D&D 4E 4e Tiers & Classes - a different take

[xechnao]

The 4E devs have a phrase for this: "Taking turns having fun." They think this is bad, and I agree. What ends up happening is Mystic Glyph's player takes a nap on the couch while Fighters are at the table battling orcs; and vice versa when it's "interact with the magic portal" time. Group cohesion breaks down, and you end up going from having a "group" to having individuals who take turns monopolizing the DM's attention.)

This is not the way I wanted you to see my example. Think of Gandalf trying to figure how to open the hidden door while the fighter hacks the lake squid -now the lake squid could be reaching with a tentacle even Gandalf and that the door's glyphs are haunted with spirits that engage Gandalf in a way similar to the movie "Zu Warriors" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286098/)

The Combat Roles also need to be relatively balanced against each other so that what's "challenging" for one PC isn't "death on all sides" for any of the others. Badass Heroes and Scrubs don't mix; the Scrubs die. What I mean by that is that if the Fighter is Level 7, the Wizard and Rogue should be within ~2 levels of that (the actual number may change depending on 4E's power curve).

You are thinking of minis. They could mix on a different level and the outcomes of these levels could be influencing each other. You do not have to assign roles on a specific battlemap where the reality is limited to the limited battlemap squares and their relative distances.

I would not mind at all a sub-system for handling more advanced social encounters or non-combat skills than what I expect the PHB to provide for. In particular I'd like to see a nice system on mass combat and mass combat-related Skills (Generalship; Grand Strategy; Formation Tactics; Siege Engines; Logistics; Morale; etc.). But whatever your preferred expansion, it has to be transparent to the Classes and Roles presented in the PHB and not interfere with their advancement, or take a character's resources away from their class powers, screwing up the intra-party game balance. If you do that you can't go back to "playing D&D.")

I disagree. First of all D&D isn't or wasn't always what you seem to be saying -a wargame played on a certain terrain with specific combat roles. This is even a bit true for 3rd edition. PCs were not balanced on the same battlefield tracks. For example a druid was for wilderness and outdoors and a cleric for undead.
Secondly, regarding 4th ed levels it does not make sense people to excel in specifc dungeon combat tactics and at whatever other carreer the world has.

This however I can say without reservation is the worst idea I've seen on these boards in the last couple weeks. You need the MM and DMG to play D&D. You do not need a Manual of the Planes or Political Strategy Splatbook to play D&D. They might be really nice supplements for the people who want to run campaigns that focus on this, but you have wandered far from the Core. If the D&D books were published in the order you suggest sales would tank until the MM and DMG deficiencies were remedied (and even then repuational and cash flow issues might mean that 4E simply never recovers).

Again you do not see what I want you to see. Monsters are tied to cosmology. It's world&monsters remember? I did not want you to think of manual of the planes and MMs the way they have been. Think of a hybrid product that links and connects the two.
Regarding poltical strategy: think of NPCs, organizations, henchmen, mass combat, trade or market -wealth rules. These are allready in core. Only in a different way.

 

[kennew142]

I'm going to be honest. The system doesn't appeal to me. Unless 4e has a really awesome system for modeling professions (which I doubt), I plan to use a very simple system.

The players devise a background for their characters. Did they grow up in a family of bakers? A troupe of dancers? etc....

Each profession is ranked:

1) Novice
2) Competent
3) Expert
4) Master
5) Grandmaster

The characters can choose how good they are in their professions, within the limits of their backgrounds. Most characters shouldn't be above the level of competent without a really good backstory. They spent their time in sword training or magic school instead of mastering a profession.

A character can perform in his background skills to a level indicated by the chart above. A competent woodworker can make average and adequate wood products; a novice is really good at making simple things like spoons; an expert makes products of good quality; et cetera....

Characters can pick up more professional type skills through training (requiring time, not xp). Some skills may default to the novice level if the character is untrained.

IMO these elements are very important to the character's background. They provide excellent character/plot hooks and many opportunities for role-playing. I don't need a class system, or skill ranks to help me in these kinds of role-playing situations. If you do, I hope the more complex system works for you. I prefer descriptive terms for non-combat elements rather than skill ranks or class levels.

 

[xechnao]

I don't need a class system, or skill ranks to help me in these kinds of role-playing situations.

It is interesting you don't seem to think that beyond 4e d&d miniature tactics there can be more than just role playing situations. There are dozens of RPGs that have esplicit rules regarding magic, combat, subterfuge, campaign strategies in a gamist way that are not based explicitly on miniature rules but still equally gamist. Way more than rather boring production professions -boring in a gamist way.

 

[kennew142]

It is interesting you don't seem to think that beyond 4e d&d miniature tactics there can be more than just role playing situations. There are dozens of RPGs that have esplicit rules regarding magic, combat, subterfuge, campaign strategies in a gamist way that are not based explicitly on miniature rules but still equally gamist. Way more than rather boring production professions -boring in a gamist way.

I'm glad to see that you can read into my mind so easily.

I posted the background profession system I plan to use, because it is just that - a system. You may have noticed that I did in a polite way, without casting any aspertions on your system. I simply stated that I didn't need it.

I also don't need a separate system for subterfuge and social interaction. We've had a way of dealing with this for years - it's called role-playing.

Since you felt it necessary to drag the conversation down, I will add that the system proposed in the OP seems cumbersome, unnecessary and very likely to reduce the quality of the role-playing experience by encumbering it with needless statistics and complications. Furthermore, it would seem to be a step backwards from the 4e design conceits to a system even more rules intensive and invasive than 3e has been.

 

[Insight]

You don't need a system for everything.

That's the problem with 3.x. The developers tried to create a system for everything you'd want to do. At some point, in order for the game to move along, you have to get your nose out of the books and just roleplay and toss some dice. The DM isn't just a referee; he (or she) has to sometimes make a ruling and move the game along. Social situations are too complicated to create a viable system; it's best to have the DM ad-hoc the whole thing for the purposes of his own campaign.

I've been doing this DM thing long enough to improvise when need be. Maybe the n00bs need social rules, but most of us don't. They'd just get in the way, and would be the first thing experienced DMs would surgically remove from a new edition.

I applaud the 4E designers in deciding to scale back some of the 'gamism' present in 3.x. Let the DMs do their jobs. Like I said, we don't need rules for every possible situation!

 

[xechnao]

I also don't need a separate system for subterfuge and social interaction. We've had a way of dealing with this for years - it's called role-playing.

Would you rather just roleplay a thief-scout-spy-ninja whatever in "mission" or rather also have rules that let you react by choosing among plan A, plan B etchetera. Would you rather role-play mass combat or have also rules for decisions such as combat tactics, leadership, morale, battle strategy. Would you rather role-play your sages interaction with supernatural and mystical beings and forces or have rules that let you know some choices regarding how to react?

Furthermore, it would seem to be a step backwards from the 4e design conceits to a system even more rules intensive and invasive than 3e has been.

IMO 3e was bad design. Not a bad gaming goal. Just bad design. Regarding this aspect of the game that is.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It is interesting you don't seem to think that beyond 4e d&d miniature tactics there can be more than just role playing situations. There are dozens of RPGs that have esplicit rules regarding magic, combat, subterfuge, campaign strategies in a gamist way that are not based explicitly on miniature rules but still equally gamist. Way more than rather boring production professions -boring in a gamist way.

Well, let's see if we can take those one at a time.

Combat, Subterfuge: I'd say both of these are covered fairly well by the 4e rules.

Magic: There'll be rituals in 4e, and we've seen some suggestion that you can teach them. There's also the Arcana skill, which looks to be Read Magic + Spellcraft + more. I'm HOPING that combined, these aspects of 4e will provide a framework for those who want to make non-combat magic an important aspect of their character.

Campaign strategies: This is something I think a rules supplement could (and should) handle. It's outside the scope of most D&D games, but commanding armies, etc. could make a great add-on.

 

[Insight]

There are already going to be skills, talents, spells, etc that enable things like stealth, subterfuge, and social interaction in 4E. In some games, the players are happy to roll dice, see what happens, and move the game along. For example, let's say one player is a Rogue, and the rest aren't stealth-friendly, so they await the Rogue scouting the area and returning to report what's there. It's better for everyone to have the Rogue make a few skill checks and return (unless he gets seen or caught, then you have a potential combat or chase -- or both!)

I don't see why you'd need (or want) something more than that.

The thing you want to avoid is a situation where the majority of your players are doing nothing for long stretches of the game session. So, assuming you don't force all of the characters to stay together all the time, the group is going to split up on occasion. Non-stealthy characters don't try to scout, non-social characters don't go to the governor's ball, etc. You're far better served to move the situations along as quickly as possible so as not to bore the crap out of everyone else. That's just the way it is for most groups, including all the groups I have played with for the past 5-7 years.

 

[Lackhand]

I'm going to be honest. The system doesn't appeal to me. Unless 4e has a really awesome system for modeling professions (which I doubt), I plan to use a very simple system.

The players devise a background for their characters. Did they grow up in a family of bakers? A troupe of dancers? etc....

Each profession is ranked:

1) Novice
2) Competent
3) Expert
4) Master
5) Grandmaster

The characters can choose how good they are in their professions, within the limits of their backgrounds. Most characters shouldn't be above the level of competent without a really good backstory. They spent their time in sword training or magic school instead of mastering a profession.

A character can perform in his background skills to a level indicated by the chart above. A competent woodworker can make average and adequate wood products; a novice is really good at making simple things like spoons; an expert makes products of good quality; et cetera....

Characters can pick up more professional type skills through training (requiring time, not xp). Some skills may default to the novice level if the character is untrained.

IMO these elements are very important to the character's background. They provide excellent character/plot hooks and many opportunities for role-playing. I don't need a class system, or skill ranks to help me in these kinds of role-playing situations. If you do, I hope the more complex system works for you. I prefer descriptive terms for non-combat elements rather than skill ranks or class levels.

This is cool stuff.

One warning for those who think that this is descriptive: Do not be fooled! Any and every ranked descriptive system can be turned trivially into a math heavy crunchy system. Beware!

I had fooled around with the thought (I like it when my players take noncombat skills, but it is definitely a disadvantage to spend resources which could be used on combat skills (hide, move silently, spot; balance and swim if the DM is an environment-using bastard) on noncombat skills because D&D discourages general characters and rewards specialists.

I think I've blabbed about this before; I proposed treating crafts and professions and perform skills like languages; free ones based on int bonus, and instant competence for 2 skill points. Each race gives, much as bonus languages, a single bonus craft, profession, or performance (humans get 2 extra). Intelligence penalty applies to these. Voila, brewers and bakers to one's heart's content.

In 3.x, you may add your (full) level to any craft or profession which you have; in 4th ed, consider it trained. This roll should come up fairly rarely anyway. (in your system: it buys you competence).
Another buy-in might purchase mastery (level + 5, as full-ranks + skill focus, or 4th ed "as trained as it gets"). A final buy-in might purchase grand mastery, as above but you may always roll twice and take the greater value.

I like this marginally more than my class idea, because it's simple. I see the allure that xechnao sees in out-of-combat classes, but I agree with other posters that it's a bit... un-D&D-y.

 

[Noinarap]

Would you rather just roleplay a thief-scout-spy-ninja whatever in "mission" or rather also have rules that let you react by choosing among plan A, plan B etchetera. Would you rather role-play mass combat or have also rules for decisions such as combat tactics, leadership, morale, battle strategy. Would you rather role-play your sages interaction with supernatural and mystical beings and forces or have rules that let you know some choices regarding how to react?



IMO 3e was bad design. Not a bad gaming goal. Just bad design. Regarding this aspect of the game that is.

Skills are still in the game. Subterfuge and so on is covered by the skill system and good old role-playing. Having ranks in a skill and maybe a few feats or powers for special applications is enough. Combat abilities are relevant to the game because tactical combat has always been a core element. Tactical bluffing or climbing or sneaking is less interesting and varied. The game has a lot of combat classes because there are meaningfully different ways to succeed in combat.

I don't see why we need class levels and powers and so on to resolve crafting or professions. The details are largely irrelevant to game-play. It doesn't really matter how the bow gets made or how the inn is run. The results only effect one player- there is no teamwork or drama or anything that makes such actions worthy of the spotlight. Further, these abilities find infrequent use. A wizard will have to roast people with spells a lot more than he will have to roast a chicken. A warrior will have to trade sword blows with orcs a lot, but we will not be leading men into battle very much. Having an entire leveling system dedicated to rare situations is not valuable.