? Is it necessary to do so for capturing a (the) larger audience?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, maybe a common positive remark about 4E is how it unifies the characters abilities and balances them, without making actual play repetitive or boring.



  I think that is true.



> It might be a common complaint. But it's a problem of selective perception - from all the complaints, this is the most common. But how many complaints are there actually? How many people actually like what is complained? How many even disagree with the complaint?



I don't know that it is the "most" common.  It is just one of *the* common.

But you said a few posts back that this board was reasonably representative.  Well, according to polls here over 40% don't choose 4E even when allowed to pick every game they play.  Is the board representative?



> I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general):
> - There is homogenity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh?  )
> - Some people perceive this homogenity strongly, do not experience the differences in play and dislike it.
> - Some do not perceive this homogenity strongly, see the difference in play and like it.



More or less agreed.  I'd say I DO experience the differences and dislike it, but your point  remains


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course, threads like these can also illustrate that to some extent - without actually providing us with real numbers of how many like or dislike aspects.
> 
> I think the "result" from this thread might be (just in general):
> - There is homogeneity in the system. (Hard to deny with a unified power framework, eh?  )
> ...




Yeah, that's pretty much it. This thread (and its cousin) seem to fall into three groups: 1.) See homogeneity & Like it. 2.) See homogeneity and Hate it. 3.) Don't see Homogeneity, whatchutalkinabout Wilis?

Group one and group two can agree to disagree. Group three cannot grasp the question. 



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, the next questions would be: Can we find a way to help the first group without alienating the second group? Is it worthwhile to even risk alienating people in the second group? Is it necessary to do so for capturing a (the) larger audience?




See, at this point I think 4e is going to be what it is. I'm not sure they could make enough future supplements, stealth-errata, and outright "4.5" level changes to bring some disgruntled players back (some might, some never would). 

I seriously think (no joke) 4e is going to be a "lost edition" like 2e; many old players leave it, but hundreds of new players join (I was one of those 2e newbies who never saw 1e until years later). However, in a dozen years (give or take) WotC designers (having learned the limits of their new system structure) will go back to "the math", fix the glaring errors, add a dash of nostalgic elements to lure back some of the lost players, and come out with a 5e that will be utterly amazing. 

(I base this off of the fact this is the same company that makes Magic: The Gathering. They took a LOT of flack for 5th edition and the removal of "staple" cards, and two edition later, welcome back Serra and Shivan!)


----------



## ferratus (Sep 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> See, at this point I think 4e is going to be what it is. I'm not sure they could make enough future supplements, stealth-errata, and outright "4.5" level changes to bring some disgruntled players back (some might, some never would).




The problem with trying to "win players back" is that they aren't really keeping up with what is going on.  It is through DDI and new rulebooks that you get more gameplay options, and the modular nature of the rules ensures that 4e is going to keep growing for many years to come.   Playing a fighter today is a lot different than playing a fighter last year.  There are simply more options to customize your character around his race, build or primary weapon.  

Aside from more options to customize your character, there are going to be subsystems that are introduced.  The most recent subsystem "Skill Powers"  is going to be followed by "Racial Powers" and "Source Powers" and possibly even "Squad Powers".  In other words since the rules system is so modular and compartmentalized it is easier to stretch what the various subsystems will do without breaking.   So new powers, new classes, new races, new feats, new sources will bring with them their new subsystems that will change the way the game is played.

The complaints about homogeneity seem to stem from level based powers and role.  I can't see much else in the game that is homogeneous.  I can however see a future in which a class is introduced that doesn't get powers in the same way as the classes do now, new roles, or rules for hybrid roles.

But it wouldn't make sense to do this for the sake of collecting old players.  Most of them, once they decide a rules system is not for them, are not going to keep up with the expansions and experiments.  It is also not worth it to try and attract new players, since  no new players have ever been encouraged to enter the RPG hobby based on the particularities of a rules system.

No, it is going to be for the current fanbase, who want to experiment with the new rules system and try out new things.   This isn't as limiting as it sounds, since an engaged fanbase is going to want to keep their group in the game and recruit new players.   I am also going to wager that unless you are hardcore for a particular play experience you will eventually get bored with any RPG system and move on to do other things in your life.  The much maligned RPG publishing treadmill helps to lessen this fatigue with play experience, and keeps people in the game.



> I seriously think (no joke) 4e is going to be a "lost edition" like 2e; many old players leave it, but hundreds of new players join (I was one of those 2e newbies who never saw 1e until years later). However, in a dozen years (give or take) WotC designers (having learned the limits of their new system structure) will go back to "the math", fix the glaring errors, add a dash of nostalgic elements to lure back some of the lost players, and come out with a 5e that will be utterly amazing.




I don't think any edition of D&D is a "lost" edition.  After all, when I think back to my gaming groups from 2e and 3e the only thing that is constant to both groups is myself.   I believe that none of the guys I knew back when I played 2e are still playing RPG's, and out of the 20 people I played with regularly in 3e only 4 are still playing RPG's, and only 2 of those 4 are playing D&D.  The two are in my current D&D group, largely because I'm  keeping them there.

In the end, unless you are continually and actively playing, eventually you leave RPG's behind.  I think there were plenty of people who liked 2e and hated 3e.  I've met about as many people who didn't like 3e as I've met people who didn't like 4e.  A not so strange thing happened as the years went on though.  I found less and less people who liked 2e more than 3e simply because they became less and less involved with D&D and its community, or to stay in the D&D community they played 3e and found they didn't dislike it as much as they thought they did.

I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity.  Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 11, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Uh. First off, 2e's PHB was Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, SPECIALIST (Illusionist, etc), Cleric, SPECIALTY PRIEST (granted, they were guidelines more than a class), Druid, Thief, and BARD (Yes, they were there, and they kicked ass).




Specialist mages and priests were sub-classes of the base class.  I never counted them as separate classes.  Bards were indeed in the 2E PHB, but they weren't all that.  Bards didn't get remotely decent until the Complete Bards Handbook came out.



Remathilis said:


> Second, that's one more class than 4e allows. 2 if you count Specialty Priests, but I don't. More if you want to include multi-class combos.
> 
> And I STILL can't play a druid, bard, specialist wizard, or gnome using the 1st 3 4e books.




4E PHB has 8 classes Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.  2E PHB had 8 non-sub-classes.  Replace Druids and Bards with Warlords and Warlocks.  You actually have more multi-class combinations in 4E b/c you can multi-class with anything. 



Remathilis said:


> Third, in the 2e DMG I have about 300% more magic items than the 4e PHB, and about double the monsters in the 2e Monstrous Compendium than I do in the 4e MM, including centaurs, frost giants, metallic (and gem!) dragons, iron golems, banshees, nymphs, genies, mephits, werebears and weretigers, and air, earth, and water elementals.
> 
> Overall, I think I have a heck of a lot more content using a "core only" 2e than if I was running "core only" 4e.




Yeah you have more magic items, but vast swaths of them were completely useless items most groups would never use or slight descriptor differences.  The 4E book provides an easy way to create a weapon with +X and an additional ability instead of having sword +1, sword +1, +2vs magic, sword +1, +2 vs fire, etc. all spelled out in the charts.

WoTC was very upfront that they wanted the initial MM in 4E to be focused on things people would actually fight and browsing the list of monsters it is a more standard mix of creatures.  Never had a DM throw mephits at us, there are 8 jillion types of dragons over the years, werebears and tigers are far less common than werewolves, etc.  They were never going to have a book that had everything eveyrone wanted day 1, we have 35 years worth of creation to pick from and millions of opinions.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 11, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity.  Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.



I think 3E and 4E are each so distinctly different from 1E/2E, and that the nature of the market place is also so different, that simply predicting something will happen to the newer editions purely because it happened to prior editions is a flawed analysis.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 11, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I don't think any edition of D&D is a "lost" edition.  After all, when I think back to my gaming groups from 2e and 3e the only thing that is constant to both groups is myself.   I believe that none of the guys I knew back when I played 2e are still playing RPG's, and out of the 20 people I played with regularly in 3e only 4 are still playing RPG's, and only 2 of those 4 are playing D&D.  The two are in my current D&D group, largely because I'm  keeping them there.
> 
> In the end, unless you are continually and actively playing, eventually you leave RPG's behind.  I think there were plenty of people who liked 2e and hated 3e.  I've met about as many people who didn't like 3e as I've met people who didn't like 4e.  A not so strange thing happened as the years went on though.  I found less and less people who liked 2e more than 3e simply because they became less and less involved with D&D and its community, or to stay in the D&D community they played 3e and found they didn't dislike it as much as they thought they did.
> 
> I fully expect that 3e support will likewise evaporate over the next decade to the same extent that 1e's and 2e's did, unless Pathfinder is so wildly successful that it eclipses 4e D&D in popularity.  Anything's possible, but I'm certainly not putting any money on that happening.




The only unknown factor in the equation is the proliferation of OGL-style content. Whereas if you were playing D&D in 1989 and didn't like 2e, you could peal off into only a handful of radically different games (GURPS, MERPS, Palladium, etc). The OGL market (as it is) has given some offerings that are similar enough to D&D (True d20, C&C, Pathfinder, M&M, Retro-clones, etc) that people can find a game they like or that suits their style without having to convert to (and subsequently rebuilt-to-suit) 4e D&D. While I don't think any of these games will ever grow to rival D&D, I do think they've taken a larger chunk of the disgruntled fanbase than other games did in 89 or 2000.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 11, 2009)

I would say that all other RPG's, even other d20 RPG's, are usually played after a D&D group or a D&D community is well established and looking for something new.   If you are looking to start a new tabletop gaming group cold, you generally have to start with D&D because it is the biggest and most popular RPG.  The OGL and D20 system allowed a great expansion of genres to be introduced to more D&D groups, because it removed a great barrier of having to learn a new rules system.   Even so, all these other d20 rules systems only snagged a fraction of the players of D&D.

Tabletop Gaming is a fringe hobby, and not playing the same system as the majority makes you a fringe of a fringe.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it does make the like-minded hard to find.  Since RPG's require a group of 4-5 people with enough spare time and interest to meet regularly you generally find that the majority tastes prevail.

Generally, the only way to keep yourself from eventually playing a 4e game is to make sure you keep your gaming group together over the several years it will take till a new edition comes.   The internet and living in a large city (500,000+) will also allow you to survive with a little persistence.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2009)

Shakespeare quotes notwithstanding, I run into the exact same problem.  Actually worse.  No longer can I be Lawful - bards have alignment restrictions, I cannot wear heavier armor and still cast spells, I can now CAST spells, and my BAB is taking a decent hit as well.

I can make Suave McFightswell, but, suddenly, I'm restricted in alignment, and I gain a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with either fighting or talking.

Again, isn't this homogeny?  Every Suave McFightswell suddenly HAS to cast magic?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So why is it okay to sub "Ranger" for my "Rogue" in 4e... especially since he doesn't get the Rogue's utilities... or backstab... or Paragon Paths, or...well you get the point.  But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?




But, I never, ever said, diplomatic FIGHTER.  I said diplomatic guy who fights well.  Guy who fights well in 3e=fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin.  

Or, how many supplements did I have to wait for Swashbuckler.  Never, ever bought character splats, so I wouldn't know.

You wanted Sneaky Shooty guy.  In 4e, that's ranger with the right choices.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, I never, ever said, diplomatic FIGHTER. I said diplomatic guy who fights well. Guy who fights well in 3e=fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin.



If your definition of "guy who fights well in 3e" is "gets +1 BAB every level without exception," then we simply don't agree on the definition of "guy who fights well."

IMO, an 8th-level fighter (+8 BAB) and a 4th-level fighter / 4th-level rogue (+7 BAB) are _both_ "guys who fight well."

And if a difference of +1 BAB over 8 levels is a deal-breaker for you, then 4E should pose the same dilemma, since making a 4E Suave McFightswell involves giving up at least one feat or making some other suboptimal choice.  _No_ (balanced) system is going to let you "have it all."


----------



## BryonD (Sep 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Again, isn't this homogeny?



Yes, it is.
3E could be improved by removing some of the homogeneity.


Of course, the option to make a whole new bard class that does not use magic is built right in to the core of the 3E system.  If you make a new whatever class for 4E, all the same "math works" issues remain bolted right on.

I'm entirely happy with the sneaky shooter guys I've seen in 3E.  The fact that pure shooter guy is a bit better at shooting than sneaky shooter guy and pure sneaky guy is a bit better than sneaky shooter guy (though I've seen rangers that could sneak as well as any rogue) is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 12, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> If your definition of "guy who fights well in 3e" is "gets +1 BAB every level without exception," then we simply don't agree on the definition of "guy who fights well."
> 
> IMO, an 8th-level fighter (+8 BAB) and a 4th-level fighter / 4th-level rogue (+7 BAB) are _both_ "guys who fight well."
> 
> And if a difference of +1 BAB over 8 levels is a deal-breaker for you, then 4E should pose the same dilemma, since making a 4E Suave McFightswell involves giving up at least one feat or making some other suboptimal choice.  _No_ (balanced) system is going to let you "have it all."



I very much agree.  

On top of that, if you are sweating over 1 single BAB over 8 levels, you probably ARE better off playing a tactical mini battle game.  There is a gaping chasm between my position of some characters *should* be very weak at some skills, and finding a difference of 1 BAB being even worthy of mention, much less a serious flaw in the system.  

Again, I'm not saying it is wrong for you to find that important.  If you want a supremely balanced battle game, then certainly it is.  And wanting a supremely balance battle game is no less valid than wanting character experience driven game.  But lets admit that they are different and accept that.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, I never, ever said, diplomatic FIGHTER.  I said diplomatic guy who fights well.  Guy who fights well in 3e=fighter, barbarian, ranger or paladin.
> 
> Or, how many supplements did I have to wait for Swashbuckler.  Never, ever bought character splats, so I wouldn't know.
> 
> You wanted Sneaky Shooty guy.  In 4e, that's ranger with the right choices.




Well, that's a trick question. If I'm limited to JUST the 3.5 PHB, you've set up an un-winnable fight. There is ONE class that has diplomacy as a class skill and good BAB, and that's paladin (which you poo-poo'd because of the LG holy-warrior element). So no, there is no combination in the core books that meets your EXACT criteria...

Oh course, its PERFECTLY fine for 4e to fail to meet those same types of criteria. "Oh, you want to be a rogue who can use a shortbow? Be a ranger!" ISN'T a good enough answer for me. First off, rangers come with ranger-baggage (class skill nature/dungeoneering, no bluff or thievery as class skills) power-names descriptions/based off natural elements, or "My 'thief' using Dire Wolverine Strike!") Secondly, I may WANT the rogue elements (artful dodger, sneak attack, rogue paragon paths or rogue powers like tumble) but instead of being FORCED to use a hand-crossbow, I want a freaking shortbow. One choice of weapon for 1/2 of my rogue powers (those that can be used at range) forcing me to be a WHOLE DIFFERENT CLASS isn't good game design. IMHO it stinks. 

So in the "spirit" of 4e's balancing of game mechanics and "fluff" I give you Suavey Mc Figthtswell, 3.5 core.

Half-elf Paladin, LG

His highest score is in charisma, with strength and con being not far behind.
He's a knight of the realm, loyal to the crown. His job to to ferret out traitors, spies, and evil forces at work.

He's maxed out ranks in Know: Nobility (to know whose supposed to be in court and whose not) sense motive (to determine liars and frauds) and diplomacy (to be suave and cool). His synergies and racial mods give him a +6 to diplomacy over his ranks+cha. 

He's so good determining social motives and insidious plots that he can sense evil almost supernaturally.
When he faces a foe of the crown, he is a ruthless and brutal combatant, giving him power to smite those who stand against god and country!
He's abnormally lucky, and his tremendous sense of self-worth gives him ability to withstand attacks on his mind and body.
He also never gives up, granting his body a way to overcome nearly mortal blows (if 4e can use the rationale to heal hp, so can I)
He's hearty as a horse and never suffers from diseases. Good genes, I guess. 
Hes brave, fearless even. His presence removes doubt in those who share his worldview.
He's a field-medic, and can treat diseases and heal wounds to allies. He has no formal medical training, just a McGuyver sense of what needs fixing.
He has a loyal mount that always appears when its needed most...
He learned a little spellcasting in the academy, depending on his wisdom or not. (You could ignore this or trade it out for bonus feats, DM willing)
Lastly, his presence is so intimidating that the undead run from the sight of him, if they know whats best for them!

BEHOLD: James Bond: Paladin. 

Ain't no worse than calling a ranger a rogue, right?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 12, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ain't no worse than calling a ranger a rogue, right?




A good point. I'd XP you but I have to spread some around first.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 12, 2009)

So, I've been thinking some more about the whole Rogue with short bow thing. And I came up with something I've mentioned before, a Half-Elf Rogue with the Warrior of the Wild feat. I've named him Quinn.

Quinn had Twin Strike as his Dilettante power. Twin Strike works with both the short bow and traditional rogue weapons.

His first level feat is Warrior of the Wild, which gives him hunter's quarry. Now, at first level, he doesn't have proficiency with the short bow. In 4e, that means he doesn't get the short bow proficiency bonus. Which is nothing to sneeze at, but technically, Quinn can still use it. And, with Twin Strike, Quinn gets two chances to to hit. A short bow also has the potential to do more damage than a hand crossbow or a dagger.

The feat also gives him hunter's query, which works well with sneak attack.

His second level feat is Weapon Proficiency: short bow.

His fourth level feat is Novice Power which I used to give Quinn Cut and Run, which is Twin Strike that gives him the ability to shift 3 squares between attacks. This powers usefulness, with our without a short bow, should be fairly obvious.

Over all the I've chosen melee rogue powers and Twin Strike like Ranger powers. I suspect this would continue throughout Quinn's career. This is because Ranger Twin Strike like powers are more versital than the Rogue ranger powers.

My combat strategy is fairly simple: start with the Ranger encounter powers using the short bow, possibly using Cut and Run to move into a flanking position. Then switch to the dagger to get in sneak attack damage. 

He's best at thievery and acrobatics, but thanks to Warrior of the Wild, I was able to train him in both Acrobatics and Athletics. 

Quinn's the illegitimate child of a married Elf father, and a married Human mother. His step father divorced his mother when he found out she was pregnant. While he spent the first few years of his life on the streets of Blackmoor, he and his mother moved out into the cold country when he was a teenager. There he learned the way of the bow and still prefers it's speed and punch to anything else, even though smaller weapons give him the ability to surgically strike.

He took up adventuring with Jen, Gimble, and Adrian because he didn't have any other skills he could fall back on and depends on his team mates to help him survive out in the wild. He feels bad that he's not as in tune with nature as he thinks he should be, and has taken to worshiping Corellon and asking the Elves patron deity for guidance. One of his first purchases on striking out on his own was Corellon's holy symbol.

I've attached Quinn's character sheet at 4th level.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 12, 2009)

Fanboy,

Its not a bad build (to be honest, I think its pretty good) but has a few flaws.

* First Strike is utterly useless unless Quinn can get into Melee. Catching your foes with CA is pointless because a shortbow can't get Sneak Attack.
* Both ranger powers are encounter powers. This means if the fight takes to the air (for example, fighting harpies or gargoyles) the rogue's damage output drops after 2 rounds (1st: TS + HQ, 2nd C&R, 3rd+ BA, BA, BA)
* All those rangers powers still work with a hand-crossbow. And it doesn't cost him a feat (better spent on backstabber or Weapon Expertise) & he can still use Sly Flourish as needed.
* Its a specific racial build: An elven rogue (for example) loses TS as a dilettante (though he gets shortbow prof for free, even if he can't use it with a single power until 4th and C&R). The poor halfling shortbow archer is REALLY boned; he gets neither free power nor free feat. Guess that's why those guys use slings, eh?
(Did I mention eladrin can use LONGSWORDS with rogue powers at the cost of a feat and a SA die?)

Personally, WotC could fix the problem with a single feat:

*Sniper Shot*
*Prerequisite:* proficient with shortbows, Sneak attack
*Benefit:* You can use a shortbow with any ranged rogue power or class ability that normally allows you to use a crossbow. Your sneak attack with such powers is 1d6 less than normal when using a shortbow. 

Yet WotC seems fine with not printing said feat. Because rogue = crossbow, like it or not.

Next, how to give fighters something to do when the dragon takes to the sky...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 12, 2009)

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Archer Rogue, level 1
Elf, Rogue|Ranger
Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Fortitude
Background: Occupation - Criminal (+2 to Thievery)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 14, Dex 18, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 13.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 14, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 13.


AC: 16 Fort: 13 Reflex: 15 Will: 13
HP: 26 Surges: 8 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +8, Thievery +11, Stealth +9, Perception +10, Bluff +6, Acrobatics +9

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana -1, Diplomacy +1, Endurance +2, Heal +3, History -1, Insight +3, Intimidate +1, Nature +5, Religion -1, Streetwise +1, Athletics

FEATS
Level 1: Quick Draw

POWERS
Hybrid Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Hybrid Rogue at-will 1: Clever Strike
Hybrid encounter 1: Two-Fanged Strike
Hybrid daily 1: Split the Tree

ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Leather Armor, Arrows (30), Short sword, Longbow, Dagger (4)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======


----------



## Imaro (Sep 12, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> ====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
> Archer Rogue, level 1
> Elf, Rogue|Ranger
> Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Fortitude
> ...





Are Hybrid rules in the core books?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 12, 2009)

This core books argument is getting old. Don't you have anything better?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 12, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This core books argument is getting old. Don't you have anything better?




Or, you could read the thread so you understand the context in which this discussion is taking place.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 12, 2009)

One of the classic game concepts of 1E/2E was the Fighter/Mage multiclass. The core books of 3E couldn't pull that off. Hell, 3E in its entirety never really did a good job with this, with the Duskblade probably being 3E's best shot, at least for a character who didn't have to wait until levels above 8 to actually function as a Fighter/Mage. 

I would say that the Fighter/Mage is more of a core concept to D&D than a Shorbow Rogue is. 

What I'm saying is that limiting yourself to just the core books on something like this is silly. If you want to be a bow using Rogue, the tools are there.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 12, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> One of the classic game concepts of 1E/2E was the Fighter/Mage multiclass. The core books of 3E couldn't pull that off. Hell, 3E in its entirety never really did a good job with this, with the Duskblade probably being 3E's best shot, at least for a character who didn't have to wait until levels above 8 to actually function as a Fighter/Mage.
> 
> I would say that the Fighter/Mage is more of a core concept to D&D than a Shorbow Rogue is.
> 
> What I'm saying is that limiting yourself to just the core books on something like this is silly. If you want to be a bow using Rogue, the tools are there.




This looks like another attempt to slide goalposts... It wasnt I who limited this discussion to core only.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> This looks like another attempt to slide goalposts... It wasnt I who limited this discussion to core only.




I don't care who said it. Its a lame argument in any case. As I said before, if you want to do this, the tools are there.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 12, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I don't care who said it. Its a lame argument in any case. As I said before, if you want to do this, the tools are there.





Well then perhaps instead of stepping into the middle of a discussion and declaring it's parameters "lame"... you should fork or start your own discussion where the parameters are to your liking.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well then perhaps instead of stepping into the middle of a discussion and declaring it's parameters "lame"... you should fork or start your own discussion where the parameters are to your liking.




If the parameters suck, it isn't much of a discussion.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 13, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If the parameters suck, it isn't much of a discussion.





Only it was... but now it isn't...[sarcasm] thanks [sarcasm]


----------



## Eridanis (Sep 13, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If the parameters suck, it isn't much of a discussion.




If you don't like it, then feel free to start a new thread. Don't throw a hissy fit in this one.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 13, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Fanboy,
> 
> Its not a bad build (to be honest, I think its pretty good) but has a few flaws.



You know, I as I was making the character, I was thinking to myself: "gee, now I want to play him." To bad I almost always DM.



> * First Strike is utterly useless unless Quinn can get into Melee. Catching your foes with CA is pointless because a shortbow can't get Sneak Attack.



True. I knew this while I was making the character. That said, hand crossbows do a d6 instead of a d8, and they have a shorter range. Max damage on TS from the short bow with hunter's quarry is 22. (Average if both attacks hit is 12.5) Max damage from TS from the hand crossbow with both hunter's quarry and first strike is 20. (Average is 12) So, it's actually (slightly) more advantageous until sneak attack damage goes up to 3d6 at 11th.



> * Both ranger powers are encounter powers. This means if the fight takes to the air (for example, fighting harpies or gargoyles) the rogue's damage output drops after 2 rounds (1st: TS + HQ, 2nd C&R, 3rd+ BA, BA, BA)



If I equip Quinn with a hand crossbow and use sly flourish, his damage output is 1d4+5 for an average of 7.5 or a max of 9. With a basic ranged attack it 1d8+4 for an average of 8.5 or a max of 12. Of course, with a hand crossbow, Quinn can use trick strike and deal good damage for a third round before switching to sly flourish.



> * All those rangers powers still work with a hand-crossbow. And it doesn't cost him a feat (better spent on backstabber or Weapon Expertise) & he can still use Sly Flourish as needed.



Very true. The only thing he loses in that scenario is range. Average damage output sly flourish goes up. (Way up.)



> * Its a specific racial build: An elven rogue (for example) loses TS as a dilettante (though he gets shortbow prof for free, even if he can't use it with a single power until 4th and C&R). The poor halfling shortbow archer is REALLY boned; he gets neither free power nor free feat. Guess that's why those guys use slings, eh?



Probably. I would think, however, that halflings wouldn't want to use anything with the word "short" in it's name. Or maybe that's dwarves.



> (Did I mention eladrin can use LONGSWORDS with rogue powers at the cost of a feat and a SA die?)



No you didn't. I knew there was a reason I liked eladrin so much.



> Personally, WotC could fix the problem with a single feat:
> 
> *Sniper Shot*
> *Prerequisite:* proficient with shortbows, Sneak attack
> ...



It may just not have occurred to them. Sometimes, things that seem obvious to use, just don't occur to the designers. Even with playtesting, things fall though the cracks.



> Next, how to give fighters something to do when the dragon takes to the sky...



Um, make him a half-elf with Warrior of the Wild?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 13, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Are Hybrid rules in the core books?



Nope, still in playtest. Of course, they're in their second playtest slated for PHB 3 inclusion, but last I checked, no one considered playtests core.

Personally, I think that hybrid classes will address a lot of the flexibility issues with 4e. It won't address the homogeny issues some have with 4e, because the power structure will still be in place. Which is fine with me, I like it.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 13, 2009)

Again, the core rules is an interesting question.

For example, if you had a new person to D&D and they ask, "What should I pick up", my response would actually be.

Try this "Test Drive" first and then come back and see if you're still interested in it.

The funny thing is that the character builder on that test drive page actually incorporates everything from PHB to PHB II (Presumably, when PHB III is released, the sample character builder will be updated to include everything from PHB II to PHB III).

So, wouldn't the character builder be considered "core"?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2009)

But, hang on, since we're talking sliding goalposts, the bow using rogue is completely changing the arguement.

Bow using rogue is not a character concept.  It's a class concept, but, unless the guy walks around actually IDENTIFYING himself as a rogue, you're off base.  Claiming that the names don't fit is a pretty weak arguement as well.  Change the names!  Good grief, is that really that hard?  

Unless you think that changing the names of powers equates with having a code of honor that I cannot break and I MUST be Lawful Good and  I MUST be a holy warrior in order to get what I want.

Funny that you picked 8th level.  Nice.  How about 6th?  As a fighter, I should be getting my iterative attack.  As a 3/5 fighter/rogue, I've got a 6 BAB, which makes a fairly big difference.  Heck, at 6th level, if I'm a 3/3 F/R, I lost my iterative attack until next level.  Again, fairly big loss.  Plus, despite the fact that I don't want it as it's not part of my concept (a point you guys ignored the first time around) I suddenly can't wear heavy armor if I want to take advantage of the rogue abilities (for some reason Henry V walks around in leather armor) and I can now find traps, even though that has NOTHING to do with my concept.

In 3e, you effectiveness out of combat is inversely proportional to your effectiveness in combat.  There's a reason that of the 4 base classes, only rogues get 8 skill points.  If I want to make a character concept that mixes combat with non-combat (unlike our bow wielding rogue, which is a bit of a misleading example as it doesn't actually address my point), I'm forced by the rules to accept a bucket full of additional abilities and restrictions.

In 4e, it costs me a single feat.  

Now, fair enough, let's expand from core.  It has been suggested I take swashbuckler.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't swashbuckler considered extremely weak in combat?  That doesn't really match with McFightswell does it?  Additionally, swashbucklers can't wear heavy armor.  My Henry V character just got shelved, yet again.

Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder.    Nice.  

At the end of the day, there's three reasons I don't buy into this whole thing.

1.  I don't buy the basic premise.  The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false.  Games like GURPS and Savage Worlds both prove this to be false.  There is no mechanical diversity between your character and mine in GURPS or Savage Worlds.  There are no class based mini-games.  Yet, we are very capable of creating diverse game play in those systems.

2.  I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming.  As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions.  Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?

3.  It was mentioned that this is a common complaint.  I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.  It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game.  That 3e art was all anime inspired.  Those complaints weren't true.  I'm not convinced that this one is either.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 3.  It was mentioned that this is a common complaint.  I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.




Hey, how about we start accepting that people aren't lying or wrong about their feelings, reactions, or experiences? Can we do that?

People have been talking about how *they* feel about 4e after playing it. And others have been agreeing with them. How can they be wrong about what their impressions of the game are?

You don't feel the same way? Fine! Enjoy. But don't expect them to feel the same way.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder.    Nice.




Now waitasecond. I said Pathfinder handles your problem better in its core than 3.5 does in ITS core. Cosmopolitan is 3e feat beyond the core that does what you want. In 4e, they made Cosmopolitan core. That's like saying 3e doesn't handle your idea of playing a dragon-man warrior who channels infernal power, but 4e does. Yeah, because 4e made dragonborn and warlocks core. 

Inversely, 3.5 handles my character concept of a half-man, half-orc savarge warrior full of primal fury better than 4e because I can do it in the first PHB and I don't need another to complete the concept. By the time you open the 4e doors to "its available in supplement X" I can open the door to all manner of 3e supplements.

Besides, Pathfinder found a simple and elegant way of fixing the problem without a feat, without elaborate multi-classing, and without forcing every class to use the exact same mechanic. Nice.


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 1.  I don't buy the basic premise.  The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false.  Games like GURPS and Savage Worlds both prove this to be false.  There is no mechanical diversity between your character and mine in GURPS or Savage Worlds.  There are no class based mini-games.  Yet, we are very capable of creating diverse game play in those systems.




Agreed.  I like unified mechanics.  Much less book consulting, much less player confusion, much more gameplay.



> 2.  I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming.  As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions.  Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?




I agree completely.  I always found 3e very limiting from a character creation standpoint.  You had to put on tights and kneepads and wrestle the hell out of the system to wrangle a concept into existence, fighting with it the whole time.  Every bit of its "flexibility" came from piling more and more classes, prestige classes and feats into a pool and then finding the right combination, like some crazy multiple choice test that never had the actual answer you were looking for.



> 3.  It was mentioned that this is a common complaint.  I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.  It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game.  That 3e art was all anime inspired.  Those complaints weren't true.  I'm not convinced that this one is either.




Yeah.  I find 4e extremely flexible.  And the rebirth of the fighter/mage is just gravy for me, as that was always my favorite classic combo.  My two favorite classes.  My favorite change to character building from 3e?  Getting rid of craft/profession/perform.  Which is shorthand for getting rid of the philosophy that every aspect of a character needed to be statted.  Now, my fighter can be a musician/songwriter/basketweaver if I want him to be and without having to give up the ability to use his massively strong legs to occasionally lift himself from the ground.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 1.  I don't buy the basic premise.  The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false.




I like to look at it this way: you don't need diverse mechanics with unique sub-systems to create diversity within the game world itself.

However, some people like the effect that unique subsystems provide.  I like all the different types of magic in Palladium Fantasy; I don't think it would be as interesting if all the classes used the same mechanic to work their magic (ignoring that all classes use PPE as fuel).


----------



## Campbell (Sep 13, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Besides, Pathfinder found a simple and elegant way of fixing the problem without a feat, without elaborate multi-classing, and without forcing every class to use the exact same mechanic. Nice.




The example in question addresses the skill system. Of course every class is using the exact same mechanic . That being said I do find Pathfinder's Skill System more palatable than 3e's. However, it still doesn't fix some of my other problems with 3e's skill system.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, hang on, since we're talking sliding goalposts, the bow using rogue is completely changing the arguement.
> 
> Bow using rogue is not a character concept.  It's a class concept, but, unless the guy walks around actually IDENTIFYING himself as a rogue, you're off base.  Claiming that the names don't fit is a pretty weak arguement as well.  Change the names!  Good grief, is that really that hard?
> 
> Unless you think that changing the names of powers equates with having a code of honor that I cannot break and I MUST be Lawful Good and  I MUST be a holy warrior in order to get what I want.




This argument isn't about the names, it's about the feel of the class. If I want to be a shortbow rouge, I shouldn't have to be a ranger. There should be some significant difference between a rouge and ranger. A difference that goes beyond a ranger is a rogue who uses a bow.



> Funny that you picked 8th level.  Nice.  How about 6th?  As a fighter, I should be getting my iterative attack.  As a 3/5 fighter/rogue, I've got a 6 BAB, which makes a fairly big difference.  Heck, at 6th level, if I'm a 3/3 F/R, I lost my iterative attack until next level.  Again, fairly big loss.  Plus, despite the fact that I don't want it as it's not part of my concept (a point you guys ignored the first time around) I suddenly can't wear heavy armor if I want to take advantage of the rogue abilities (for some reason Henry V walks around in leather armor) and I can now find traps, even though that has NOTHING to do with my concept.




If your definition of McFightsWell means does not give up a single point of BaB, then you can look up thread for my core pure fighter Suave McFightsWell. But, I've played plenty of 3e and I don't believe that never giving up a single point of BaB is a hard requirement for being a good fighter. This guy is still a good fighter with his sneak attack. I would argue that having sneak attack is actually better than having the iterative attack in many cases. Once he does get his second iterative attack (the only one that matters) he'll actually do more damage with his attacks because of sneak attack.

On the concept part, I'm not sure why this goes against your concept. Forgive me if I missed it in another post.

On the armor part, the only rogue ability that won't work is evasion. He's still better against fireball than the pure fighter because of the bonus to reflex saves. If you want to be like Henry V and wear leather armor, go ahead then, your evasion still works. Don't worry about accidentally finding any traps and breaking your character concept, finding traps requires you to put ranks in search and actively search for traps. Neither is required.



> In 3e, you effectiveness out of combat is inversely proportional to your effectiveness in combat.  There's a reason that of the 4 base classes, only rogues get 8 skill points.  If I want to make a character concept that mixes combat with non-combat (unlike our bow wielding rogue, which is a bit of a misleading example as it doesn't actually address my point), I'm forced by the rules to accept a bucket full of additional abilities and restrictions.
> 
> In 4e, it costs me a single feat.




Well suppose I'm playing 4e and I want to be a McFightsWell, but I want access to a lot of the rogue skills. I'm looking at burning a lot more than one feat.

In 3e, I just take a few levels of rogue.

Both 3e and 4e have this issue, and it's one of the reasons I don't like the skill system in either edition.



> Now, fair enough, let's expand from core.  It has been suggested I take swashbuckler.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't swashbuckler considered extremely weak in combat?  That doesn't really match with McFightswell does it?  Additionally, swashbucklers can't wear heavy armor.  My Henry V character just got shelved, yet again.
> 
> Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder.    Nice.




If you want to bring in non-core, then forget swashbuckler and go to Pathfinder. You're still essentially playing 3e.



> 2.  I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming.  As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions.  Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?




If your definition of options means, "what skills can I take". Then maybe you have a point. But, 3e's options comes not from skill choices, but from its multiclassing and feat systems. Both of which are downplayed a lot in 4e.



> 3.  It was mentioned that this is a common complaint.  I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.  It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game.  That 3e art was all anime inspired.  Those complaints weren't true.  I'm not convinced that this one is either.




I wouldn't go so far as to claim that homogenity in 4e is a large flaw with the edition though. I think thats part of the reason why some see it and some don't. Someone upthread made this point too, it's a good insight. Those who like the system won't see this one aspect of it, if others are claiming that it is a big problem. Homogenity is a pretty subjective term, and if you don't perceive it now, after 20+ pages, then I don't think anything more in this thread is going to convince you. I don't mean that as an insult or anything negative. It just means it's not there when you play the game.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 14, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This core books argument is getting old. Don't you have anything better?



Demonstrating a variety of minigame battle tactics as a counter to homogeneity has been old for a while as well.  But I'm not seeing much better come out on that front either.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Hey, how about we start accepting that people aren't lying or wrong about their feelings, reactions, or experiences? Can we do that?
> 
> People have been talking about how *they* feel about 4e after playing it. And others have been agreeing with them. How can they be wrong about what their impressions of the game are?
> 
> You don't feel the same way? Fine! Enjoy. But don't expect them to feel the same way.




You missed my point.

I'm sure that people believe what they are saying.  Sure.  No problems.

People also told me that 3e played like a videogame.  Told me repeatedly.  For the better part of ten years.  Does that mean that 3e plays like a videogame?  It certainly doesn't for me.

Freakaholic - Like I said, I don't want those levels of rogue.  I am not interested in playing a fighter/rogue.  I don't want the extra abilities.  Perhaps my concept is honorable warrior- something like a samurai - so sneak attack is totally out as well.

In fact, why does "I can talk to people well" automatically get married to "I can stab people in the back really well"?

Remalthalis - Cosmopolitan does, in fact go a long way.  Although, that's only a single skill.  Like I said, if I want to be Knowitall McFightswell, I'm really screwed.  A guy with fairly extensive knowledge on a number of subjects that is also good with his weapons.  Like Solomon Kane for example.  I don't want any casting abilities.

See, again, you guys have told me that I should make a fighter/rogue if I want Suave McFightswell.  But, that's the only choice.  In 4e, I can take any martial character, burn one feat, and I've got my concept.  Doesn't this mean I actually have more choices in 4e?  In 4e, I've got 5 choices at 1st level, where all it costs me is a feat.  In 3e, I've got 2 choices (core), none of which I can be at 1st level, and, if we go beyond core, I can do it by burning a feat.  However, I'm still stuck with 2 skills per level, meaning I can be Suave McFightswell, but, pretty much nothing else.

Shock and horror if I want to be Suave Knowsalot McFightswell.  That just isn't going to happen.  A smooth talking warrior trained at Sitswell academy for the Destruction of Monsters.    Not happening.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> See, again, you guys have told me that I should make a fighter/rogue if I want Suave McFightswell.  But, that's the only choice.  In 4e, I can take any martial character, burn one feat, and I've got my concept.  Doesn't this mean I actually have more choices in 4e?  In 4e, I've got 5 choices at 1st level, where all it costs me is a feat.  In 3e, I've got 2 choices (core), none of which I can be at 1st level, and, if we go beyond core, I can do it by burning a feat.  However, I'm still stuck with 2 skills per level, meaning I can be Suave McFightswell, but, pretty much nothing else.
> 
> Shock and horror if I want to be Suave Knowsalot McFightswell.  That just isn't going to happen.  A smooth talking warrior trained at Sitswell academy for the Destruction of Monsters.    Not happening.




*BARDS NO LONGER EXIST...!*

No seriously, there's been like five posters here who have each given a _different way of getting diplomacy_ and you've kinda ignored every single one of them.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2009)

How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways:

1.  Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
2.  Paladin - umm, really?  A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept?
3.  Fighter/Bard - Again, I have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
4.  Cosmopolitan feat - probably the best option of the bunch.  However, this only gives me access to one skill (with a +2 IIRC) and I only get 2 skill ranks per level.  Sure diplomacy gets bumped, but poor bluff or sense motive (also pretty important talky skills) get left behind.
5.  Don't play 3e.  Play Pathfinder instead.

Did I miss any?  I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up.  If I missed one, please link.  I'm not ignoring any of them. I'm simply insisting that I get my character concept.  It's not like I've got some really bizarre concept here.  A well spoken warrior (not the class) shouldn't be all that hard.  It's a pretty common concept in the genre.

This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the "unlimited options" that people claim.  Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want.

And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e.  That's not my point.  All that means is there are limitations in both systems.  I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e.  That's totally not my claim.  I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse?  heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.

You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 14, 2009)

Bard gives you abilities that have nothing to do with your character...?

You get Fascinate, Inspire Courage, Countersong, and Bardic Knowledge.

Bardic Knowledge can easily be given to _any character, ever, _and still fit their character.  The other three?

"I don't put points into Perform and thus don't gain any of the abilities."

So uh, there go those abilities that have nothing to do with your character!


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways:
> 
> 1.  Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
> 2.  Paladin - umm, really?  A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept?
> ...




1. Fighter/rogue - Hardly a "suite of abilities", the only ability here that goes against your concept is sneak attack. Unless you will now expand your concept to not include dodging fireballs, surprise attacks, and traps. And, I still consider that a McFightsWell shouldn't be able to sneak attack a flimsy argument, as well as the idea of getting too many abilities.

5. You addressed Pathfinder with a smiley face. While cute, it's not a very good argument. I believe your implication was that it's not 3e. Well I'll argue that if 3.0 and 3.5 can both be a part of "3e" there is room for pathfinder as well.

You neglected to mention the swashbuckler option. It gets full base attack bonus, d10 hp, and the social skills you want. If you think it's too weak, take a few levels of fighter for the feats. Also, in 3e you can get along just fine as a melee fighter if you have 16 or so strength.

You missed my core pure fighter build upthread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...omogenity-d-d-4th-edition-19.html#post4928614. I forgive you since it was only vaguely described.

I'll also add that the crusader in tome of battle gets diplomacy as a class skill and can most definitely fight.



> This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the "unlimited options" that people claim.  Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want.
> 
> And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e.  That's not my point.  All that means is there are limitations in both systems.  I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e.  That's totally not my claim.  I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse?  heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.
> 
> You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.




Interesting of you to back down from your 4e stance, and I will definitely agree with you that 3e's skill system isn't perfect. But, I'll point out again that 3e's options come from its mutliclassing and feat systems, not from its skill system. I will forever believe that 3e is actually as diverse as I and many others in this thread believe it to be. I'll also note that I have never had a character concept, that I couldn't find a way to make work well enough for me. There are 4 core, and 4 more non-core options for your McFightsWell up there, and I suspect that if we provided that many more options again, you would dismiss them as not part of your concept which seems to be getting more and more exclusive with each post.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 14, 2009)

Well, for the knowitall Fighter, there was also a feat that gave you all Knowledge Skills as class skill, IIRC. There is no feat though that would give you all the skill points needed to be a real know it all, of course.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> .
> 
> Did I miss any?  I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up.  If I missed one, please link..




Customizing a character from the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 14, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Customizing a character from the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).




This is a good point if we're agreed that we're not comparing 3e to 4e anymore. I find the example given under the class header especially amusing.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse?  heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.
> 
> You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.



Telling me that 9 is too small a number does not make it as small as 3.

I don't see making a suave character who is also good at fighting be not quite as suave as the primarily suave character as a bad thing in the least.  Heck, that is part of the diversity.  Instead of all suave characters of the same level being virtually the same in the effectiveness of their social graces, you can trade things around.  The math might not "work" in a perfectly balanced conflict resolution sense.  But the SYSTEM works great in that this guy is the guy I want him to be, Sauvey McFightswell is not going to have the social chops of Sauvey McSauve.  And the freedom to make this somewhat suave character outside math approved window is both diversity in action and a boon to creating the character as I want him.

By all means, if "suave" is restricted to being the bets of the best, then 3E is simply not the game for you.  But if the diverse options of best of the best, very good, good, fair and really really bad, all have a place in your game, then 3E may still be in the running as a good choice.

But the idea that a character who ranks as an 8 in fighting and an 8 in suave somehow doesn't count as "diverse" just because they are other character who rank as a 10 in either one or the other is irrational.  You are pointing to the fact that they are NOT homogenous in power and somehow concluding this lack of homogeniety is evidence of homogeneity.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 14, 2009)

...there's also the fact that a +3 in Diplomacy from cross-class investing is still no small potatoes. And the fact that a 3e Paladin does the job right out the gate (admittedly, the endgame of the core paladin leaves something to be desired, but here's where 3e's multiclassing rules shine.  )


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Bard gives you abilities that have nothing to do with your character...?
> 
> You get Fascinate, Inspire Courage, Countersong, and Bardic Knowledge.
> 
> ...




I also get Spells and an alignment restriction.  I specifically said I don't want spells.  And suddenly, my honorable officer type is out the window as well.



Freakohollik said:


> 1. Fighter/rogue - Hardly a "suite of abilities", the only ability here that goes against your concept is sneak attack. Unless you will now expand your concept to not include dodging fireballs, surprise attacks, and traps. And, I still consider that a McFightsWell shouldn't be able to sneak attack a flimsy argument, as well as the idea of getting too many abilities.




I DO NOT WANT sneak attack.  How much more plainly can I say it?  I am getting abilities that I don't want.  It doesn't fit with my concept being able to take advantage of other people's disadvantages in combat.  



> 5. You addressed Pathfinder with a smiley face. While cute, it's not a very good argument. I believe your implication was that it's not 3e. Well I'll argue that if 3.0 and 3.5 can both be a part of "3e" there is room for pathfinder as well.




I'm not even going to touch this one.  If we're going to include Pathfinder under the umbrella of 3e, hell, why not every single d20 game as well?



> You neglected to mention the swashbuckler option. It gets full base attack bonus, d10 hp, and the social skills you want. If you think it's too weak, take a few levels of fighter for the feats. Also, in 3e you can get along just fine as a melee fighter if you have 16 or so strength.




And armor restrictions and, IIRC, alignment restrictions as well.  Again, so much for my Henry V character.



> You missed my core pure fighter build upthread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...omogenity-d-d-4th-edition-19.html#post4928614. I forgive you since it was only vaguely described.
> 
> I'll also add that the crusader in tome of battle gets diplomacy as a class skill and can most definitely fight.




Yup, missed that one.  That's not bad and that gets pretty darn close.  Granted, that's also because diplomacy doesn't scale by level, but, I'll certainly admit that's a pretty decent build right there.  Granted, it's the ONLY one.  But, it's a decent one.

Crusader too.  Except, now I'm a holy warrior again.  We aren't allowed to reflavor classes, remember, because we cannot treat ranger as sneaky guy in 4e.  I've got alignment restrictions, and some heavy duty flavor restrictions.

But, yup, I got Suave McFightswell.  Only took seven years after the release of 3e to get it, but, yup, I got it.



> Interesting of you to back down from your 4e stance, and I will definitely agree with you that 3e's skill system isn't perfect. But, I'll point out again that 3e's options come from its mutliclassing and feat systems, not from its skill system. I will forever believe that 3e is actually as diverse as I and many others in this thread believe it to be. I'll also note that I have never had a character concept, that I couldn't find a way to make work well enough for me. There are 4 core, and 4 more non-core options for your McFightsWell up there, and I suspect that if we provided that many more options again, you would dismiss them as not part of your concept which seems to be getting more and more exclusive with each post.




Sorry, your interpretation of my "stance" is your own.  I never, ever said that 4e was better than 3e.  I simply stated, and you can go back up thread where I stated this a few times, that 3e is not as broad as its being made out to be.

In 4e, I can make my concept, from 1st level, with 4 or 5 different classes without any problem.  In 3e, a very simple concept - an eductated officer for example - takes me numerous splat books.  Although, there is one option in core that works.  One.  

How does 1 option lead to "wider diversity" than 5 options?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

Ok, I think we're talking past each other.  Let me recap.  

What I want is a Henry V style character.  He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them.  So, with that in mind:

What I want

Full, or at least close to full attack bonus
Heavy armor
Full diplomacy ranks or at least close to full.

What I don't want

Spells
Magical abilities
Alignment restrictions
Abilities that a nobleman would not likely have.

Now, from what I've seen, my choices are: 
 the Cosmopolotin feat (non-core - Eberron Campaign Guide IIRC, so, 3.5),
 Greg K's don't play 3e, just make up your own rules option,
Burning a feat and going cross class (the only actual option out of core)

Again, I'm not talking about a unique snowflake here.  Commander Carrot from Pratchett fits this bill pretty well.  Any non-magical Knights of the Round Table sort also fits.  Whatsisface, Maximus from Gladiator fits this bill.  Heck, the guy from 300, I'm so bad with names, also works here.

It's a pretty common archetype, yet, for all the vaunted options of 3e, I've actually got surprisingly few choices for making what I want.  And, most of those choices aren't a very good fit either.

That's why I really question the idea that 3e actually contains as many options as people claim it does.  

Heck, look at the long line of "how do I run low magic D&D" threads there were during the 3e days.  Every month you'd see someone else take a stab at it for years.  But, it never really fit because 3e assumes a highly magical setting.  Almost every class, baring rogue and fighter, comes with magic powers.  

Again, if 3e had all these options that would cover all these different concepts, why is it that there were pretty much constant complaints that you couldn't cover some very basic concept with 3e?


----------



## Greg K (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Greg K's don't play 3e, just make up your own rules option





Don't play 3e?  I pointed you to something straight from the PHB, but whatever.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What I want is a Henry V style character.  He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them.  So, with that in mind:
> 
> What I want
> 
> ...




If you're looking at making a Henry V character, why would alignment restrictions matter if the alignments you're restricted to fit Henry V? In other words, if the restriction isn't an actual restriction or is a voluntarily used tactic, why complain about it?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What I want is a Henry V style character. He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them. So, with that in mind:
> 
> What I want
> 
> ...



So play a fighter/cleric with a 9 Wisdom.  Pick whatever alignment you want.  Yeah, you'll have the ability to turn (or rebuke) undead, but if you don't want the ability, _don't use it._  Opting not to use an ability you have is functionally identical to not having the ability at all.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I think we're talking past each other.  Let me recap.




Good idea.



> What I want is a Henry V style character.  He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them.  So, with that in mind:
> 
> What I want
> 
> ...




So you've got 3 options to do what you wanted. Whats the problem? They're not a very good fit? I think they all work quite well. The fighter option is the slightly worse, but core option. The Cosmopolitan feat seems to give you just what you're looking for.

You can nitpick at anything. If you want to mix up my core pure fighter build a build without violating your points, take a few levels in ranger, barbarian, monk, paladin, or some of the non-core fighting type classes. Just stop before you get magic or whatever abilities you don't want. You may be restricted from some of these by your alignment, but certainly not all of them. Prestige classes are also available, the only core one that might fight your concept is the dwarven defender, but there are way too many outside of core.

Also, Greg K's option is most definitely "3e". It's in the PHB, reasonable DMs will allow it, and it's exactly what you're asking for.



> Heck, look at the long line of "how do I run low magic D&D" threads there were during the 3e days.  Every month you'd see someone else take a stab at it for years.  But, it never really fit because 3e assumes a highly magical setting.  Almost every class, baring rogue and fighter, comes with magic powers.
> 
> Again, if 3e had all these options that would cover all these different concepts, why is it that there were pretty much constant complaints that you couldn't cover some very basic concept with 3e?




E6 is one option for low magic 3.5 d&d. But, I think this point is really not what we're talking about when we say 3.5 isn't homogeneous.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Don't play 3e?  I pointed you to something straight from the PHB, but whatever.




Sorry, but, "Make up your own rules" isn't really a rule to me.  If I could just "make up my own rules" then 4e is every single bit as wide open as 3e.



billd91 said:


> If you're looking at making a Henry V character, why would alignment restrictions matter if the alignments you're restricted to fit Henry V? In other words, if the restriction isn't an actual restriction or is a voluntarily used tactic, why complain about it?




Actually, I thought of this later and you're right.  Every example I gave would fit a lawful alignment.  Yeah, alignment restriction is probably out.  Could I change that to "must be allowed to be lawful"?



Vegepygmy said:


> So play a fighter/cleric with a 9 Wisdom.  Pick whatever alignment you want.  Yeah, you'll have the ability to turn (or rebuke) undead, but if you don't want the ability, _don't use it._  Opting not to use an ability you have is functionally identical to not having the ability at all.




Heh.  Now THAT'S a unique solution.  I like it.    Not quite what I want, since I do actually have the whole god botherer thing going on, but, y'know what, that's gotta score some serious points for originality.  Although, I still get domain abilities there too.  That I'd have to be careful of.  And it does tie me pretty tightly with a particular diety.  But, I do like it.



Freakohollik said:


> Good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> So you've got 3 options to do what you wanted. Whats the problem? They're not a very good fit? I think they all work quite well. The fighter option is the slightly worse, but core option. The Cosmopolitan feat seems to give you just what you're looking for.




Yup, I've got three options.  I had to wait years to get those, but, yup, I got three options.  Look, if the claim on the table is that 3e, after 8 years of publication, plus the OGL has more options than 4e after a year and a half, then sure, no problem.  I'll agree to that.  It bloody well should.  Several hundred books vs a couple of dozen, I would hope you have more options.

But, my point was, my options are largely illusionary.  I had to have access to those books in order to have those options.  A year and a half after 3e release, I had one option.   At best I have three (maybe 4).  That's hardly a massive number of choices here.  I mean, apparently having the same number of choices out of the box in 4e isn't good enough, so why is it good enough in 3e?



> You can nitpick at anything. If you want to mix up my core pure fighter build a build without violating your points, take a few levels in ranger, barbarian, monk, paladin, or some of the non-core fighting type classes. Just stop before you get magic or whatever abilities you don't want. You may be restricted from some of these by your alignment, but certainly not all of them. Prestige classes are also available, the only core one that might fight your concept is the dwarven defender, but there are way too many outside of core.




Really?  Too many?  So far, we've got 3.  4 if you count the gibbled cleric route.  



> E6 is one option for low magic 3.5 d&d. But, I think this point is really not what we're talking about when we say 3.5 isn't homogeneous.




Again, I brought up a simple archetype that is pretty common in the genre.  Henry V, Carrot, Maximus, the guy from 300.  I can point to genre characters that everyone who is a fan of the genre will know.  It's not like I'm saying "Shortbow wielding rogue".  Point me out that archetype in genre.  Let's see examples of that.

Noble/Officer type is hardly a unique snowflake.  This is a bog standard character.  And you guys can't make it in core.  End of story.  The closest you can get is a halfway build cross classing with burning skill bonus feats.  If I want to add any other out of combat ability to this character, that certainly isn't going to happen.

That's why I say the variety of build isn't actually all that varied in 3e.  Not as much as you guys are trying to make it out to be.  If the variety of build was so broad, I should be able to make this pretty simple concept with no problem at all, right in core.  And, with all the additional options, I should be able to fufill my list with any number of ways.  

Instead, after hundreds of books, thousands of pages of rules, I got 3.  Three options, only one of which ACTUALLY fufills my list.

To me, 3e's heterogeny is largely an illusion when the pen hits the paper.  For any given concept that mixes combat with non-combat, your choices are very, very limited because 3e uses non-combat to balance combat abilities.

If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices.  Totally agree.  I want to make an archer?  The list is as long as my arm.  I want to make an archer that knows stuff?  Wow, did my list just shrink.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I think we're talking past each other.  Let me recap.
> 
> What I want is a Henry V style character.  He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them.  So, with that in mind:
> 
> ...



Just popped in and saw that this thread still had some legs left in it and saw this.

How I would do it:

I think the perfect start for this character is the aristocrat NPC class followed by levels in fighter. As the guy would most likely have a good degree of intelligence (and human?) he should have about 7 skill points to assign for aristocrat classes and 5 skill points to assign for fighter levels. Blend in further levels of Aristocrat to suit. I thought in fact this was kind of obvious? Maybe it's just that I played a character almost exactly the same as your concept and it worked very well. 

In 4E, with a little DM license and the right game, I'm sure this could be done too.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

Ooo, now there's not a bad idea at all.  I totally blanked on the NPC classes. 

That would work nicely.  Thanks Herreman.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, "Make up your own rules" isn't really a rule to me.  If I could just "make up my own rules" then 4e is every single bit as wide open as 3e.
> 
> Yup, I've got three options.  I had to wait years to get those, but, yup, I got three options.  Look, if the claim on the table is that 3e, after 8 years of publication, plus the OGL has more options than 4e after a year and a half, then sure, no problem.  I'll agree to that.  It bloody well should.  Several hundred books vs a couple of dozen, I would hope you have more options.




If this isn't about 3e vs 4e, then stop talking about how 4e does what you want so much better than 3e. Stop using 4e in your posts to argue against our points. Otherwise, we'll go back to our arguments about all the things 4e doesn't let us do.

Now, on those 3 options you admit to having, 2 of those are core. And they're all guidelines for a build. Taking the cosmo feat allows you to have what you want with any class. That opens up many options. Core, the fighter can multiclass a bit with some of the other classes. That is more than 3 options.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, 3e's heterogeny is largely an illusion when the pen hits the paper.  For any given concept that mixes combat with non-combat, your choices are very, very limited because 3e uses non-combat to balance combat abilities.
> 
> If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices.  Totally agree.  I want to make an archer?  The list is as long as my arm.  I want to make an archer that knows stuff?  Wow, did my list just shrink.



I disagree. I have not found a character concept (and in my group I'm known as the guy who always plays "different" types of characters) that I could not do in 3E. On top of that, the system encouraged players to come up with new classes/prestige classes to fill any perceived gaps if you really wanted to do something outside the square. Now 4E could do the same but creating classes is a little tougher and most of the stuff is combat/(in initiative) focused and the encouragement to come up with such classes is luke warm at best.

As for the balancing thing you mention, I think this is certainly something that 3E initially struggled with. Multiclassed spellcasters always struggled to keep up and so core classes were written in to try and fix this. However, by the end of it's run, I think just about every conceivable character archetype had been covered in 3E - the scout for example in answer to your archer with skills. Or Ranger with a level of expert if you really wanted to overload on the concept.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 15, 2009)

You know, this discussion is going nowhere. Hussar is claiming that in 3e your out of combat abilities are somewhat tied to your abilities and that is limiting. I'm arguing that it's not as as limiting as he says it is, but I do believe it's still there.

Can we change the discussion back to removing homogenity from 4e?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2009)

> Can we change the discussion back to removing homogenity from 4e?



That would be neat, eh? 

How "heterogenous" does the game have to be? Do we really need the distinction between "at-will" users like 3E Fighters (or Warlocks) and "daily power users" like 3E Wizards? The distinction between spell slots and power points? Is that the degree of distinction that is required? 

So, here is one idea. Recharge rates for powers are either at-will or by #of encounters.

If you don't like every character to have at-will powers that go beyond the 4E equivalent of basic attacks, you can do that - but please be so nice to give them a fair chance to have these basic attacks still effective. So a Wizard might be allowed to use his Int bonus when wielding a Staff in melee instead of Strength.

So, here are the concepts: 
The unit of time is no longer a unit of time. We do count encounters to determine when we regain powers. An Extended Rest (6 hours, once per day) counts as a single encounter for the purposes of healing, but resets all action points.

- Characters have healing surge numbers based on their class and are generally expected to start each adventure or similar "narrative unit" with their full complement. 
- Characters start play with one action points.
- Everyone regains one healing surge per encounter as a baseline. At 11th and 21st level, this increases by another healing surge.
- Everyone gains one action point per encounter as baseline. At 11th and 21st level, this increases by another action point.
- You can still use only one action point per encounter to gain an extra action. At 15th level, this increases to up to two action points per encounter.

- Characters with the martial power source gain more action points and healing surges than other classes. The baseline is that at 1st, 3rd, 7th and 13th level they either gain one additional action point or one additional healing surge after each encounter. The ratio depends on the class or role. (Defenders tend to get more healing surges, Strikers more action points.)
- Characters with the martial power source have "encounter" powers. Each power can be used only once per encounter, and activating them costs you a healing surge or an action point. This expenditure represents the physical exertion (healing surge) required for powers as well as the difficulty of seizing the right moment (action point).
- Powers for characters of the martial power source are about twice as strong as their at-will powers or basic attacks at 1st level and slowly increasing.

- Characters of the arcane power source have spells. They can gather up to 4 spell points. They gain one spell point depending on their level: 
1-4: 1 spell point per 3 encounters
5-8: 2 spell points per 3 encounters
9-19: 3 spell points per 3 encounters
20+: 4 spell points per 3 encounters
At the start of each adventure (or similar narrative unit), spellcasters are assumed to have all spells prepared. 

- Characters of the arcane power source can spend one spell point to prepare a spell, but restricted in such a way he cannot store simply spells of all his highest level spells, but going down. Once per combat, they can spend 1 action point and 1 healing surge to regain a spell already cast this encounter. At 15th level, they can do this a second time per encounter, but it must be for a different spell. 
- Powers of the arcane source are about 6 times as strong as at-will powers at 1st level, and slowly increasing their power. 


This system still allows some minor benefits of resting, but to recover fully you will take very long. It might be advisable to provide (costly) rituals to speed this up. (Maybe the cost of half a magic item of the parties level, usable once per day.)

To give a rough impression on power difference:
Basic Attack: Ability vs defense; 1 [W] or 1d8 + ability modifier damage.
Martial Attack: Ability vs defense; 2 [W] + ability modifier modifier damage and the target is immobilized.
Arcana Attack: Area Burst 2; Ability vs defense; 2d8 + ability modifier damage and the target takes ongoing damage 5 (save ends).
Arcana Attack: Ability vs Defense; 4d8 + ability modifier and the target is stunned until the end of its next turn.

Unfortunately, the system doesn't really deal with utility powers yet.

The idea is that arcane powers recharge considerably slower but also pack a lot more punch. I am not sure if that is already heterogeneous enough, and off course - why are encounters such an import unit in this game world? 

But ideally, things should still be relatively "balanced" assuming that people don't just rest for a few days between every encounter.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 15, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> Can we change the discussion back to removing homogenity from 4e?




I read it as "Removing all homosexuality from 4e". Which I thought would make for an interesting read.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 15, 2009)

Mustrum Ridcully, I think thats a pretty cool idea. I like how the resource management is primarily in battle for martial characters, and primarily out of battle for arcane characters. I don't know how much the players of martial characters are going to like choosing between a martial power and a healing surge / action point, but I like it. To my ears it sounds more interesting than the at will/encounter/daily system that every class has right now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> Mustrum Ridcully, I think thats a pretty cool idea. I like how the resource management is primarily in battle for martial characters, and primarily out of battle for arcane characters. I don't know how much the players of martial characters are going to like choosing between a martial power and a healing surge / action point, but I like it. To my ears it sounds more interesting than the at will/encounter/daily system that every class has right now.



Then my work here is done and others can pick up the torch. Right?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If I could just "make up my own rules" then 4e is every single bit as wide open as 3e.



No it isn't.  It is easy to say and sounds nice and obvious on the surface.  But it is completely false and goes right to the core of the problem.

In 4E, the math works and you shall not change the math.  Make up anything you want for 4E, but you are required to bring the homogeneity along with it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> No it isn't.  It is easy to say and sounds nice and obvious on the surface.  But it is completely false and goes right to the core of the problem.
> 
> In 4E, the math works and you shall not change the math.  Make up anything you want for 4E, but you are required to bring the homogeneity along with it.



You can still change how you arrive at the math, as long as you keep the "baselines" intact. 

4E Psionics are an example of that. Encounter Powers are essentially replaced by Power Points. 

The approach I posted above does something similar - though it is creating a "new math" (not 4E) math, but a math that can be just as good designed and calibrated as 4E design. 

Aside from that - if you don't like the homogenity that is required* for the math to work, you apparantly don't value the math itself either. So there shouldn't be a problem for you, personally, to "violate" the math with all kinds of house rules and variations in either your game, a GSL product or 5E. (And I am not sure what else can we talk about if we are talking about "Removing Homogenity". Of course the core system and the books as we have them stay as they are without doing the aforementioned.)

*) If it is really required and not just a more convenient way to achieve it...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices.  Totally agree.  I want to make an archer?  The list is as long as my arm.  I want to make an archer that knows stuff?  Wow, did my list just shrink.



If it doesn't work for you then you should play a different game, just as I don't play 4E.

Because "archer" is going to include under it all archers that know stuff, the archer list will be longer for me as well.  But I find the literally thousands of valid options under "archer who knows" stuff to be more than adequate.  And I find it bizarre that anyone else would think that list is too short.  

I'm not saying that you have to like 3E.  I'm saying that claiming the options for archer that knows stuff options are unreasonably limited in 3E is like me claiming 4E is bad because you can not make a guy who is good at fighting with daggers.  

There are lots of valid options.  The vast array of splatbooks and 3PP stuff put tons of options at your fingertips, but for me personally, if someone had come to me the day I got my 3E PH and said they wanted a diplomatic fighter or an archer who knows stuff, I would have easily been able to make it happen.  

And yes, I might have "made up" a knowledge class skill feat.  If you have a problem with that then I see the issue as being in you, not in the game.  Which is fine, of course, the game needs to cater to you, not the other way around.  But the game not fitting your needs does not make it bad.  

4E does not fit my needs because it is too homogeneous (among other things).  That doesn't make it implicitly bad.  It just makes it a very poor choice for me.  And obviously this also applies to quite a large group of other people as well.

I can give you ways to solve your 3E problem.
I have not see any ways to remove the problems that come with "the math works" in 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You can still change how you arrive at the math, as long as you keep the "baselines" intact.
> 
> 4E Psionics are an example of that. Encounter Powers are essentially replaced by Power Points.



That is not the issue I have spoke of.

I do consider the changes being made in recent developments to be steps in the right direction.  To be clear, they are too little and too late.  But they most certainly address the spirit of some of my problems.

I don't think anything can fix the problems inherent to the system adequately to make 4E stop being an inferior choice for my preference.  

But this doesn't even begin to address the problem for me.

The bottom line remains that no matter what path you take, thou shalt arrive at the same math and thou shalt keep the baselines intact.  I prefer games without this kind of restriction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> That is not the issue I have spoke of.
> 
> I do consider the changes being made in recent developments to be steps in the right direction.  To be clear, they are too little and too late.  But they most certainly address the spirit of some of my problems.
> 
> ...



I could try to ask why, but I guess that's like asking why you like your favorite brand of ice cream. Even if you can make me understand you, it won't change my favorite brand of ice cream.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

See, it's stuff like this that makes me not buy into the criticism.  Freakaholic, I agree, we're probably closer to agreeing than disagreeing, just coming from a glass half empty/half full sort of thing.   But, then you get this sort of hyperbole:



BryonD said:


> Because "archer" is going to include under it all archers that know stuff, the archer list will be longer for me as well. But I find the literally thousands of valid options under "archer who knows" stuff to be more than adequate. And I find it bizarre that anyone else would think that list is too short.




Thousands of options?  Really thousands?  Sorry, no.  We just proved that the list is about three, maybe four options.  

This is why I don't buy into this discussion all that much.  Saying that there are "thousands of options" is flat out wrong.  We've just SHOWN it was wrong.  But, BryonD feels free in completely ignoring the last three pages because it doesn't fit with his argument.

I had this exact same go around in 3e.  Anything that did not fit into someone's pre-defined conceptions was ignored and any criticism must be taken as gospel.  I didn't buy into it then and I certainly won't buy into it now.

Now, if you wanted to say, "I want more options in 4e, how can we do that?" I'm 100% right behind you.  NO problems whatsoever.  That's a laudable goal and a very valid critique.

But, "3e has thousands of options for every single concept and 4e doesn't" is, IMO, complete and utter hyperbole.


----------



## rjdafoe (Sep 15, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...". Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...
> 
> Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype





I see what you have done here - you have picked a weapon that can't be used with powers or sneak attack and then have complained your not competent with it. 

You certainly can make a rogue who uses a shortbow, you just will not be as effective as one who uses a crossbow.

This was a FEATURE that lots of preople claim that they could do with 3E, and now it is a flaw in 4E.

It all comes down to how youo look at something. If you are looking to break the system, or looking for things that you think are broken/bad/don't agree with, then you WILL find that in any system.

The great thing about roleplaying games is that it is not a computer game. All of them have the same thing in common - the DM. A good DM may allow your shortbow to be used with powers and sneak attacks. Jsut as good 3E DMs allowed stuff or changed stuff in 3E.

Maybe your a RAW type person? Then, well I guess you have decided to make a non-optimum character. That does not mean that he can't do damage, use a shortbow, or be incompetent with his weapon, it just means you are not optimal.

or

You pick the Ranger class - Archer Build, multiclass in Rogue with the Sneak of Shadows feat (gives you thievery). You can bump up Thievery in a number of ways. Use Hutters Quarry on the target that you are attacking and away you go.  You can mulitclass further as well.  If you choose 1/2 Elf you can choose a power from the Rogue class and use it as an encounter power.  You can take Rogue Paragon Paths as well.  It requires more planning to get the flavor and skills that you want, but it can certainly be done.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 15, 2009)

This is on page 1


BryonD said:


> AngryMojo said:
> 
> 
> > In what way to you see 4e's mechanics as being homogeneous, and how is this a bad thing?
> ...




This on page 26



BryonD said:


> The bottom line remains that no matter what path you take, thou shalt arrive at the same math and thou shalt keep the baselines intact. I prefer games without this kind of restriction.



I'm glad you decided to start describing what you feel is homogenous about 4e in this thread. While you had been through it a 100 times in the past two years, I had not. I've just recently started reading these boards regularly, (because now I'm DMing a game) so I was unaware of your position and how it differed from Rem's. I was wondering how, and if, they differ.



> No it isn't. It is easy to say and sounds nice and obvious on the surface. But it is completely false and goes right to the core of the problem.
> 
> In 4E, the math works and you shall not change the math. Make up anything you want for 4E, but you are required to bring the homogeneity along with it.



I hesitate to ask this because I've afraid the response will be that that you've answered this a million times and that I either see it or I don't and that's ok because I'm me and you're you, but how am I _required_ to bring the homogeneity with me when I make a change?

That said, I think that you're reply is somewhat out of sync with statement you quoted. You may be right that 4e's math pervades any house rules, but Hussar was specifically addressing the side argument of PC builds. If a Player just wants is a rogue who can wield a short bow with the same competence she wields a hand crossbow, I, as the DM, can simply house rule that the short bow is useable with all her ranged rogue powers and leave it at that. By contrast, if another Player playing 3e wants to play a straight fighter with max ranks in diplomacy and bluff as a class skill, I as the DM, can simply say to him "that is fine, you can take diplomacy and bluff as class skills."

Such rulings by DMs are possible in every RPG I've ever played, whatever the underlying mechanics are.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> See, it's stuff like this that makes me not buy into the criticism.  Freakaholic, I agree, we're probably closer to agreeing than disagreeing, just coming from a glass half empty/half full sort of thing.   But, then you get this sort of hyperbole:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hussar, why do I reply to you.  Over and over you put BS quotes in my mouth.  

You said "archer who knows stuff" and then try to falsely represent the past three pages as proving something about that.
I could easily produce a thousand of archers who know stuff just by varying the knowledge skills I choose, fighter and ranger builds, and alternatives for how to improve access to skills.

I also never said you can not build alternative versions of a concept in 4E.  That is just routine Hussar BS putting words in other people's mouths.
I've said that whatever variety you make, the math works will still be bolted on and I find that homogeneity unappealing.

But a the past three pages could show that some round things are red because some apples are red, and I could say that I don't like red baseballs.  A typical Hussar reponse would be that Bryon claims you can't have red things in sports.  

Everything you said was wrong.  STOP putting words in my mouth.  I'd say just stop putting FALSE words in my mouth, but as you clearly can not tell the difference, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to you own words rather than butchering mine.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> This is on page 1
> 
> 
> This on page 26



Yeah, yeah....
I did drop out for a while.  And this thread has been going for quite some time and I've dropped in and out of it over time.



> I hesitate to ask this because I've afraid the response will be that that you've answered this a million times and that I either see it or I don't and that's ok because I'm me and you're you, but how am I _required_ to bring the homogeneity with me when I make a change?



I put a fairly long post fairly far back in the thread.  I got several XP notifications for it and that may be the best place to look.

I certainly suppose you could make a new class with its own BAB, skill progression, defense progression, etc...  But you'd be so out of touch with the rest of the game that playing something else would make more sense.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 15, 2009)

Well, I did a manual page by page search for your long thread. I don't think I found it, but I did find a few references to math that I missed:


BryonD said:


> But you are still telling a story, ever bit as varied as mine, that is mechanically resolved by a system that puts "the math works" as the golden rule of design.






BryonD said:


> Though 4E paladins still always get better at climbing and sneaking no matter what and all their attacks and defenses are always within the same math approved window no matter what the character concept.  And so on...




I still hadn't found it when I came across this post on page 17:



BryonD said:


> I don't know if you saw my long post upthread or not.  But I explained why, to me, the wide-range of skills is a wonderful thing and forced consistency is a detraction.  It is cool that we are completely opposite on preference, but my position is explained if you want to see it.



Perhaps you posted it on the other homogenous thread?


----------



## Voadam (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I think we're talking past each other.  Let me recap.
> 
> What I want is a Henry V style character.  He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them.  So, with that in mind:
> 
> ...




You think you need mechanical max diplomacy to play those guys? Not just roleplaying a speachy leader? Charisma alone is insufficient mechanically cover the concept with a stat? I think Roy from OotS fits this archetype as well and does fine without apparently maxing his diplomacy.

Fighter with maxed core class intimidate might work for some of these badass warrior leader concepts. However if you mechanically want to nonmagically change NPC's attitudes in 3e then it is indeed the diplomacy skill you want.

So you have your 3 presented options

1 RAW fighter with feats and maxing cross-class
2 Cosmopolitan feat from a splat
3 Tweaking classes as suggested in the rules

Core you could also go with the npc aristocrat class who gets the armor and weapons, 3/4 BAB and class diplomacy skill. This could be taken straight or multiclassed with fighter for the concept. This has the drawback of being a little weaker combat balance wise as an NPC class.

You also have the rogue for nonmagical multiclassing, which will work with some of those concepts (300 group fighting and surprise devastating attacks seem to fit sneak attack). This has some class features you might not want (trapfinding, etc.)

You also didn't have to wait until 3.5 for cosmopolitan though, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting came out pretty early in 3.0 and has the feat in there. As well as education which makes all knowledge skills a class skill.

And then there is the PHII knight, who I expect has diplomacy, though I don't have it in front of me to check.

Unearthed Arcana presented a variant rogue who got fighter bonus feats instead of sneak attack if you feel the SA is objectionable.

As noted you have the Complete Warrior swashbuckler which gives 1/1 BAB, no spells, class skill diplomacy, but they do go for a light armor concept.

I forget if the samurai has diplomacy, though he has the japanese flavor and two weapon fighting style.

I've only seen marshalls second hand so I don't know if their inspiring aura powers are clearly supernatural as written or 4e warlord style inspiring with flexible fluff.

However I do agree that the class RAW skill/cross class skill and few skill points set up of 3e is an obstacle to branching out of the D&D archetypes. 

In archetype 3e every core class except fighter, barbarian, and wizard can max out diplomacy. If you want to be a nonmagical big weapon heavy armor warrior with good mechanical diplomacy you have to put in effort to work the system.

I much prefer making all skills class skills or going with the pathfinder skill system where cross class is not crippling in point expenditure.

* I see I was scooped on the aristocrat idea. Ce la vie.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I certainly suppose you could make a new class with its own BAB, skill progression, defense progression, etc...  But you'd be so out of touch with the rest of the game that playing something else would make more sense.



Oh ye of so little faith!

You don't have to go to the trouble of creating all new classes to get mathematical diversity, you just have to adjust the underlying rules (and one or two minor changes to existing classes).

A few simple house rules for mathimatical diversity:

House rule #1 only add half your level to skill on your skill list, whether you are trained or not.
House rule #2 only classes with the martial power sourse can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
House rule #3 Barbarians can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
House rule #4 you may only add half your class level to defences your class gives you a bonus to.
House rule #5 you may add 1/4 of your class level to all other defences.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2009)

fanboy2000, this is the post.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, 3e's heterogeny is largely an illusion when the pen hits the paper.  For any given concept that mixes combat with non-combat, your choices are very, very limited because 3e uses non-combat to balance combat abilities.
> 
> If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices.  Totally agree.  I want to make an archer?  The list is as long as my arm.  I want to make an archer that knows stuff?  Wow, did my list just shrink.




I don't think that is accurate. 3e tries very hard to make everyone balanced in combat. Non combat is not balanced against combat. Non combat is dictated by D&Dism archetypes.

Rogues are the skill guys with emphasis on sneaky and tricksy.
Fighters ride horses and look scary.
Wizards are knowledgeable.
Clerics know their religion and heal.

You can go against these archetypes but the archetypes also say how good you are at doing so.

Rogues and druids are better with their 8 and 4 skill points a level at cross archetype skill specializing than fighters with their 2 points. Few would argue that the fighter's lack of skill points is designed to balance them against the druid class' weaker combat abilities. No, druids just have a broader field of things their D&D archetype is known for.

Even non combat restrictions like alignment and multiclassing restrictions are there for D&D archetype flavor instead of as mechanical balancing factors.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 15, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> House rule #1 only add half your level to skill on your skill list, whether you are trained or not.
> House rule #2 only classes with the martial power sourse can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
> House rule #3 Barbarians can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
> House rule #4 you may only add half your class level to defences your class gives you a bonus to.
> House rule #5 you may add 1/4 of your class level to all other defences.



Um, you do know that those rules are useless without a new DC table that doesn't scale by level, right? You need something like this:

House rule #6, static DCs
Each task is assigned a tier regardless of the PC’s level: mundane, heroic, paragon, or epic.
Mundane checks: DC 15
Heroic checks: DC 20
Paragon checks: DC 30
Epic checks: DC 45



LostSoul said:


> fanboy2000, this is the post.



Thank you. I wasn't looking forward to going through the other thread page by page.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 15, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> fanboy2000, this is the post.



thanks


----------



## billd91 (Sep 15, 2009)

Voadam said:


> I don't think that is accurate. 3e tries very hard to make everyone balanced in combat. Non combat is not balanced against combat. Non combat is dictated by D&Dism archetypes.




I don't think that captures the process of balancing character classes in 3e either, nor the idea of balancing combat vs non-combat.

I think the 3e designers looked at each class as a whole when determining balance and made sure that a variety of classes would do well in certain types of situations. They made classes likely to excel at close combat situations, skirmish combat situations, stealth situations, wilderness exploration situations, negotiation situations, knowledge situations, a variety of magical situations, and so on. Then they left it to the individual DM, who knows his players best, to provide enough of each situation to enable the players to have a good time.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 15, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I don't think that captures the process of balancing character classes in 3e either, nor the idea of balancing combat vs non-combat.
> 
> I think the 3e designers looked at each class as a whole when determining balance and made sure that a variety of classes would do well in certain types of situations. They made classes likely to excel at close combat situations, skirmish combat situations, stealth situations, wilderness exploration situations, negotiation situations, knowledge situations, a variety of magical situations, and so on. Then they left it to the individual DM, who knows his players best, to provide enough of each situation to enable the players to have a good time.




I think they were pretty explicit in stating their design goal of having every class balance for combat. 

They turned the thief from the AD&D cool tricksy but combat weak skills guy into the heavy hitter damage dealer with low ac and hp but slippery defensive abilities. He's not just a shady skills guy but has a powerful combat role.

Even the bard is supposed to be a party combat support guy who helps out with his bardic music, quirky trickster spells, and backup weapons use. He's a combat buffer and combat trickster, not just a social skills out of combat face man.

How well they met this design goal is debatable but all the core classes are designed to function as combat classes.

I believe having classes turn out to be generally weaker in actual combats (take monks) was a failure to meet their design goal, not evidence the classes were designed primarily to fill noncombat roles.

I think making sure a variety of classes handled different noncombat situations well (knowledge, social, scouting, wilderness, etc.) was a definite design goal but was a separate consideration. I also think making sure multiple classes handled the same combat roles (tank, healer, buffs, artillery) was deliberate. .

I don't think paladins got more skill choices than fighters as a balancing factor that was considered when designing the the class' combat power, I think it was archetype based on paladins as charismatic holy heroes versus grunt soldierly archetyped fighters. I don't think there was any class designed to balance a strength in a non-combat situation by sacrificing class combat ability.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 16, 2009)

Y'know, it strikes me that in 3e, the rules for fairly in-depth class customization were right there in the core rulebook (the DMG's "Witch" variant). 



> What I want
> 
> Full, or at least close to full attack bonus
> Heavy armor
> ...




Ah. So what you want is a fighter who has access to the Diplomacy skill as a class skill.

That certainly sounds less in-depth than the Witch variant, and the permission and guidelines to do it is _right there in the Core Rulebook_. 

4e's classes are a bit more complex, since they require a whole pamphlet of powers to come along for the ride. I could still change the fighter skill list (though I don't remember the DMG I discussing that, I'd be a little surprised if that wasn't mentioned), I suppose, but which skills you have matter less in 4e than which powers you have. 

Alternately, I'd be fine with a noble learning how to cast some basic peer-manipulation spells, because spells in 3e are an in-world quality (like rituals in 4e, but not like powers), and he certainly knows they're out there.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2009)

Let's see if I can do this without causing BryonD to blow a gasket.  

In my view, 3e does something extremely well - it allows you to build a character which fits a single concept, either a combat concept or a non-combat concept with an absolutely bucket full of choices.  If you want to build a character that is amazingly good at something, 3e will let you do it.

However, that comes at a price.  3e, again in my opinion, balances effectiveness in one area with effectiveness in a non-related area.  A combat effective option is often balanced by being less effective, or even completely ineffective (such at being untrained in a skill) in a non-combat element.  Thus fighters get there measly 2 skill points per level.

I would point out that I'm hardly the first one to complain of this.  There's a reason Pathfinder has chosen to change how skills are allocated to classes after all.  

Now, BryonD is absolutely correct about 4e.  In 4e you can't make a character that is head and shoulders better than another character at something.  The math won't let you.  A character's capabilities are hard wired into his level and you don't have a whole lot of wiggle room between the floor and ceiling of that limit.  Thus, you cannot be a really good archer or, conversely, a really bad one either.  Everyone is balanced.  Thus that's the heart of BryonD's criticism of homogeny (I think.  I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth again, which I'm sure he'll yet again accuse me of.)

However, there is a side effect of this balance.  Because the mechanics do not balance like with unlike, you can spread your concept a bit wider.  You can be character that is good at combat and non-combat and have a pretty wide number of choices.  Or rather, a better way of putting it is, your choices are not drastically reduced if your concept strays from the baseline assumptions of the game.

In my mind, they've simply traded depth for width.  Yes, you cannot laser focus in 4e.  That's true.  Which means that certain concepts are going to be much better created in 3e.  Really tight concepts focused around a single (or at least narrow) idea work much better in 3e.  IMO, (and I hope that people just take this as my opinion and don't need to blow a pipe here) 4e works better with concepts that are a bit broader in approach, with concepts that mix unlike elements.

That's primarily why I'm not really buying the whole "4e is too homogenous" thing.  I think they both have a great deal of ... errr... diversity, but it it is simply expressed differently.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 16, 2009)

Hussar can you identify a noncombat concept in 3e that requires being balanced by knocking down combat effectiveness? It might not be a style of comat effectiveness you like style wise (your social skill rogue or spell casting classes for your speachmaker example) but you usually get something that is still combat ready (big exceptions being many variations of multiclassing casters).

I agree that in 3e RAW some classes suck at skills in general (fighters stand out) and that going against specific class archetypes for skills is tough and disparately so depending on the class and concept.

I don't think they used this as part of their design balance though. I don't think fighters were given fewer skills and skill points than barbarians because the designers felt fighters were better at combat. 

In 3e I believe classes are designed to be balanced in combat. Out of combat though I believe classes are designed to fit into their archetypes and that non combat is not designed to be as balanced as combat is but more to fit D&Dism archetypes.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 16, 2009)

Voadam said:


> In 3e I believe classes are designed to be balanced in combat. Out of combat though I believe classes are designed to fit into their archetypes and that non combat is not designed to be as balanced as combat is but more to fit D&Dism archetypes.




This is what I believe... sort of.

I think the design of 3e was beset by a whole lot of legacy issues which caused the entire thing to start falling apart at high levels and caused one or two problems at lower levels. (You can see a lot of these being modified in 3.5e). 

Then too, there are realism issues such as the rogue's sneak attack. If the Rogue gets to use his sneak attack, he's one of the most effective characters in combat - possible _the_ most effective character at high levels. Three attacks with +7d6 on the damage code? That's good.

Unfortunately for the rogue, there are a number of popular monster types he can't sneak attack. They all make a lot of sense. However, when every monster in an adventure is of those types - and I saw that a lot in the Age of Worms AP - the rogue suddenly wanders into uselessness. (Late 3.5e sees a lot of scrambling methods of lifting those restrictions!)

The Fighter, on the other hand, starts off really great and gets weaker and weaker as the levels go up; unless you use the Player's Handbook 2 feats, at which point he roars back into contention. (That book made a *huge* difference to my AoW campaign; the Fighter could easily deal 200+ damage a round).

Non-combat is certainly not balanced!

The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue all have their abilities out-of-combat. The Rogue has a lot of skills; the Wizard likewise (virtue of intelligence as their prime requisite), and the Wizard and Cleric have their spells. Then you have the Fighter... with a measly two skill points, _if he's lucky_. More than one 8-Int Fighter doesn't even have that!

If there's one mistake the 3e (and 2e) designers made, it was adding a "diplomacy" (etiquette) skill and leaving it off the Fighter's list. The great literary tradition as fighters-as-leader is greatly hurt by that. (And Hussar, rightfully, gets quite upset that it's rather difficult to use the rules to fix that).

Note that in AD&D, _Charisma_ is the sole determinant of talky-ability. (And actual roleplaying). As it also has the rather nifty ability of giving you henchmen, it's a really good stat for fighters in that edition!

Cheers!


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 16, 2009)

I'll agree with Hussar (and Merric) that Skill Training was a great feat to put in the game; it should've been right there in core 3e. 

But I don't view it as the end-all, be-all to the homogeneity debate. Oddly, in 4e its a bit of a wasted feat, IMHO. First of all, AFAIKT there is no skills anymore (sans arcana) that can't be used untrained. Even thievery used to disarm traps can be done untrained. Second, all skills rise at the same 1/2 level rate, no matter if they are trained or not. So all "Skill Training" does is grant a +5 bonus to the roll. Essentially, its a better version of Skill Focus (+3) and the two stack. 

So I agree 3e needed something like this in its core (and thankfully, Pathfinder plugs that hole for me). Still, when the difference in +5 only (and typically, that's all the difference) and the DCs are so ridiculously low to begin with (seriously, DC 5? unless you have a -1 or lower, why bother rolling?) it almost seems like a waste, especially when your already being feat-taxed for expertise, paragon defenses, etc.


----------



## rjdafoe (Sep 16, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, BryonD is absolutely correct about 4e. In 4e you can't make a character that is head and shoulders better than another character at something. The math won't let you. A character's capabilities are hard wired into his level and you don't have a whole lot of wiggle room between the floor and ceiling of that limit. Thus, you cannot be a really good archer or, conversely, a really bad one either. Everyone is balanced. Thus that's the heart of BryonD's criticism of homogeny (I think. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth again, which I'm sure he'll yet again accuse me of.)




Unless you change your way of thinking.  

I look at is a different way:

Let's face it, 4E has different assumptions.  An expert at thievery maybe only +5 or +8 levels better than someone who is just good enough.  If you look at it another way, the numbers aren't all that bad.  It is just less of a window.  Someone with +10 to use a bow is an expert compared to someone that is +6.  And it goes up like that as well.  

You don't have to be +20 in something to be considered and expert. 

BTW, I play tons of RPG games.  While I may make fun of some, it is not the RPG game system, it is the group of players, and the world that keeps me coming back.  I can never seem myself not palying a game, based upon what rules the game uses.  

And yes, I have a hard time understanding people that say the rules get in the way, but that is just the way I am.  I guess I am different than alot of people in that way.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 16, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I'll agree with Hussar (and Merric) that Skill Training was a great feat to put in the game; it should've been right there in core 3e.
> 
> But I don't view it as the end-all, be-all to the homogeneity debate. Oddly, in 4e its a bit of a wasted feat, IMHO. First of all, AFAIKT there is no skills anymore (sans arcana) that can't be used untrained. Even thievery used to disarm traps can be done untrained. Second, all skills rise at the same 1/2 level rate, no matter if they are trained or not. So all "Skill Training" does is grant a +5 bonus to the roll. Essentially, its a better version of Skill Focus (+3) and the two stack.
> 
> So I agree 3e needed something like this in its core (and thankfully, Pathfinder plugs that hole for me). Still, when the difference in +5 only (and typically, that's all the difference) and the DCs are so ridiculously low to begin with (seriously, DC 5? unless you have a -1 or lower, why bother rolling?) it almost seems like a waste, especially when your already being feat-taxed for expertise, paragon defenses, etc.




IME, the multiclass feats (which are Skill Training+) are very popular, with Skill Training being used for character concepts that can't otherwise be realised.

+5 isn't insignificant in 4e. At low levels, yes, DCs are typically easy for all types of check. (A 5 DC indicates a task that even someone untrained should be able to succeed). It's very interesting to look at the DCs required by skill challenges - the basic "skill" checks are higher.

"Easy" is: without any bonus whatsoever, you need a 5 or better to succeed. If you have bonuses, you should make it.

"Moderate" is like this: "If you're trained in this skill, you'll need about a 5 to succeed. If you're not trained, you'll need a 10".

"Hard" works like this: "You need to be trained and focused to succeed on a 5. Not focused? 10. Not trained? 15."

All of those checks are made easier by high ability scores. For prime stats, you probably don't need to focus in them; but focusing is great when it's not in a stat you're increasing.

Personally, I think "Easy" is a waste of space.

The skill system in 4e is bizarre, though. Skill challenges and one-off skill checks need different target numbers, but the developers have implied that but have muddied the issue terribly with their errata without fixing it.

Huh: Mike Mearls has posted an article on the Maths Behind the DCs - DDi subscribers only. In it, he discusses the problems with the DCs, and that it's ok to increase them and how it works. Still a lot light on detail, though. 

(DC 5 is much more of a problem in a skill challenge if you _have_ to roll and you need to roll 6 times).

Cheers!


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 17, 2009)

MerricB said:


> The skill system in 4e is bizarre, though. Skill challenges and one-off skill checks need different target numbers, but the developers have implied that but have muddied the issue terribly with their errata without fixing it.
> 
> Huh: Mike Mearls has posted an article on the Maths Behind the DCs - DDi subscribers only. In it, he discusses the problems with the DCs, and that it's ok to increase them and how it works. Still a lot light on detail, though.




I still think the revised DC were the greatest misstep the designers made in 4e. Most of the "easy" DCs are a joke, and even the "hard" DCs rarely are difficult. While the originals were hard (and perhaps a bit too hard) I never saw a failure on a skill challenge (except when I started making all things hard and added my own ULTRAHARD which was worth 2 successes). Sadly, the Page 42 DCs follow the same pattern.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 17, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> You don't have to be +20 in something to be considered and expert.



For myself, I never claimed that being considered an expert has anything to do with it.  It is about the lack of difference whether your expert is at +4, +9, or +20.



> BTW, I play tons of RPG games.  While I may make fun of some, it is not the RPG game system, it is the group of players, and the world that keeps me coming back.  I can never seem myself not palying a game, based upon what rules the game uses.



I'll play any game with a good group.  But I'd rather play a great game with a great group than a fair game with a great group.



> And yes, I have a hard time understanding people that say the rules get in the way, but that is just the way I am.  I guess I am different than alot of people in that way.



The rules don't get in the way.  But they are not all created equal either.  Why not play the best one for your own preference?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Let's see if I can do this without causing BryonD to blow a gasket.



I do quite well with my own reputation without you misleading people regarding what I say.  You've done it several times and I will clearly call it out whenever you do it.



> Thus that's the heart of BryonD's criticism of homogeny (I think.  I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth again, which I'm sure he'll yet again accuse me of.)



  When did I say anything about homogeny?  Does genetics play in to this?



> That's primarily why I'm not really buying the whole "4e is too homogenous" thing.  I think they both have a great deal of ... errr... diversity, but it it is simply expressed differently.



I don't see how you have made that case at all.  Yes, I'll agree that 4E does a better job of creating characters who are masters of everything.  But that is not a diversity of width, it is a homogeneity of width.  

You may LOVE that, and that's cool.  
But that doesn't make sameness over a wide range not be sameness.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I do quite well with my own reputation without you misleading people regarding what I say.  You've done it several times and I will clearly call it out whenever you do it.




I think we'd be better off if you'd back down, just a smidgeon on the antagonism.  I didn't misquote you here.  You're the one who claimed "thousands of options" and I said that was false.  



> When did I say anything about homogeny?  Does genetics play in to this?




Wow, sue me for a mistype.  I missed a couple of letters.  You misspelled "in to".  Let's call it a draw shall we?  



> I don't see how you have made that case at all.  Yes, I'll agree that 4E does a better job of creating characters who are masters of everything.  But that is not a diversity of width, it is a homogeneity of width.
> 
> You may LOVE that, and that's cool.
> But that doesn't make sameness over a wide range not be sameness.




I'll point out that in this entire thread, I have yet to make a single value judgement about what I like or don't like.  Not a single one.  I'm not the one who feels the need to repeatedly state that a particular game is bad.  At least you're starting to tack on the "for me" once in a while.  

The problem with your point is that you insist that every single class plays out exactly the same.  If someone disagrees with that point, then there is no more problem with sameyness.  Now, I do disagree with that point.  Just because two characters have similar combat potential at the same level does not mean that they play the same.

But, again, it doesn't MATTER if 4e is as flat as a pancake.  That wasn't what I was discussing.

What I actually WAS disagreeing with was the idea that I have all these "thousands of choices" as you put it.  I don't.  I just showed that I don't.  Suave McFightswell has at the outside about a dozen options (which in my version of math is not "thousands" thus the hyperbole comment) half of which do not actually satisfy the criteria I listed.

Now, things got a bit muddled with the knowlegeable archer example, because we didn't actually build that.  But, I'm pretty sure that if I listed a series of criteria, I'd probably get the same results.

Your point about "sameness of choices" in 3e brings it right back to my initial problem.  That unique characters require unique mechanics.  That's just not true.  I showed that already.  GURPS contains not a single unique mechanic based on character creation.  Not one.  Every single choice works in play EXACTLY the same - it uses the same mechanics.  Yet, I've yet to hear that GURPS suffers from homogeneity.  Savage Worlds as well.  Actually a fair chunk of skill based games all use standard mechanics.  

I don't play Hero.  Are there unique mechanics based on individual powers?

BryonD, I find your argument very, very flawed.  To accept your premise that 4e is too flat, I have to accept that it is a requirement to have unique mechanics.  I don't accept that and I can prove that that's false.  Second, to accept that 3e gives me "thousands of choices" I have to ignore the fact that if I step outside of pre-defined concepts (as MerricB and others have pointed out better than I did) my choices go from buckets to teacups.

Depth vs breadth of choice.

Third, I have to accept that all 4e classes play the same because 4e classes adhere to a mathematical framework which balances the combat abilities of a class against all other classes of the same level.  I don't accept that.  There's more than enough people who claim that this isn't true to think that it's probably not.  Plus, I can look at actual game play, like the PvP podcasts and hear that this isn't true.

Now, the goal of this thread - introducing additional mechanics to increase choices is a very good thing.  It's always good to have more choices.

My objection is to how the issue is being framed.  "4e is seriously flawed.  All the choices are exactly the same and it needs to be fixed.  How can we fix this and make 4e a good game?"  is far too loaded an approach for me.  It's no different than how people framed "fixes" for 3e as well.  It bugged me back then and it still bugs me now.


----------



## amnuxoll (Sep 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> In my view, 3e does something extremely well - it allows you to build a character which fits a single concept, either a combat concept or a non-combat concept with an absolutely bucket full of choices.  If you want to build a character that is amazingly good at something, 3e will let you do it.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I've been playing 4e since it came out and I just can't seem to get into it.  I am absolutely delighted by many of the rule changes they've made but I was feeling BryonD's same *blech* over an undescribable sense of homogenity.  Recently I started playing a d20 game again (Iron Heroes) and that old sense of *FUN* came roaring back at full power.  Nonethless, I couldn't really put my finger on why.

Finally, Hussar, your post seems to just about nail it for me.  I'm skeptical of a few of the details but the spirit of what you're saying here is exactly what I'm not liking.

I'm convinced there's some middle ground here.  It's not Pathfinder which, while an improvement, still has a lot of the same flaws of 3.5e.  I think it should be possible to get a d20 system that can have combats like 4e (fast and tactically interesting), get you invested in your characters like 3.5e but still be fairly balanced.  This is what I want in my D&D 5e.  

Frankly, I may not be able to wait.  Is anyone out there cooking up a good homebrew that fits this combo?

:AMN:


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What I actually WAS disagreeing with was the idea that I have all these "thousands of choices" as you put it.  I don't.  I just showed that I don't.  Suave McFightswell has at the outside about a dozen options (which in my version of math is not "thousands" thus the hyperbole comment) half of which do not actually satisfy the criteria I listed.



As far as I see it, you had a handful of options for Suave McFightswell with at least two being very good fits. To my mind this should be enough to ask for a system. The aristocrat going into fighter would seem to be the most natural expression of this. I thought your point was that "even 3E" could not do every different type of character. In all honesty, I can't think of one that it cannot, and as I said upthread, I've tried a lot of different things.

While "thousands of options" takes in all the fine permutations of the system (BryonD being technically correct but still used for exagerative effect), as long as you have a handful that may focus on one thing or another, I think the system (and in this case 3.x) has done its job.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2009)

I didn't claim that you outright "couldn't" make Suave McFightswell in 3e.  I pretty much assumed that we'd get there eventually, although, I admit for the first bit, I was getting a bit worried.  3e came through in the end though.

The entire purpose of the sidebar, and I appologise for the massive side track this thread took, was to show that you don't really have the options that some were claiming.  The claim on the table that started this whole thing was that we had buckets and buckets of choices for every possible concept.

My point was to show that you don't.  Looking at it, I think my reasons might have been flawed.  It's not that classes balance combat vs non-combat ability but rather classes are closed in by concept - fighters fight, they don't talk.  Ok, that's too strong, but, see MerricB's posts for a better phrasing than mine.

If you stick with a single concept - either combat or non-combat, you have a bajillion choices to fit pretty much anything.  Short Bow Wielding Sneaky Guy?  Scout, Ninja, rogue, ranger, and probably a dozen more that will fit the bill.  Knowledge guy who knows what man not wot of?   Gobs and gobs of choices.

But, when you start mixing the concepts, your choices get whittled down considerably.

Unless, of course, you include casters in which case, you just pull the "I Win" lever of most utility type spells in 3e and you can be anything.  But, that's an issue with core casters and the proliferation of spells in the system moreso than a failing of the system itself.  There's a reason pretty much every caster that came out after the PHB massively restricts the spell lists.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 17, 2009)

amnuxoll said:


> Frankly, I may not be able to wait. Is anyone out there cooking up a good homebrew that fits this combo?




GURPS, Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying game, True 20, Champions/Hero, Shadowrun, Star Wars Saga, Mutants and Masterminds, Hackmaster, Spirit of the Century, etc.

There are countless RPGs out there.  The perfect RPG for you is out there.  You just have to look for it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 17, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A combat effective option is often balanced by being less effective, or even completely ineffective (such at being untrained in a skill) in a non-combat element. Thus fighters get there measly 2 skill points per level.




I don't think that's true, though. In 3e, the skills and the rest of your abilities seemed "silo'd" off from each other. The number of skill points really only affected the spotlight time of classes that were supposed to be skill-centric (like the rogue). The points didn't _make up_ for anything. Fighters got a full BAB and full Fort save advancement, d10 HP, and paid for it with less impressive powers (feats were OK, but they weren't great). Rogues got a lower BAB and lower HP and a full Reflex save, but they gained a host of special abilities to use in combat, including especially the Sneak Attack, which could do tremendous amounts of damage.

The skill points, I don't think, calculated into that at all. That's why whenever someone was like "I want to give the fighter 4 skill points!" or "I want to give the sorcerer Diplomacy!" no one, to my knowledge, ever screamed back "NOOOOOOOOO! THE BALANCE! YOU HAVE DESTROYED IT!"

4e actually follows that pattern. Fighters receive less skills than rogues. This isn't a balancing mechanism, it's an archetype mechanism (and, in 3e, it was a way to make the rogue feel special -- so many more skills than anyone else!). 



> It's not that classes balance combat vs non-combat ability but rather classes are closed in by concept - fighters fight, they don't talk.




Archetype!  Not that it's hard to change. It doesn't even throw off balance in _either_ edition just to let fighters take Diplomacy as a class skill. 



> If you stick with a single concept - either combat or non-combat, you have a bajillion choices to fit pretty much anything...But, when you start mixing the concepts, your choices get whittled down considerably.




Again, I think you're off-base with the idea that 3e design was somehow paying for one with the other. 3e seemed to me to be a step in the right direction from 2e, balancing combat with combat. The noncombat restrictions and limitations were more for an archetype standpoint -- niche protection, really. In fact, 4e dismantling some of those protections ("everybody participates!") is part of what makes 4e so homogeneous: it doesn't matter what you do, you'll be as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else.


----------



## tyrlaan (Sep 17, 2009)

I think folks are getting caught up arguing the wrong points about BryonD’s assessment that 4e is too homogenous. Shaking up how many types of what powers one class gets over the other and similar notions make aspects of the mini-games across classes different, but that’s merely the tip of the iceberg regarding the diversity BryonD and others feel is lacking. The fundamental issue is in the “everything advances at the same rate” mechanic so deeply rooted into the 4e rules. 

Everyone gets 1/2 level advancement to all skills, attacks, and defenses. While this produces excellent game balance, it can make things a bit bland. The common rationalization I’ve heard for this advancement (which seems to come under skepticism primarily when talking about skills) is that the players are adventurers and therefore a cut above the rest. i.e. they should be better at swimming etc, and continue to improve. But the problem is we all play adventurers in DnD. So if we’re all special, no one is. This is the cost of giving up some diversity in exchange for balance. 

How do you make 4e less homogenous? Actually, Fanboy2000’s ideas might go a long way toward doing that. However, I ultimately think it’s very hard to effect changes when the core of the issue is at the heart of the game. But I’ll throw in a few additional unpolished ideas anyway:

Establish social/non-combat roles in a vein not too different from combat roles. Each role comes complete with some skill bonuses and/or skill powers (do we really need to wait for WotC to tell us how to build them?). Perhaps the “diplomat” role gives a bonus to Diplomacy and Insight and provides an encounter skill power that lets you score multiple successes on a skill challenge or “undo” a failure on a skill challenge through silver-tongued goodness. 
Provide Ability powers – powers available to characters with a certain ability score. Perhaps an extra smart fighter can use an ability power to get a tactical advantage on his next attack. Maybe an especially hearty bard can muster out an extra tune of healing per day. And so on.

Also, I’ve noticed the somewhat tangent and lengthy discussion about robust character build support. The ability to support diverse character concepts isn’t exactly the same as having a diverse game, but for what it’s worth I think people expect too much of DnD in this regards, regardless of edition. Game systems that use character classes to model characters will never support all builds for all people. You will always come up with a concept that the rules don’t support or only support marginally well. Yes, some games lessen the gaps more than others, but the gaps are still there.

It’s my opinion that if DnD is supposed to be all things to all people, then it should have just been point buy. Pay X for your attack progression, Y for your feat progression, Z for Awesome-Kill-All Daily Power (or better yet, build your own powers). If DnD is supposed to model a specific flavor of medieval fantasy, then the rules should enforce/support that specific world to eliminate the gaps. Examples to further my point:

How many people complain they can’t build the superhero they want in the HERO system or M&M?
How many people complain they can’t build the character they want in Earthdawn, Deadlands, or WFRP?


----------



## Krensky (Sep 17, 2009)

amnuxoll said:


> I'm convinced there's some middle ground here.  It's not Pathfinder which, while an improvement, still has a lot of the same flaws of 3.5e.  I think it should be possible to get a d20 system that can have combats like 4e (fast and tactically interesting), get you invested in your characters like 3.5e but still be fairly balanced.  This is what I want in my D&D 5e.
> 
> Frankly, I may not be able to wait.  Is anyone out there cooking up a good homebrew that fits this combo?
> 
> :AMN:




Give FantasyCraft a look.

For the Suave McFightswell example:

Charismatic Aristocrat Soldier. Buy a moderate Charisma and a decent Intelligence (say, 14 in each, Charismatic will boost Cha by two). Take Bluff and Sense Motive as your Origin skills, and take Talented (Actor) as your level one feat.

From his origin (think race) Suave would be able to able adjust the disposition of non-adversaries twice a session, roll two action dice to boost Cha based checks, give a team mate a +1 to all saves for a scene (like an encounter), get a +2 to Impress and Bluff rolls.

Soldiers (the class here) get 4 skill points a level, plus his bonus from a decent Int. The Talented (Actor) feat gives him a free rank in Impress every time he buys one in Bluff, even though it isn't a class skill in this example. Plus a full BAB, high will save, good fort save, good defense and initiative progressions and all sorts of other combat goodness.

Suave won't be as good (mechanically) a combatant as someone who took an origin like Strong Fighter, but he'll still kick lots of ass and chat up the ladies with the best of them (+9 in Impress and Bluff at level 1). Oh, and he'll have a better then decent shot at seriously messing up the Mage in a fight. He's also well positioned for the Swashbuckler, Edgemaster, or Paladin expert classes.

This isn't the only way to do it, but it's a fast and dirty (and obvious) rendition of the concept.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The noncombat restrictions and limitations were more for an archetype standpoint -- niche protection, really. In fact, 4e dismantling some of those protections ("everybody participates!") is part of what makes 4e so homogeneous: it doesn't matter what you do, you'll be as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else.




See I have problems with statements like this.  If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6.  I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.  

These all seem like reasonable tiers of focus in a skill and shows how wide the gap can really be.  Let's hope the Mage can come up with a good reason to use an Int based skill in this skill challenge for traversing a pit instead of making an atheletics check.  (No I don't need the examples, I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head)

If the DC is 25 then Willy the Wizard will need a 19 to succeed, Wanda the Warlord needs a 13 and Fozzy the Fighter needs an 8.  Will it be difficult for Willy to succeed?  Yes, but in 3E he would have had only a +1 and it would have been impossible to succeed.  Here he has a low chance of contributing with the Athletics check (assuming he doesn't work some Int angle for fulcrums and leverage or whatever) and when he actually succeeds he will feel like a part of the team instead of just having to sit in the back and hope the rest of the party could manage something.

I see this as an improvement.  If the numbers were +10, +12 and +14, then I could see complaints that there is no reward for specialization.  The gulf isnt' quite as wide in 4E as it was in 3E, but it is still there, clearly.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2009)

> If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6. I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.




Mostly because everyone gets SOME skills they focus in, and, 90% of the time, you're going to be able to use that skill in some respect in a skill challenge. In other words, it reads better than it plays at the table. 

That +6? Why would you ever use it? The DM doesn't tell you what skills to use in a skill challenge, you make that decision, and if the challenge it broad enough, and you're persuasive enough, you get to do it. An average party of 5, even if they are super-diverse and have their highest skills being 5 totally different skills (say, Athletics, Bluff, Sneak, Perception, and Nature), are mostly going to be able to use those skills in a given challenge. Mostly, it doesn't work out that they're quite that diverse, especially given the "duality" of ability scores (Str/Con; Dex/Int; Wis/Cha), you're more likely to have 3 different skills as the party's "highest skill." If the DM is permissive, and "says yes," more often than not, you get your highest bonus on the check.

And, heck, even if you need to take a 2-3 point hit, the DC's are low enough that it's not a big loss. 

So, in the end, everyone winds up having a +17 to the check. That +6 only gets used in specific, limited, obvious instances, depending wildly on how flexible your individual DM is.



> I see this as an improvement. If the numbers were +10, +12 and +14, then I could see complaints that there is no reward for specialization. The gulf isnt' quite as wide in 4E as it was in 3E, but it is still there, clearly.




The gulf never comes into play, due to 4e's "Everyone gets to try their best skill!" skill challenge design. If you can think of a way for your Athletics to convince the Duke that he should give you the MacGuffin (maybe you challenge his fastest scout to a foot race!), you get +17. You never have to use your +6 in Diplomacy or your +10 in Bluff. Maybe, at worst, you have to use your +14 in Insight. Since the DC is only 20 anyway, it doesn't really matter. Everyone contributes basically the same thing. 

There are other ways that noncombat in 4e is exceptionally homogeneous (rituals, for instance, do a slightly better job, and are getting better, but are kind of an expensive crapshoot).


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 18, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> See I have problems with statements like this.  If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6.  I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.
> 
> These all seem like reasonable tiers of focus in a skill and shows how wide the gap can really be.  Let's hope the Mage can come up with a good reason to use an Int based skill in this skill challenge for traversing a pit instead of making an atheletics check.  (No I don't need the examples, I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head)
> 
> ...




The difference between a +12 and a +6 ISN'T as big a deal when your DCs are Easy: 10 Medium: 16 Hard: 21. The guy with a +6 has to roll a 4, 10, or 15 to make those checks. The guy with the +12 is passing easy and medium without failure, and hard on an 8. Either way, if the guys with lower numbers shoot for easier DCs in a SC, you can EASILY rack up those successes. 

(Of course, we're also ignoring racial bonuses, magic item bonuses, feat bonuses, etc. Its REALLY easy to get that +6 to a +10 even if your untrained at 10th)

The same DCs are used for stunting on page 42, btw.

So unless your using some of those skills at their PHB-defined DCs and not the ad-hoc DMG ones, the gulf is rarely a problem.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 18, 2009)

*Let's crunch some numbers*



Remathilis said:


> Of course, we're also ignoring racial bonuses, magic item bonuses, feat bonuses, etc.



Well, then lets crunch some numbers.

I got two 4e PCs Sadie, a human wizard, and Adrian, a elven rogue. (I’m tired of halfling and half-elf rogues) I got them both at 1st level and 24th level, just for comparison.

Skills compared: Acrobatics for Adrian and History for Sadie (I didn’t choose arcana for reasons I like to think are obvious.)

Twinks used: I used the background rules from PHB to get a +2 to the corresponding skills. Both characters have skill focus in the relevant skill. Both characters also have racial bonuses in appropriate score, and both skills are keyed off their highest ability score. Needless to say, the numbers are mirror images of each other.

Foolish assumption: I’m assuming this is a game where history matters.

*First level*
DCs Easy: 5 Moderate: 10 Hard: 15

*Adrian:* Acrobatics: +15, History -1
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 6 or higher, Moderate: 11 or higher, Hard: 16 or higher
Notes: What surprised me in making this character was that intelligence is a good dump stat for rogues. The Int skills, Arcana, History, and Religion aren’t important to many rogue character concepts and dexterity can be used in AC and Ref calculations. Particularly when one remembers that wisdom and charisma are more useful to most rogue concepts.

*Sadie:* Acrobatics: -1, History +15
History Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
Acrobatics Easy: 6 or higher, Moderate: 11 or higher, Hard: 16 or higher
Notes: Again, the use of dexterity as a dump stat doesn’t seem to bad when one considers that intelligence can be use instead of dexterity for AC and Reflex defenses. This was probably more illuminating to me than anything about skills.

*24th level*
DCs Easy: 16 Moderate: 24 Hard: 29

*Epic level Adrian: *Acrobatics: +30, History +12
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 4 or higher, Moderate: 12 or higher, Hard: 17 or higher
Notes: Easy got easier, but moderate and hard got harder by one. This was surprising. Some people may think that a 4 for easy is bad, but my thinking is that the DC is easy for a reason. Under the old DC from the unerretaed DMG, our rogue wouldn’t know much history, even easy history because the DC would be 28 and Adrian wouldn’t get that except on a 16. That doesn’t seem very easy to me. Of course, I gave Adrian Agile Athlete so the chances that he’ll get a higher number are increased.

*Epic level Sadie: *Acrobatics: +12, History +30
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 4 or higher, Moderate: 12 or higher, Hard: 17 or higher
Notes: Same as above, with an addition. Acrobatics is one of the skills a PC can use to end a grab.  (The other being Athletics, which Sadie has a +13 in.) If a Fell Wyvern grabs Sadie (not a bad idea, really) Sadie can try to escape by rolling Acrobatics vs. Reflex, but she won’t succeed. (Same is true if she try’s Athletics.) So, even with the add half your level, Sadie’s SOL if she’s grabbed by a Fell Wyvern. (And the Ref 34 isn’t that bad for the Fell Wyvern’s level.) Adrian succeeds on a 4. 

For what it’s worth, 1st level Sadie can break free of a grab on a 13 with acrobatics or a 9 with athletics if the grabber is a 1st level Kobold Skirmisher.

And lastly, if the PCs have to balance on a narrow and unstable surface (DC 25, based on page 181 of the PHB), Adrian succeeds automatically, but Sadie needs to roll 13. 

What about a non-twinked out skill like perception? At 24th level Adrian has a +23 while Sadie has a +13. If a Voldsoul Specter is in the area and rolls a 10 on his stealth check he gets a 35, Adrian only needs an 11 to find him. Sadie, however is screwed again, she will need Adrian to detect the monster.

On one hand, these are extreme situations. On the other hand, their not that unrealistic given the different archetypes at play. Adrian is a skilled rogue with a good skill set just like I would expect based on the rogue stereotype I’m familiar with. Sadie’s good an arcana and esoteric knowledge, but isn’t very observant or a quick thinker. She could almost fit the absent minded wizard stereotype.

I’ve included their character sheets, just so you can check the math.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 18, 2009)

*Some additional thoughts*

Even at 24th level, Sadie isn't as good at acrobatics as Adrian was at 1st level. 

At epic levels, static DCs set at a mundane or heroic level are basically auto wins even for things that the PC is untrained. This is fine with me, because it seems to me that, after 24 levels of adventuring, a PC would pick-up a thing or two from his or her companions. But epic level DCs are still the provence of the specialist with auto successes. Which is sorta fine with me. As a DM, I don't like auto success.

The liner progression seems to work to keep PCs more powerful than NPCs or monsters of lower levels, but also seems to do a good job of keeping PC archetypes in place. It's a little counter intuitive, but given that many skill checks are opposed and the NPC or monster bonus is based on level, it seems to work.


----------



## amnuxoll (Sep 18, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> GURPS, Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying game, True 20, Champions/Hero, Shadowrun, Star Wars Saga, Mutants and Masterminds, Hackmaster, Spirit of the Century, etc.
> 
> There are countless RPGs out there.  The perfect RPG for you is out there.  You just have to look for it.




I've tried most of those and none meet my criteria.  Someone also recommended FantasyCraft.  That's a dud too.  

I think what's needed is a true balance between the spirit of 4e and 3.5e and I don't think that exists.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That +6? Why would you ever use it? The DM doesn't tell you what skills to use in a skill challenge, you make that decision, and if the challenge it broad enough, and you're persuasive enough, you get to do it.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> So, in the end, everyone winds up having a +17 to the check. That +6 only gets used in specific, limited, obvious instances, depending wildly on how flexible your individual DM is.




A lot of the early skill challenges were written with 3 or 4 skills and many DMs will go with those and ignore all else.  So depending on the DM, yes you could well be stuck with that +6.  





Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you can think of a way for your Athletics to convince the Duke that he should give you the MacGuffin (maybe you challenge his fastest scout to a foot race!), you get +17. You never have to use your +6 in Diplomacy or your +10 in Bluff. Maybe, at worst, you have to use your +14 in Insight. Since the DC is only 20 anyway, it doesn't really matter. Everyone contributes basically the same thing.




See, IMO, the Athletics isn't being used to convince him.  Once you get it to the stage of the actual race, you have the Athletics come into play.  Now if you work with your party and have one of the party who is good at influencing people talk about your athletic prowess and guide you throw a list of routines that you are using your athletics score to perform, yes.  But if I asked someone what they were doing and they just said they wanted to roll their high athletics, I would say no.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The gulf never comes into play, due to 4e's "Everyone gets to try their best skill!" skill challenge design.




On the occasions when a player convinces a DM to use a non-scripted skill, the game is rewarding the player's creativity; it's something that I saw more than one "old-school" person lament going out of 3E, due to what they termed as 3E's "button-pushing" mentality. (You want to find the hidden treasure? You push the button marked "search" and you find it - you don't have to actually specify where you're searching). I don't fully agree with that assertion, but I can see where it was coming from.

However, if a PC is dumped into a river and has to make a Skill Challenge of Athletics and Endurance checks to survive (see DMG2/Journey Through the Silver Caves), if you're allowing Streetwise checks to get out of it, there's something very wrong with your DMing.

Skill Challenges are not homogenous; they don't all work the same way, and they don't all test the same things.

Some skill challenges are definitely testing whether the party has the right skills. Can they swim the river? Tightly scripted challenges with little opportunity for additions from outside the designated skill set. In those cases, the roll of the die as it interacts with the skill bonuses is important.

However, you have the skill challenges where the actual skills used fall into the background (as does the success or failure of the challenge), and what you are testing is the ingenuity of the players to use the skills they have to overcome the situation. Yes, these challenges have default skills so that a well-skilled party can overcome them as the latter type; but a party with different skills can still overcome the challenge with ingenuity and daring.

Note that the design of skill challenges is evolving. The concept of group skill checks - where the group succeeds on a single check if most of the party makes the check - is relatively new, coming into play after the original release of the game.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 19, 2009)

fanboy, 
You are only pulling out a piece of the equation.
Your mage has nothing whatsoever going for it in terms of acrobatics.  And yet because "the math works" this character still succeeds 45% of the time on a moderate challenge.  

Yeah, +30 is very different than +12.  But that distinction is misleading.  The establishment of target DCs is just as critically important in the math.  Once you get to the level of auto-success, additional pluses are pointless.  And the math is built to make certain that even your gimped out mage is pretty damn good at acrobatics when all is said and done.  
(You have demonstrated the nod to the rogue for "no need to roll" so 1 point for that)

And if you look over the whole skill list you will see pretty much similar numbers for the two.

Now look at defenses.  Their ACs are nearly identical and the others are right around 30 with the rogue trading off a bit of fort and will for Ref.
And their attack bonuses with the attacks they will be using routinely are again right in the same zone.

What you have demonstrated with your own selections is that a worst case scenario is 1 tick short of 50/50 chance for a moderate task.  (and even "hard" is still 20%, 1 in 5 for a completely untrained and untalented fish out of water at a task so-called "hard")
The difference between 12 and 30 is a red herring because when the players of these two characters are going to roll their D20 compare their total to the target DC and get the same answer over and over again.  And even for moderate, or even hard, tasks, the allowed range of existence scales between quite competent and has extra pluses that don't even matter.

Add in monster building for how the attacks and defenses are established by monster level and the same result will emerge.

Remember, this is a relative analysis.  Compared to what I like, your example is a fine demonstration of the homogeneity in 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 19, 2009)

MerricB said:


> However, if a PC is dumped into a river and has to make a Skill Challenge of Athletics and Endurance checks to survive (see DMG2/Journey Through the Silver Caves), if you're allowing Streetwise checks to get out of it, there's something very wrong with your DMing.
> 
> Skill Challenges are not homogenous; they don't all work the same way, and they don't all test the same things.



I agree completely with this.
Skill challenges are fairly cool in concept and a part of 4E I like.  I have used similar type sets ups for years, (surviving a trail of endurance in a orc tribe encampment, getting through a particularly hazardous mountain pass, etc..) but never had a consistent structure.

But again, the math lets me down in 4E.  Everyone is at least competent at Athletics and Endurance, so putting the wizard who can't swim in a really really bad spot and leaving it up to him to creatively solve the problem or up to the party to save him is constrained.  It isn't "out of the question".  You can easily slam deadly circumstances on the characters.  But it is less good than other options I have now.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 21, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But again, the math lets me down in 4E.  Everyone is at least competent at Athletics and Endurance, so putting the wizard who can't swim in a really really bad spot and leaving it up to him to creatively solve the problem or up to the party to save him is constrained.  It isn't "out of the question".  You can easily slam deadly circumstances on the characters.  But it is less good than other options I have now.




Well, using the numbers I gave upthread, assuming a 12 stat in something like Strength for a Wizard is a fairly positive assumption, most may even be less.  This gives him the aforementioned +6.  An untrained skill like Athletics would need the following at 10th level:
Easy:10, Medium:16, Hard:21

So at 10th level an average-medium strength Wizard would only need a 4+ for Easy (85% chance of success), 10+ for Medium (55%) and a 15+ for Hard (30%).  

I don't know that I would look at something like this and say that "Everyone is at least competent at Athletics and Endurance".  Some skill challenges you will be constrained by the nature of the challenge and that is probably correct.  If the party was unable to stop a room from flooding with water and you are having to make Endurance checks to keep holding your breath (probably a bad skill challenge example, but my creativity is sucked away by work today), you probably can't use your Move Silent abilities instead.

It's entirely possibly the Wizard contributed heavily to the skill challenge which actually happened prior to the room flooding, but the rest of the party couldn't roll well enough to enact the engineering plan the Wizard provided.  Now he is having to do what he doesn't do all that well (physical feats of endurance) b/c his first answer didn't work.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 21, 2009)

BryonD said:


> ]Remember, this is a relative analysis.  Compared to what I like, your example is a fine demonstration of the homogeneity in 4E.



Compared to what I like, I think its a great example of 4e's homogeneity. It doesn't surprise me that the example I came-up with shows my own bias.



> Your mage has nothing whatsoever going for it in terms of acrobatics.



See, I don't think that's true. Sadie has one big thing going for her: experience. She not just a little experienced, she's an epic level _character_. Think about it, she spends almost 24 hours a day/7 days a week with a guy who's skill in acrobatics is, literarily, epic. She's watched him preform all those acrobatic stunts in their time together. I'm sure that, in all that camping out in the wilderness between cities the conversation turns to acrobatic skill. PCs spend more time together than some married people. It's not formal training by any stretch of the imagination, but it would seem to me that some of it is going to rub off on her.

This is what I love about the level mechanic in 4e, it represents the basic level of competency people acquire just by going out and doing stuff. That is very realistic to me because I've noticed that, as people grow older, they learn the basics of things that they never invested any formal training in just by virtue of living. It's nice because it recognizes that people gain a basic level of competency in things outside their specialization. 

That attitude isn't very popular in the US right now. It seems we favor uber-specialization over general competency right now. But I think that it's a valid way to model character advancement. 



> And yet because "the math works" this character still succeeds 45% of the time on a moderate challenge.



That is exactly what I would expect from a challenge that's described as moderate. 



> Yeah, +30 is very different than +12.  But that distinction is misleading.  The establishment of target DCs is just as critically important in the math.  Once you get to the level of auto-success, additional pluses are pointless.  And the math is built to make certain that even your gimped out mage is pretty damn good at acrobatics when all is said and done.



If I understand what you said, you're saying that a 20% success rate is "pretty damn good." That surprises me. If I knew that only had a 20% chance of success at something, I'd find another way. That just seems like common sense.



> And if you look over the whole skill list you will see pretty much similar numbers for the two.



Some of them are, but that's to be expected. Many important skills have significant differences to me. At level 24, Sadie has a +22 diplomacy while Adrian only has a +13. Adrian has a +23 to perception while Sadie only has +13. Adrian has a stealth and thievery of +25 and +26 respectfully, while Sadie has only +12 in both of them.



> Now look at defenses.  Their ACs are nearly identical and the others are right around 30 with the rogue trading off a bit of fort and will for Ref.
> And their attack bonuses with the attacks they will be using routinely are again right in the same zone.



While Adrian's AC is indeed only 2 greater than Sadie's, I would hardly call Adrian's 25 fort and 26 will "right around 30." Also, Saide's fort is 30, five higher than Adrian's. This seems fairly significant to me. But then again, as you've pointed out, what's significant to me isn't significant to you. Generally speaking attacks seem to hit or miss by only a few points, so I consider a difference of five or more important because it means the lower defense will get hit a lot more often.



> What you have demonstrated with your own selections is that a worst case scenario is 1 tick short of 50/50 chance for a moderate task.  (and even "hard" is still 20%, 1 in 5 for a completely untrained and untalented fish out of water at a task so-called "hard")



I'm glad you replied, and I'm glad I gave some hard numbers because now I understand better where you are coming from. I consider a 20% success rate hard. That said, it seems like, far from you're complaints being difficult to address in 4e, it would easy to implement harder DCs + a houserule that doesn't allow PCs to apply half their level to d20 skill checks unless the skill is on their class skill list.



> The difference between 12 and 30 is a red herring because when the players of these two characters are going to roll their D20 compare their total to the target DC and get the same answer over and over again.  And even for moderate, or even hard, tasks, the allowed range of existence scales between quite competent and has extra pluses that don't even matter.



Well, they won't get the same answer over and over again because 1) they won't always be challenged by things at their level. Sometimes thing will above their level and sometimes things will be below their level. 2) They always be rolling the same skills. And 3) Even within their level, the DCs will vary.

Again, this is beauty of level in 4e, the DM can vary the difficulty of something by varying the level of the hazard, trap, or NPC. The level mechanic allows a DM to pepper the world with obstacles of various levels, making the campaign truly seasoned to taste. The tool in 4e is simple: variety: variety in level, variety in DC, variety in type. Level progression is (mostly) linear at the same rate for all stats, making it easy for a DM to figure out how to make something easier or more difficult for the PCs. The tool is quite elegant.

I would expect an epic level character find heroic obstacles easy to the point of not a problem. 



> Add in monster building for how the attacks and defenses are established by monster level and the same result will emerge.



Reflex and fort defenses that exceed the mage's capacity to escape from don't seem to be uncommon at level 24.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> See, I don't think that's true. Sadie has one big thing going for her: experience. She not just a little experienced, she's an epic level _character_. Think about it, she spends almost 24 hours a day/7 days a week with a guy who's skill in acrobatics is, literarily, epic.
> ...
> 
> This is what I love about the level mechanic in 4e, it represents the basic level of competency people acquire just by going out and doing stuff.



Ok, that great.  And I'm glad it works for you.
But my point is the homogeniety is present, not that you can't present a reason that the homogeniety is a good thing for your preference.



> That is very realistic to me because I've noticed that, as people grow older, they learn the basics of things that they never invested any formal training in just by virtue of living. It's nice because it recognizes that people gain a basic level of competency in things outside their specialization.



I disagree that this comes anywhere near justifying a 1 in 5 success at "hard" tasks for a fish out of water.     But it works for you, so good.



> If I understand what you said, you're saying that a 20% success rate is "pretty damn good."



  No, I said all in all she was "pretty damn good".  In a separate place I pointed out that even in the "hard" tasks she has a 20% success.  



> That surprises me. If I knew that only had a 20% chance of success at something, I'd find another way. That just seems like common sense.



Agreed.  But that does nothing to change my opinion that 20% success for a fish out of water attempting a "hard" task is way too high.  But that is just my opinion.  I have no desire to convince you that my opinion of chance is better than yours.  
But the raw numbers in 4E are objectively much tighter than in 3E, thus it is more homogeneous.  That is all I am saying.  Telling em you like it doesn't make it untrue.



> Some of them are, but that's to be expected. Many important skills have significant differences to me. At level 24, Sadie has a +22 diplomacy while Adrian only has a +13. Adrian has a +23 to perception while Sadie only has +13. Adrian has a stealth and thievery of +25 and +26 respectfully, while Sadie has only +12 in both of them.



I already covered that simply presenting a part of the equation is inadequate.  The chance of success remains in tight bands.



> I'm glad you replied, and I'm glad I gave some hard numbers because now I understand better where you are coming from. I consider a 20% success rate hard.



Again, this is not at all what I said.  20% is a low chance, but the range is not adequate.



> That said, it seems like, far from you're complaints being difficult to address in 4e, it would easy to implement harder DCs + a houserule that doesn't allow PCs to apply half their level to d20 skill checks unless the skill is on their class skill list.



True.  However, why do that when there are other games that are better as built?



> Well, they won't get the same answer over and over again because 1) they won't always be challenged by things at their level. Sometimes thing will above their level and sometimes things will be below their level. 2) They always be rolling the same skills. And 3) Even within their level, the DCs will vary.



But the range remains within a tight band.  Even if you go 4 levels up, you only add +2 to the DCs...



> Again, this is beauty of level in 4e, the DM can vary the difficulty of something by varying the level of the hazard, trap, or NPC.



This boggles me.  Of course it is true.  But it is also true for 3E AND 3E doesn't have the front end homogeniety that you have to work around.  

It is like you put handcuffs on and then explain that the beauty of the handcuffs is you can extend the chain an extra inch.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2009)

The important point here is: There is homogeniety.
Your example demsotrates this.

The point IS NOT: No one should like 4E.
The point IS NOT: The homogeniety can not be rationalized.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 23, 2009)

BryonD said:


> The important point here is: There is homogeniety.



From a certain perspective, it's unavoidable. But is the kind of homogeneity found in 4e really so different from the kind found in the other editions of D&D?

Sure, in 4e every wizard gets better at Athletics as they level.

But in, for instance, 1e, every wizard gets better at stabbing people (and taking a knife wound) as they level. In fact, every class gets better at fighting as time goes by, both in terms of hitting and taking a hit. Why does an ever-increasing talent for skills like swimming and tumbling in 4e lead to a sense of homogeneity, but an ever-increasing talent for beating the sh*t out of things in 1e does not?

To my mind, both design choices reflect a recognition that adventures, regardless of archetype, need a certain basic level of competence in common adventure-story activities (the most common being 'surviving a fight'). 

(I suppose the answer is simply 'because 4e feels overly homogeneous to me and 1e doesn't", and that's fine. I realize these are ultimately issues of taste. But I think my point stands. From a certain perspective, D&D has always featured characters with ever-increasing abilities in the "adventuring core competencies".)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2009)

There is another perspective to take as well.

BryonD, you are absolutely right, I think.  4e is more homogeneous than earlier editions.  But, and you knew there was going to be a but here didn't you  , there's a question of degree.

If the range in 3e is 0 to autowin and the range in 4e is 20% to 80% success rates, that means that 4e has a flatter curve.  Certainly.  But, that ignores the effects of the rules in play.

IME, what generally happened was you had players who would never bother taking a few ranks in a skill because they were just wasted slots.   If you focused, you would reach that autowin state, with autofails in everything else.  The problem was, at higher levels, you couldn't spread the points around to give yourself a decent chance at a number of things, simply because you didn't have enough points (barring a few classes of course).  

So, the range actually led to fewer options being exercised at the table.  Everyone laser beam focused on a few skills and, across the group, you usually had someone who autowin'd every time.


----------



## Crimson Lancer (Sep 23, 2009)

I'd rather have a bit of homogeneity and some much-needed improvements to the Skill System than keep a Skill System that, as Hussar said, actively encouraged super-extreme specialization. I also never liked how extreme the Point spread was between Classes, simply due to "archetypes" or (even worse) someone's Intelligence score. :S


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2009)

Crimson Lancer said:


> I'd rather have a bit of homogeneity and some much-needed improvements to the Skill System than keep a Skill System that, as Hussar said, actively encouraged super-extreme specialization. I also never liked how extreme the Point spread was between Classes, simply due to "archetypes" or (even worse) someone's Intelligence score. :S



No argument from me.

I don't share that point of view.  But I don't share everyone's taste in music either.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There is another perspective to take as well.



Ironically, I don't think this is a different perspective.



> BryonD, you are absolutely right, I think.  4e is more homogeneous than earlier editions.



Ok, I'll follow on the rest, but full stop right here.
This is my claim.  So you agree with me.  The end.



> But, and you knew there was going to be a but here didn't you  , there's a question of degree.



Ok, the rest of this is just tangent....

Why are you telling me there is a question of degree when I have repeatedly stated that this is a relative matter?



> If the range in 3e is 0 to autowin and the range in 4e is 20% to 80% success rates, that means that 4e has a flatter curve.  Certainly.  But, that ignores the effects of the rules in play.
> 
> IME, what generally happened was you had players who would never bother taking a few ranks in a skill because they were just wasted slots.   If you focused, you would reach that autowin state, with autofails in everything else.  The problem was, at higher levels, you couldn't spread the points around to give yourself a decent chance at a number of things, simply because you didn't have enough points (barring a few classes of course).
> 
> So, the range actually led to fewer options being exercised at the table.  Everyone laser beam focused on a few skills and, across the group, you usually had someone who autowin'd every time.



I don't follow why you claim that one person with an autowin constitutes an autowin for the party.  And even if that is a problem, you are wrong to claim that 4e solves it, because, as fanboy's example shows, individual autowins are just as rampant in 4E.  So if any one person having a autowin constitutes a failure to you, the 4E and 3E are both a failure on this.  

But I don't see that as a failure (for either game).  The rogue autowinning his way past the wall does not reduce the experience of getting the plate-wearing fighter and climbing incompetent wizard over the wall with him.

But that is neither here nor there.  I respect a preference for homogeneity on these issues.  I just most certainly do not share that preference.

My point in this thread is that homogeneity exists in 4E. We agree.  The end.


----------



## Primal (Sep 23, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There is another perspective to take as well.
> 
> BryonD, you are absolutely right, I think.  4e is more homogeneous than earlier editions.  But, and you knew there was going to be a but here didn't you  , there's a question of degree.
> 
> ...




Regarding skill points and success curve, I have to agree in general, but I think there is a lot of room for maneuvering both for players and DMs. For example, my favorite PC, a 16th level human fighter (been playing him for 15 years or so) has spent almost all his ranks on cross-class skills (Diplomacy, Tumble, various Knowledges) because I know the DM will only rarely (i.e. when it's not outright lethal to fail or when it concerns someone's "specialty" or when the attempted task logically demands it) sets DCs higher than 20-25. So even my several meager +2 Knowledges might benefit the group -- at least by succeeding "partially". I know it's a gaming style preference, though, so I'm not arguing that your claim is not a valid one (I often bump into this problem when playing in other groups). 

However, 3E *does* have a wider scale of numbers in use than 4E, so I'm not surprised if folks (like myself) who're used to "wasting" a few ranks on Craft, Diplomacy, Profession, Perform (and so on) see two PCs of the same class being very similar to each other on the basis of numbers (skill modifiers, stats, HPs, Defenses, etc.). I mean, the only difference between their fixed HPs is the difference in Con score; likewise with skills (unless one of them picks the +5 bonus via a feat) -- some of which are already predetermined and the list of class kills isn't too long even for the rogue. And so on.

Now, from a purely "min-maxing" perspective, I'm fairly sure that this very same "similarity" between PCs of the same class will pop up in PF RPG sessions; after all, why invest your two ranks per level in anything else but class skills, since you effectively gain +3 ranks automatically? However, this effect may be lessened somewhat in most groups because of the removal of cross-class skills, but I'm sure the issue will come up every now and then with some classes (i.e. those who still gain only two ranks per level).


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 24, 2009)

Wouldn't it depend on the skill though?

In 3.5 for example, there are 3 types of skill rolls.

Opposed Rolls. - Basically you're going to want to max these out since every level, the opposition is going to get better so just throwing a couple ranks into it doesn't cut it.

Fixed DC - Tumble for example. You only need a certain fixed DC so you don't need to max it out every level.

Increasing DC - Balance for example is a skill that might not necessarily be needed to increase every level since there's no automatic reason why a DM would use increasingly narrower/slicker surfaces (although, again, given that D&D is a level based system, many DMs would probably think that at level 10, the environment should be more dangerous than what it was back at level 1)


----------



## Crimson Lancer (Sep 24, 2009)

A more realistic System is completely removing the 1/2-Level Bonus from 4E, IMO. Remove Minions, remove the 1/2-Level Bonus, subtract a Monster's Level from its Attacks and Defenses, and it would probably fit a lot more people's idea of what DnD should be.

IMHO, that's actually *less* work than fixing many of 3.5's problems. :S


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 24, 2009)

BryonD said:


> The important point here is: There is homogeniety.
> Your example demsotrates this.



Of course my example demonstrates this. I said, back on page 6 (a post I linked to in the post that you quoted) that there is homogeneity. I hope you didn't write two lengthy replies to me thinking that I was arguing that 4e wasn't homogeneous.



> The point IS NOT: No one should like 4E.



I never thought it was. You, specifically, have mentioned that your dislike of 4e is your opinion and you weren't forcing it on anyone.


> The point IS NOT: The homogeniety can not be rationalized.



I'm sorry. I ask that you indulge me. I'm sure you can understand that some people want to explain and describe their preferences.

That said, the title of this thread is "Removing homogeneity from 4e." Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like in order to remove the homogeneity from 4e we need to do three things: 1) find out what, specifically, in 4e is homogenous, 2) find out what, specifically, the person unhappy with with 4e's homogeny wants to do instead (i.e. what kind of diversity does the player want), and 3) propose houserules that remove the homogeny and allow the unhappy player to do what they want.

Mind you, this assumes that the player wants to remove the homogeneity from 4e, if the player doesn't then perhaps another thread is for them.

Anyways, I think we've got number 1 covered. Number 2 is a little harder. I think your post in the other thread does a good job of laying out, specifically, what you want out of a game. There's been a dearth of number 3, but I think we're starting to get there. That's why I proposed a houserule in the post you quoted. You asked "why do that when there are other games that are better as built?" Well, I don't know. I do know that if someone wants to play 4e, but has issues with the math, there's a few solutions out there. In fact, I've just come up with another one: give everyone a number of skill points equal to the number of skill they can train. X4 at 1st level. All the 4e skill system is mandatory max skills points in everything. In fact it you can see the roots of it on pages 79-81 of _Unerathed Arcana_.

I think that proposals of houserules are vitally important in a thread about removing an undesirable trait in a game.


----------



## Primal (Sep 24, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Wouldn't it depend on the skill though?
> 
> In 3.5 for example, there are 3 types of skill rolls.
> 
> ...




If you're replying to my post above, the guideline we use in my group is that every skill check (unless something that should logically be only possible for the "handful few" or nigh-impossible) should be possible to succeed at without a natural 20 -- or, at least, yield some sort of "partial success" if your check total is 20+ (e.g. you might fail in the balance roll, but manage to grab a windowsill). This applies even to fixed DCs. As a result of this, everyone feels more secure in spreading ranks among a number of skills that fit the character, instead of min-maxing the skills you're expected (as a member of your class) to excel at.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> If you're replying to my post above, the guideline we use in my group is that every skill check (unless something that should logically be only possible for the "handful few" or nigh-impossible) should be possible to succeed at without a natural 20 -- or, at least, yield some sort of "partial success" if your check total is 20+ (e.g. you might fail in the balance roll, but manage to grab a windowsill). This applies even to fixed DCs. As a result of this, everyone feels more secure in spreading ranks among a number of skills that fit the character, instead of min-maxing the skills you're expected (as a member of your class) to excel at.




But how do you deal with opposed skill checks such as Bluff vs Sense Motive or Move Silently vs Listen?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 24, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Of course my example demonstrates this. I said, back on page 6 (a post I linked to in the post that you quoted) that there is homogeneity. I hope you didn't write two lengthy replies to me thinking that I was arguing that 4e wasn't homogeneous.



Actually, yeah.  Your posts contrasting the two characters left me with the impression that you were attempting to prove diversity.  And your initial response reinforced my assessment.

I apologize for misunderstanding.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 24, 2009)

Now that we all understand each other, let's have a group hug and then: 

Get to work. Propose how to remove it!


----------



## Primal (Sep 24, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> But how do you deal with opposed skill checks such as Bluff vs Sense Motive or Move Silently vs Listen?




The same way; for example, if a high level rogue/assassin would be about to coup-de-grace sleeping PCs, you need to beat 20 or so to hear "something" (you awake sleepy and groggy and naked but not helpless); even if the rogue should have (and even had) succeeded in killing them in their sleep (note: this is not a very good example as I wouldn't probably let the assassin auto-kill PCs even if they rolled a natural 1 on Listen/Perception). Or if they roll Bluff vs. Sense Motive, results above 20 nets them a success or a "partial" success, regardless of what the NPC rolled (especially if failure would result in something drastic like the PCs being jailed).

The only exceptions to this rule might be when players clearly expect that the DC should -- on "logical" grounds or for "dramatic"/story reasons -- be much higher (for example, when trying to bluff the king or make the finest sword in the country). Or when they're using their best skills (assuming some sort of "specialization"; usually the rogue or the wizard have highest individual skill modifiers in my group) and *can* regularly get 30+ skill check results.

I think this became more or less of an unwritten rule when we lost the whole group of PCs due to failing a single *Climb* check (DC 15; two PCs fell short by *one*) and everyone fell to their deaths -- probably the most embarrasing TPK I've ever heard of.  Yeah, we had already beaten almost every monster in that place, and then we are killed by a... steep cliff. After that particular incident (quite soon after 3E had come out), we didn't roll against set DCs and the DM just told players to "Roll a Climb check" instead of revealing the DC (note: we were still more or less in the "AD&D mindset", and used to how NWPs worked, i.e. even 1st level PCs succeed in about 70-80% skill or ability checks).


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Now that we all understand each other, let's have a group hug and then:
> 
> Get to work. Propose how to remove it!




I think I'm losing something with the language barrier, you freaky German you!


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> I think this became more or less of an unwritten rule when we lost the whole group of PCs due to failing a single *Climb* check (DC 15; two PCs fell short by *one*) and everyone fell to their deaths -- probably the most embarrasing TPK I've ever heard of.  Yeah, we had already beaten almost every monster in that place, and then we are killed by a... steep cliff. After that particular incident (quite soon after 3E had come out), we didn't roll against set DCs and the DM just told players to "Roll a Climb check" instead of revealing the DC (note: we were still more or less in the "AD&D mindset", and used to how NWPs worked, i.e. even 1st level PCs succeed in about 70-80% skill or ability checks).




Ok, this has nothing to do with the discussion but this is just plain funny. 

Now I can see why you moved to your system of skill checks...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> I think this became more or less of an unwritten rule when we lost the whole group of PCs due to failing a single *Climb* check (DC 15; two PCs fell short by *one*) and everyone fell to their deaths -- probably the most embarrasing TPK I've ever heard of.  Yeah, we had already beaten almost every monster in that place, and then we are killed by a... steep cliff. After that particular incident (quite soon after 3E had come out), we didn't roll against set DCs and the DM just told players to "Roll a Climb check" instead of revealing the DC (note: we were still more or less in the "AD&D mindset", and used to how NWPs worked, i.e. even 1st level PCs succeed in about 70-80% skill or ability checks).




Did...did none of you have any rope, or flight spells, or magic items, or spiderwalk spells, or pitons, or...I mean...what?


----------



## Primal (Sep 25, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Did...did none of you have any rope, or flight spells, or magic items, or spiderwalk spells, or pitons, or...I mean...what?




Well, the sorcerer fell first, and he was "specialized" in Illusions and thus had not picked 'Feather Fall' or 'Spider Climb'; I *think* the rogue had some magical item that would have saved him (and only him), but the player was so stunned by the sheer absurdity of the situation that he forgot to use it. 

It had began as an urban campaign, but rather soon we relocated to Underdark -- unfortunately, our PCs hadn't stocked on required gear such as rope or pitons as we had to flee the city *very* quickly via some tunnels leading to Underdark. 

It was embarassing as hell... 5th level party that included a ranger and a rogue and a sorcerer and two fighters defeated by a cliff.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 25, 2009)

Primal said:


> Well, the sorcerer fell first, and he was "specialized" in Illusions and thus had not picked 'Feather Fall' or 'Spider Climb'; I *think* the rogue had some magical item that would have saved him (and only him), but the player was so stunned by the sheer absurdity of the situation that he forgot to use it.
> 
> It had began as an urban campaign, but rather soon we relocated to Underdark -- unfortunately, our PCs hadn't stocked on required gear such as rope or pitons as we had to flee the city *very* quickly via some tunnels leading to Underdark.
> 
> It was embarassing as hell... 5th level party that included a ranger and a rogue and a sorcerer and two fighters defeated by a cliff.




Haha, I actually had a similar thing happen to me once.

I think every character I've made since then either has some method of flight or a *ROD OF ROPES*, the best magical item _ever_.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2009)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll follow on the rest, but full stop right here.
> This is my claim. So you agree with me. The end.




No, that's not the end.  That's too simplistic.  Just because you have more raw choices (and I don't mean rules as written raw, just base choices) does not mean you have more diversity in play.  If a segment of those choices are better than others, then you wind up with fewer real choices.

That's an issue I'm trying to bring up.  Because the skill rules (and most of the chargen rules for that matter) in 3e so heavily reward laser beam focus and actively punish not focusing, you don't actually have that many real choices.  Yes, you can have 2 ranks in Knowledge Arcana, but, by double digit levels, that's just a waste of time.  It won't do anything.

A choice that leads to a dead end is not a real choice IMO.  Now Primal's game moved around that by changing the rules, and that's fine.  But, that's not what we are discussing.  We're not talking about Primal's game, we're talking about 3e D&D.  IMO, you actually don't have the diversity you claim in 3e, simply because when the pencil hits the paper, so many of the choices are so obviously bad that they become more or less invalid.

So, most characters wind up being extreme experts in a very small number of skills (barring rogues of course) and being completely incompetent in the rest.  That's not diversity, that's actually homogeniety.  Everyone is a small area expert, large area incompetent.  Yes, you can still be a small area expert in 4e, but, because of the way the mechanics work, you can actually spread that around a bit and still be capable of success (albeit not likely).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 25, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I think I'm losing something with the language barrier, you freaky German you!



Yes, probably. A real shame.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 25, 2009)

Primal said:


> It was embarassing as hell... 5th level party that included a ranger and a rogue and a sorcerer and two fighters defeated by a cliff.




Embarrassing, I can see that. But I personally don't have a problem with characters being defeated by a cliff. They're hard to climb for people who aren't trained at it and why, in real life, they are effective barriers.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 25, 2009)

Primal said:


> I think this became more or less of an unwritten rule when we lost the whole group of PCs due to failing a single *Climb* check (DC 15; two PCs fell short by *one*) and everyone fell to their deaths -- probably the most embarrasing TPK I've ever heard of.  Yeah, we had already beaten almost every monster in that place, and then we are killed by a... steep cliff.




I played in a game of CP2020 once and while I did survive character creation, the first firefight within 5 minutes killed me.  So I became the OTHER skate punk who dealt happy for our Fixer, just changed his name.  

The end of the night had our group in 2 or 3 vehicles.  The solo on his motorcycle made the jump across the small ravine while we were being chased, I think I was on a motorcycle with someone else and we had the rest of the group in a truck.  The rest of us ended up in a fiery pile at the bottom of the ravine.  I believe the female who was riding with the solo was who we were trying to sneak out of the area, so mission accomplished, but it was more like a CoC game.  One person lived heh.  Altho he had his sanity, so maybe not perfect 


Sorry, unrelated but I had to share.


----------

