An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

vagabundo · Jan 18, 2012

There are 0-level optional rules in DDI now. They are pretty good and I'm planning on using them in my next 4e campaign. DDI is down for manintaince now, essentially they are alternate character creation rules and the DM runs a starter adventure.

Rituals are awesome and I hope they keep them in 5e. They need work. Running them in my next 4e game I think I'll open them up so all characters can learn rituals for skills they are trained in, so anyone with Arcana can cast any Arcana ritual. The Ritual Caster feat would then allow casters to alter the casting time or component cost of the rituals.

With just the PHB 1 4e does not have enough interesting Utility powers or non-combat feats, but they are there: Linguist, Sure Climber, Ritual Casting, Group Insight, Dragonborn Senses,Skill Focus, Skill Training, etc.

They did spend time detailing combat, but they are plenty of options, even back with just the PHB 1, that you could run a character with non- combat options. You just couldn't run a character without any combat options; they are all adventurers and should know how to defend themselves. They could still be terrible at defending themselves.

Iosue · Jan 18, 2012

MarkChevallier said:
If I'm playing a certain kind of noble diplomat character, I might want to play someone who relies on his bodyguards to protect him; someone who is not necessarily good at fighting himself but relies on his companions more if battle erupts. My emphasis would instead go into other areas: an extensive skill list and knowledges, for example. I might be a bard, or a cleric, or a rogue or a fighter or anything; I'll put points in my mental stats and I probably won't be that good in combat compared to Conan.

4E makes it harder for me to shift my emphasis as a character away from combat. All the stats can be useful in combat: if I'm smart, I'm also somehow good at avoiding blows and leaping out the way of explosions. I will also, by necessity, have combat tricks exclusive to my class (moreso than would be the case in 3E or older editions). I'm tougher, in terms of pure resilience to damage - at first level, it takes several sword blows before I drop.

This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. I agree with everything you say if you make full use of the character generation rules. However, the part I've never understood is, if you don't want to take combat powers, why take them? There's no reason why you have to choose any at-wills, encounters or dailies. Just ignore them. Put your points in Int, Wis, and Cha, and bottom out your Str, Dex, and Con. You have a character very much like a 2e character. Use the lower of your two ability bonuses for your defenses. Heck, you don't even need a "4th Edition chaaracter sheet" -- just jot it down on some notebook paper like we did in the day (or use Word, if that's your thing).

Now, the difference in skills is a big one. And I can understand if someone prefers the detailed skills of 3e over the reduced list in 4e. One could certainly easily import that 3e skill system into 4e, but I could also understand not wanting to go through the trouble. That all makes sense to me. What I've never understood is why people say, "4e makes me make a combat-capable character", and no one ever thinks to just ignore the combat bells and whistles. And even more odd to me is that 4e proponents respond to this with such builds as "the lazy warlord", and no one just says -- don't choose any powers. Done and done.

I trust Number48's feel for whether he likes the game. I'm sure even doing the above 4e still wouldn't change his feelings about it, and that's cool. Hell, if the only way to make 4e to work for you is to gut the combat bells and whistles and import the 3e skill system, you might as well just play 3e. Let me be clear that none of this is directed personally at him, or you, Mark Chevallier; I have no desire to try to persuade you folks or prove your arguments false. I'm just scratching my head that when the issue of "forced combat capability" comes up, no one on either side just says, "Don't choose any powers."

avin · Jan 18, 2012

Phaezen said:
There are some very good rules for 0 level characters in DDI - Dragon 403

Nice. By this time my DDI subscription was cancelled (MB offline killed 4E for me, long story).

Phaezen said:
What is the difference between utility coming from class abilities (spells) versus general abilities (rituals) other than they are not the sole providence of the all mighty magic user, cleric or druid?

There is a HUGE difference for some players. We are talking about something that was ihnherent to a class all of sudden removed. We are talking about a fluff playstyle that doesn't exist anymore.

Phaezen said:
If the ruleset you are complaining about does not outright support what you are looking for then yes it may not be the right rules for you, but if you are going to ignore a whole section of the rules and then complain that a certain playstyle is not supported this is a totally different matter.

Er... I'm not complaining about 4E. I'm just talking that "Wizards having utility spells on their spellbooks", not on rituals, is something 4E does not support.

And that's true.

If people can deal with that, if people would rather play Mage The Ascension is another story.

But, unless something has changed since I stop DMing 4E (not because I disliked, but because I like to change systems all the time) Wizards do not have utility spells on them anymore, it's on rituals, and fluff does not met crunch and crash some player expectations of what a Wizard should be.

Just because I see something that I think 4E does not does well doesn't mean I'm complaining about it.

PS. As you could see on my sig I'm not even talking about me, don't play casters too often

MarkChevallier · Jan 18, 2012

Iosue said:
This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. I agree with everything you say if you make full use of the character generation rules. However, the part I've never understood is, if you don't want to take combat powers, why take them? There's no reason why you have to choose any at-wills, encounters or dailies. Just ignore them. Put your points in Int, Wis, and Cha, and bottom out your Str, Dex, and Con. You have a character very much like a 2e character. Use the lower of your two ability bonuses for your defenses. Heck, you don't even need a "4th Edition chaaracter sheet" -- just jot it down on some notebook paper like we did in the day (or use Word, if that's your thing).

Now, the difference in skills is a big one. And I can understand if someone prefers the detailed skills of 3e over the reduced list in 4e. One could certainly easily import that 3e skill system into 4e, but I could also understand not wanting to go through the trouble. That all makes sense to me. What I've never understood is why people say, "4e makes me make a combat-capable character", and no one ever thinks to just ignore the combat bells and whistles. And even more odd to me is that 4e proponents respond to this with such builds as "the lazy warlord", and no one just says -- don't choose any powers. Done and done.

I trust Number48's feel for whether he likes the game. I'm sure even doing the above 4e still wouldn't change his feelings about it, and that's cool. Hell, if the only way to make 4e to work for you is to gut the combat bells and whistles and import the 3e skill system, you might as well just play 3e. Let me be clear that none of this is directed personally at him, or you, Mark Chevallier; I have no desire to try to persuade you folks or prove your arguments false. I'm just scratching my head that when the issue of "forced combat capability" comes up, no one on either side just says, "Don't choose any powers."

I can choose not to take any powers; but then, am I really playing the game? Might I as well not play any other game? By doing so, I'm opting out of the 4E-ness of 4E. If I'm part of a typical group, they're going to feel let down by my inability, because if 4E is run as its writing encourages, we're going to encounter combat a fair bit.

But what you're saying above is totally correct: I might as well just play 3e. It suits my play preferences much better. And that is all I'm saying; I'm not saying 4E is flawed at what it does; just that what it does is not what I, and many others, are looking for.

vagabundo · Jan 18, 2012

MarkChevallier said:
I can choose not to take any powers; but then, am I really playing the game? Might I as well not play any other game? By doing so, I'm opting out of the 4E-ness of 4E. If I'm part of a typical group, they're going to feel let down by my inability, because if 4E is run as its writing encourages, we're going to encounter combat a fair bit.

DND is synonymous with combat. Different table ephasise different play styles obviously, but most have a strong combat theme.

However here is my elf noble, just for fun really, I didn't look very hard for feats or powers, just non-combat ones. Since he isn't taking any combat spells I've given him a companion as a body guard. One for now, although he might recruit more as he grows in power. I quite like him.

Umbran · Jan 18, 2012

Some of you are getting personal, snarky, and rude.

Stop it.

We've already been through this kind of nonsense. We're not going to put up with it again. On these boards, the people you are talking to are more important than the point you are trying to make. Get that into your heads, folks. Those that cannot are going to find themselves on the wrong end of the banhammer.

herrozerro · Jan 18, 2012

I honestly dont get where the "I want to play the guy who doesnt do anything useful at all in combat" comes from. I must not be reading the right books, or watching the right movies. Or what ever kind of media you get these kind of things from.

any kind of examples I can think of still have the "weak" character bashing bottles over the heads of drunks tossed out of the main fight or setting up some kind of end to the combat weather its steering the boat or setting up an explosion while the though guys fights.

Though if you are truely interested in playing a noble who has his cohorts do all the fighting, create a lazylord. you can take combat abilities that do nothing buy let others attack for you while specializing in skills or other non-combat related abilities.

Though like i said in the beginning, im confused where this mentality comes from. it's certantly not heroic adventure.

Number48 · Jan 18, 2012

Iosue said:
This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. I agree with everything you say if you make full use of the character generation rules. However, the part I've never understood is, if you don't want to take combat powers, why take them? "

Some time ago one of the designers, I forget who, made it clear why feats and spells had to be balanced. If presented with a list of choices where one choice is clearly, inarguably better, there really isn't any choice. The other choices might as well not exist. If the choice is a feat that gives +1 to hit, a feat that gives +1 to damage and a feat that gives +1 to and to damage, there is no choice.

So, yes, I don't HAVE to take a combat power, but the choice you offer is a false one. It isn't a choice between two things that have relative value, but a choice between something and nothing.

That clear it up?

herrozerro · Jan 18, 2012

Number48 said:
Some time ago one of the designers, I forget who, made it clear why feats and spells had to be balanced. If presented with a list of choices where one choice is clearly, inarguably better, there really isn't any choice. The other choices might as well not exist. If the choice is a feat that gives +1 to hit, a feat that gives +1 to damage and a feat that gives +1 to and to damage, there is no choice.

So, yes, I don't HAVE to take a combat power, but the choice you offer is a false one. It isn't a choice between two things that have relative value, but a choice between something and nothing.

That clear it up?

But if you are creating a character after the concept of not doing anything useful in combat, why do you worry about the value of combat mechanics?

personally if I had a player who wanted what you want, first of all i would try to find out where this conept is coming from as it really confuses me, as i stated in my post above.

But secondly if they player really wanted a character lke that i guess I's let him chooses utilities in place of all of his combat powers and there you go.

Number48 · Jan 18, 2012

herrozerro said:
But if you are creating a character after the concept of not doing anything useful in combat, why do you worry about the value of combat mechanics?

personally if I had a player who wanted what you want, first of all i would try to find out where this conept is coming from as it really confuses me, as i stated in my post above.

But secondly if they player really wanted a character lke that i guess I's let him chooses utilities in place of all of his combat powers and there you go.

You honestly think that what I said is that the character concept, the driving force of my character idea and background, is for him to be useless in combat? You think that is the goal?

An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

vagabundo

Adventurer

Iosue

Legend

avin

First Post

MarkChevallier

First Post

vagabundo

Adventurer

Attachments

Umbran

Mod Squad

herrozerro

First Post

Number48

First Post

herrozerro

First Post

Number48

First Post

Similar Threads