Removing homogenity from 4e

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.

Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can attempt to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.

You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.

The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything could be trapped. So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap). I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.

The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything could be trapped. So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap). I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.

This is why I like passive perception. Have the trap roll against the Rogue/Whatever's passive perception. The DM always roll d20s for no reason whenever, just to scare people and disguise the real rolls.

 

[Imaro]

You are correct, individual traps didn't take much time and weren't much of a problem.

The problem was that, at least in D&D, almost anything could be trapped. So it wasn't just one roll but numerous individual rolls, often even for traps that weren't there (because many DMs deduced that if they didn't roll even when the trap wasn't there, the players would in turn deduce that there was no trap). I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.

I find this interesting as... there is a "Behind the Curtain" section for traps in the 3.5 DMG that gives advice on the purpose and proper placement of traps for DM's. Also didn't your Rogue ever take 10 (which is really just a form of passive perception in and of itself)? Or did he roll for every possible corner explored?

 

[Remathilis]

This is(and I've said it before) a narrow view. Classes aren't defined by advancement or resolution of mechanics. They are defined by their level 1 class features and the tactics they use. The Fighter aggressively bullies people(Defender, non-Defenders don't do this) and can severely punish enemies they are bullying who try to move away from them(this is unique).

I'm going to claim that in my experience, this isn't always true. I played a warlord for a bit (1-3 levels) and felt my ability was always "hit, do 4 damage, give +4 to fighter, and heal as needed). When we tried another game after a TPK, I was an artificer which devolved to "shoot foe, grant bonus, heal as needed". I guess my characters were different; one stood up with the melee guys and the other stood back with the mages, but compared to the breath of options I had as a 3e artificer, it was very boring.

My friend (a lover of casters) went from a wizard to an invoker. He couldn't tell you which class had which powers. Heck, he kept calling Sun Strike "Magic Missile" for 2 levels before giving up. The only thing he could recall as different "One dude wore chainmail and the other used mage-hand alot".

Trained skills? You don't know 4E very well. Fighters have three trained skills, and only the Barbarian class shares this number. The rest have four or more.

Eh. Hang me for one skill; the single fighter I saw played was human; forgive me for forgettting that one detail.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find this interesting as... there is a "Behind the Curtain" section for traps in the 3.5 DMG that gives advice on the purpose and proper placement of traps for DM's. Also didn't your Rogue ever take 10 (which is really just a form of passive perception in and of itself)? Or did he roll for every possible corner explored?

That particular DM ruled that because traps are dangerous/deadly they count as being "threatened" and thus rogues weren't allowed to take 10 when searching for traps or attempting to disarm them (because you can't take 10 while threatened or distracted). So yes, once our paranoia was sufficiently provoked, the rogue began to roll for almost every possible corner explored... and it sucked.

I don't have my 3.5 DMG on hand atm so I can't say whether or not the DM followed the advice within.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm going to claim that in my experience, this isn't always true. I played a warlord for a bit (1-3 levels) and felt my ability was always "hit, do 4 damage, give +4 to fighter, and heal as needed). When we tried another game after a TPK, I was an artificer which devolved to "shoot foe, grant bonus, heal as needed". I guess my characters were different; one stood up with the melee guys and the other stood back with the mages, but compared to the breath of options I had as a 3e artificer, it was very boring.

Yes, if you pick two characters of the same role and pick similar powers you will have a similar play experience.

From what you've stated, I'm guessing your Warlord used Furious Smash a lot. I'd also guess that your Artificer used Aggravating Force and/or Magic Weapon quite a bit.

I imagine you'd have had a very different experience if you'd first played a Warlord and then a Warlock (which play nothing alike) or even if your Warlord had focused on movement influence (Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics) while your Artificer used a buff/debuff combo (Aggravating Force and Static Shock).

No offense, but your argument sounds to me as if, in 3.x for example, you were to say that the Sorcerer and Wizard were identical because you played a character of each class and focused both on fire spells. If you build two characters with the same role using similar choices, then yes they will be similar.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes, if you pick two characters of the same role and pick similar powers you will have a similar play experience.

From what you've stated, I'm guessing your Warlord used Furious Smash a lot. I'd also guess that your Artificer used Aggravating Force and/or Magic Weapon quite a bit.

I imagine you'd have had a very different experience if you'd first played a Warlord and then a Warlock (which play nothing alike) or even if your Warlord had focused on movement influence (Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics) while your Artificer used a buff/debuff combo (Aggravating Force and Static Shock).

No offense, but your argument sounds to me as if, in 3.x for example, you were to say that the Sorcerer and Wizard were identical because you played a character of each class and focused both on fire spells. If you build two characters with the same role using similar choices, then yes they will be similar.

Preconceptions also come into play. If your concept going in is attack, buff, heal and build your character to do just that, you get what you put in.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, you did. You presented a situation in 3.x where a trap could only be dealt with by a Rogue. That meant almost exclusively (correct me if I'm wrong) a non-magical trap with a Search DC above 20.

Even in that case, the only time where "everyone except the Rogue sit on their hands" is the one single Search check. A d20 roll. That's not a lot of time. And once the trap is discovered, any character can attempt to do anything to bypass, disarm or destroy it.

Unless your DM is the type who says: "There's a trap here that only the Rogue can find. Rogue, one Search check please!", then you tend to make a lot of Search checks because of all the traps you don't know aren't there.

But that's not quite all. See, most PCs who aren't Rogues don't take Disable Device. So in general, traps require a majority of attention on a minority of PCs. That is bad.

I remember quite a few game sessions that were slowed to a crawl because the rogue began to search anything and everything after a insidious trap or two (that he failed to check for) beat our party senseless.

This is why I like passive perception. Have the trap roll against the Rogue/Whatever's passive perception. The DM always roll d20s for no reason whenever, just to scare people and disguise the real rolls.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

That particular DM ruled that because traps are dangerous/deadly they count as being "threatened" and thus rogues weren't allowed to take 10 when searching for traps or attempting to disarm them (because you can't take 10 while threatened or distracted).

IIRC the rules on 10/20 were: you can't take 10 when harried (i.e. during combat), and you can't take 20 when there's a consequence for failure.

So searching for traps would be a "no take 20" situation, but taking 10 should generally have been okay.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ExploderWizard]

Preconceptions also come into play. If your concept going in is attack, buff, heal and build your character to do just that, you get what you put in.

Preconceptions are built into the system.

A fighter is a melee meat shield.

A ranger fights with paired weapons or a bow.

A rogue fights with a light blade.

These preconceptions can be ignored only at a crippling cost.