4E With Three Classes: Martial, Arcane, Divine?

Wisdom Penalty · 10th November 2008, 03:28 PM

Anyone trying taking a "gestalt" approach and merging the classes down into the various power sources?

One of the issues I have with 4E is the limited choices, per level-up, of powers. And I also dislike that our two 5th level fighters are nearly identical (i.e., there's always an 'optimal' choice at each level).

What if we greatly increased the number of available powers by merging classes? A fighter could then, for example, select from the Fighter powers, Ranger powers, etc. A Cleric would have access to both the Cleric stuff and Paladin stuff. Yada yada.

Since the number and level of your powers doesn't change, I would think there would not be a huge impact on balance.

Any ideas? Anyone try that?

WP

Rafe · 10th November 2008, 03:43 PM

I haven't tried it - nor do I know anyone who has - but I think it would be interesting. I think you could have a lot of fun with that. You'd just have to adjust encounter budgets to assume 2 extra people in the party to compensate for the diversity/flexibility of powers a single character can employ.

fba827 · 10th November 2008, 03:49 PM

I think that could work. Just a few things to consider.

You wil need to figure out how to handle class features (for instance, will a divine character get the healing word class feature)

You will also need to figure out how to handle specializations within a build (tactical warlord, archer ranger, infernal pact warlock, etc). Because some of their class' powers have special bonuses for having the specailziation. Or else those powers become much less appealing if no one can have those specailizations, or if they do have those specializations then they'll probably few non-specialized powers.

You may find people will tend to pick in the same general class most of the time simply because the powers will be keyed off the same set of attributes.

Rafe · 10th November 2008, 04:45 PM

I agree with fba827.

My advice: I think you would be better off going with the roles (Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller) as classes instead of using power sources. Also, put Warlock into Controller for the sake of parity and fairness for options. That removes Martial, the main power source, as being what most would take (because there are 4 Martial classes) and allows you to include the Barbarian, if you wanted, because the Barbarian's source is Primal, which wouldn't fit into your scheme.

Jhaelen · 10th November 2008, 04:52 PM

I've never been into Gestalt but if I were to combine any of the 4E classes I'd combine them according to role not power source (like Rafe suggested).

I also suspect that soon enough there'll be more than enough powers to choose from when the power-specific supplements hit the streets.

knightofround · 11th November 2008, 02:01 AM

I dunno I think the OP is really on to something here. The problem with doing gesalt by class role is that it doesn't let you do much branching out. A ranger/warlock combo won't play too differently than a ranger or a warlock. And one of the great things about running a gesalt campaign is that you don't get pigeonholed into class roles.

Doing it by power source seems to make more RP-ing sense to me. A wizard could gesalt into Swordmage, because the swordmage powers really aren't that different from the spells he normally casts. (This makes much more sense to me than gesalting into a warrior or cleric)

A fighter could gesalt into warlord because they're both skilled in melee combat--its just the warlord is more inspiring to allies and the fighter is more intimidating to enemies. (This makes more sense to me than the fighter somehow slinging swordmage spells or calling down paladin smites)

A nice side-effect of this is that by arranging by power source, it eliminates the need for gesalt characters to have crazy stats in everything. Almost all Arcane classes, irregardless of role, utilize INT. Almost all Martial clases, irregardless of role, utilize STR. Almost all Divine classes, irregardless of role, utilize WIS. And those three stats just so happen to be tied to Ref/Fort/Will. And within each power source there's someone that dabbles in Dex, Con, and Cha.

I think the biggest issue is the class imbalance between the power sources. 4 martial, 2 arcane, 2 divine in the core...and if we include swordmage+bard+barbarian+artificer, it goes to 5/5/2. (Breaking up the primal into the core 3 sources until we actually get some primal classes) In order for this framework to really shine there needs to be more divine classes, because it would kinda suck to go divine and be pigeonholed into Paladin/Cleric (which is a good combo, but still not alot of variety there)

Class features would be somewhat of a headache to handle. I think an easy way out would be to simply grant only one of the classes' features, however allow the player to select a "build" option from their secondary class. So if someone made a Wizard/Warlock, they wouldn't be able to use the warlock curse ability, but they could choose Infernal Pact so the related powers will be enhanced. These "builds" would only apply to powers--so if a Fighter/Rogue selected artful dodger for their build, they wouldn't get the AC bonus versus OAs...only the powers that refer to artful dodge will be enhanced.

Nail · 11th November 2008, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightofround

I dunno I think the OP is really on to something here. The problem with doing gesalt by class role is that it doesn't let you do much branching out.

I disagree. A fighter (with extra hp and HS and Combat Challenge) with all of the damage potential of a ranger (which comes from its powers)? Sign me up! That PC build would easily be more powerful that a straight fighter - and wildly out-of-balance.

Gestalt rules don't work well with 4e, IMO, because of the focus on roles. A ranger does lots of damage...but he's not as tough or as sticky as a fighter. Take that away, and power balloons out-of-control.

This seems like house rules material, rather than Rules Forum stuff, too.

Wisdom Penalty · 11th November 2008, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nail

This seems like house rules material, rather than Rules Forum stuff, too.

Sorry about that. I agree.

WP

Doctor Proctor · 11th November 2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom Penalty

One of the issues I have with 4E is the limited choices, per level-up, of powers. And I also dislike that our two 5th level fighters are nearly identical (i.e., there's always an 'optimal' choice at each level).

I hugely disagree with that, and if that's what your guys think then they're not being very creative. For one, there's the basic choice of Sword and Board versus Two-handed Weapon. Tide of Iron only works for Sword and Board, and Reaping Strike will work with either, but synergizes better with Two-handed Weapon style. So right there with your At-Wills there's already a big difference depending on build.

Then throw in your eventual goals for Paragon Path. Personally, I really like the Iron Vanguard PP, and it synergizes with some other things. I'm a Dragonborn, so I have a power that keys off Con, and get extra healing from my surges based on Con. I also like Axes and their powers, which key off Con. So going Iron Vanguard means that I'll be dealing a lot of damage with Trample the Fallen, especially with some of the powers that allow you to push multiple opponents.

Of course, you could go a different route and go high Wis, then go into Pit Fighter. Combine that with Polearms or Heavy Blades and you become an Opportunity Attack monster.

While I understand that these don't kick in until level 10, you start planning for them at level 1. They should affect what weapons you use, what feats you pick and how you spread your stats. So unless both of your Fighters want to be hammer wielding Iron Vanguards, they should be differentiating their builds a lot more. So the fault there would not be the system, but rather in the creativity of your Fighters.

PrecociousApprentice · 11th November 2008, 11:43 PM

I agree with Doctor Proctor. If 4e is too bland, it is likely a result of not allowing yourself the creative freedom it encourages in the rules.

Try this for an example from a different class that uses the same build for two very different characters. With a different build you could come up with even greater variation.

Nature Themed Standard Wizard
Powers

Thunderwave

Ray of Frost

Ray of Enfeeblement

Sleep

Time Themed Reflavored Wizard
Powers

Telekinetic Burst

Chill of Timelessness

Feel the Effects of Time

Temporal Rift

These two are the same build with the same powers, but they feel very different. If you can get this sort of variety from the same build, think of the variety you can get out of the various builds offerend in the current rules. I think that adding in the complexity of a gestalt style play would make a ton of unanticipated problems.

evilgenius8000 · 12th November 2008, 12:24 AM

Going along with the example of "sword and board" vs. "2H weapon" fighter, there's even variation among those categories due to the various bonuses to powers that revolve around what weapon you're using. So, my elven spear-fighter (longspear) focuses on dexterity, whilst an orc fighter with a greataxe would just be all about strength and con. This isn't even taking into account 1H weapon users, where a dextrous fighter wielding a rapier could gain bonuses to his power AND multiclass with rogue and be able to make use of the rogue's abilities.

Wisdom Penalty · 12th November 2008, 12:29 AM

I can see your (Doc Proc and Prec App's) points, and you make some good arguments. In fact, I don't think I can defend my gut feeling with logic because it's probably illogical in the first place. Nonetheless, 4e (while the best version of D&D yet) still seems a bit...limited.

Most of the time I'm the DM, and I think 4E's awesome, but when I play - I don't see that same level of awesome.

Maybe it's my lack of imagination or creativity (and I'm not being facetious), but I still believe there should have been many, many more powers per level than what we got in the core rules.

Anyway, I guess we're sorta off-topic on a thread that's probably off-forum.

WP

Doctor Proctor · 12th November 2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom Penalty

Maybe it's my lack of imagination or creativity (and I'm not being facetious), but I still believe there should have been many, many more powers per level than what we got in the core rules.

Anyway, I guess we're sorta off-topic on a thread that's probably off-forum.

WP

Not really. If you think that part of the problem might be imagination or creativity, that's fine. Some players are more creative than others, others remember rules better, others are great roleplayers, and others would make absolutely terrible DM's. Everyone is different.

The point we're trying to make is that rather than blame the system you need to try and take a closer look at how powers interact, and how something as simple as changing the flavor text can really affect how something works.

If you seem to be having trouble with this, then that's what the internet is for! If you wanted a Chronowizard, for example, but didn't know how to build one, then just ask. PreciousApprentice has already given you a good start on creating that build through flavor text if you want. I'm sure if you were to go somewhere like the Wizards Community Character Development boards they might be willing to try and help you create the appropriate flavor text to alter the existing Wizard powers.

Remember also that don't have to change every Wizard power in the PHB, just the ones you want to use. Try first planning out an approximate progression of powers into the Paragon tier, selecting 1 or 2 possible powers per level, based on what you like mechanically. Then spend some time changing the flavor text on them to fit with your theme. When you get to those levels in play, you'll already have the flavor text written up and ready to go. Picking a couple powers per level would also be good because then if you get to level 7 and find that perhaps one of the powers you had picked doesn't look as useful to you now, you can just pick the other you wrote up.

And as another good example of changing flavor text to suit what you want for RP purposes, just look at my party. I'm a Dragonborn Fighter and we have a Kobold Rogue. We've joked around that we should have our DM houserule a "Fastball Special" like the kind that Colossus and Wolverine used to do, but then I realized that he didn't have to! There's a Fighter encounter power called Covering Attack that allows an ally to shift two squares as part of the attack. As long as our Rogue is adjacent to myself and the target, I could use this power to allow him to shift twice around to the back of the target. With a little handwave and some change in the flavor text, I can now say that instead I'm using the attack to push back the enemy so that I can pick up and throw the Kobold over his head. Then he can shiv (his name for the Dex-vs-Ref Rogue At-Will) him in the back, and shift+shifty to get back to safety. Voila, a Fastball Special!

Wisdom Penalty · 12th November 2008, 01:03 AM

I have done many, many different flavor themes for classes (though none approach the Fastball Special

)...but this isn't me we're talking about, it's my players. I can't force them into it - they need to want to do it. Both are fairly hack n' slash types - which is fine. With that mindset, there are certain powers that seem to stand out (Rain of Steel, for example). So...what we end up seeing is two fighters that look and RP differently (dragonborn vs dwarf) but select many (if not all) of the same powers each time they level.

I don't like the rationale that says "At 11th level it will be different..." because it should be different now. And not just different thematically - but different mechanically.

To use your example, a 2handed Ftr should do much more damage than a sword and board. Not +1 or +2 with PA. Lots. At the expense of attack roll bonuses and AC, certainly. I think there's a way to balance those two examples without borking the ruleset. In short, we should have a Fighter (Soldier) and a Fighter (Brute) - if I were to use monster roles to describe those archetypes.

WP

PrecociousApprentice · 12th November 2008, 01:27 AM

WP, I understand your frustration about the lack of mechanical diversity. I would rather see more options as well. But there are a few things that you can do.

Encourage multiclassing. That gets you a little variety, and it is very well ballanced. A lot of the "optimized" builds use it to get out-of-class PPs as well as a few out-of-class powers and skills.

If you need a gestalt system, use the class templates in the DMG. These will almost double the power of any character, allow more of the multiclass feel of earlier editions, keep balance between characters, and have playtested rules already. The ballance turns out to be pretty good. You can take the same class as template to get the single class feel.

Encourage reflavoring through XP rewards. And if any character needs more variety, who says that any character can't have more than one flavor of any power? You should be able to pick whatever flavor you want when you use the power, but still be confined to the at-will, encounter, and daily limits. Treat them like the cleric channel divinity feats. Any flavor you want, but only one per encounter/day for reflavored encounter and daily powers.

And the last option is to wait until more splats come out. They will, and we are bound to be flooded with new stuff.

Doctor Proctor · 12th November 2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom Penalty

...but this isn't me we're talking about, it's my players. I can't force them into it - they need to want to do it. Both are fairly hack n' slash types - which is fine. With that mindset, there are certain powers that seem to stand out (Rain of Steel, for example). So...what we end up seeing is two fighters that look and RP differently (dragonborn vs dwarf) but select many (if not all) of the same powers each time they level.

I don't like the rationale that says "At 11th level it will be different..." because it should be different now. And not just different thematically - but different mechanically.

Well, if we're talking about your players, then you're right, you can't force them to do things differently. With your Rain of Blows example, I can understand the frustration. I also happen to think that power is broken as written, but that's neither here nor there...

There's no "best" path for a Fighter though, as some have different advantage. In my party we have a Pally and myself as the Fighter, as well as a melee Cleric. As such, our front line is usually dealing with 3-4 guys at once. Due to marking and Divine Challenge I'm not usually taking them all on myself, but I'm usually adjacent to a lot of enemies. As such, I was probably going to take Sweeping Blow as my 3rd lvl encounter. It allows me to add in my Str mod because I'm using an Axe (+4, but only +2 for the purposes of the power) and I can mark a whole gaggle of enemies. If I can get the Cleric to set me up with Priest's shield beforehand, and rely on the Pally to take a hit for me if I get in too deep, I can draw a whole lot of enemies to me temporarily and do some AoE damage on them.

So the problem here isn't the system, it's that your players are not being creative. They're just reading the powers list and picking stuff that looks like it will be the most optimal ability, with no thought as to the flavor of their character. Sadly, there's nothing you can do about this except to encourage them to differentiate. I would let them know that building their Fighters to be so similar could lead to some tactical issues because they're both have the same weaknesses. I would also point out that it will cause them to build their guys the same in terms of stats (namely, by going swords and/or flails, and having to pump Dex), which isn't an important stat. If one of them went the Hammer/Axe route, he could pump Con and would act more like a Fighter (Brute) and be able to tank more damage. Which goes nicely with the AoE Fighter powers! The path is especially useful for Dragonborn since their surge value and Breath Weapon damage are all boosted by Con.

Quote:

To use your example, a 2handed Ftr should do much more damage than a sword and board. Not +1 or +2 with PA. Lots. At the expense of attack roll bonuses and AC, certainly. I think there's a way to balance those two examples without borking the ruleset. In short, we should have a Fighter (Soldier) and a Fighter (Brute) - if I were to use monster roles to describe those archetypes.

WP

As for the whole Greatweapon Fighter versus Guardian Fighter, you need to look at powers as a whole, not just their minor attack bonuses. GW Fighters get Potent Challenge (Two-handed Weapon only: add Con mod to combat challenge attacks) , for example, and they get more mileage out of Power Attack and Reaping Strike. And since Power Attack is a feat you can actually do a Reaping Strike with Power Attack activated. You would get a -2 to hit, then if you hit you would deal +3 damage, and if you don't then you would deal Str mod on a miss. As for the Guardian, he gets more mileage out of powers like Interposing Shield (Immediate Reaction to adjacent ally being attack. You can add +2 to their AC, or +4 if you have a shield), or something like Shield Push, since he has Tide of Iron.

Additionally, Greatweapon Fighters will tend to gravitate to the Axe and Hammer groups because of the bigger hit dice. Going with Adventurer's Vault items, for example, you could use the Executioner's Axe. It does d12, brutal 2 (so reroll all 1's and 2's). Damage is from 3-12 then, which means an average of 7.5, and it's high crit. Compare that to a sword and board Fighter with a Triple Headed Flail or Bastard Sword. Both are 1d10 damage, which is an average of only 5.5. So just looking at two likely superior weapons you're already going to be concentrating on different stats (Str+Con for the Axe, Str+Dex and Wis for the Heavy Blade), the Executioner's Axe will have an average damage 5 points higher than the Bastard Sword (+3 from PA, and +2 because of the brutal and larger die) and a will have a comparative -3 penalty to hit (Axes are +2 prof, Heavy Blades are +3, and PA will add a -2 penalty, difference of 3 points).

So without adding anything besides Power Attack and the Superior Weapons, you already have the Greatweapon Fighter hitting with a comparative -3, but for 5 higher average damage and the chance for a high crit. Provided they don't take any other feats, this can be accomplished at level 2. Even with just the Greaweapon Fighter taking PA at level 1, and the Sword and Board taking something else, you can still get a version of this if the Greatweapon Fighter uses a Greataxe, and the Sword and Board Fighter uses a Longsword. I don't feel like redoing the calculations, but you can see the point I'm sure.

(ps- You might want to show your players this example. It might show them that's it's pretty easy to create wildly different builds and inspire them to differentiate. With a little leniency in letting them change up stats, that Dragonborn Fighter could dump Dex and pump Con and create a nice Executioner's Axe wielding Greatweapon Fighter capable of inflicting some serious hurt.)

Tony Vargas · 12th November 2008, 01:53 AM

I've considered something similar but less extreme: adding 'generic' powers that anyone can choose instead of a class power with the same source.

A related idea that'd still be reasonably balanced would be to allow the MC power-swap feats to be taken for any class with the same source. A fighter could take Evasive strike or a Warlord could take Sweeping Blow or whatever - spending the multiclass feat to swap powers, but not requiring the actually being multiclassed. Multiclassing would still work normally when MCing to another power source.

This would open up options, but not too substantially damage game balance. And, it leaves classes the uniqueness of thier class features.

PrecociousApprentice · 12th November 2008, 05:09 AM

Allowing mixing within power source preserves flavor but destroys ballance. Allowing mixing within role destroys flavor but preserves ballance better. Imagine a swordmage with all wizard powers. He is better than a regular wizard because of his armor/weapons/HP/surges, and he can tank in a pinch. Imagine a wizard with all swordmage powers. He is worse than a regular swordmage because he has worse armor/weapons/HP/surges, and he can never tank or he will die quickly. How about the fighter with all ranger powers. Likely much better than a straight fighter because he does more damage and can mark more because of multishot ranger powers.

Since flavor is highly mutable, it is much more prudent to go with defender/leader/controler/striker than it is to go martial/arcane/divine. You can rewrite the flavor of any power to go along with whatever power source you like, but the powers are definitely written to work within certain roles. Mixing roles will destroy the delicate balance that is one of the best things that 4e has going for it.

Or you can be more creative and find ways to accomplish what you want within the rules. Granted that each group plays the way that they have the most fun, I am only warning about the pitfalls that I see as a result of not playing by the rules. It will take a ton of tinkering to get it to work the way that you want. As it stands, I see mixing within the power sources creating the same problem that it is aimed at aleviating. Namely, that there will always be an optimal class to take, and then there are still always the best powers to take. Creativity creates different builds, not homogenization of options.

Wisdom Penalty · 12th November 2008, 07:07 AM

Are there balance issues, per se, if you allowed all characters to treat their class powers list much like a sorc did his spells in 3e? Meaning: You still get a set number of powers to use per day/encounter, but you get to choose them "on the fly" or, perhaps, memorize them in the morning (or whatever).

I don't think you can do this with at-wills, because:

(1) You'd need to compensate Humans (since they get an extra one already) and perhaps half-elves (with their dilettante ability).

(2) You'd have to look at the abilities keyed to each at-will, since a fighter can likely benefit from all of them, but a poor warlock is on the other end of the spectrum.

Thus, modifying at-wills requires significant tinkering and has the dreaded house rule ripple effect.

But, again, any issues with opening up encounters and dailies?

WP

Tony Vargas · 12th November 2008, 08:51 PM

Well, that'd make all characters more powerful as they'd be able to pick the best encounter powers of thier class in every encounter. With dailies, it might encourage them to burn dailies faster, for the same reason - as soon as there's really good opportunity to use a class daily, they can use /that/ daily - which might hurt them later in the 'day' or just encourage shorter days.