Removing homogenity from 4e

[thecasualoblivion]

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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]

Originally Posted by MerricB

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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]

Originally Posted by gribble

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?

[Kamikaze Midget]

Originally Posted by MerricB

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.

Originally Posted by MerricB

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).

Originally Posted by FireLance

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

Originally Posted by MerricB

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Remathilis

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]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

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]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

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]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

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)

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.

Originally Posted by Dannager

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]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

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