Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[Thaed]

Seek and ye shall find

Wait, what is this talking of classes for RP? I have never found one...other than Truenamer and Complete Warrior Samurai since they suck for much else...

Could you point out what you mean?

First check out this link.
http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php

They have put together great indexes for 3.5 and 3.0 D&D. Looking at the Feat index you can pull out numerous feats that have no direct combat use.

The Leadership feat does not add to combat. In my opinion one of the most powerful feats in the game.

3.5 PHB Barbarian class. The Illiteracy class feature has nothing to do with combat. Noticably left out of 4E. While a small thing, it was taken out by choice as it has nothing to do with combat.

3.5 Bard: Bardic Knowledge. Yes it could be applied to combat, but the very description of it shows its intended use is outside of combat. Also check out the spell list. Many spells that have no direct combat effect. Check out some of the bardic music abilities. 1 minute casting time is not for combat.

Cleric spells check the spell list. Many non combat.

Druid Animal companion maybe in combat. Nature sense nothing to do with combat. Trackless step typcially not in combat. Spell list again.

Fighter well a fighter is a fighter. But see skill discussion below.

Monk wholeness of body is outside combat. Timeless body = monk no longer ages. I see direct RP effect there.

I will spare you going any further. I'm sure you can read the classes and determine for yourself.

Besides the non combat spells that are now lacking except a brief few in the shape of rituals.

The skills are the part that 3.5 classes had for RP that now they don't. 4E is pick them and forget them skill selection.

If all of us went to MIT and graduated with Physics degrees we are "trained" in physics. You may spend the next 20 years working in the physics field, while I went on to clean toilets for fun. Now when you are a 20th level scientist and I a 20th level toilet scrubber in 4E our Physics skill is exactly the same.

In 3.5 this was handled by the fact that you continued to pump skill points into physics while I long ago switch out to profession toilet scrubber. So at 20th level your skill in physics far exceeds mine.

Thus my point of the classes in 3.5 being far better for Role-play.

Don't get me wrong I love 4E, but it is power-centric.

 

[Mallus]

Thus my point of the classes in 3.5 being far better for Role-play.

What you're demonstrating is that 3.5e had more rules for non-combat abilities. That's not, at least in my book, synonymous with being 'far better for role-play'. Besides, it wouldn't be difficult to mimic most, if not all, of those 3.5e elements in 4e, assuming a reasonably competent and flexible DM.

As far as role-playing goes, my current 4e character is as good, if not better, than any of my 3e characters. It all depends on how you define role-playing.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

As far as what many people here are saying, I, too, would love some kind of trait or block of traits that would enhance your 4E character outside of combat. Our group was tossing about the idea of "knacks" - traits that would guarantee that your character would be good at X. For example, a Perform Knack. You don't need to take valuable Skill Training. There's no numerical value for it. It just means you can play an instrument and play it well. If a Knack was ever used to help someone (say - distract them) then at most it provides a +2. That's it.

Other knacks would be things like tailor, armor smith, horse husbandry, etc.

I'd been thinking of implementing something similar to this if the need ever arised.

 

[Siran Dunmorgan]

The skills are the part that 3.5 classes had for RP that now they don't. 4E is pick them and forget them skill selection.

If all of us went to MIT and graduated with Physics degrees we are "trained" in physics. You may spend the next 20 years working in the physics field, while I went on to clean toilets for fun. Now when you are a 20th level scientist and I a 20th level toilet scrubber in 4E our Physics skill is exactly the same.

In 3.5 this was handled by the fact that you continued to pump skill points into physics while I long ago switch out to profession toilet scrubber. So at 20th level your skill in physics far exceeds mine.

Thus my point of the classes in 3.5 being far better for Role-play.

Don't get me wrong I love 4E, but it is power-centric.

Part of the issue is that in 4th edition you can't go on to scrub toilets for fun, in the 3.x edition sense of no longer gaining levels in Physicist and instead gaining levels in Janitor.

4th edition mechanics assume that your class is Physicist, but you've taken a series of feats that give you some of the class features and powers of the Janitor class.

You may be scrubbing toilets, but if your original class was Physicist, 4th edition makes the assumption that by 20th level, you're preferentially scrubbing toilets with some kind of ionized nanoparticle stream generator, rather than a brush. [1]

Once the assertion is made that characters can't effectively "change classes", the notion of pick-them-and-forget-them skills is a reasonable simplification.

Whether or not it works for you—and your group—in your own narratives is a different question.

In general, fantasy and science-fiction literature seems to regard the "retired" warrior/general/wizard et al. who has in fact been scrubbing toilets/raising chickens/picking through garbage/farming et al. for the last twenty years instantly resuming full command of skills and powers that they haven't used in decades as a perfectly valid—and rather popular—archetype.

On the other hand, the image of the 'fallen' hero who was once potent but is now a drunken hobo is fairly popular too.

Take your pick.

—Siran Dunmorgan


P.S. The mind reels at the thought of the Epic Destinies for which Janitor might be prerequisite.


[1] A stream of high-energy oxygen nuclei coaxial with an intermittent beta radiation source should produce and excellent deep-cleaning bleach effect.

 

[billd91]

What you're demonstrating is that 3.5e had more rules for non-combat abilities. That's not, at least in my book, synonymous with being 'far better for role-play'. Besides, it wouldn't be difficult to mimic most, if not all, of those 3.5e elements in 4e, assuming a reasonably competent and flexible DM.

I think what people are getting at is that there are more tools and character hooks to role play with.

I think the 4e design, as interesting as it can be for combat, really falls down in giving classes distinction from each other outside of combat. Sure, each has a somewhat different mix of skills and weapon proficiencies - all of which can also be obtained by spending feats, washing away any significant difference. So the defining difference between classes boils down to how they fight.

 

[Mallus]

I think what people are getting at is that there are more tools and character hooks to role play with.

I guess I tend to separate mechanics from characterization (and I associate 'role-playing' w/characterization). But I admit, I've had fun creating kooky characters around certain interesting intersections of the 3.5e rule set. I just don't think of that as an example of good role-playing. It's good gearheading. It becomes good role-playing if I can build a personality to match (like I did with my mystical Communist revolutionary peasant-hero Swordsage, Cloud Strike...).

I think the 4e design, as interesting as it can be for combat, really falls down in giving classes distinction from each other outside of combat.

I agree it gives less than 3.5e, but more than enough for me. Then again, I'm more interested in differentiating between characters via personality, motivation, and theme than by mechanics.

 

[Starbuck_II]

The Leadership feat does not add to combat. In my opinion one of the most powerful feats in the game.

Since when was Leadership not for combat? Do you know its combat potential?

It wasn't an overpowered feat because it did nothing, but because it gave you an extra characte (Cohort).

Yes, he ws lower level, but extra spells help (or a warrior if got one of those).

I mean, Toughness is more for not combat than Leadership.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think the 4e design, as interesting as it can be for combat, really falls down in giving classes distinction from each other outside of combat. Sure, each has a somewhat different mix of skills and weapon proficiencies - all of which can also be obtained by spending feats, washing away any significant difference. So the defining difference between classes boils down to how they fight.

Which is exactly how things were in 1E AD&D. At best you could roll on the Profession chart in the DMG, but it had no mechanical effect on your PC. We used our imaginations to determine what the differences between our characters were and I saw some of the most creative backgrounds back then. It wasn't until late in 1E that optional books tried to even codify what skills your PC possessed. And 2E started the habit of trying to codify game benefits for different backgrounds in the form of kits.

I think that was the beginning of the crutch to character development that led to the current phenomenon of people being stuck in a box because of the name of something. For example, some people "can't" make a samurai unless there is a class called Samurai. Others cling onto the default fluff of the Barbarian so much that they have houserules that forbid you from "becoming" a barbarian later in life.

Fluff and roleplaying are malleable and were the most fun for me when they were left to the imagination of the players and the DM. I think 4E has made strides to move back towards that model. That's why I get a 1E feel from the game even though the combat rules are so drastically different.

 

[D'karr]

Fluff and roleplaying are malleable and were the most fun for me when they were left to the imagination of the players and the DM. I think 4E has made strides to move back towards that model. That's why I get a 1E feel from the game even though the combat rules are so drastically different.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

What do we have for VB, Johnny? How about a weeks vacation in the Bahamas...
​

This is exactly the feeling I get from 4e. The roleplay is thankfully back in the hands of the DM and players and not in the numbers on the character sheet.

If you as a player have put in your background that you're the son of a blacksmith and until taking up the adventuring life, you were doing the same. Then I, as the DM, should make adjustments that make sense in relation to that background and the game world. If the player asks something as simple as what is the quality of this sword, I can make an in-game adjudication taking his background into consideration and give him a reasonable assessment. Do we really need mechanics for that? I don't think so.

However, more guidelines for DMs to help them think in that manner would probably be helpful.

 

[billd91]

Which is exactly how things were in 1E AD&D. At best you could roll on the Profession chart in the DMG, but it had no mechanical effect on your PC. We used our imaginations to determine what the differences between our characters were and I saw some of the most creative backgrounds back then. It wasn't until late in 1E that optional books tried to even codify what skills your PC possessed. And 2E started the habit of trying to codify game benefits for different backgrounds in the form of kits.

Exactly how it was? I beg to differ. Rangers tracked and could use scrying objects, paladins cured disease, thieves had detailed abilities - most for use out of combat, monks had a bunch, druids identified pure water and animals, and characters who attracted followers all did so differently. Class abilties couldn't be picked up by characters outside of the class at all.