4E Consequences: Being passive, cautious, or a loner is now unoptimized

[Spatula]

2. Passive players have real problems with certain classes. You have to take risks and put yourself in harms way for you to accomplish anything as a Rogue. Our most passive player previously preferred the Rogue above all other classes, and she just hasn't been doing well with the 4E Rogue at all. I've seen that passive Rogue players can't consistently achieve combat advantage, and that the Rogue class is powerless without it...

But... this is exactly the same with rogues in 3e (except moreso, since a lot of monsters were immune to sneak attacks). So how would your passive player be effective in a fight with the 3e rogue?

 

[Starfox]

One of my most successful players is a lurker rogue, who is quite cowardly.

Using the Stealth rules, it is quite possible to hang back and deliver sneak attacks round after round.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

One of my most successful players is a lurker rogue, who is quite cowardly.

Using the Stealth rules, it is quite possible to hang back and deliver sneak attacks round after round.

It's certainly possible. But to be as good a striker as a melee rogue, you need to use daggers or superior crossbows and try to max out your Dex even more than melee rogues. And when there isn't enough terrain around to be able to get full cover to your enemies, you need to be able to bite the bullet and go into melee in order to still function.

Assuming you are using the errataed Stealth rules and not the ones from the PHB. Those are way too easy to hide with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

About loners:

It's really not that different if I watch how my friend's character makes a furious special attack in a battle my character is fighting too, or if I watch it while my character is off trying to lose the guards that are chasing him after that misunderstanding with the king. Both times I am not doing anything while the other player does his thing, and then it's my turn again. Whether I get to act for 1 minute every three minutes, or for 5 minutes every 15 minutes, my playing time remains the same.

I am not really bored by listening to what other characters do, even if my character is not present, as long as it is interesting. I'd be bored listening to boring scenes even if my character is present.

Where having characters be together shines is when they interact and talk with each other - but there's not much you can say in 6 seconds while you cast a spell or make a feint, so that's not too noticeable in combat.

No, there is a difference.

If you have a "semi-solo" part of the adventure where one character is doing his "lone-wolf"/"hack the matrix" thing, you are watching him making several decisions and seeing him pass or fail. But only the final result after that "solo" part will affect your next decisions. Every single decision and every single pass/fail in a "round-by-round" situation informs your next action. Every decision and every outcome is meaningful.

"Hmm, the Rogue decided to shift one square to get combat advantage. That means I need to move a square to cover him in my protective Aura"
"The Fighter marked this opponent - I think I can risk provoking an opportunity attack with my ranged attack against him, instead of holding back because I am immobilized."

"Okay, now the Decker defeated the encryption. Now he is dowloading the file. Oh, an IC detected him and attacks. Now the Decker rolls his first attack, dealing damage. Now the Ice attacks him, but the Decker evades the attack. Now the Decker attacks again, but fails. Oh, now the IC has a lucky roll, and the Decker takes some damage. The Download is finished! The Decker makes a last blow at the IC. Almost defeated, but its still standing. It doesn't hit on its attack. Now the Decker decides to log out instead of continuing the fight. And succeeds. So, Decker, let's look at these maps you downloaded."

I am not saying the Decker combat would necessarily be uninteresting or without exciting. But you are still just watching, not interacting. It doesn't even matter whether you watched or didn't watch, you couldn't influence the outcome anyway. If you had gone to the loo, ordered a Pizza or played Dawn of War on your PC, it wouldn't matter. There is a string of events that has no direct impact on your decisions. You are less engaged.

 

[Fenes]

No, there is a difference.

If you have a "semi-solo" part of the adventure where one character is doing his "lone-wolf"/"hack the matrix" thing, you are watching him making several decisions and seeing him pass or fail. But only the final result after that "solo" part will affect your next decisions. Every single decision and every single pass/fail in a "round-by-round" situation informs your next action. Every decision and every outcome is meaningful.

I am not saying the Decker combat would necessarily be uninteresting or without exciting. But you are still just watching, not interacting. It doesn't even matter whether you watched or didn't watch, you couldn't influence the outcome anyway. If you had gone to the loo, ordered a Pizza or played Dawn of War on your PC, it wouldn't matter. There is a string of events that has no direct impact on your decisions. You are less engaged.

You may be less engaged, not me. I was using first person because for me it really is the same. I also keep a log of each session, so no matter where my character is I write down what happens.

So, please do not try to tell me that there is a difference for me when there is not.

 

[Fenes]

One thing that is not helpful in this convo:

"I'm glad that 4e killed your playstyle, it was badwrongfun anyway, and now 4e won't have any of your type in it!"

Dudes, their style might not be your style, but that doesn't make it an invalid style. 4e doesn't decide what the right way and wrong way to play D&D is, no matter how hard it may or may not try to do that. Playing Loner-type characters, or cautious characters, is a valid kind of play that 4e doesn't really support. It's a fair cop: 4e can't be used by people who want those kinds of characters and those kinds of games. The schadenfreude over someone who is having a problem with their games is entirely unhelpful. More helpful might be something like "I happen to like that it encourages group play, and if most groups are like mine, 4e is probably better for most groups, even if it doesn't work that well for yours. You might want to try X (Paranoia? CoC? Dread? 2e?) instead."

Should 4e support all playstyles? Maybe it should have been more of a toolkit system. Maybe the focus is good because it helps D&D be more distinct as a game (I'm of this mind). Why might 4e have chosen to emphasize this style? What did they gain with it? What did they lose?

These are interesting avenues of conversation.

"Your way of playing sucked anyway" really isn't.

Best post in this thread.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What people were describing was a metagaming behavior, not a roleplaying one. Being a dark, brooding loner within the game world is a different proposition than being a spotlight hogging, acting without regard for the other real-life people at the table players.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You may be less engaged, not me. I was using first person because for me it really is the same. I also keep a log of each session, so no matter where my character is I write down what happens.

So, please do not try to tell me that there is a difference for me when there is not.

You as in the "generic you". We are all individuals, but I don't want to describe this every time, and moreover, I don't need to. If you want to discuss game design, you can't talk about every individual, you have to talk about tendencies and common behavior.

Wyou be less engaged in a round-by-round situation?

 

[OchreJelly]

It occurred to me that maybe the upcoming Avenger class will appeal to the playstyle that likes to do their own thing. If I understand what we know about the class correctly, they tend to peal opponent off of the main fight to have their own mini one-on-one combat. This could appeal to the lone-wolf types from a tactical combat experience stand-point. Outside of combat I believe they get stealth so they can scout, pick off sentries etc.

 

[Halivar]

One thing that is not helpful in this convo:

"I'm glad that 4e killed your playstyle, it was badwrongfun anyway, and now 4e won't have any of your type in it!"

It's only badwrongfun at my table. I expect everyone in the gaming group to share the same game time.

To quote Jeff Spicoli, "If I'm here and you're here, isn't it our time?"