• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"

Nope. A character of any class trained in the Thievery skill is as good as any other, assuming like race, stats and level. But why should a rogue be better at Thievery? .

:lol::lol::lol: [ Queue I can't believe what I'm hearing cam]
I can see that this line of thinking was dominant in 4E development.

Why should a FIGHTER be better at combat? Lets make them feel extra special by letting the rogue do more damage.

Any character trained in Thievery is a thief, regardless of their class.

Amen. This is a concept that I can appreciate. It goes hand in hand with not having a thief/rogue class in the first place.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



JeffB

Legend
If anyone's interested in seeing 0e distributed as a toolkit for adding new features from the ground up, take a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is a 0e retro-clone I wrote.....

Which I happened to order through Lulu yesterday evening :D Having a 2-3 day "marathon" gaming session with the guys I used to play D&D (LBBs/B/X/AD&D) with as a kid and young teen. It's been basically 25 years since we played together, and I thought S&W would be perfect (I sold all my LBBs and JG stuff a few years back, unfortunately). Your effort looks great-enough to make me choose it over all the other old -school options, and I wanted to say thanks! :) (i'll be joining your forums soon enough).
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.

There is, you just need to still take combat powers.

However, feats and utilities range between those especially useful IN combat, and those useful outside of combat. So do skills.

Acrobatics and Athletics and Stealth have a number of in combat uses. Some of the other powers ... less so. Outside of "I know what that does" most of the knowledge skills only help in combat if it's part of a larger mixed skill challenge and combat encounter. Traps also factor into that.

While you can't get rid of attack powers to get utility powers, there are a FEW attack powers which can have out of combat applications.

One of the things that was changed in 4e was that a class wouldn't be balanced by giving it more OUT of combat powers to make up for a lack of IN combat powers.

How, exactly, is having a character suck at combat, and another character suck out of combat particular useful? It basically means the group is going to go back and forth between "Well, now we are going to be doing stuff in the city. The Fighter can go to sleep while the Rogue and Wizard have fun. Now we are in nature ... the fighter can sleep while the ranger and barbarian do stuff. Fight time ... it's undead, the rogue can sleep now ..."

But basically, you can't trade combat effeciency for out of combat effenciency in 4e.

Except for feat selection
And utility power selection.
And choice of assigning ability scores.
And skill selection.

But other than that ...

EDIT:

A note on Rogues. First of all, they aren't called theives anymore. Secondly, while they don't get a NATURAL bonus to thievery ... they do have utility powers tied to thievery. No other class has that, as far as I can tell, even the warlock who can train in it right off the bat [as opposed to every other class that needs a feat or background or be eladrin to get thievery].

They can:

Reduce thievery from standard to minor action 1/encounter (5 minutes). You can pick a pocket during combat without penalty. You can pop a lock open easily and in short order.

And that's what they have now ... they may very well add to this in the Martial Power book, probably making sure there is 1 utility per level for each skill type [which seems to be the basic "specialization" path Rogues get ... compared to the weapon specialization of a fighter].
 
Last edited:

The styles are very different indeed. "Takin it" style vs "Dishin it" style.

Hmm. I gotta try out a few heads up battles to see who comes out on top.

4E is heavily designed towards group play. PvP means nothing. Less than nothing. Put a Fighter against a Rogue in a 5 on 5 battle and the marking/movement denial of the Fighter can screw the enemy Rogue royally.
 

Mythmere1

First Post
Which I happened to order through Lulu yesterday evening :D Having a 2-3 day "marathon" gaming session with the guys I used to play D&D (LBBs/B/X/AD&D) with as a kid and young teen. It's been basically 25 years since we played together, and I thought S&W would be perfect (I sold all my LBBs and JG stuff a few years back, unfortunately). Your effort looks great-enough to make me choose it over all the other old -school options, and I wanted to say thanks! :) (i'll be joining your forums soon enough).

Look forward to seeing you there! A couple of interesting projects just started percolating on the boards within the last hour; a samurai interpretation of 0e ala Mazes & Minotaurs was to Greek myths - and I'm really pushing a SE Asian version, too...

/threadjack, sorry, all!
 

One of the things that was changed in 4e was that a class wouldn't be balanced by giving it more OUT of combat powers to make up for a lack of IN combat powers.

How, exactly, is having a character suck at combat, and another character suck out of combat particular useful? It basically means the group is going to go back and forth between "Well, now we are going to be doing stuff in the city. The Fighter can go to sleep while the Rogue and Wizard have fun. Now we are in nature ... the fighter can sleep while the ranger and barbarian do stuff. Fight time ... it's undead, the rogue can sleep now ..."

Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.

Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.

Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court. Its also fun for a bookish yet clever wizard to use magic in a scrape that doesn't involve blasting things.

As long as fun is something that has to be doled out in equal sized pellets at every moment of the game to be considered real fun, no other model is going to work anyhow.
 

Phaezen

Adventurer
Not at all. You can play plenty of non-combat. The point is that there is no support for trading in combat effectiveness for additional non-combat competence.

Its a concept that just doesn't work for a game where everyone has to be in the spotlight at every moment. If everyone is special all of the time then there isn't really a moment for anyone to shine as an individual.

Combat specialists who "sleep" when the non-combat roleplaying is going on are missing a lot of fun. The mentality of not participating in game events because your character isn't optimized for it is foreign to me.

Its fun for an aggressive outgoing barbarian to try and impress the folks at court. Its also fun for a bookish yet clever wizard to use magic in a scrape that doesn't involve blasting things.

As long as fun is something that has to be doled out in equal sized pellets at every moment of the game to be considered real fun, no other model is going to work anyhow.

:rant::rant::rant:WARNING RANT INCOMING:rant::rant::rant:

This is all personal opinion and should not construed as anything else. No offense to any person or party is meant in this rant.

My D&D is a game about fantasy heroes, heroes who brave dangers in the name of Glory, Wealth and The Good of All. The game itself, from the very first edition is built around fighting, Fact. The rules in general through several editions have revolved around solving conflict, Fact, read your rulebooks. Fun is had by all paricipating in the game when a conflict is successfully resolved, with everyone around the table participating to resolve it. This holds true whether the conflict is combat, social, an obstacle or any thing else the DM has put in the way of the characters to hinder them in thier quest. This I have learned from 22 years of roleplaying experience (For what it is worth including but not limited to: BEMCI, AD&D 2nd Ed, D&D3, D&D3.5, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, Shadowrun, Battletech, Call of Cthulhu, Delta Green, D20 Modern, Star Wars, Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Unknown Armies amongst others)

When you are sitting at a table to play a game of conflict resolution (pick your system), it is not fun to have one player purposefully holding his character back from a specific type of conflict resolution. In D&D the most common form quoted on the forums is the "non-combat" character, designed to be useless in combat. Trust me on this, when you have 4 or 5 characters pitted against a challenge, it is not fun to have to pick up the slack for a playter who does not want to partake in the challenge. It is annoying to everyone else at the table. It is also not fun when this "non combat" character uses his spesifically picked skills/feats/spells/powers/class abilities/traits/advantages to totally dominate all non-combat, religating all other players in the game to little more than body guards for his frail little sheep who can talk rings around Orcus. You are not being clever with your character, you are being annoying and getting in the way of everyone elses fun.

And in general in a democracy, 4 peoples fun is more important than 1.

A munchkined "non-comat" specialist is just as annoying as a munchkined combat specialist. It does not promote roleplaying either. Roleplaying is not, I use spell x, combined with skill c, roll, I succeed woohoo, the ancient Red Dragon is now my pet lizard.

To quote Mallus:
Let's call this the Incompetence Fallacy; the belief that a character is inherently deeper, better rounded, and/or more interesting because they're bad at what they're supposed to good at...

Going along with this is the Competence Corollary; a character get less interesting the better he or she is at what they're supposed to be good at. This is nonsense, too.

In designing 4e, they have purposefuly designed in that all characters are effective at combat, and that all characters can effectively participate in non-combat activities. This makes it fun for everyone sitting at the table, as you now have the choise to participate in all aspects of the game, whether your character sheet says fighter, wizard, rogue, bard or barbarian. Also, as many people complain you can't trade combat ability for non-combat ability. Good, tell me why your learned sage who would not lift a finger to harm a butterfly is travelling through the goblin and kobold infested tunnels of the ruins of Kalishar, and how he expected to survive.

Another good thing, in my opinion, is that non-combat abilities are no longer defined by your class, but by your skill and feat selections. This means you don't automatically gain the "I dominate non combat encounters" by the mere virtue of being a bard (+31 to diplamacy at level 3 anyone?), rogue or wizard, allowing other classes a say in the non-combat part of the game as well.

Yes, it is fun for an outlandish barbarian to try and use intimidat to impress the court, it is not fun for him to have to stand back and watch his bard companion auto succeed his diplomacy check and make any effort on the barbarians part useless.

Yes, it is fun for a wizard to use spells, damaging or otherwise, in inventive ways to help turn the tide of combat. It is not fun for the rest of the party to watch little Timmy the Magic User, stand back, because well these undead are immune to my usual array of charm and illusion spells, and no, I did not memorise magic missile because my charm and illusion spells worked so well on the goblins and orcs we usually fight, rendering them docile and unable to fight back, and no-one told me we were fighting undead today.

That is all.

Phaezen

 

Rant. Snip.


I can appreciate where you are coming from. Please do not confuse lack of participation with a lack of extreme competence.

I too, think its lame for someone to sit out and not participate in a challenge because it isn't thier specialty.

What I have learned from 28 years at the table is that I am not sitting down to play a game of conflict resolution. I am sitting down to play a roleplaying game. Conflict resolution of different types is a part of that game. Winning is achieved through the fun of playing the character, win or lose, live or die.
 

Remove ads

Top