D&D 4E Reflavoring 4E

[Syrsuro]

We have been playing 4E for a little while (the group should hit level 3 next session) and most of the players are sold on it.

But I have one player who is coming around slowly - he has gone from hating it, to simply feeling like it is a good game, but is still missing 'something' compared to the previous editions (he is a returning player most familiar with the AD&D game).

Further discussion seems to show that it is the unique feel of the different classes that seems to be missing. The powers themselves are not that different, and - more significantly, I think - the ability of other classes (especially when they are Eladrin) to 'steal' the iconic skills of one class tends to erase the differences between the classes. There is little about the Ranger class that really makes it feel like a "ranger", rather than simply a dual-wielding/bow-wielding combatant.

The result is an Eladrin Ranger who is trained in Arcana stepping on the toes of the Eladrin Wizard who is trained in Thievery, etc. The powers and their mechanics are already similar enough, and then add in the fact - aside from differences in class skill lists - that trained is trained, regardless of class.

My question is: Has anyone given any thought to ways, especially non-combat ways (since combat itself is fairly well balanced and I'm not anxious to mess with combat much) to restore some of the flavor to these classes.

IMHO, a rogue trained in thievery should be better than a member of any other class trained in thievery (at least at some sub-uses of the skill, and more so than simply that due to their difference in ability scores). A wizard trained in arcana should be better at some uses of the skill than a member of any other class trained in arcana. Etc.

For each class, there ought to be certain non-combat tasks at which they excel when compared to the other classes. And these need not be specific to the class, but perhaps could be specific to the rogue, or to the wizard (or to the ranger, warlock or whatever).

Perhaps the rogue can choose one of Disable Trap, Open Lock, Pick Pocket, or Sleight of Hand in which they are particularily able - exceeding the abilities of a trained member of another class? Or perhaps the ability to identify a magic item is restricted to wizards only? Etc.

And, of course, whatever is done must be done for all classes in some way (at least all classes currently in my group - a wizard, rogue, paladin, ranger and warlord).

Does anyone else think that the 4E rules are a bit over homogenized and missing flavor, and if so - how would you go about fixing it?

Carl

 

[DanChops]

It sounds like you're looking for the equivalent of Cantrips for all the classes. Interesting idea, although I'm afraid I don't have anything to add at the moment.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason why the classes are homogenized is because WotC decided long ago that they didn't want to require any specific class to be have to be present in order for the group to function. They didn't want you to require a having a cleric in order to get necessary healing, require you to have a rogue in order to disarm traps etc. etc. So by widening the range of classes that can do these things, you're more likely to have a party that can cover all the actions that a typical party would want.

That being said... if you want to make your specific classes in your specific party have a bit more 'oomph' in their prototypical abilities... one easy way to do this is to give a free Skill Focus feat to each player. This will give them an extra +3 to a skill they are trained in, thereby allowing the DM to occasionally set DCs a bit higher, knowing that at least one player has the numbers to reach it. So you can now put out more Moderate and Hard difficulty skill checks, and the specific class that has that specific skill focus can shine.

If that isn't enough, and doesn't solve your problem... my last suggestion would be to do more "non-mechanical" roleplaying. The flavor of the classes really come out much more when they are in places that are applicable to their classes, especially when you don't have/let the entire party go along.

In other words, if some information is needed... let the wizard go into the old library catacombs and begin researching (which will eventually lead to a probable skill challenge). But *don't* have the entire party tag along with him when he does that, only to then want to roll Arcana checks as well when it comes time to do the mechanical aspect of the game (and possibly roll better than the wizard and possibly outshine him).

By the same token... the rogue should probably be the one to enter the back room of the tavern and try and get info out of the shifty cook. Let him do this (along with the applicable Initimidate checks), but *don't* allow the rest of the party to tag along (and then want to roll checks as well).

The problem with D&D is that the "party" is such an ingrained part of the game, that we oftentimes don't take the time to let characters go off on their own to work on problems... usually the entire bunch goes everywhere together as a group. Don't allow yourself to fall into this trap. Yeah, you might have to deal with people being "bored" per se, while you deal with the cleric or the paladin, or the warlock when he's off on his own doing his short little plot... but it will certainly mean more to that person when he also gets his moment to shine by himself, without the rest of the group chiming in with "Can I roll my History check too?" and two people roll 20s, while the character training in History rolls a 5.

 

[DanmarLOK]

I'll offer some support for the 'free' skill focus. Grant each class a free skill focus but only applicable for what you feel are the skills that the class should excel in or simply one free skill focus to any of the skills that the class starts trained in if you don't want to have make more focuses sets.

This can though cause balance issues with the skill challenges perhaps although even with the errata which needs errata those are so off 'officially' it probably won't matter.

 

[Syrsuro]

The reason why the classes are homogenized is because WotC decided long ago that they didn't want to require any specific class to be have to be present in order for the group to function. They didn't want you to require a having a cleric in order to get necessary healing, require you to have a rogue in order to disarm traps etc. etc. So by widening the range of classes that can do these things, you're more likely to have a party that can cover all the actions that a typical party would want.

Indeed. I recognize why they did what they did. I don't necessarily agree with what they did (or at least, I think they went to far with an idea that made sense in moderation).
But as a DM, I have the advantage of being able to ignore all that.

They may need to make sure that any combination of classes can do any task (Ok, they don't really. But the idea of tailoring your adventure to your party, rather than running a one-size-fits-all adventure off the shelf seems to have fallen by the wayside).

But I only need to make sure that my party can do any necessary task. As long as I have a rogue, I don't have to allow anyone who trained in Thievery to be her equal. As long as I have a wizard, I can restrict some of the more 'arcane' uses of the skill rather than leaving them open to whomever happens to be trained in Arcana. Etc.

That being said... if you want to make your specific classes in your specific party have a bit more 'oomph' in their prototypical abilities... one easy way to do this is to give a free Skill Focus feat to each player. This will give them an extra +3 to a skill they are trained in, thereby allowing the DM to occasionally set DCs a bit higher, knowing that at least one player has the numbers to reach it. So you can now put out more Moderate and Hard difficulty skill checks, and the specific class that has that specific skill focus can shine.

This was actually my first thought. I decided not to go that route for a couple of reasons.
1) Anyone can take the feat, and thus I wasn't really creating a 'difference'.
2) I would expect each class to take skill focus in their iconic abilities, and thus - ironically - I wouldn't actually be making them better at their iconic ability, Id be making them better at something else - i.e. whatever feat they took instead of skill focus.

At present, I am leaning towards taking a specific use of the skill (probably their choice) and giving them a specific bonus to that use. Thus anyone could use Thievery. But a rogue using Thievery could choose one use of Thievery (such as Sleight of Hand or Open Locks) and be better at that than anyone else is going to be.

(Using a bonus for the Rogue rather than a penalty for the non-rogue because that appears to be one of their underlying design philosophies).

Of course, I haven't figured out what is 'iconic' for a Warlord (outside of combat) - but its still a work in progress.

If that isn't enough, and doesn't solve your problem... my last suggestion would be to do more "non-mechanical" roleplaying. The flavor of the classes really come out much more when they are in places that are applicable to their classes, especially when you don't have/let the entire party go along.

Another excellent idea. But it doesn't solve the initial problem in my mind, as the issue is mechanic, not roleplaying. And yes, roleplaying can make up for a lot of the difference. Heck - they could all have identical stats and abilities and have just decided that one was 'roguish' and I could (or at least someone could) make that difference stand out with roleplaying. But it wouldn't stop their feeling indistinguishable mechanically.

This is something I hope to do, but its not a solution to all of the perceived problem.

Carl

 

[Syrsuro]

On a related note: I am also looking at an idea suggested here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237847 which would limit rituals to those characters who are trained in the relevant skill. This would create some noticeable differences in capability (overcomeable with skill training feats). I haven't yet worked through the list to see if I like the consequences. But its an idea that would seem to be inline with my intended goals.

Carl

 

[Bhikku]

You might have each class associated with one or more organizations that provide some of the flavor in both fluff and in supporting NPCs. Remember how 3e originally said that prestige classes represented the special training that characters could learn when they joined with special organizations within a given campaign? Apply the same idea to the basic heroic classes in 4e - the game knocks itself out to remind us that the PCs are extraordinary individuals and that a fighter is a breed apart from a soldier or a skirmisher, so let's put that to some use.

For example, my Ranger player wanted to model her character strongly on the Dunedain of Middle-Earth, so I made such a group: in this case, a bloodline that bears the traits of half-elves and an organization that trains in the arts of the ranger. Their purpose is to hunt evil and chaotic monsters, expressly to protect the scattered villages in this 'points of light' world; unlike paladins, rangers take the guise of vagabonds and woodsmen, even masquerading as brigands and bandits if needed, and operating in secret. Other rangers exist who are not part of this specific organization, but for the most part this is the original 'school' from which the other rangers derived their own methods. My player had an idea of how she wanted her character to appear and behave in the world, so i gave her an institution that actively encourages her to do exactly that - and incidentally can provide more adventure hooks, mentors, rivals, etc. Even better, if her magic item wishlist includes something that I can't shoehorn into a pile of dungeon loot, it might make a sensible reward from her superiors or a gift from her mentor.

It works just as well for the other PCs: our rogue wanted to be part of a ninja-like clan of spies and assassins, though the traditional "Thieves' Guild" is as effective as it ever was. The fey pact warlock is getting immersed in a lot of the darker faerie lore and can expect weird phenomena to signal the presence and attention of his eldritch patrons. Our cleric gave us a little trouble at first, but eventually we determined that the majority of priests have little or now power aside from rituals, while clerics are rare individuals akin to faith healers and medieval hermits - something midway between a saint and a mere mystic. Thus, clerics tend to attract something of a 'cult of personality' despite themselves, even if their associates within a given church or whatnot are a little more mundane.

Other classes should pose no challenge - wizards' guilds and colleges are fairly commonplace, paladins lend themselves to knightly orders, and any given fighter has a wealth of options from old alliances with mercenary bands to rival schools of battle technique worthy of any kung fu film (which makes me wonder if fencing schools ever had such dramas).

I think once you start playing with the idea, you'll find it not only helps to promote the unique flavor of each class, but also helps connect the PCs with the world and provides you with innumerable tools to challenge, support, direct, and reward the party as well.

 

[Raven Swords]

This is what me group is struggling with most. Mechanically we have no real problem with any of the classes, but the lack of non-combat fluff has led us to see them as styles rather than careers. A ranger is just a warrior trained with a bow or two swords, a rogue just a skirmisher who moves into and out of combat quickly, a fighter is a solder trained in defensive fighting. What you do in the world is no longer defined by the class you choose. There is no reason why the thief who steals from noble manors cant be trained as a ranger.

I've even been thinking about allowing players choose skills from the full list rather than the restricted one in the class description.

I think wizards did this deliberately to allow players to run the character any way they like, I'm looking forward to seeing if the new FR campaign guide creates world specific fluff for each class.

 

[Protagonist]

What you do in the world is no longer defined by the class you choose. There is no reason why the thief who steals from noble manors cant be trained as a ranger.

we've been doing this since 2e for some classes and especially in 3.x. I mean really, how many characters would introduce themselves with "Hi! I'm John and I'm a Duskblade" "Oh hello John, I'm Paul the Swordsage and these are my friends Spellthief George and Ringo the Ur Priest"

 

[Raven Swords]

True and so do we, but in 3rd ed the mechanics supported the roll more than they do now. There is a certain lack of flavour to the 4th ed classes that older editions had. I don't disprove, it's great for players who think about their character.. I do think it illustrates Sysuro's point about all the classes feeling the same.