D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[Neonchameleon]

This response is fairly consistent with those brought up in other forums when I've presented a case of a "mix-mashed" character type that doesn't fall quite exactly within the parameters of a set class. I'm not saying it's not an appropriate, logical response . . . but it's also interesting to me that I've had two conflicting stories from 4e "regulars" about how powers and class relate to character concept. I've had at least 6-8 players at various times, both in person and in forums like this one, state that "Your class doesn't matter, it's just a collection of combat powers, pick the one that you think makes you fight the way you want." Yet Manbearcat and permerton are discussing 4e classes (and their associated powers) as being part and parcel with a "thematic archetype," something which allows players to build on a very specific kind of narrative play.

The first response tends to be in answer to one single specific and irritating criticism. "I want to use every single weapon possible in a vanilla manner and I want to be called a fighter because that's what they were called in 3.X". The response is almost invariably (or at least was before Essentials) "Play a ranger. That's your new vanilla combat class. And stop getting hung up on the word 'Fighter'. The class name 'fighter' doesn't matter." And indeed the name 'fighter' doesn't matter. What matters is the character concept. And sometimes, just sometimes the character concept moves from one class into another - the 2e fighter was a specialist with specific weapons while the 1e fighter was good with anything he knew how to use, and the 3e fighter had a lot of tricks.

This is because the 4e fighter is absolutely dripping with flavour, unlike their 3.X counterpart. The 4e fighter's flavour is Melee Badass and almost everything including the marking/punishment mechanics supports this (take your eye off the fighter for one fraction of a second and you're giving the fighter an opportunity). And the 4e PHB Ranger is (a) the second blandest class in 4e (exceeded only by the Slayer) and (b) one of the very few classes to be more bland than their 3e counterpart. When people want to be an all-round weapon user rather than a melee badass they need to change class - and this does not matter. The classes have slightly different meanings in each edition.

A class is a collection of powers and abilities. But each building block of those powers weaves the theme of the class into the class itself. If the abilities you want are not part of that class you probably don't want the class in the first place.

But I play with strangers all the time. If I run 1e, there is the problem that playing an (eg) Cavalier the way UA fluff/instructions says to do so is literally suicidal. Players are incenivised to work around the restrictions of Paladin, Druid etc. Whereas with 4e the powers mechanically support the thematics of the class. There is no incentive to playing against type - your cowardy self-serving paladin with Virtue of Valour will be mechanically weaker than a paladin played according to the thematics of his powers. Same for Rogues etc.

So the situation you posit, common in 1e-3e, just doesn't come up in practice. The player would have to be actively hostile to the GM, to the game table, to his own PC - willing to give up power in order to not play the character he chose to play via class power selection.

This. A thousand times this. It's one of the two fundamental criticisms I have of 1e, and the other one is closely related (the incentives to play an antagonistic PC like a barbarian, a paladin, an assassin, a rogue who steals from his own party (or even worse a #@*& Kender)). Both criticisms are, of course, something you can avoid fairly easily.

 

[Imaro]

Here are some examples, quoted from the corebooks of what I (and I think innerdude) are speaking of...

PH 1, page 55
A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard's magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

PH 2, page 4 A power's flavor text is only a starting point. You can modify that flavor however you like, as long as you don't change the power's game effects. Maybe you would rather think of the barbarian power macetail's rage as channeling the World Serpent, a primal spirit that appears in some shaman powers. You might say, 'The earth shakes beneath my feet as the World Serpent stirs, knocking my foe to the ground!'


EDIT: So that being said, couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

 

[pemerton]

Because you want a power that will help you in case you are surrounded

But if you're cowardly, that would be some sort of forced movement power to let you break out - not something that presupposes you're going to stay in the throng fighting away Conan-stye.

I'm asking these questions because my thoughts are along the same lines as innerdude. I have had a ton of 4e fans claim that the classes, powers, etc. are basically generic because they are effect based. Yet there is another contingent of 4e fans who claim there are thematic elements tightly tied to the classes, powers, etc. Well I'm curious to find out if these thematic elements are inherent to the game or more based upon dm/player agreement to a certain style, "being on the same page" with a group, etc.

That is why I am discussing valiant strike, and the paladin class... do either really push my character to act a certain way... or is being valiant just the thematic element that some choose to enact when selecting the power.

The two issues seem to be orthogonal to one another. It is the mechanical effect of Valiant Smite - a bonus to hit that goes up the more enemies are adjacent - that supports a particular theme for the PC who has that power. So it is not as if "effects based" is at odds with the imputed theme - it underpins it!

I'm trying to figure out who decides what is and isn't an appropriate thematic archetype for specific powers

What I'm saying, and what I take [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] to be saying, is that no one has to decide this - it will emerge in play.

That's the point. You don't need to decide that your paladin is valiant. Playing to your paladin's mechanical strengths will (typically) produce a PC who is valiant.

If you manage to build a paladin whose play produces something different or unexpected, good luck to you! Though I think with the paladin this is pretty unlikey - the paladin powers all seem pretty tighty focused to me. There are some other classes - wizards, fighters, clerics, rangers and warlords in particular - which have a wide range of powers and class features to choose from which tend to loosen the connection between class choice and narrative trajectory.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't believe this is true... The player would just have to have different ideas from the DM about what themes certain powers could fit.

If the power is consistently more useful than other powers would be to the same character played the same way it fits. What the DM thinks doesn't come into it.

Because you want a power that will help you in case you are surrounded... I'm asking these questions because my thoughts are along the same lines as innerdude. I have had a ton of 4e fans claim that the classes, powers, etc. are basically generic because they are effect based. Yet there is another contingent of 4e fans who claim there are thematic elements tightly tied to the classes, powers, etc. Well I'm curious to find out if these thematic elements are inherent to the game or more based upon dm/player agreement to a certain style, "being on the same page" with a group, etc.

The two concepts aren't opposites, merely something you've phrased as opposites. The powers (especially for martial powers) reflect the personality and tactics of the power user.

And the biggest mistake people make when making a 4e character is "Netdecking it". I recall recently [MENTION=44243]Shadeydm[/MENTION] (IIRC - my apologies if it was someone else) was having problems with his fighter for just this reason. He'd netdecked and picked things people recommended as strong - and there was not one weak option there. Nevertheless the character was a mess; he'd picked feats that gave good control and powers that gave high damage - there was no one option he'd picked that was bad, but they didn't work together at all.

That is why I am discussing valiant strike, and the paladin class... do either really push my character to act a certain way... or is being valiant just the thematic element that some choose to enact when selecting the power.

The answer is "Yes". When you build a character in 4e you build towards how you want them to play - i.e. how they move and how they behave when the rubber meets the road. And because they have powers that play well this way they encourage you to play this way. If you pick on crunch you'll end up playing in a fluffy way because the powers work best when used in this fluffy way - and if you pick on fluff and play in a fluffy way then the whole thing will synergise automatically.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here are some examples, quoted from the corebooks of what I (and I think innerdude) are speaking of...

PH 1, page 55
A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard's magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

PH 2, page 4 A power's flavor text is only a starting point. You can modify that flavor however you like, as long as you don't change the power's game effects. Maybe you would rather think of the barbarian power macetail's rage as channeling the World Serpent, a primal spirit that appears in some shaman powers. You might say, 'The earth shakes beneath my feet as the World Serpent stirs, knocking my foe to the ground!'


EDIT: So that being said, couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

There's a difference between a sneaky archetype and a cowardly archetype. You more or less can't build a cowardly Paladin and it wouldn't work very well if you tried. But in my "Characters to play someday list" is a sneaky Paladin. It's not that he's a coward, quite the reverse. It's just that he's a gnome. He's the brave sod whose job it is to blow a rasberry at the orcs or ogres, to draw their attention - and then to vanish, having drawn the enemies away from everyone else. A cowardly character wouldn't have ended up in the middle of the scrum in the first place. He's incredibly valiant - gnome style. Which doesn't involve trying to arm-wrestle people four times your size. Risking your own life to cause a distraction that saves your tribe is enough, there's no need to compound that by idiocy.

If, on the other hand he were cowardly and tried to stay as far from the combat as possible, Valiant Strike would be a wasted choice. Genuinely cowardly characters almost never get surrounded and certainly wouldn't set themselves up to be in a position to use that on a regular enough basis to make it a worthwhile choice for an at will (unless they were a Ranger who can get by on just Twin Strike most of the time).

 

[Balesir]

Because you want a power that will help you in case you are surrounded... I'm asking these questions because my thoughts are along the same lines as innerdude.

Picking one of two (three, if you are human) At-Will powers "in case you get surrounded" sounds to me like either misapplication or paranoia! If Char-Op rate the power highly, it will be on the basis that you actually use it - and that requires that you get embroiled in the middle of a honking great melee on a regular basis...

That is why I am discussing valiant strike, and the paladin class... do either really push my character to act a certain way... or is being valiant just the thematic element that some choose to enact when selecting the power. I don't know if it's in this thread or the other one (I'm actually starting to get a little confused since it's the same discussion) but there was an example of a "emo-berserker" paladin that would use valiant strike, there's nothing valiant about this guy but S'mon said he would be cool with that in his game. So I'm trying to figure out who decides what is and isn't an appropriate thematic archetype for specific powers... and whether these thematic elements are really baked in any moreso that 3.5's feats or Rule Cyclopedia's Weapon Mastery rules.

It was this thread, and my "emo-paladin" is an interesting study; let's dig a little. He claims to loathe violence and war - and yet he gets surrounded by enemies regularly enough that he knows how he instinctively reacts? "Oh, this is all so terrible that... whoops - there I just did it all again!"

Either this guy is a complete fool, a complete fibber or he's actually the kind of guy that gets into all sorts of tight scrapes on a regular basis because he won't back down from what he believes - which, in silhouette from where I'm standing, looks a lot like "valiant".

[/I][/I]EDIT: So that being said, couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

I snipped the fluff because it's not really relevant in its specifics.

Yes, you could fluff Valiant Strike as "using the crowd and confusion to misdirect" or whatever - just as I used berserk frenzy to do similarly with "emo-paladin" (aside: please, please, nobody make that a class in DDN!).

But for it to be a worthwhile character power, the character with it will need to get into the middle - not just on the edge of or "on the front line" but in the middle - of melee combat to use it to best effect. Regardless what the (purported?) mechanism is in-world for the benefits gained, that is going to require some sustained "valiance" (is that a word?).

Edit: I guess another possibility would be that the guy gets into the middle of melee regularly through constantly repeated bad luck and poor timing - but then you are basically playing slapstick comedy and need bucketloads of scene framing to set that up!

 

[D'karr]

A Theme is a Theme - or is it?

I think that different concepts are being discussed in this and other threads and I'm starting to see a "semantic drift". Some people are talking about one thing and using some specific language, and others are using the same language to mean something else. So as I write my post I'll define specifically what I mean, not to be snarky and condescending, but to provide clarity.

4e classes are thematically distinct, though there might be some slight overlap in cases. What I mean is that the class writeup for a Paladin, and the class writeup for a Wizard, Rogue, Fighter, Warlord, or Ranger, etc., are all distinct from each other. However there might be slight similarities between a Fighter, a Warlord, and a Paladin, for example. The writeup is what defines, in general "story" terms, the thematic elements of a class - the basic story concept(s) of the class.

As an example here are 4 distinct story concepts for 4 different martial classes:

Paladins are indomitable warriors who've pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Smiting enemies with their swords while protecting their allies with their sacrifice, they radiate as beacons of inextinguishable hope. In battle they are exemplars of divine ethos in action.

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. They stand in the front lines bolstering their allies, and know how to rally a team to win a fight.

Fighters are determined combat adepts trained to protect other members of their group. They draw swords for gold, for glory, for duty, and for the mere joy of unrestrained martial exercise.

Rangers are watchful warriors who roam past the horizon to safeguard a region, a principle, or a way of life. Masters of bow and blade, rangers excel at hit-and-run assaults, and excel at avoiding danger.​

If a player in my group came to me with an idea for his character I'd try to compare his concept to a pre-established class that best fits that concept. It would make little sense if a player wants to play a skulking warrior, for me to recommend a wizard; a ranger, or a rogue would more closely tie-in to the player's idea.

The combination of the general mechanics of the class and the specific selection of powers for each closely tie-in to that base writeup. A Ranger masters the bow and blade and excels at hit-and-run assaults - a striker with both melee and ranged attacks with lots of mobility powers ties the mechanics to that base writeup. A Paladin smites his foes with his sword, defends and bolsters his allies with his sacrifice - a defender with melee attacks that smite with divine power, and bolstering powers some of which are triggered by his own healing surges (sacrifice).

As can be seen the thematic elements defined in that base writeup are being mechanically supported by the selection of powers and by the specific mechanics for each class.

In 4e the conceptual basics of the class (story element), as defined in the class writeup - the theme if you will, are supported by the mechanical aspects of the class (class features, role, powers, etc.). The class writeup gives the player the base concept of that class from a "story" standpoint. Other elements add more story, like the selection of a deity. Then the particular mechanics support that thematic choice. A player may select a paladin because the writeup says that they smite enemies, defend and bolster their allies. The mechanics deliver on that expected play experience with things such as divine challenge, lay of hands, bolstering strike, shielding smite, etc.

The names and descriptions of powers and feats are not mechanical in nature. However, they also serve as part of that story support. They are also very malleable. A player and DM have free reign to describe them in any fashion they want, or simply default to the base description. If I choose to describe my Shielding Smite as the hand of Pelor interposing itself between my enemies and my allies, I can do that. If I want to say it's a golden halo of protection, I can do that. Story-wise the description is evocative, and can be used to stimulate the imagination. Mechanically the effect is not going to change whether I describe it as the hand of Pelor, a golden halo, or a flying shield.

Because the names and descriptions are malleable, and the mechanics are supportive of the story theme, I can also reflavor to taste. If I want to reflavor outside of the theme, I would expect to have a conversation with the DM to align my expectations. Creating new classes can be done in that fashion with a little bit of work.

For example, there is currently no "official" Swashbuckler class in 4e. If i was going to create one, I could easily reflavor a specific base class, and its powers to fit the concept. I could simply reflavor a particular build from a specific class. I could meld particular powers from separate classes into my base concept of the swashbuckler. Then again, I could create specific powers if I was so inclined. In other words, I have quite a bit of working space to make my concept come alive.

This might be where the confusion is creeping in. It might seem like the two things (mechanics that support flavor, and easy reflavoring) are mutually exclusive, or directly opposed.

If I can easily reflavor, why can't I just make a cowardly paladin? In essence, because it would be thematically and mechanically inappropriate. The base writeup of the paladin is valiant and self-sacrificing in a fashion. His class features and powers were designed to serve/support that "worldview".

From here on, "you" is used in the general sense.

If you want to have a cowardly self-serving paladin, the theme and mechanics bump up against you. A defender role is designed to be "in the thick of things". If you are not in the thick of things the mechanics don't reward you. The use of specific powers give you benefits when you are "acting valiant". If you are not "acting valiant" (in the thick of things) the mechanics don't reward you.

So yes, you could play a cowardly self-serving paladin. But since the mechanics don't reward that type of behavior, you are cutting your own throat. As a DM, I would have to ask, what is the point of your character? Wouldn't you be happier playing a rogue? Maybe there can be story elements that we could explore as a "fallen" paladin, or a noble rogue. I would be trying to figure out if you understand the thematic concepts of the paladin. I would advise you to play something that mechanically works better with your concept, and the story elements of the game world.

The same basic issue would happen if you wanted to play a mercenary paladin. In this case the theme, more than the mechanics, would bump up against you. At that point I would recommend that you look at the fighter. Since, they are known to draw swords for gold. Thematically it is more appropriate.

The rules don't have to tell me to do that, common sense should.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This response is fairly consistent with those brought up in other forums when I've presented a case of a "mix-mashed" character type that doesn't fall quite exactly within the parameters of a set class. I'm not saying it's not an appropriate, logical response . . . but it's also interesting to me that I've had two conflicting stories from 4e "regulars" about how powers and class relate to character concept. I've had at least 6-8 players at various times, both in person and in forums like this one, state that "Your class doesn't matter, it's just a collection of combat powers, pick the one that you think makes you fight the way you want." Yet Manbearcat and permerton are discussing 4e classes (and their associated powers) as being part and parcel with a "thematic archetype," something which allows players to build on a very specific kind of narrative play.

To me, it's once again the same kind of "incoherence" Manbearcat talked about in the other forum, because frankly, the "thematic archetype" association makes a lot more sense, if you think of a "class" in terms of "a type of person, inhabiting a somewhat narrow narrative niche, with particular themes attached." However, once again, the 4e "core three" make very little real association between this type of "formalized" narrativism---where a rogue character explores themes of loyalty vs. betrayal, personal honor vs. personal gain; a fighter explores themes of fighting to protect others vs. fighting for personal gain; a wizard explores themes of delving into old arcane lore for the advancement of society vs. hoarding knowledge for personal gain.

If a class is truly nothing more than a collection of "combat styles, pick the one that fits," then it essentially obviates the need for class-based powers altogether.

When was it ever really different from that? If you were to analyze OD&D you'd find that it had 4 core classes. Whether you were "fighting to protect others vs personal gain" wasn't relevant. You were a fighter, so you used a weapon and armor etc. The game gave you the tools to do that by what it let you use for equipment and the higher hit points you got, etc. The fine distinctions of character were not directly relevant to class design. HOWEVER that didn't mean that class design had no impact on which classes were useful for what. If you wanted to make a character that was brave you probably didn't make a wizard. The fighter was pretty much your brave guy, he could afford to be.

Now we update things to 2012 and with 4e it may be a bit more detailed but the paladin is a good character for a valiant warrior as he can wade in and dish out extra damage. There are more choices and you MAY indeed decide that you will pick one of the more generic classes like rogue based on a fighting style, and there are enough options that you can add in some mechanics to support 'bravery' or whatever (maybe with toughness or something).

Frankly I think that D&D designers still approach the game as though it was 1980 and they think of classes as complete archetypes, yet they've crafted systems for the last 12 years that don't really work that way. Many people have tried to write the end of the class-based design, but it never seems to die. Classes might serve more than one purpose now, but they do still work. Mostly they make it easy to bundle a bunch of WHATEVER (theme, mechanics, etc) into one thing and present it.

The thing with a classless design would be then what? Who exactly is supposed to be in front? It just increases the cognitive load.

 

[pemerton]

As can be seen the thematic elements defined in that base writeup are being mechanically supported by the selection of powers and by the specific mechanics for each class.

In 4e the conceptual basics of the class (story element), as defined in the class writeup - the theme if you will, are supported by the mechanical aspects of the class (class features, role, powers, etc.).

<snip>

The names and descriptions of powers and feats are not mechanical in nature. However, they also serve as part of that story support. They are also very malleable. A player and DM have free reign to describe them in any fashion they want, or simply default to the base description. If I choose to describe my Shielding Smite as the hand of Pelor interposing itself between my enemies and my allies, I can do that. If I want to say it's a golden halo of protection, I can do that. Story-wise the description is evocative, and can be used to stimulate the imagination. Mechanically the effect is not going to change whether I describe it as the hand of Pelor, a golden halo, or a flying shield.

Because the names and descriptions are malleable, and the mechanics are supportive of the story theme, I can also reflavor to taste.

I agree with all this.

The support for theme that the 4e-GMs in this thread are talking about is mechanical support.

couldn't I say that valiant strike is actually the ability of my paladin to use the crowd and confusion of combat to misdirect and confuse foes so that they are opening themselves up and he is getting sneaky hits in on them? This in turn doesn't support a valiant character archetype... and in fact could support the sneaky cowardly archetype I suggested before or am I missing something here?

I don't really see the cowardice here, but if you going to flavour it as Jackie Chan-style "I duck and weave and my enemies stumble and trip over one another" then go to town. I think you'll have trouble making the rest of your paladin abilities fit that flavour, but maybe your healing surges are really jars of wine, and your "lay on hands" is reviving an ally with strong spirits per Gygax's DMG!
[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has given a different example of how the mechanical support provided by Valiant Strike could be "reflavoured" to undermine theme - the mechanical support that Valiant Strike provides for being in the middle of a great honking melee could be reflavoured in a comedic, slapstick way.

I personally don't think these sorts of interpretations of a paladin's powers would be all that common, but provided it fitted with the rest of the table's play would (in my view, at least) be unobjectionable. I mean, when playing OD&D (or B/X without variable weapon damage) I doubt that many players declared a frying pan as their weapon and d6ed their way through combat as angry cooks in "plate" amour made of pan lids (built as fighters). But no doubt some did - good luck to them!

But I don't really see how any of this counters the initial observation that Valiant Strike provides mechanical support for the thematic expression of one's PC as a valiant warrior. That someone can see a way of reflavouring it as drunken boxen doesn't make the support it provides any less.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But for it to be a worthwhile character power, the character with it will need to get into the middle - not just on the edge of or "on the front line" but in the middle - of melee combat to use it to best effect. Regardless what the (purported?) mechanism is in-world for the benefits gained, that is going to require some sustained "valiance" (is that a word?).

This. There are plenty of brave people who think they are cowards. And plenty of cowards think themselves brave. If when the rubber meets the road you are consistently right in the middle of the enemy you've either some stunningly bad luck or are valiant, whatever your self image might be.

Edit: I guess another possibility would be that the guy gets into the middle of melee regularly through constantly repeated bad luck and poor timing - but then you are basically playing slapstick comedy and need bucketloads of scene framing to set that up!

You need a lot less than you'd think. But the preferred class here is some mix of Bravelord and Lazylord.