Siloing: Good or Bad?

[Sadrik]

I think there is a disconnect as to WHAT SILOING IS in this context. My understanding is that rituals were siloed off of the power system so that you did not have to choose between Identify and Magic Missile. Now you choose MM from a list of attacks and you choose Identify from a list of other rituals. Utility powers were thinnly sliced away from attacks as a group of combat effects that do not roll an attack die. In some cases they can also be used outside of combat.

The various attacks that you choose from have diversified to every class no longer are they just for spell casters and there are now 13 "spell" levels for attacks powers (14 if you include at-will) instead of 0-9th level spells. So the system is striated from 10 spell levels to 14 to encompass 30 levels instead of 20. This adds some hair spliting as to which spells are more powerful than others, in fact, some lower level attacks are clearly superior to upper level ones.

The 4e skill system is arguably less siloed off than previous editions. In the current edition you select around 4 skills that are tied to your class that you get +5 in. To get additional skills you have to spend feats which come from feats that can help you in combat. So you make the choice combat feat or gain a new skill. Previously in 3e you gained a certain amount of skill points dependent on your class and spent them how you liked. I like the 4e skill system better but it is more integrated into the system and not as siloed off as some of you suggest.

So the 4e SILOING CONCEPT IS: rituals split off from attacks. Remember the mount spell example given in the development article.

 

[bardolph]

Well, if we want to get technical on the definition of silo-ing, 4e has five different silos:

• Attributes
• Race (including languages)
• Class (including subclass, trained skills, and paragon paths)
• Feats (including all rituals)
• Powers

These are silos because you generally cannot make sacrifices in one to make gains in another.

The one notable exception is the "Feats" silo, which allows you to burn feats to gain access to extra abilities in other silos. I think this is reasonable, given that feats are in relatively limited supply to begin with.

Also note that the Powers silo is divided further into four silos of "At-Will" "Encounter" "Daily" and "Utility" powers. Within these four silos, the Utility silo contains many situational and even non-combat powers, but because you only gain one Utility power every four levels, the impact on your overall combat effectiveness is limited.

I know that the OP mentioned "silo-ing" as a separation of combat vs non-combat abilities, but as it turns out, that's not really the case. Many skills have combat uses, and characters can spend feats (and utility powers) for non-combat usefulness. The race silo determines languages spoken (non-combat), but every race also has combat abilities.

I think the most important silo for purposes of game balance is the Powers silo. 4e is the first edition of D&D that guarantees that all characters of the same experience level have the same number and power level of core combat abilities, regardless of class.

The silo concept also has a huge impact on the overall playstyle of the game as a whole. 4e is clearly designed around planned encounters which have a clear "expected challenge" rate based solely on the level of the PCs, rather than a more freeform style where character build is the most important determination of whether or not you'll be able to participate meaningfully in any given encounter.

 

[Imaro]

Well, if we want to get technical on the definition of silo-ing, 4e has five different silos:

• Attributes
• Race (including languages)
• Class (including subclass, trained skills, and paragon paths)
• Feats (including all rituals)
• Powers

These are silos because you generally cannot make sacrifices in one to make gains in another.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with how you decided to divide the siloing of 4e... But given the above categorization I disagree with your last statement, which I'll go into more detail about below.

The one notable exception is the "Feats" silo, which allows you to burn feats to gain access to extra abilities in other silos. I think this is reasonable, given that feats are in relatively limited supply to begin with.

I would say your race (with it's ability modifiers) affects class effectiveness, what feats you have access to, your attributes and even number and variety of powers. Just as class can affect your available feats, ability to multiclass, powers available, etc. In fact 4e doesn't seem, IMO, to silo things very well at all.

Also note that the Powers silo is divided further into four silos of "At-Will" "Encounter" "Daily" and "Utility" powers. Within these four silos, the Utility silo contains many situational and even non-combat powers, but because you only gain one Utility power every four levels, the impact on your overall combat effectiveness is limited.

Yet depending on the utility power selected it can affect combat effectiveness and/or out of combat effctiveness... this seems like the typr of sacrifice siloing is suppose to prevent, yet you still sacrifice in one area for another.

I know that the OP mentioned "silo-ing" as a separation of combat vs non-combat abilities, but as it turns out, that's not really the case. Many skills have combat uses, and characters can spend feats (and utility powers) for non-combat usefulness. The race silo determines languages spoken (non-combat), but every race also has combat abilities.

You've given examples (and I've got even more) of exactly why I don't think 4e silos very well... choices made tend to affect totally unrelated areas.

I think the most important silo for purposes of game balance is the Powers silo. 4e is the first edition of D&D that guarantees that all characters of the same experience level have the same number and power level of core combat abilities, regardless of class.

I disagree here as well... race can affect number of combat abilities, whether a class has combat focused utilities or not can also affect core combat abilities, feats can affect the effectiveness of powers,and so on.

The silo concept also has a huge impact on the overall playstyle of the game as a whole. 4e is clearly designed around planned encounters which have a clear "expected challenge" rate based solely on the level of the PCs, rather than a more freeform style where character build is the most important determination of whether or not you'll be able to participate meaningfully in any given encounter.

Not sure what "meaningfully" means here. It's bandied about as far as combat in 4e goes... but it's such a broad and ill-defined term that I find it hard to discuss. As an example, I've seen a warlord played in a party that didn't coordinate with him very well and thus he didn't contribute much to their battles. Or a wizard who seems quite ineffective compared to others in a battle with elites and/or solos.

Anyway, just some of my (rambling) thoughts... oh, yeah... and Merry Christmas!!

 

[bardolph]

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with how you decided to divide the siloing of 4e...

The categorization is based on resource management. I can't drop a power in order to have more points to spend in Attributes, etc. Every character has one race, one class, X attribute points, Y feats, and Z class powers, based on level. This is the same no matter what combination of "stuff" you choose.

I would say your race (with it's ability modifiers) affects class effectiveness, what feats you have access to, your attributes and even number and variety of powers. Just as class can affect your available feats, ability to multiclass, powers available, etc. In fact 4e doesn't seem, IMO, to silo things very well at all.

I never meant that items in each silo don't affect items in other silos. Just that the amount of resources you have in each silo remains the same regardless.

This is a HUGE difference over previous editions, where class selection would completely override all other silos.

Yet depending on the utility power selected it can affect combat effectiveness and/or out of combat effctiveness... this seems like the typr of sacrifice siloing is suppose to prevent, yet you still sacrifice in one area for another.

... but no Utility power affects the number of feats you have at your disposal, the number of languages you speak, etc. How you decide to spend your resources inside the Utility silo is up to you, of course. I would point out, however, that most Utility powers are situationally useful, as opposed to Dailies and Encounters.

I disagree here as well... race can affect number of combat abilities, whether a class has combat focused utilities or not can also affect core combat abilities, feats can affect the effectiveness of powers,and so on.

As explained above, while race selection can certainly yield combinations that work well with abilities in other silos, it still does not affect the number of resources you have to work with in the other silos. For example, race selection gives you +2/+2 in attributes, but all races give the same +2/+2; the only variable is which attributes are affected.

Not sure what "meaningfully" means here. It's bandied about as far as combat in 4e goes... but it's such a broad and ill-defined term that I find it hard to discuss. As an example, I've seen a warlord played in a party that didn't coordinate with him very well and thus he didn't contribute much to their battles. Or a wizard who seems quite ineffective compared to others in a battle with elites and/or solos.

The prime example is the player who designs a complete non-combatant, which is very possible in most character-point generation systems. Another example often pointed to is Shadowrun and the matrix, where only Decker characters can participate at all.

 

[Sadrik]

I think you are expanding greatly on the concept of the siloing.

Remember 4e siloing is splitting rituals off from the power system. So that out of combat "spells" are handled in an entirely different system.

I suppose you can expand on that and define other subsystems as more siloed or less siloed than other editions or other games. I don't like it though, silo is a lame term in that regard for simply "limiting diversity to make all equal". Most of the silo effects you are talking about are universal for most game systems it is not ground breaking game design. It is a basic way to limit character design to attempt to make everyone the same by not selecting rituals (out of combat spells) instead of combat spells.

As I recall 1e AD&D did this in the DMG you rolled on three charts (3 silos) to generate your initial spells for your magic-user character.

 

[bardolph]

I think you are expanding greatly on the concept of the siloing.

Remember 4e siloing is splitting rituals off from the power system. So that out of combat "spells" are handled in an entirely different system.

Can you provide a link please? I wasn't aware that WotC had an official definition for "siloing".

I suppose you can expand on that and define other subsystems as more siloed or less siloed than other editions or other games. I don't like it though, silo is a lame term in that regard for simply "limiting diversity to make all equal".

But isn't that exactly what siloing is?

Most of the silo effects you are talking about are universal for most game systems it is not ground breaking game design. It is a basic way to limit character design to attempt to make everyone the same by not selecting rituals (out of combat spells) instead of combat spells.

It's pretty common among level-based systems, yes. However, the "Powers" silo is new to D&D and represents a MAJOR break from previous editions.

 

[billd91]

I am NOT a fan of siloing. It's one of the reasons I'm not fond of 4e and prefer less structured point-buy games like GURPS, Mutants and Masterminds, and Hero system to 4e.

 

[Sadrik]

It's pretty common among level-based systems, yes. However, the "Powers" silo is new to D&D and represents a MAJOR break from previous editions.

You may have never played 1e but you rolled on three charts to generate your first level M-U spells. I don't recall exactly what they were called (perhaps someone could step and provide there names) but it was something like roll on a offense list, a defense list and a utility list. It really is not all that breaking in any form.

 

[howandwhy99]

What is your overall opinion on the siloing approach to characters? Good, bad, both, neither?

Discuss.

The combat / non-combat separation is an appalling idea. Originally D&D was a game about "thinking outside the box". This didn't just relate to combat, but combat seemed to get the lion's share of attention. Instead of including a combat system, a magic system, and a clerical system, one for each class and balancing everything in the game three different ways, 4E made a wargame wrapped within a much smaller storygame. Not only does this drop the defining characteristic of the game, but its' design ensures its' rules cannot be used to bring it back.

Is siloing okay by combat roles? Sure, it's fine, but it isn't an RPG combat system.

 

[Garmorn]

The combat / non-combat separation is an appalling idea. Originally D&D was a game about "thinking outside the box". This didn't just relate to combat, but combat seemed to get the lion's share of attention. Instead of including a combat system, a magic system, and a clerical system, one for each class and balancing everything in the game three different ways, 4E made a wargame wrapped within a much smaller storygame. Not only does this drop the defining characteristic of the game, but its' design ensures its' rules cannot be used to bring it back.

Is siloing okay by combat roles? Sure, it's fine, but it isn't an RPG combat system.

Wow! I have started to DM 4e and found it better then 1 or 2e for story telling in my group. What a difference. Siloing prevents some of my players from neglecting on purpose or not, noncombat or combat abilities.