The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[Derren]

"Okay guys, we've got a problem, everybody toss in whatever they think they can do!"

Except thats not how skill challenges work. See for example the skill challenge excerpt. But the real restricting part is the fixed number of successes/failures. By requiring this fixed number of rolls it is impossible for a player to "play smart" and reach a goal with less skill checks than what the skill challenge requires. Likewise it is impossible to take a bit longer to reach a goal (but not failing) by taking a detour. Skill challenges don't support this.

when it comes to picking combat powers, don't write anything down. When it comes to fighting, show your lack of prowess by not rolling.

So to build this kind of characters you have to ignore rules. Strangely in 3E you didn't have to do that. So which edition does support this kind of characters better?

 

[Dark Eternal]

I do not see any system able to accomadate that playstyle out of the box (assuming combat penalised builds) that does not require DM twealing. It does strike me as a "the glass is half empty" kind of thing. You have evolved a playstyle in 3e that does not correspond with the baseline design assumptions but you have adapted and are used to it and now you are faced with a different system. It also need tweaking to make that kind of game work and it is not obvious how to go about it right now.

Accepted. Nevertheless, the homogenous nature of all the classes under the new pogrom does not infuse me with confidence that it is going to be friendly to someone who would rather go read a book than play a cookie-cutter D&D character. Original characters aren't easy to design after 20+ years of gaming, but with the power based yin/yang system of 4th classes it's certainly not going to be any easier, ya?

 

[billd91]

As for the bard, I accept your point, but the bard will come, and I see no reason why you could not reskin the warlord to stand in for a bard at the moment.

I really get tired of this kind of argument. The bard's been core since 1989 and in the main books since a decade before that. Why should we have to wait for it now? Why should it have been removed from the initial core to show case the promotion of a second string character class from a previous edition supplement?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think you're too latched onto the previous edition's metagame constructs as the way to define your character, rather than the concept you are trying to achieve and using the appropriate metagame construct to achieve that concept.

In effect, you're saying "I want to play a fighter, because I want to be an archer." when you should be asking "I want to be an archer, so which class would be best for that?"

You can't just blame Nemm, this is partially WotC's fault, because they've mixed fluff and rules together in a fashion that's somewhat misleading.

I mean, there are two clean paths - You could either reveal the "underlying mechanics" and just sell (metaphorically) classes as a set of linked mechanics "This is the martial ranged striker".

Or, you could create classes which extremely flavourful and fluff-heavy and which had highly distinct abilities and certainly existed as REAL entities in the game world, like the classes in Earthdawn.

Instead what they did was to disguise a rules-package with fluff and flavour, semi-implementing it mechanically (with skills, utility powers, etc.), but not really going to the lengths of previous games. So I think if you're being reasonable, you've got to acknowledge WotC's part in creating the problem. By mixing up these two ways of doing things, they've created something that's not quite "real part of the game world", nor "package of powers". You insist people view it as the latter, but it's not reasonable to insist on that, as that's not how it's presented.

 

[billd91]

I think you're too latched onto the previous edition's metagame constructs as the way to define your character, rather than the concept you are trying to achieve and using the appropriate metagame construct to achieve that concept.

In effect, you're saying "I want to play a fighter, because I want to be an archer." when you should be asking "I want to be an archer, so which class would be best for that?"

The trouble with this is, due to character classing, one choice implies (even requires) another. More flexibility in character design ameliorates that... like the archery tree in 3E being available to anyone... not just the guy who knows a lot about the wilds. Oh, sure. He was particularly good at archery (one of those "well, duh!" moments it took TSR/WotC over 10 years and 2.5 editions to figure out), but the achievements he got easily, other characters could still achieve if they wanted it while not becoming him.

 

[hamishspence]

two, if you count warlords as redesigned marshals

Stiill, if the bard is good, I can live with waiting.

 

[Cadfan]

You are correct, sir. You don't understand my point.

And I never will, since you are refusing to explain it.

To the extent that a "4e Mafia" exists, this is the sort of thing that drives them mad. People who do drive by posts in which they make assertions like 4e not supporting characters "who triumph by ingenuity, wit and cunning," and refusing to explain.

Inferior design? *sighs*
Look, you don't get it. I'm not here saying 4E is inferior to 3E. You may have legitimately gotten the impression I was, in which case I'd like to state for the record that 4E is not inferior to 3.xE. Both systems have their flaws, and ANY SYSTEM EVER MADE will likewise have it's flaws. It's just that the particular flaws I've bounced off so far with 4E do not inhibit people who want to play war machines. They do, however seem to inhibit people who want to play characters who triumph by ingenuity, wit and cunning rather than "apply power x to baddies 2,3 and 4 for the win!" Of course, you may not think that is the case. It may be different on your train. But that is what I see from mine.

You're not getting it. I'm not saying, "Prove that 4e is an inferior system or be forever forsworn!" I'm saying, "You've made specific claims about 4e that don't make sense. You haven't given reasons why I should believe them. Would you care to?"

One of your claims seems to have been that 3e does a better job of supporting political or social plotlines, and in support of that, you mentioned the bard class as an example. In response, I pointed out what 4e does instead of having a single "uber-face-man" class. Do you feel that 4e's means of addressing the issue of social or political plotlines is in some way flawed? If so, in what way is it flawed? Why do you think that?

This actually could be grounds for a legitimate discussion, but at this rate it never will be because you haven't got a position. You've got a final conclusion, but no position.

 

[billd91]

One of your claims seems to have been that 3e does a better job of supporting political or social plotlines, and in support of that, you mentioned the bard class as an example. In response, I pointed out what 4e does instead of having a single "uber-face-man" class. Do you feel that 4e's means of addressing the issue of social or political plotlines is in some way flawed? If so, in what way is it flawed? Why do you think that?

Non-adventuring skills. 3E has a variety of non-adventuring skills which can be the launching point of any number of social/non-adventuring encounters and plot hooks.
Oriental Adventures (1st edition) included non-weapon proficiencies that could be extremely important in the highly stratified world of the samurai, where warriors were expected to exhibit refined social graces as well as martial prowess. These non-weapon prpficiencies were incorporated into at least 2 adventures published by TSR. One of these was a tea ceremony, the other an impromptu poetry contest during a moon viewing event. Good performance could lead to a better political connection with the daimyo.
Now, you could model some of these options with raw ability checks, but then you end up with someone doing really well just because they happen to have a good Int or Cha rather than having actually devoted time and effort to the craft (as rated by the spending of non-weapon proficiencies or skill ranks). Or you have the DM kind of hand-wave it. I'm not saying that it's wrong for the DM to hand wave it but then you're not really rewarding a player's investment in a road less traveled, where they tried to carve out a really unique niche for themselves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Cadfan - Whilst I'm reluctant to speak for others, I think the removal of the "uber face man" as you put it, means basically that no-one can choose as their area of speciality "being the face man".

This is kind of similar, I guess, to how no-one can choose to be not-so-hot at combat in 4E. Everyone has to be potentially viable in combat, and everyone has to be potential viable in social situations, seems to be the 4E approach.

4E provides on the very bare minimum of support for social stuff, like being able to have trained Diplomacy, Intimidate and so on, and I guess you could take Skill Focus. Wooo!

Hey, here's another perspective:

In 4E combat, you have four roles.

In 4E social situations, you have one.

Does that make more sense? In 3.XE, with less defined roles, it certainly seemed like in social situations, there were multiple roles, due to the way skills typically played out. What confuses me is why they didn't bother to do a similar thing to what they did in combat, in other situations. Like, it's one thing to give everyone something to do, but effectively they gave everyone the same thing to do. Maybe there should be some way of becoming the "Guardian" in social situations? Like, the NPCs focus on you, as the "face man", whilst another character verbally manuevers them and so on.

I think 3.XE, with it's far far greater (even fairly early on) selection of socially-oriented or non-combat Feats and spells and magic items, and it's use of skill points, typically produced more complex and interesting social encounters than 4E does at this stage.

Who knows, though, maybe we'll all get our "social class" (no pun intended) in some kind of poorly-named social situation supplement. I fear the adjectivenoun classes within it's pages!

 

[Dark Eternal]

And I never will, since you are refusing to explain it.

To the extent that a "4e Mafia" exists, this is the sort of thing that drives them mad. People who do drive by posts in which they make assertions like 4e not supporting characters "who triumph by ingenuity, wit and cunning," and refusing to explain.

You're not getting it. I'm not saying, "Prove that 4e is an inferior system or be forever forsworn!" I'm saying, "You've made specific claims about 4e that don't make sense. You haven't given reasons why I should believe them. Would you care to?"

One of your claims seems to have been that 3e does a better job of supporting political or social plotlines, and in support of that, you mentioned the bard class as an example. In response, I pointed out what 4e does instead of having a single "uber-face-man" class. Do you feel that 4e's means of addressing the issue of social or political plotlines is in some way flawed? If so, in what way is it flawed? Why do you think that?

This actually could be grounds for a legitimate discussion, but at this rate it never will be because you haven't got a position. You've got a final conclusion, but no position.

Emminently fair. I made the mistake of thinking that you only wanted to refute me, rather than legitimately discuss my concerns. Now that I see that this is not the case, please allow me to respond more appropriately. I will need some time to compose my thoughts in an orderly and logical fashion, since explainations require a rather more in depth and detailed assessment if they are to be adequately communicated. I'll provide them further on in the thread, since I don't want to spend half an hour typing this only to find that the discussion has presumed me absent and moved on without me. Stay tuned...