Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[Derren]

Depends on what you understand under "role playing".
When you say roleplaying is just say you do something which isn't combat related and the DM nods to it and lets you succeed then no, 4E does not hinder role playing.
But if you think that role playing is acting as if you were your character in a different world and that your success or failure depends on how good your character is (or building life like characters instead of role restricted hackmachines like mentioned in the blog) then 4E hinders role playing very much as your character is unable to do much besides combat and thus relies on arbitrary DM calls (railroading) to influence the world instead on his abilities.

 

[Jack99]

Okay. I went back and read it.

The answer is still no. It's just a rant with zero valid arguments.

 

[Glyfair]

He does kind of have a point. There are no rules for 3e-style multi-classing, or 1e/2e-style human dual-classing in 4e.

True, but other editions of D&D had their own limitations. In fact, IIRC, BD&D didn't allow but a few isolated cases of "multiclassing" at all. If you were an elf, you had the elf abilities for your whole career. AD&D didn't allow non-humans to switch classes once they started, etc., etc.

I can see disliking the limitations on character ability development in 4E. However, most RPGs have some limitations, or they have other issues to deal with. The important thing is to find an RPG that meets your tastes and lets you roleplay in the style you prefer.

 

[Gothmog]

Sigh. The same old tired arguement again (with a healthy dose of nerdrage), which has been refuted as an absolute falsehood time and time again. I thought we were done with this sort of claptrap last fall.

For the record, 4e does not hinder your roleplaying. 4e doesn't have the mechanical backing some other games do for roleplaying (3.x has it to a limited extent, WoD has it to a much greater degree), but then again, this is an individual preference thing, not an objective reality that rules MUST codify roleplaying via mechanics. 4e multiclassing is more restrictive, but it needed to be compared to 3.x. The multiclassing rules in 3.x were highly frontloaded and overpowered, leading to some of the most horrendous munchkinish problems in gameplay I've seen in 25 years of gaming.

For me and my group, the fewer rules we have for roleplaying, the more creative we are, and the more fun we have- our RP experience with 4e is much more fulfilling than with 3.x, which made a rather fumbled attempt at it (WoD does a much better job in this regard). So if you feel you can't roleplay with 4e, the problem is due to your own limitations, not the system.

 

[jasin]

My experience has been that 4E does indeed hinder roleplaying for my group, and I am still sort of annoyed at the more rigid (compared to 3E) creation framework, but the article's point is severely undermined by its specific example.

You can't play a sorcerer/monk in 4E? You can't play a sorcerer/monk in 3E either. A player tried in our first 3E game; he got pounced by a lion.

Of course, the sorc/monk PrC Complete Arcane changed that, but if we wait long enough, I'm sure there will be a sorcerermonk class in 4E: a kiarcane strikercontroller.

 

[Derren]

You can't play a sorcerer/monk in 4E? You can't play a sorcerer/monk in 3E either. A player tried in our first 3E game; he got pounced by a lion.

You couldn`t? Or just wasn't it powerful enough for you?

 

[billd91]

If the role you envisage is one that the blogger is talking about, then it's clear that 4e is limiting in that regard. I don't see how there can really be any debate over that. Certain types of paths of character development are right out.
Does it hinder role playing in general? No, but I don't think the blog is saying so either.

 

[jasin]

You couldn`t? Or just wasn't it powerful enough for you?

To quote Vance's Adam Reith: You will have to supply your own answer.

 

[Jack99]

If the role you envisage is one that the blogger is talking about, then it's clear that 4e is limiting in that regard. I don't see how there can really be any debate over that. Certain types of paths of character development are right out.
Does it hinder role playing in general? No, but I don't think the blog is saying so either.

Yeah. Was a bit in a hurry when I read it. it is correct that the RAW doesn't allow a character like he wants, at least per say.

Although, if one of my players ever wanted to do such a switch for roleplaying reasons, I think the system is robust enough to support allowing the player spend the 3 feats on multi-classing and then be allowed to pick powers solely from the new class, going forward.

I even think it's robust enough to allow some switching of class features, as the character progresses.

But yeah, I guess that RAW doesn't cover his particular needs.

 

[Drowbane]

No.

But you don't need "mechanical freedom" to Role Play.

My beef with 4e is that characters nolonger make sense in character. Too gamist.