D&D 4E 4e With No Casters?

[Khur]

Well, in a way, it is - the need for piles of magic items is still quite present. Without the piece of information that it's also easier to remove - which you could maybe derive from the article, but it's much better that Mike Mearls came out and said it - it's contradicting itself by positing that magic items are less required and then creating a scenario where magic items are just as required in D&D-as-written.

Highly dependant on interpretation, and the reasonableness of that interpretation, probably hence JohnSnow's point. Three item categories are “primary,” and the article makes that clear. Only very loose interpretation, the sort that ignores what the article says, can place secondary slot items in a “required” category. You need the items that give enhancement bonuses—weapon/implement (attack), armor (AC), and neck (defenses). Other items are entirely optional, and it’d be easy to gloss over them. As long as you find some way to emulate the three that the system actually does require, you can gloss over magic items altogether. The only one that would require any sort of stretch in a nonmagical world is the neck slot. If you really wanted to do it, you could instead come from another angle and reduce the attack bonuses and defenses in the game to account for a lack of such items.

I know a fighter in lighter armor is at a disadvantage when not in heavy armor, but that can simply be a cool quirk about a character; a character with disadvantages would have to think things out more and compensate in other places. But when a developer says that "a house rule is needed because the game expects it"? Sorta sucks the wind out of the design-by-concept sails....But...we'll see.

The truth is, historically and generally, that every soldier wore the best armor he or she could afford. Gunpowder obviated the need for plate and similar scale armors, opening the way for lightly armored swordsmen to become the norm—until guns became really reliabele and fast. Then sword fighting became a hobby. Plate-wearing tanks and lightly armored pro soldiers only really coexisted because the lightly armored guys couldn’t afford all the steel the knight was wearing.

D&D mixes the two concepts (knights and swashbucklers) only to allow people to play characters they imagine rather than enforcing some artificial “tools of the time” limitation. In 4e D&D, a swashbuckler type is a rogue (sneaky) or a ranger (focused on efficient killing), emulating the "swashbuckly" style very, very well. This is without house rules or thwarting design-by-concept characters. A person who wants to play a swashbuckler is going to find a lot more interesting options in the ranger and rogue classes. Those who gravitate to fighters will want armor.

If you can play the game with just those classes without having to modify much of anything, then it logically follows that they're able to replicate the abilities / fill in the niches of other classes, which sounds... boring.

That doesn’t actually follow logically at all. The truth is that one class that occupies a role can substitute for another. That is a far cry from saying that one is so much like the other that it replicates abilities or fills another’s niche. The rogue is a striker, but playing one is nothing like playing a warlock—also a striker. A home game that allowed only martial classes would see differences in the roles and characters, even characters who had the same class but chose differing builds.

This goes beyond combat/action sequences. When Player A is having a deep and meaningful discussions with his romantic partner, it's not proper for "Everyone to participate". When Shifty The Rogue has to go sneak off to meet with the head of the thieves guild to discuss Guild Business, he doesn't need Thud the Barbarian and Fingerwiggles the Wizard tagging along because otherwise they'd be "bored". PCs have lives outside the party, and a game which denies/denigrates them out of an obsession with "Everyone gets to do something, all the time, no matter what" is a poor game, IMO.

None of your examples here are the same as "The whole party is here, and I'm the only one who do FOO—at all." It's one thing to have a rotating spotlight, a challenge designed to reward a particular character build, or even an episodic focus on a particular PC. It's entirely another to challenge one PC in such a way that the adventure stalls or logjams. One is good design and DMing, the other simply isn’t.

4e isn’t going to stop you from scouting ahead or otherwise doing things that are your shtick better than your buddies. I’d like to know what gave you that impression so strongly that you’re willing to insult the game’s design philosophy and those whom WoTC considers average players, game sight unseen. That seems a little irrational, acknowledging some of that on all sides of 4e issues.

Similarly, encounter powers haven’t had much influence on my world building. I guess they don’t work the way you’re assuming they will in that regard. They do a reasonable job of simulating that big, exciting attack a hero does every once in a while. The world-changing stuff often relies on rituals, which can be limited in any way a DM needs them to be. D&D has always had elements that make worldbuilding tough if you focus on them.

I’m a storytelling sort of DM, and my players are highly demanding roleplayers. They’re used to rotating spotlight, episodic focus, and challenge focus. Of course they see parts of the accepted D&D milieu that are weird from a "Why doesn't this dragon rule the world?" or "What the heck is this bookworm doing spelunking?" standpoint. They haven’t complained once about the problems you’re imagining. Believe me, they would. Loudly.

If anything, 4e is designed with more awareness of potential logjams. You won’t see things like Cadfan’s sorry scene as often, to be sure. That doesn't mean you'll have no room for one character or another to shine, even in nonwombat situations.

 

[Lizard]

None of your examples here are the same as "The whole party is here, and I'm the only one who do FOO—at all." It's one thing to have a rotating spotlight, a challenge designed to reward a particular character build, or even an episodic focus on a particular PC. It's entirely another to challenge one PC in such a way that the adventure stalls or logjams. One is good design and DMing, the other simply isn’t.

4e isn’t going to stop you from scouting ahead or otherwise doing things that are your shtick better than your buddies. I’d like to know what gave you that impression so strongly that you’re willing to insult the game’s design philosophy and those whom WoTC considers average players, game sight unseen. That seems a little irrational, acknowledging some of that on all sides of 4e issues.

Given that there has been a constant repetition of "If everyone isn't involved ALL THE TIME, they're Not Having Fun (tm)", and that there have been changes to the rules (fewer skills, auto-leveling skills, unified BAB/Saves) to prevent this, I have to wonder what other Fun Enhancements (tm) might be lurking about, unsuspected, waiting to leap out and grab us at any time. I mean, I'm not sure HOW the 4e rules could somehow mandate the entire party goes off to see the guildmaster, but if someone at WOTC marketing decides that it will be More Fun (tm) if they did...well....we'll see.

Similarly, encounter powers haven’t had much influence on my world building. I guess they don’t work the way you’re assuming they will in that regard. They do a reasonable job of simulating that big, exciting attack a hero does every once in a while. The world-changing stuff often relies on rituals, which can be limited in any way a DM needs them to be. D&D has always had elements that make worldbuilding tough if you focus on them.

Here's an example. According to at least one playtest, fighters have a power (at will or p/e, can't remember) which allows them to ignore hardness when striking an object. Cool for breaking swords. Very dramatic. Very in-genre. BUT... it also means that, given time, a fighter with this power (described as low level) can batter open ANY door/jail cell, or just tunnel right through a mountain. As a daily power, not nearly so bad. But at-will/per encounter? Troublesome. (Depending on the recharge rate of 'per encounter' powers, and the definition of an 'encounter'. I'd hate to see something like "Throg, do that thing where you smash the door to pieces!" "Throg can't. Can only do that when fighting orc. Throg sorry.")

In some ways, I'm reminded of Dark Champions, where some super-skills, like ludicrous lockpicking, were bought as "Desolid, only to move through locked doors", to reflect a character who was so good at lockpicking his skill was better defined as a superpower than lockpicking 20-. I'm not calling this a bad thing or a design flaw, but it is a paradigm shift. Maybe in D&D, you DO want a thief who can't be contained by any lock. A large part of what matters, to me, is the level these abilities come at. Low-level characters are dirt common, and if a first or second level fighter has these reality-warping powers, this is a problem. If they don't come until Paragon or above, much less so. There's usually one tenth level NPC for every hundred or more first level ones.

EDIT: In some ways, I realize, this is similar to the shift from 2e to 3e -- suddenly, a cleric could learn lockpicking and a rogue could grab a level of cleric or two. Previously single-class abilities were now open to all via skills and feats, within certain limits. The difference, to my mind, is cost. You could learn thiefy skills as a cleric, but you had to either waste rare skill points on them or multiclass, weakening your casting. In 4e, you just get better at everything, automagically. (Granted, again, this has always been a D&D problem -- BAB goes up if you never fight, you can put skill points into a skill you've never used, etc, so maybe this just keeps going down that same road. Trying to be fair, here.)

 

[Thaumaturge]

... it also means that, given time, a fighter with this power (described as low level) can batter open ANY door/jail cell, or just tunnel right through a mountain. As a daily power, not nearly so bad. But at-will/per encounter? Troublesome. (Depending on the recharge rate of 'per encounter' powers, and the definition of an 'encounter'. I'd hate to see something like "Throg, do that thing where you smash the door to pieces!" "Throg can't. Can only do that when fighting orc. Throg sorry.")

If I were the DM in the example case (and without seeing the rule set ), I'd rule "breaking down the door" is the encounter. Therefore, Throg gets one shot with any "per encounter abilities". At will? Yes, I can see the ability to ignore hardness of anything at will as a problem. I also doubt that's the way it'll be. It might be, but I doubt it.

It could also be that the wording of the feat/power/maneuver/ability involved is such that it can only be used against weapons or armor. A fighter is knowledgeable about these items, so he can break them more easily... doors, not so much.

Thaumaturge.

 

[JohnSnow]

Here's an example. According to at least one playtest, fighters have a power (at will or p/e, can't remember) which allows them to ignore hardness when striking an object. Cool for breaking swords. Very dramatic. Very in-genre. BUT... it also means that, given time, a fighter with this power (described as low level) can batter open ANY door/jail cell, or just tunnel right through a mountain. As a daily power, not nearly so bad. But at-will/per encounter? Troublesome. (Depending on the recharge rate of 'per encounter' powers, and the definition of an 'encounter'. I'd hate to see something like "Throg, do that thing where you smash the door to pieces!" "Throg can't. Can only do that when fighting orc. Throg sorry.")

<SNIP>

In 4e, you just get better at everything, automagically. (Granted, again, this has always been a D&D problem -- BAB goes up if you never fight, you can put skill points into a skill you've never used, etc, so maybe this just keeps going down that same road. Trying to be fair, here.)

Umm...in the interests of full disclosure Lizard, you did realize the guy whose post you were responding to IS one of the Fourth Edition Designers (Chris Sims), right? So he probably has a fairly good idea of how things actually work, since he's actually seen and played the game.

Of course, since he works for WotC, I'm sure you consider him a "biased" source.

 

[Valdrax]

See, I play with people who are capable of not being bored while someone else has the spotlight. I don't know how well I'd get along with the presumed narcissists with ADD who seem to be what WOTC thinks is the core player base for D&D. The whole "Anyone who isn't ON STAGE RIGHT NOW is going to be bored/frustrated/leaving to play WoW" just doesn't jibe with my experience of "rotating spotlight" style play as the default model.

But that's another thread.

I think you have to see this in its most degenerate form to understand. I've seen one player take over an entire campaign and make it all about him thanks to unbalanced chracter design. It got so bad that the other PCs didn't even bother fighting at all when bad guys came after them -- the invincible swordsman killed them all.

(Of course, this was the result of some really genius munchkinism in a slightly broken system that the GM house-ruled to be even more broken by accident, but the point stands.)

Rotating spotlight only works if there's something worth doing when the spotlight is on you. If you originally designed a character to be badass and found out that you did it poorly, you may not have much emotional investment in the character after a few sessions of being continuously shown up. It takes a certain mindset to willingly play a support role, but it takes an even more rare mindset to fully enjoy a support role after being sidelined into one instead of choosing that role from the beginning.

----

Of course, that's different from non-combat specialization, but much of the problem still remains. "I'm the only one that can handle this," is fine in certain situations, but when's the last time you saw a D&D party all ride on horses or climb up the side of a fortress? D&D is generally a team game, and when only one person in a party can get past/to the next challenge, that person is often in trouble.

Of course, you'll run into some strange cases like the 20th level Paladin in full-plate who can sneak better than a 1st level Rogue in quiet, street clothes. But the alternative of having the party always stay too far back away from the Rogue to help when he gets in trouble to avoid giving his position away is much worse.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If anything, 4e is designed with more awareness of potential logjams. You won’t see things like Cadfan’s sorry scene as often, to be sure. That doesn't mean you'll have no room for one character or another to shine, even in nonombat situations.

I think I'm just going to elaborate on this a little bit, to show what I think is a very GOOD example of teamwork that gives each member a chance to shine in and out of combat.

Say one of the warlock's hell-pacts goes south and some devil comes a-callin' for his soul. The Warlock, of course, wants to avoid this (this part centers on the Warlock character, makes him center-stage for a time). He complains about it once while cowering under the bed of the wizard. The party Wizard remembers hearing in her arcane studies about something called the Ritual of Obscurement, which has the ability to make one person completely and utterly undetectable to one other person, permenantly, for life (this part involves perhaps an Arcana test on behalf of the Wizard, giving her center-stage and focusing on her magic academy for a while -- failure could mean that she needs to do some research to remember where it is, giving the warlock another 'close call' with agents of the devil). In order to get into the locked tomb where the Ritual of Obscurement is, the Wizard will need to call on her "friend," the infamous halfling cat-burglar (rogue). They brave some monsters (with the help of a Paladin friend), unlock the tomb (focusing on the rogue's speed and skill with locks), and prepare the Ritual, but the devil won't give up very easily, and he's closing in fast. Just as the last few seconds of the Ritual are coming complete, the Devil closes in, and it's up to the Paladin to choose between two evils: does he let the Warlock live by defending him? Or does he let the warlock be dragged off to hell? (focusing on the Paladin's duty to defend). Perhaps resolving in-character that his soul can still be saved, the Paladin smites the heck out of the Devil, while the Wizard stops the rest of his army from coming calling, and the Warlock completes the ritual. The Devil slinks back off to Hell with his army, suddenly unable to notice the Warlock, but resolute in his desire to attain him eventually. As he slinks back off to Hell, the Rogue plants a little magical tracking device on one of his minions, because as a Rogue, he knows that when something can't be seen, it can make off with a lot of loot. Later, the Rogue convinces the Warlock to attempt a raid on this Devil's lair, both characters with gold coins in their eyes. They'll need the Wizard to manage the planar travel, and they'll probably need the Paladin to haul their butts out of trouble, again, but what Paladin would pass up the opportunity to knock low a Devil?

None of these challenges are purely combat-based, but many focus on unique skills or archetype tropes that not everyone could do. The Ritual is esoteric, the tomb's lock is heroic, the need to defend the party (and smite some evil!) is there, and the Warlock basically gets to start and end it. They can only accomplish this by working together, since the party won't be able to handle this kind of challenge by themselves. The Rogue could never defend anyone. The Paladin doesn't know a tomb from a cavern. The Wizard is more interested in esoterica than in pacts with devils. They each have their own niches, though there is undoubtedly some overlap in skill (the warlock and the rogue are both good at getting behind enemy lines and taking out individuals, but that's only one thing they both do).

 

[Gort]

I'd hate to see something like "Throg, do that thing where you smash the door to pieces!" "Throg can't. Can only do that when fighting orc. Throg sorry."

Surely - as Thaumaturge said - when someone uses a limited-use power (per encounter, or per day) they just rest for 10 rounds and it comes back, combat or not? The onus is on the game designers to make sure per-encounter and at-will powers are not vastly unbalancing when used 100+ times per day.

 

[Khur]

It's important, I think, to say that I respect Lizard's play style. If you're having fun playing D&D, you're accomplishing the game's main goal, all rules aside. I also respect the no-frills kick-in-the-door play style. As James Wyatt's Random Late-Night Dungeon(tm) at GenCon '06 proved, it can be a riot. Especially with Mearls and his warblade on the scene.

I'm assuming my play style is a little more combat-oriented than Lizard's, but I've had games where little/no combat happened, and everyone had a great time.

My major point is that D&D has long supported both extremes and the broad middle. 4e doesn't change that good aspect of its predecessors.

And on the actual topic of this thread, 4e should be much easier to fiddle with in some ways than some previous editions.

 

[Mallus]

According to at least one playtest, fighters have a power (at will or p/e, can't remember) which allows them to ignore hardness when striking an object. Cool for breaking swords. Very dramatic. Very in-genre. BUT... it also means that, given time, a fighter with this power (described as low level) can batter open ANY door/jail cell, or just tunnel right through a mountain.

Unless the actual people playing the game decide that burrowing through a mountain with a sword is a tad silly and agree that doesn't happen (in D&D physics is consensus).

I made a point earlier about D&D traditionally relying on tacit, informal agreements to keep from being crushed under the weight of it's own wahoo --I'm not above repeating the pithy phrases I come up with, no sir. I see no reason to believe that 4e will be any different.

 

[HeinorNY]

ou need the items that give enhancement bonuses—weapon/implement (attack), armor (AC), and neck (defenses). Other items are entirely optional, and it’d be easy to gloss over them. As long as you find some way to emulate the three that the system actually does require, you can gloss over magic items altogether.

Like changing the BAB/Defense progression from 1/2 level to 2/3 level or 1/1 level?

Or maybe giving weapons and armor with pluses that are not really magical, but special very well made items like masterwork +1, masterpiece +2, mastercraft +3, legendary +4, epic +5, just to use as an example. But then yeah, the neck item would need a stretch.