4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Ahnehnois]

Which lead me to wonder; "Can you have a system that encourages Paladins to be Valiant and Fighters to be Brave etc., and yet still avoid meta ability-mechanics." The only one I can think of is an advancement system where you pick up extra levels (or XP) in a class by acting according to type. Which might be kinda neat.

XP is something we largely accept, but it is an example of conflating things that are part of the game world with things that are not.

That being said, why is this an important goal? Do we need class mechanics to encourage moral decisions and shape the exercise of free will?
If you want to represent fearlessness, make rules for fear and give fighters a bonus against it. Otherwise, just make them tough in general to reward the player of one for placing the character in danger. No need to even think about metagame rules in this arena.

 

[Ratskinner]

XP is something we largely accept, but it is an example of conflating things that are part of the game world with things that are not.

That being said, why is this an important goal? Do we need class mechanics to encourage moral decisions and shape the exercise of free will?

It isn't, necessarily, but some folks like mechanics of that ilk. I was just musing on the Paladin/Valiant thing that came up. My XP mechanic (as I envisioned it) wouldn't shape the moral decisions and free will. On the contrary, if you earned Paladin levels, you would be doing so by acting that way, rather than simply "I wanna be a Paladin."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the complaint here is that "being valiant" requires facing risk. A power/style that grants you bonuses to do something like wade into combat necessarily reduces that risk. Which, I think, is just a problem with the character/PC/rules divide. So, if I understand the 4e position; all 4e powers are metagame, the paladin isn't aware of power, but the player is. That's a different design than previous editions, where characters seem likely to be aware of most of the abilities on their sheet. (To the point where D&D parodies can use it as a joke.) It seems to me that a lot of the headier edition-skirmishing I see revolves around this very kind of point.

Which lead me to wonder; "Can you have a system that encourages Paladins to be Valiant and Fighters to be Brave etc., and yet still avoid meta ability-mechanics." The only one I can think of is an advancement system where you pick up extra levels (or XP) in a class by acting according to type. Which might be kinda neat.

I'm not sure what is so 'meta' about "Pelor grants me the strength to prevail when I assail my enemies." The character is quite informed of this, it is an actual element of the in-game reality, one embodied in rules as well so that the two are in harmony. Isn't it simply a straight up good thing when the narrative conceits and the game mechanics are on the same page and reinforce one-another? I'd think most game developers strive for that kind of thing.

 

[Siberys]

Which lead me to wonder; "Can you have a system that encourages Paladins to be Valiant and Fighters to be Brave etc., and yet still avoid meta ability-mechanics." The only one I can think of is an advancement system where you pick up extra levels (or XP) in a class by acting according to type. Which might be kinda neat.

Well, what about Fate Points or Bennie-style "action points" that you'd gain for acting in character? They're still meta, of course, but not in the sense that Valiant Smite is. VS is directly meta - you perform this action better under circumstances in which you act valiant - whereas Bennies/FP are indirectly meta - here's a bonus to later actions for acting valiant now. In fact, I've tried "importing" aspects from FATE into D&D, though I'll admit it takes a bit of player buy-in for it to work.

Gaining levels seems a dangerous proposition to me, and I dislike systems with anything but very coarse XP tracking - anything more than 3-5 XP per level just looks like accounting to me, and at that point awarding XP would be very close to awarding levels. :|

 

[D'karr]

I'm not sure what is so 'meta' about "Pelor grants me the strength to prevail when I assail my enemies." The character is quite informed of this, it is an actual element of the in-game reality, one embodied in rules as well so that the two are in harmony.

Not only this, it is a "valiant" approach from a story standpoint because from the mechanical perspective wading into a sea of enemies puts the character at a "mechanical" disadvantage (flanking, etc.)

So I see it as a net plus when a PC uses his "god-given" abilities (metagame) in a manner consistent with their class tenets (character concept/player visualization) - a paladin being valiant.

 

[Imaro]

Not only this, it is a "valiant" approach from a story standpoint because from the mechanical perspective wading into a sea of enemies puts the character at a "mechanical" disadvantage (flanking, etc.)

So I see it as a net plus when a PC uses his "god-given" abilities (metagame) in a manner consistent with their class tenets (character concept/player visualization) - a paladin being valiant.

I'm curious though... is this consistent with their class tenets in 4e? Nothing inherent to the Paladin class makes it a "valiant" archetype anymore... There are no longer any alignment restrictions for a paladin... and even the deity they are choosing to serve (if they in fact even do serve a deity) can't take their powers away anymore. So a paladin could be a self-serving coward if he wants too and still call on a "valiant" based power. I'm curious how people (mainly DM's) handle this type of dissonance that can arise in the 4e thematic play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would say that in D&D terms he's a lich or a mummy. He has lain in his sepulchre for thousands of years until awoken by a tomb robber.

I haven't got my books ready to hand, but the Conan wiki tells me that

As Natohk the Veiled One, he is described as “inhumanly tall and lean, clad in shimmering green silk”, with a voice like “the hiss of a giant serpent” and a “skull-like countenance”.​

How literally are we meant to take the "skull-like countenance"? He's obviously not a skeleton, but between voice and appearance I don't think he's a regular person either!

I'm aware that he was sort of returned from the dead, but we do have to allow that D&D is not 1-to-1 congruent with Conan.

But even so, and fearsome though a Lich or Mummy is, neither foe has particular defenses against being damaged by normal weapons. A 3.5Ed Lich has DR15/- as I recall, and a mummy DR5/-, but that's it. Even the Lich's phylactery may be destroyed by mundane weapon damage.*








* Well, given its has a hardness of 20, its probably best if you give it the Wile E. Coyote treatment: drop it off a cliff and then drop an anvil on it.

 

[Siberys]

Well, if you want to be a divinely-inspired warrior but you don't want to be in the middle of a mass of infidels, smiting theme for their blasphemies, you don't become a Paladin, you become an Avenger. Paladin has a /very/ specific archetype it's catering to - the Divine Protector / Enforcer. And Valiant Strike doesn't necessarily mean you /are/ valiant - that's just its name and one interpretation of its benefit. A thug-like antipaladin that acted more like a mob enforcer would still be thematically served by jumping into a crowd of his god's enemies, too.

 

[D'karr]

I'm curious though... is this consistent with their class tenets in 4e? Nothing inherent to the Paladin class makes it a "valiant" archetype anymore...

The flavor and title of a power usually give much more "context" to the particular class tenets that a player wants to reinforce. When a player wants to focus on a particular aspect, he chooses that aspect. So the class molds itself very well, in fact reinforces being valiant because the player makes a conscious choice to be valiant (selecting the power). Rather than by an artificial, or external, enforcement such as alignment.

From what I read on the class writeup for Paladins it says:

They are indomitable warriors that pledge their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.

... there's more in the writeup​

Their power selections all seem to embody that paragraph there. Valiant action, bolstering of their companions, and divine power.

Therefore, I believe that the class tenets as described in the paladin writeup are very well preserved, if not reinforced by all the mechanical trappings of the class.

 

[D'karr]

A thug-like antipaladin that acted more like a mob enforcer would still be thematically served by jumping into a crowd of his god's enemies, too.

Which could still be called a valiant act since there is significant risk (mechanically) to jumping into the middle of a crowd of your god's enemies.

Mechanically, a paladin is better served by "acting" valiant, doing those things that could be viewed as valiant. A self-serving coward would probably not jump in the middle of a throng of enemies to "defend" the tenets of his faith, or his companions. His action of jumping in the middle of the mob is what is viewed as valiant. Mechanically he is also rewarded for "acting" that way.

He could easily sit back an shoot arrows at his enemies, and he'd be a mechanically subpar paladin. He would not be rewarded mechanically for behaving in a "cowardly" manner.

I find that the mechanical reinforcement (rewards) that each class has as part of their class features works wonders for the thematic applications of the game.

A paladin is more mechanically effective when he is defending, and in the thick of battle. Those actions are usually viewed as valiant. Chicken, or Egg doesn't matter. The paladin is rewarded (mechanically) for acting valiant, if you want to play a self-serving coward the mechanics don't reward it.