Imaro
Legend
What? Again this isn't making sense to me... what isn't as good of a quick reference?
Removing homogenity from 4e
- Thread starter jmucchiello
- Start date
What? Again this isn't making sense to me... what isn't as good of a quick reference?
BryonD
Hero
I, for one, absolutely take your word for that.
Honestly, if a DM ran 4E that way, I would 100% expect they would run 3E that way as well.
That said, at least you now know my frustration when everyone keeps trying to tell me how bad my 3E games must play.....
But seriously, a bad dm being homogeneous in how he runs the game offers zero insight into whether the underlying game is also homogeneous.
Remathilis
Legend
I think KM hits the nail on the head here.
Each "role" is synonymous with a classic class (defender=fighter, leader=cleric, striker=thief, controller=wizard). Thus, every class is just a variant on the "original" class. (A paladin is a fighter with a different mark, cha as a high-stat, and a healy power. An invoker is a wizard with more radiant powers and a few more buffs. Etc.)
The exception (and perhaps 4e best example of where 4e homogeneity is limited) is the striker role: barbarians don't play like rogues which don't play like sorcerers. There is an easy reason for this: THEY DON"T USE A UNIFIED "STRIKER" MECHANIC! If barbarians were built around the concept of "add Xd6 damage per tier" like a ranger's prime shot or warlock's curse, I think they'd feel closer to each other. (Most likely, they'd feel like rangers who use 2handed wpns instead of a wpn in each hand).
Yet a barbarian doesn't feel much like a 2blade ranger or a brutal rogue. Why? Well, they get their extra damage in a unique way (its factored into their powers, which do higher [w] damage). Sorcerers similarly feel different than a warlock because they don't declare a "target" of their Xd6 damage, they just deal 2 ability scores worth of modifier to an area. Even the rogue (who relies on CA) and the monk (whose full-disciplines allow for movement to matter in powers) show a diversity. MECHANICAL diversity.
See what they did there? Now, why can't we have a defender that doesn't have to mark his foe? Why not a leader that doesn't have a XX-word healing power?
More importantly, the psion showed us that we don't need every class to gain encounters, dailies, and/or utilities at the same rate. Maybe it'll open the door for classes flush with encounter-powers (at the expense of dailies) or one who doesn't get many attack-powers, but SCORES of utilities (a jack-of-all-trades class, anyone?)
I guess I feel terrible that these innovations come in year 2-3, leaving the classic classes of PHB 1&2 feeling bland. One wonders if we don't eventually see a "Warrior", "Thief", "Mage", and "Priest" class down the road that feels different from the blander "default" classes we have now...
I'd like to suggest to both sides here that the homogeneous appearance in prior editions or in this edition all depends on where you look and what bothers you. It is homogeneous to say that all defenders have a mark ability that encourages enemies to attack them rather than allies. But it is also homogeneous for all warrior classes in 3e (melee ranger, barbarian and fighter) have the mechanic of moving adjacent and relying on a high AC to save you. It is homogeneous to have all the classes gain their levels of powers at the same time but it it also homogenous to have all divine and arcane spellcasters use the same spell lists and cast their spells in much the same way. It is homogeneous to have 1/2 + level as a scaling indicator of character power, but it is also homogeneous to have all classes scale by 3 tiers of BAB.
I hear that some bemoan that 3e had mechanical subsystems for how to resolve attacks, or cast spells, or do skills. However, 4e has mechanical subsystems too in terms of roles, classes, and powers. Roles have different mechanical subsystems in that you are a tank, buffer/healer/, enemy plan disruptor, and high damage dealer.
Within those roles there are rules subsystems known as classes. For example, a Warden plays differently than a fighter because he has more immediate reactions and terrain altering powers. A fighter plays differently from a paladin because a fighter does more damage while a paladin can take more punishment and negate or diminish enemy attacks.
Within those classes there are powers which contain rules subsystems in and of themselves. While it is true that powers have unifying elements, they also contain a modular approach to rules that makes each power slightly different from its brothers. It matters which powers you take, and the more powers that are introduced, the more 4e can experiment with mechanics that provide differentiation. For example, fighters were fairly monolithic in terms of what they did in the early days, but the more powers that are introduced, the more divergent fighters became. It matters now what weapon you focus on. A fighter that uses his shield as his primary weapon is different than a fighter who uses an axe, spear or sword as his primary weapon.
I can understand if it bothers someone that everyone gets their powers at the same levels, or if roles have certain abilities in common (like healing word), or that powers are largely made by mixing damage with a set (but flexible) list of conditions. But prior editions had unifying rules elements too. It bothers me in prior editions that rogues are not sufficiently mechanically distinct from fighters, in that both move adjacent to a target and rely on a high AC to keep them on their feet. It bothers me that sorcerers and wizards use the same spell list. It bothers me that you always had to use strength vs. AC to resolve a melee attack, and it didn't matter how nimble or fast you were. Like I said upthread, I don't mind common mechanics as long as the narrative play is different. If the mechanics are different, but the end result of narrative play is the same (you have to increase your defense abilities and maximize your damage output) then I couldn't care less about differing mechanics. I take no special pleasure in figuring out different mechanical subsystems to achieve the same goal.
I must also point out there was also some homogenization of mechanics that occurred in each subsequent edition as well. THAC0 instead of a weapons table, 9 spell levels both for arcane and divine spells instead of 7 for clerics and 9 for magic users, and an increasing reliance on the D20 die. Did it lead to greater homogenization? In some ways, but you have to decide whether game balance and ease of comprehending the rules are as important as game complexity and wildly divergent play experience.
I would also like to suggest that homogenization of some rules elements also led to greater options in play as well. For example, when fighters had a very rudimentary action resolution (roll d20 to hit, roll damage die) there wasn't much you could do to differentiate fighters. Wizards and clerics on the other hand could be wildly different in play (schools and spheres) because they had spells. Now that every class uses the powers system (which is one of the examples of homogenization) you can have fighters that look, feel and play much differently.
So I suggest to you all that 4e isn't more homogeneous than prior editions, it is just has mechanics that provide different subsystems of play in different places.
For those that say that 4e's choices of where they chose to homogenize the rules led to less varied stories or play experiences as a whole, I will simply say that you are wrong, and I hope this very long post has convinced you of that. I can assure you that our 4e games are just as varied in story and style as yours are, if you have a good DM.
I hear that some bemoan that 3e had mechanical subsystems for how to resolve attacks, or cast spells, or do skills. However, 4e has mechanical subsystems too in terms of roles, classes, and powers. Roles have different mechanical subsystems in that you are a tank, buffer/healer/, enemy plan disruptor, and high damage dealer.
Within those roles there are rules subsystems known as classes. For example, a Warden plays differently than a fighter because he has more immediate reactions and terrain altering powers. A fighter plays differently from a paladin because a fighter does more damage while a paladin can take more punishment and negate or diminish enemy attacks.
Within those classes there are powers which contain rules subsystems in and of themselves. While it is true that powers have unifying elements, they also contain a modular approach to rules that makes each power slightly different from its brothers. It matters which powers you take, and the more powers that are introduced, the more 4e can experiment with mechanics that provide differentiation. For example, fighters were fairly monolithic in terms of what they did in the early days, but the more powers that are introduced, the more divergent fighters became. It matters now what weapon you focus on. A fighter that uses his shield as his primary weapon is different than a fighter who uses an axe, spear or sword as his primary weapon.
I can understand if it bothers someone that everyone gets their powers at the same levels, or if roles have certain abilities in common (like healing word), or that powers are largely made by mixing damage with a set (but flexible) list of conditions. But prior editions had unifying rules elements too. It bothers me in prior editions that rogues are not sufficiently mechanically distinct from fighters, in that both move adjacent to a target and rely on a high AC to keep them on their feet. It bothers me that sorcerers and wizards use the same spell list. It bothers me that you always had to use strength vs. AC to resolve a melee attack, and it didn't matter how nimble or fast you were. Like I said upthread, I don't mind common mechanics as long as the narrative play is different. If the mechanics are different, but the end result of narrative play is the same (you have to increase your defense abilities and maximize your damage output) then I couldn't care less about differing mechanics. I take no special pleasure in figuring out different mechanical subsystems to achieve the same goal.
I must also point out there was also some homogenization of mechanics that occurred in each subsequent edition as well. THAC0 instead of a weapons table, 9 spell levels both for arcane and divine spells instead of 7 for clerics and 9 for magic users, and an increasing reliance on the D20 die. Did it lead to greater homogenization? In some ways, but you have to decide whether game balance and ease of comprehending the rules are as important as game complexity and wildly divergent play experience.
I would also like to suggest that homogenization of some rules elements also led to greater options in play as well. For example, when fighters had a very rudimentary action resolution (roll d20 to hit, roll damage die) there wasn't much you could do to differentiate fighters. Wizards and clerics on the other hand could be wildly different in play (schools and spheres) because they had spells. Now that every class uses the powers system (which is one of the examples of homogenization) you can have fighters that look, feel and play much differently.
So I suggest to you all that 4e isn't more homogeneous than prior editions, it is just has mechanics that provide different subsystems of play in different places.
For those that say that 4e's choices of where they chose to homogenize the rules led to less varied stories or play experiences as a whole, I will simply say that you are wrong, and I hope this very long post has convinced you of that. I can assure you that our 4e games are just as varied in story and style as yours are, if you have a good DM.
BryonD
Hero
Nope, not even a teeny change in position.
I'm sure you are correct. And I'm highly certain that vastly varied battlemat tactical options are present.
But you are still telling a story, ever bit as varied as mine, that is mechanically resolved by a system that puts "the math works" as the golden rule of design.
You can role play on top of any rule set. The question for me is, does some other system do a better job of building the character as I want to see it, rather than only as close as "working" math permits. And quite simply, I don't pay for role play. That comes for free. I pay for the best mechanical model I can get. The math works, as well as "simple" and "quick to prep", all require trade-offs some where.
4E is fine.
Other games are awesome.
4E is fine.
If the builds of 4E were less homogeneous, it would be closer to awesome.
But, it isn't. That's cool. I played better games during 2e and that worked out great, and the alternatives during the 4E era are looking even better for me.
Last edited:
As Bryon D said, I don't doubt that your 4e games have roleplaying. My 4e games, rare as they are, had roleplaying too!
The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.
That's where the out of combat mechanics come in. It removes the "fighting as a minigame" or the jRPG CHSSST CHSSSST problems.
When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.
And again, the non-combat rules we have are skill challenges and...that's it. Yes, you can stand around and chatter, but - wait, no, the DMG tells you not to do that. So hey.
Look, I'm happy your houserules give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.
What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks. Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills and powers more out-of-combat related!" Let illusionists make illusions. Let wizards light things on fire.
Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"
The issue is, the roleplaying never really went anywhere mechanically. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but in the end you're just kinda faffing about - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game.
That's where the out of combat mechanics come in. It removes the "fighting as a minigame" or the jRPG CHSSST CHSSSST problems.
When the only mechanics you have are for combat, that's literally the only part of the game that is the game.
And again, the non-combat rules we have are skill challenges and...that's it. Yes, you can stand around and chatter, but - wait, no, the DMG tells you not to do that. So hey.
Look, I'm happy your houserules give you a lot more out of combat stuff, but house rules do not defend a game.
What 4e needs to do is the exact goddamn opposite of what they are doing with their skill tricks. Instead of saying "Hey, let's make skills more combat-related," they should be saying "Hey, let's make skills and powers more out-of-combat related!" Let illusionists make illusions. Let wizards light things on fire.
Once again, in before more houserules or "My good DM makes this otherwise!"
Fanaelialae
Legend
4e is awesome.
You might not think so, which is fine.
Admittedly, I'm more concerned with how my game runs under the hood than how many colors I can get the shiny new paint job in. Sounds like you're a paint job kind of guy, which is also fine. Just different priorities.
And the winner for "Best insult while trying to pretend you aren't insulting them" is...
Folks, please don't do this. It's fine if you don't agree with them, but taking dismissive and cheap sots isn't something we want here. If this is at all ubnclear, please shoot me a PM. ~ Piratecat
Last edited by a moderator:
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Best roleplaying I've experienced came from freeform 2E AD&D and Vampire: the Masquerade(yes Masquerade) games where we didn't really bother with out of combat systems, such as they existed. If you enjoy roleplaying better supported by mechanics, good for you, but it is far from the one true way.
Fanaelialae
Legend
First, putting aside spellcasting for the moment, you can do anything in 4e that you could do in a previous edition (and if you are willing to use a bit of ingenuity, you can easily duplicate most of the spellcasting too, though it may admittedly require a bit more effort than saying a few mystic words).
Secondly, it's not a houserule, it's page 42.
Please, you're just marginalizing someone else's opinion. Are you sad that they don't agree with you? Good to know that, according to you, liking 4e = "I like to play actual games," whereas disliking it = "Oh, you just like to paint things, you don't care or really understand how the game works."
Can we please make it a bannable offense or something to claim that, in order to dislike a game, that person clearly must have never played it or has no experience about it, because obviously if you understood the game, you have to love it?
Similar Threads
