D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Rechan]

However, Isn't that view you just outlined really superficial?

Huh? Please explain. What is superficial?

Anyways, my ideal class system would be something like ability purchasing.

A CLASS is 3 things: Class Features + Combat Role + Non-Combat Role.

Your combat role is self-explanatory. It has a class feature that lets you do your thing (defending, striking, etc). Powers are categorized by role, so all Defenders are pulling powers from a big pool.

Your Non-Combat role is what your skills and non-combat powers are attached to. There's Scholar, Diplomat, Sneak, Scout, Tough Guy, Charlatan and Athlete. Tough Guy for instance would have Intimidate, Athletics and Endurance, while Sneak would have Stealth, Thievery, and Streetwise, and Charlatan would have Intimidate, Bluff, and Thievery. Each would have features and non-combat utility powers that branch off of it.

This way your Fighter could be a Defender + Scholar, and a Sorcerer could be a Striker + Tough Guy.

The thing I haven't figured out is how Class Features fit into it seamlessly. Both more utilitarian features (like Ritual caster, spellbooks, etc) and Role-related features (Sneak attack vs. the Avenger's emnity mechanic, the Fighter's marks vs. Swordmage's Ward or Paladin's Challenge). I like the idea of letting a person choose which role mechanic they prefer.

 

[CroBob]

Huh? Please explain. What is superficial?

Saying all the classes were the same simply because they gained their abilities at the same rate.

Yes, each class got the same number of at-wills, encounters, and dailies, but exactly what their specific abilities actually did was different. Further, the classes had base mechanics built right into the class itself, which operated regardless what kind of powers they got. Wizards and Fighters got their coolest new daily, but the wizard used his to blow people up with a giant, magical fireball, whereas the fighter used his to stab a dude really hard. The abilities were as different as could be, they were simply gained at the same pace. You could even expect different stuff from the same role. A Rogue and a Barbarian had the same role; Melee DPR, but they sure did it differently!

When fourth edition first came out, one of my friends tried to argue with me that a wizard could be just as good in melee combat as a fighter. Even if we totally ignore the powers each class got, the fighter's Combat superiority, and his Weapon talent, the fighter still had a better Armor Class, more HPs, and more lethal weapons to choose from. It was a silly argument, and I'd say it's only slightly more silly than saying all the 4th edition classes are similar simply because they gain their powers at the same rate, because you're completely ignoring the different base mechanics included in each class, and what those powers actually do.

 

[timASW]

So there's no need to complain about the game's complexity right now UNLESS you truly think WotC's editors are bad at their jobs. Which I don't. I have faith in their abilities.

Faith is good. Some of us however see the fact of a decade of incompetence to argue against it.

 

[Rechan]

Saying all the classes were the same simply because they gained their abilities at the same rate.

Yes. I think it is superficial and yet, apparently it was a very common complaint. Feel is very important, and for a lot of people the classes felt samey.

In another thread, several posters were saying that minor-action healing didn't feel heroic; not devoting a standard action cheapened healing.

It's not the concreteness, but the feel that it invokes, which matters to a lot of people. Take a look at a post by @DEFCON 1 earlier:

We found out in 4E that class name matters to many people. In many cases, moreso than the mechanics of the class.

It's been said before... 4E was designed such that the mechanics to run an archer PC fell into the 'Ranger' class name. You wanted to be an archer... you were supposed to use the Ranger mechanics. If you didn't want to be a "nature" based archer, the game told you to just strip the Nature stuff out (heck, it even let you select Dungeoneering rather than Nature as the 'free skill' you got), and refluff it to whatever kind of archer you wanted.

And many people HATED that.

They wanted to play a 'Fighter' archer. Not a 'Ranger'. Not even a refluffed 'Ranger'. A 'Fighter'. One who was an archer. And what made it doubly troubling was that a 4E 'Fighter' was actually a tank, and it was exceedingly difficult to make it anything other than a Defender tank. And that pissed people off. WotC assigned specific mechanics to specific classes, and folks went nuts. Because they now could no longer choose for themselves what their Fighter did... it was hardwired into the game.

That's spot on IMO. Yes, it's completely superficial to turn to the Ranger class, make an archer, then call him a Fighter. But it still mattered. It's counter to the impressions that those folks Thought when they heard The Fighter class. The mindset was pretty foreign to a lot of people.

IMO almost all of the complaints of 4e could boil down to either superficial feel, playstyle/taste, or WotC's marketing.

 

[CroBob]

So why do such superficial things matter so much to otherwise rational adults? I just... I can't wrap my head around this. Is it nostalgia? I'm not trying to be a jerk, or anything, I seriously don't understand this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Faith is good. Some of us however see the fact of a decade of incompetence to argue against it.

Thankfully, the amount of people who find what WotC has done over the last decade as actual "incompetence" (rather than just having made choices for a new game that were not liked) is extremely low.

I find that if you can read through the 4E game and actually come to the conclusion that the people who made it were "incompetent" (ie "stupid" or "talentless")... I can easily ignore you since it's obvious you have not idea what the definition of "incompetence" actually is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So why do such superficial things matter so much to otherwise rational adults? I just... I can't wrap my head around this. Is it nostalgia? I'm not trying to be a jerk, or anything, I seriously don't understand this.

Welcome to ENWorld.

We've been having these discussions about that very thing here for over a decade.

 

[hanez]

If the classes are all the same in next, like they were in 4e, all having the same advancement and mechanics then that is a total dealbreaker for me. I got fooled once that the mechanics could be the same and we could just add fluff to make the game interesting..... 2years of bad campaigns and wasted money on books, I'll only try next if they are willing to LET classes be different

 

[Hussar]

This depends on how the caster/mechanics division is handled.

IF the PHB says (probably more eloquently): wizards use vancian, sorcerers spell points, warlocks AED and clerics/druids spontaneous; but check with your DM becauce he may use an alternate system (see page XXX in DMG about alternate spellcasting systems) I'd be all for that. Every class is unique and the ability to swap them out is a DM option somewhere in the DMG.

I don't want: Pick your class (wizard, sorcerer, warlock), pick your casting method (Vancian, points, spontaneous or AED, check with your DM which system he allows). I'd like to see internal consistency be assumed, and DMs have to house rule it out if they choose to micromanage that much.

Choosing the default caster method should be on par with rewriting deities to fit your world, not step 7 in the PC creation process.

Whereas I most certainly want the opposite. I want the players to create the characters that they want to play. I have zero interest in either WOTC or myself handing down their options from on high. If I want to create particular kinds of "packages" for my world, fine and dandy. But, I don't want WOTC's fingerprints all over my campaign thanks.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, just how unique do classes actually have to be to be unique?

Go back to Basic/Expert for a second. There is virtually no difference, mechanically, between a Fighter and a Dwarf. The dwarf gets some additional dwarfy abilities, but, in combat, they are identical.

Yet, I never heard complaints about how they were too close. And, in play, the two were always played very differently.

Even in AD&D, the difference between the fighter and ranger were pretty small. 1e I'm referring to here. Rangers got tracking and an attack bonus vs a specific list of creatures. Oh, and he couldn't carry as much money. That was the sum total of the differences. Same weapons, same armor, etc. Yet, again, I'm pretty sure that 1e players will tell you that there is a world of difference between a ranger and a fighter.

Class unique abilities are not required to make classes unique. People make their characters unique through play. Otherwise two characters of the same class would be identical. By breaking out specific class elements and letting players mix and match, to a certain degree, you gain maximum flexibility without losing the core of the classes.

I mean, going back to the warlock vs wizard discussion. If the only difference between my warlock and your wizard is that I use a spell point system and you use Vancian, but we all use the same spell list, have the same attack progression, same weapons, same armor, I'd argue that that is not enough to actually differentiate those two classes.

But, if my warlock uses a mana system, is an explorer and tough, and your wizard uses the Vancian system, is an academic and is a diplomat, that will distinguish those two characters.

Why do classes need to be distinct? Isn't the goal to make characters who are unique?