Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6016244" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>It is.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>For the record, I find 4e classes to be a lot <em>less</em> homogenous than 3.X classes. 3.X only starts coming close to the versatility of 4e character concepts when you include the alternate casting systems such as in the Bo9S, the incredible range of poorly balanced monster PC options, and the rest of the bloat.</p><p> </p><p>Almost all pre-Bo9S martial PCs are one trick ponies, stacking feats and class features to make for it being a better trick. Now to me that's homogenous. All wizards are effectively almost interchangeable (barring specialist/banned schools). They just need to swap equipment - i.e. spellbooks. Literally the only difference in casting between clerics is their domain spells. And with druids, not even that. This, to me, is a snoozefest of homogeneity.</p><p> </p><p>In 4e even within the same class a wizard specialising in pyromancy with a minor in evocation is not going to resemble a wizard specialising in illusion with a minor in enchantment in any way except training in arcana and being squishy. The only overlapping spell is probably going to be Prestadigitatation (and there's a possibility neither's going to take it). This makes our two wizards almost as different as a 3.5 wizard is from a cleric.</p><p> </p><p>As for our melee classes in 4e being homogenous, I've built a barbarian beserker who wasn't even homogenous with <em>himself</em>. He had three daily powers - and each one fundamentally changed the way he played in combat. One expanded his defender aura. With his greatspear he <em>owned</em> the ground around himself. One made him act like his normal violent self but moreso, lashing out hard against anyone who hurt his friends. And with the third he'd pick a single foe and tear into them, stabbing ferociously before continuing to the next target. In all three cases he was awesome - in different ways.</p><p> </p><p>And then there's homogeneity between the skill users. In 3.X your skill level in a given skill is just about it. There are about three feats that open up how you can use a given skill. Rogues get tricks <em>from level 10</em>. The number differs slightly, but the impact doesn't. About the only thing to significantly change the way skills can be used is Complete Scoundrel. 4e has utility powers. And Utility powers can fundamentally change the uses of skills. Stealth isn't just stealth - some characters are qualitatively better at hiding than others, able to hide where others couldn't even where others are quantitatively better.</p><p> </p><p>So no, I don't find 4e classes more homogenous than 3.X classes. I find them significantly less so.</p><p> </p><p>And AEDU is neither simulationist nor gamist. It significantly helps <em>narrativist</em> play. It's a pacing mechanic. Default, 1/scene, limit break.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, yes. When literally all the awesome in 3.X is concentrated into one small mechanic (the spells) - to the point that an attempt to give non-casters some awesome is dismissed by many as 'Weaboo Fitan Magic' it needs to be shared around.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Indeed. There were two parts to that tradeoff however. The first is that 1st level Magic Users were crap, having only one random spell, no armour, and terrible hit points. It was a reward to make up for the first four levels sucking. The second is that the game more or less stopped at 9th/10th level. The highest level PC in Greyhawk was <em>14th</em> level. So the wizard dominance lasted only a couple of levels before the fighter was given an army and both were expected to more or less retire.</p><p> </p><p>Literally every single one of these balancing factors except armour (Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt anyone?) had gone by 3.X. Which made playing a wizard at low levels much more fun. A first level 3.X wizard starts off with not one random spell, but his intelligence modifier level in spells he selected, and the ability to cast three spells plus a handful of cantrips per day. Which meant a first level wizard wasn't an excercise in frustration that it often was in oD&D. This was in many ways a good design decision - it increased the fun. On the downside it meant that the wizard was no longer behind at 1st level, and he scaled better than ever. Different power curves can be fun - if there's a reward for taking a handicap. But the handicap had been eliminated by the 3.0 rules. Which gave the 4e designers two choices. Either they could revert to the oD&D design decision and nerf the low level wizard into suckitude again or they could keep the 3.X design decision but follow it through by starting the wizard at the same level as everyone else - and then having them level with everyone else. They chose 3.X.</p><p> [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], starting with an Int of 16 is all very well. But that means by level 8 they should probably have an Int of 18 and certainly a +2 headband of intellect and possibly a +4 (especially if they spent a feat on crafting wondrous items - a very good investment, and they can make even the +6 version at level 8). Also assume spell focus if they are conjuring a lot. That's a total Int of 22 (with the +4 version) with spell focus, for a +7. Or Glitterdust DC 19. And I'm not particularly redlining here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6016244, member: 87792"] It is. For the record, I find 4e classes to be a lot [I]less[/I] homogenous than 3.X classes. 3.X only starts coming close to the versatility of 4e character concepts when you include the alternate casting systems such as in the Bo9S, the incredible range of poorly balanced monster PC options, and the rest of the bloat. Almost all pre-Bo9S martial PCs are one trick ponies, stacking feats and class features to make for it being a better trick. Now to me that's homogenous. All wizards are effectively almost interchangeable (barring specialist/banned schools). They just need to swap equipment - i.e. spellbooks. Literally the only difference in casting between clerics is their domain spells. And with druids, not even that. This, to me, is a snoozefest of homogeneity. In 4e even within the same class a wizard specialising in pyromancy with a minor in evocation is not going to resemble a wizard specialising in illusion with a minor in enchantment in any way except training in arcana and being squishy. The only overlapping spell is probably going to be Prestadigitatation (and there's a possibility neither's going to take it). This makes our two wizards almost as different as a 3.5 wizard is from a cleric. As for our melee classes in 4e being homogenous, I've built a barbarian beserker who wasn't even homogenous with [I]himself[/I]. He had three daily powers - and each one fundamentally changed the way he played in combat. One expanded his defender aura. With his greatspear he [I]owned[/I] the ground around himself. One made him act like his normal violent self but moreso, lashing out hard against anyone who hurt his friends. And with the third he'd pick a single foe and tear into them, stabbing ferociously before continuing to the next target. In all three cases he was awesome - in different ways. And then there's homogeneity between the skill users. In 3.X your skill level in a given skill is just about it. There are about three feats that open up how you can use a given skill. Rogues get tricks [I]from level 10[/I]. The number differs slightly, but the impact doesn't. About the only thing to significantly change the way skills can be used is Complete Scoundrel. 4e has utility powers. And Utility powers can fundamentally change the uses of skills. Stealth isn't just stealth - some characters are qualitatively better at hiding than others, able to hide where others couldn't even where others are quantitatively better. So no, I don't find 4e classes more homogenous than 3.X classes. I find them significantly less so. And AEDU is neither simulationist nor gamist. It significantly helps [I]narrativist[/I] play. It's a pacing mechanic. Default, 1/scene, limit break. Well, yes. When literally all the awesome in 3.X is concentrated into one small mechanic (the spells) - to the point that an attempt to give non-casters some awesome is dismissed by many as 'Weaboo Fitan Magic' it needs to be shared around. Indeed. There were two parts to that tradeoff however. The first is that 1st level Magic Users were crap, having only one random spell, no armour, and terrible hit points. It was a reward to make up for the first four levels sucking. The second is that the game more or less stopped at 9th/10th level. The highest level PC in Greyhawk was [I]14th[/I] level. So the wizard dominance lasted only a couple of levels before the fighter was given an army and both were expected to more or less retire. Literally every single one of these balancing factors except armour (Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt anyone?) had gone by 3.X. Which made playing a wizard at low levels much more fun. A first level 3.X wizard starts off with not one random spell, but his intelligence modifier level in spells he selected, and the ability to cast three spells plus a handful of cantrips per day. Which meant a first level wizard wasn't an excercise in frustration that it often was in oD&D. This was in many ways a good design decision - it increased the fun. On the downside it meant that the wizard was no longer behind at 1st level, and he scaled better than ever. Different power curves can be fun - if there's a reward for taking a handicap. But the handicap had been eliminated by the 3.0 rules. Which gave the 4e designers two choices. Either they could revert to the oD&D design decision and nerf the low level wizard into suckitude again or they could keep the 3.X design decision but follow it through by starting the wizard at the same level as everyone else - and then having them level with everyone else. They chose 3.X. [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], starting with an Int of 16 is all very well. But that means by level 8 they should probably have an Int of 18 and certainly a +2 headband of intellect and possibly a +4 (especially if they spent a feat on crafting wondrous items - a very good investment, and they can make even the +6 version at level 8). Also assume spell focus if they are conjuring a lot. That's a total Int of 22 (with the +4 version) with spell focus, for a +7. Or Glitterdust DC 19. And I'm not particularly redlining here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top