4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[FireLance]

Complete and utter nonsense.
4 Weapon profiencies. Whatever the player wants. No restriction of "you play a fighter, your role is taking hits so its sword and shield". Be it that fighting style, archery or mobile skirmishing, a fighter could do it if the player wants to play that way. 2 weapon fighting underpowered? I made different experiences. Sure if you go hardcore minmaxing you would be better with 2 handed weapons but that is imo negligible as it applies only to a rather specific playstyle. Fighter specialization? Again this is decided by the player, not the class. And at least in 3E the fighter had enough feats to specialize in several weapons.

That the 4E fighter has more flexibility is complete and utterly untrue. Already at creation you choose your specialization which steers onto the path of a specific weapon combination (And the options you had were already limited by the class. Guardian or Great Weapon).
And every other class is even more rigid in 4E. Rangers are 2 weapons or archery and it is nearly impossible, at least without loads of splatbooks, to even fill all your slots with powers not requiring one or the other. And while in older edition "basic attacks" were all you need which could be done with every weapon in 4E they were very sub par to power usage, powers which were linked to class and weapon type.

What do we have now? Several classes (Paladins and Avenger) for practically the same concept only so you can cover different weapon types. A fighter after the 3E model could together with multiclassing eclipse both those classes with some levels of cleric, some role playing and a free decision how the character fights.
General classes with options is all a role player needs. Want to be valiant? Be valiant. You do not need a special class for that. But then WotC can't sell their books full with minimally different classes so that won't happen.

I pretty much consider all of this to be irrelevant because in my view, classes are only means to an end. The real issue is not what is encompassed by a class concept, but whether I can take the character creation rules (race, class including multiclassing, and other bits if available such as feats, backgrounds, themes, etc.) and put together the character I want. Narrow classes are not a problem as long as the range of viable character archetypes remains broad. (Yes, the use of "viable" is deliberate, as I think it is one of the key strengths of 4e*.)

EDIT: * I do note, however, that broad viability of character types might not actually be viewed positively by those who prefer narrower or more "realistic" archetypes - some who have very fixed ideas about paladins and chivalry might find it distasteful that it is even possible to play a paladin who is an expert archer, even though it is hard to see how they could ever be forced to make such a character themselves. But then again, if everyone stopped complaining about other people being able to make choices that they don't want, there wouldn't be any issue with come and get it.

In the end classes only representing fighting styles wouldn't be so bad. The problem in 4E is that classes not only represent the fighting style but also define the character outside of combat.
A holy warrior for a church? Take this sword and wade into melee (VALIANT!!!!). An archer without strong ties to nature? No chance.

This issue has a bit more traction for me, but I don't consider it to be major becuase the flexibility of the base 4e system makes it almost trivial to fix it. Just add an archer theme and you can have a bow-wielding divine warrior and and archer-type character that does not need to have strong ties to nature (not that the 4e ranger actually has strong ties to nature, anyway - it's a Martial class, not a Primal one).

 

[Sunseeker]

I really like to hear your reasoning for getting from "Customizable classes and role playing make specialized classes which force you to behave in a certain way and do not allow deviation obsolete" to "We do not need rules".

You said, because I apparently need to re-quote:

General classes with options is all a role player needs. Want to be valiant? Be valiant. You do not need a special class for that. But then WotC can't sell their books full with minimally different classes so that won't happen.

If we wish for a martial/magic dichotomy, the most general we need is the "fighter-type" and the "magic user". Each class would, instead of a starting package, just get a set of options, some choices, spell-casting type, fighting style, armor profeciences, etc...

If we don't need the dichotomy, all we need is one class with the same setup.

Unless you're saying some "special class" is needed for the game. In which case your argument is pedantic because where you draw the line is arbitrary. 3rd edition had so many classes and prestige classes it'd make your head spin, and each one of those had a dozen variants. Pathfinder presents a smaller class list, but adds the variation with dozens of archetypes for every class.

No 4e Class forces ANYONE to do anything except what they agreed to when choosing that class. Is the fighter, from any edition, forced to not cast spells? Unless he multi-classes, heck yes! Why is this such an absurdly intrusive concept? Every class has it's niche, if you don't set up classes with a niche, then every class is unnecessary, you only need one "omni-class" which had the option to do anything.

I mean you're basically arguing that the rules shouldn't tell us how to play our characters, which by extension means the rules shouldn't tell us how to play. Because some aspect of everyone's play is determined by the rules that frame their class. Does the fighter cast spells? Does the mage wield a sword and shield while wading into melee? Do the basis of this framework not encourage physically adept fighters and mentally powerful wizards? Does that framework not determine our play.

I get that you think X is good, but 4e is not X, so holding the fact that 4e isn't X against it is pointless. It never intended to be X, hell D&D in general never intended to be X. So why are you even playing a game that doesn't hold to your ideas at all?

 

[Fox Lee]

As best I understad S'mon's point, at least a part of it is this: if you are using Valiant Smite, then you will put your PC into the thick of melee, so that you can get your bonus to hit. And wailing into an enemy in the thick of melee is pretty much the paradigm of valiant combat. And that's why using Valiant Smite will typically produce a PC who is valiant in play.

Okay, that makes more sense. Valiant Strike doesn't require valiance per se, but it's only useful in situations where your actions seem to display valiance; ergo, it encourages actions that, unless you choose to impose some other concept on them, express the default flavour?

I think you have something here; there are three parts to this, not just crunch and fluff. There's show (actions), tell (fluff) and resolution (mechanics). All three of those are part of roleplay, even mechanics - a person's methods and capabilities are a reflection of her character, too - but just like in storytelling, show is more important than tell because it forgoes explaining how the audience should feel, in favour of just creating that feeling. You can fluff all you like, but you're going to create the wrong impression if you act in a manner that seems to contradict your stated flavour, and you actions will probably weigh more heavily.

Valiant Strike is a great example of that, yes, because (assuming default fluff), all three of those aspects reinforce each other. On the other hand, you still have the right to re-fluff it however you want, even in a way that expresses its mechanics poorly. Mind you, the system is not going to stop you from doing something just because you might do it badly, and fair enough; some players are simple worse at flavour, but they should still be allowed to try. The system really can't account for player skill, except by giving reliable defaults.

I think that, in 4e, the "rewards for playing correctly" come from building your PC and then playing to its strengths. If you build a typical fighter or STR paladin, the game will reward you if you play a bold, forthright PC - you'll find many opportunities to use your powers, your good AC and durability (hit points, surges) will distinguish you from the other PCs, etc. Whereas if you play a snivelling coward you'll find the game punishes you - because you won't get many opportunities to use your powers, class features like high AC and hit points will go unused, your ranged basic attacks probably suck, etc.

Which is not to say there's anything wrong with playing a non-caster snivelling coward, but choose the right class: archer ranger, rogue, assassin, lazy warlord etc.

I think we're on the same page here. You are already rewarded for playing in fashion that causes the different mechnical and thematic aspects of your character to align, by the fact that your character will be more effective than one whose various facets are at odds with one another. This is why the recognition that fluff is malleable is so important - when you build a character, mechanically, you should be free to use the class that best fits with how you want her to act, the tools you want her to use, and so forth. How better to reinforce your character as more than just numbers, than to create a build where both mechanics and flavour are tools designed to express her identity?

For me, at least, the damage type and keywords of a power are the main anchors between mechanics and fiction. They are a big deal that prevents the game's mechanical abstractions collapsing into fiction-free self-refentiality. So I think changing damage types is a bigger deal than reflavouring - it's getting closer to the difference between "targets creatures" and "targets enemies", and I put it in the domain of house ruling.

I have a similar feelings. As a GM I would likely say yes to changing damage keywords, but I would expect to be asked - not all damage types are equal, thanks to feat and echantment support, and I also think there's a difference between "I'd like this character to be a pyromancer" and "can I change this power to cold, this power to lightning, this one to necrotic...." etc. Another area where this comes up is power sources. Like damage types, these are mooostly just flavour, but they carry a bit more weight than simple changing a description. And you'd have to watch for specific loopholes.

As long as the mechanics of Valiant Strike aren't changed I don't think it matters how you flavour it. Whether you treat it as a manifestation of inner resoures, divine inspiration, divine protection, sheer luck, or something else, you will still only benefit substantially from the power if you throw yourself into the middle of melee. Which is exactly what a valiant warrior does.

Sheer luck! Now that you mention it, I finally have a non-valiant reflavour that still reflects the mechanics - that particular fly-by-the-seat of his pants archetype where you never quite know whether you should call him unlucky, because he constantly winds up being at the centre of a brawl, or lucky because he always seems to survive. "I duck that blow, backstep to avoid the cart, and turn around to find myself suddenly surrounded by the soldiers! I take a blind swing as I duck behind my shield, deflecting the captain's sword thrust toward the sergeant behind me, sidestep just in time for the private to overextend and stumble into the lieutenant... and somehow in the clearing dust, I emerge unscathed!"

Sure, that particular example is quite wordy and it requires a little more abstraction than "I charge the ers", but that's hardly unreasonable when you consider that our neat turned-based combat is in reality representing a chaotic mess of spiky things and magic balls. Anyway, the point is that I chose flavour which still implies effective use of the power - so I certainly will keep moving my hapless PC into the mob, whether he likes it or not. Another thing to keep in mind is that characters don't necessarily need to understand, appreciate, or intend their powers at all, as long as the player does.

Of course, all this means is I'm reinforcing your basic point, that Valiant Strike and other such paladin powers encourage actions that reflect their default flavour more strongly than many other powers. That much I have to agree with, and the fact that I actually had to work at it to find and alternate concept is fairly good evidence for that.

 

[Hussar]

@Permerton - I totally agree that the mechanical aspects of powers are more difficult to change. Keywords are a mechanical aspect, so, I generally wouldn't change them and any narration has to take them into account.

But, as Fox Lee points out, you can narrate powers a bunch of different ways. My point has always been, you can narrate powers a bunch of different ways, with the same character and possible in the same combat.

And, really, the path of least resistance will generally result in narrations that are in keeping with the mechanics. If I hit someone with Eldritch Strike, for example, then likely I'm going to narrate it as some sort of energy attack slamming into the target and throwing him in a different direction. Might be different every time, but, every narration will likely include those two elements.

What baffles me frankly, is why people insist on using other edition concepts to criticise 4e. In 3e, if someone wanted to make an archer fighter, and the DM said, "take a ranger", they would be pretty annoyed. Rangers in 3e come with tons of baggage. You must be a nature warrior if you take ranger in 3e. You have no choice. You get an animal companion and you get druid spells. Neither of these are in keeping with an archer fighter archetype. So, fair enough, "be a ranger" doesn't work in 3e.

But in 4e? Why is this even a consideration? There is pretty much nothing in the ranger, either as baseline abilities or powers, which necessitate a nature based ranger. Now, you CAN make a nature based ranger. That's not a problem. But, you certainly don't have to. The 4e classes are actually far less restrictive than 3e, for the most part. At least most of them are. Ranger's a poster child for this. I mean, a 4e ranger can't even TRACK as a baseline. ((Not that he can't choose to take this - but, it is a choice))

So, is the issue really just about what name you write under Class on the character sheet? Really? After four years of this, THAT'S the issue?

 

[S'mon]

As best I understad S'mon's point, at least a part of it is this: if you are using Valiant Smite, then you will put your PC into the thick of melee, so that you can get your bonus to hit. And wailing into an enemy in the thick of melee is pretty much the paradigm of valiant combat. And that's why using Valiant Smite will typically produce a PC who is valiant in play.

Yeah, Pemerton just puts it a lot better than I did.

 

[pemerton]

There's show (actions), tell (fluff) and resolution (mechanics). All three of those are part of roleplay, even mechanics - a person's methods and capabilities are a reflection of her character, too - but just like in storytelling, show is more important than tell because it forgoes explaining how the audience should feel, in favour of just creating that feeling. You can fluff all you like, but you're going to create the wrong impression if you act in a manner that seems to contradict your stated flavour, and you actions will probably weigh more heavily.

Exactly.
[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] used to post some interesting ideas around this: that some RPGers prefer an experience that tells, and others an experience that shows. I definitely think that 4e is at the "showing" end of the spectrum, which is a big part of what I like about it. It's what I was trying to get at upthread (or maybe on the other thread where Valiant Strike was discussed?) when I described 4e as "visceral".

Now that you mention it, I finally have a non-valiant reflavour that still reflects the mechanics - that particular fly-by-the-seat of his pants archetype where you never quite know whether you should call him unlucky, because he constantly winds up being at the centre of a brawl, or lucky because he always seems to survive. "I duck that blow, backstep to avoid the cart, and turn around to find myself suddenly surrounded by the soldiers! I take a blind swing as I duck behind my shield, deflecting the captain's sword thrust toward the sergeant behind me, sidestep just in time for the private to overextend and stumble into the lieutenant... and somehow in the clearing dust, I emerge unscathed!"

I think this is a bit like [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s example upthread. And I think you and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] are right that that wouldn't be as hard to get off the ground as Balesir suggested (though I think it could be tricky to generalise to your whole suite of paladin abilities).

 

[innerdude]

Okay .... Valiant Strike doesn't require valiance per se, but it's only useful in situations where your actions seem to display valiance; ergo, it encourages actions that, unless you choose to impose some other concept on them, express the default flavour?

This has never been the problem in my mind. This is fairly self-evident. I'm simply wondering why this is considered a particularly salient point as a "strength" for the 4e rule set. You choose to play a paladin, and by golly, your character's mechanical crunch has them act like a paladin. This is hardly different than 3e, or 1e.

When pemerton talks about this it's in context of this being a unique feature of 4e that supports a specific kind of "narrative value," and frankly I don't see how 4e's approach is any more effective than any other system's approach. If the player has the desire to explore those narrative "spaces," then he or she is going to express that desire in their character build. They're going to choose mechanics that allow them to represent themselves in that fashion. You chose to be a paladin, you act like a paladin. How is this unique and exciting, and somehow evidence that 4e has some magic "narrativist storytelling dust" that other systems don't?

Are we simply assuming that "choosing to fight in a thematically appropriate way" makes it easier / more relevant to explore paladin-ey themes?

 

[pemerton]

I'm simply wondering why this is considered a particularly salient point as a "strength" for the 4e rule set. You choose to play a paladin, and by golly, your character's mechanical crunch has them act like a paladin. This is hardly different than 3e, or 1e.

When pemerton talks about this it's in context of this being a unique feature of 4e that supports a specific kind of "narrative value," and frankly I don't see how 4e's approach is any more effective than any other system's approach. If the player has the desire to explore those narrative "spaces," then he or she is going to express that desire in their character build. They're going to choose mechanics that allow them to represent themselves in that fashion.

AD&D actually doensn't have any mechanics to support acting like a paladin (except perhaps the +2 to saves, which gives you a modest barrier against greater rashness). But a paladin is no different from a fighter or a ranger when surrounded by foes.

3E I don't know as well, but I'm not aware of any paladin-specific mechanic comparable to Valiant Smite.

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e splats aren't about power. They're about breadth.

I couldn't agree more. And it's fairly telling that the strongest classes are all PHB classes (with the arguable exception of the Arcanist trumping the wizard). Also there's nothing currently in 4e that's as overpowered as the PHB when it came out with stunlocking orbizards and rangers doing infinite damage (and let's not forget Blood Pulse).

@Neonchameleon : I picked up a copy of Marvel Heroic Civil War Premium Event Book yesterday, and am currently working through the OM. In terms of my typology of (quasi-)narrativist PC build models above, and with the caveat that I haven't actual read the datafile chapter yet, I would say that MHRP is closer to the free descriptor approach, but is leveraging its licensed content to generate saleable splat, so that players can see the "official" descriptors for their favourite superheroes. HeroWars/Quest has elements of this approach in its sales of Glorantha splat.

Have a look at the datafiles (in many ways I wish you'd bought the basic set - the datafiles there are much more iconic as in Civil War we had such things as Iron Spider (Peter Parker wearing armour made by Tony Stark) and Extremis (Tony Stark turning posthuman and wearing his Iron Man armour under his skin). The Sfx and the limits on the datafiles allow quite a startling degree of specificity for the characters although yes it's close to free descriptors in terms of which powers you use.

The Sfx that springs to mind is Hulk's The Strongest One There Is - whenever he and his opponent both use Strength in their dice pool, the Hulk gets to add his opponent's strength dice to his roll. That said, I prefer the fan write-up of the Hulk. Hitting that Hulk mostly makes him mad, and he, of course has the Sfx The Madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets...

Okay, that makes more sense. Valiant Strike doesn't require valiance per se, but it's only useful in situations where your actions seem to display valiance; ergo, it encourages actions that, unless you choose to impose some other concept on them, express the default flavour?

I think you have something here; there are three parts to this, not just crunch and fluff. There's show (actions), tell (fluff) and resolution (mechanics). All three of those are part of roleplay, even mechanics - a person's methods and capabilities are a reflection of her character, too - but just like in storytelling, show is more important than tell because it forgoes explaining how the audience should feel, in favour of just creating that feeling. You can fluff all you like, but you're going to create the wrong impression if you act in a manner that seems to contradict your stated flavour, and you actions will probably weigh more heavily.

This. A thousand times this.

I think we're on the same page here. You are already rewarded for playing in fashion that causes the different mechnical and thematic aspects of your character to align, by the fact that your character will be more effective than one whose various facets are at odds with one another. This is why the recognition that fluff is malleable is so important - when you build a character, mechanically, you should be free to use the class that best fits with how you want her to act, the tools you want her to use, and so forth. How better to reinforce your character as more than just numbers, than to create a build where both mechanics and flavour are tools designed to express her identity?

And this.

Of course, all this means is I'm reinforcing your basic point, that Valiant Strike and other such paladin powers encourage actions that reflect their default flavour more strongly than many other powers. That much I have to agree with, and the fact that I actually had to work at it to find and alternate concept is fairly good evidence for that.

It goes slightly further than this. You need to get your alternate concept working every time you use the power, and need to get it working for all Paladin powers. I'm not sure this can be done.

This has never been the problem in my mind. This is fairly self-evident. I'm simply wondering why this is considered a particularly salient point as a "strength" for the 4e rule set. You choose to play a paladin, and by golly, your character's mechanical crunch has them act like a paladin. This is hardly different than 3e, or 1e.

Actually it's very different to both 3e and 1e. In 1e you get beaten round the head by the "This is how a Paladin must behave" rules. In 3e you have a suite of abilities that say "You get a horse, the ability to heal, the ability to hit evil things hard, the ability to see evil, and a handful of random spells". The closest thing to a rule in there to encourage you to be in a specific part of the battlefield is Aura of Courage that encourages you to be very close to your own party. With Valiant Strike, the more surrounded a Paladin is the stronger he gets. Which is a completely different incentive structure and one Paladins in older editions simply didn't have.

Or to put things another way, Smite Evil says "You are occasionally good at hurting evil things under whatever (melee) circumstance you are in." Valiant Strike says "You are exceptionally good under this specific melee circumstance that is narratively appropriate for Paladins" and, of course, Valiant Strike isn't the only tool in the toolbox you get. Your challenge is another one, and one that encourages the monsters to set you up for Valiant Strike.

 

[Bedrockgames]

AD&D actually doensn't have any mechanics to support acting like a paladin (except perhaps the +2 to saves, which gives you a modest barrier against greater rashness). But a paladin is no different from a fighter or a ranger when surrounded by foes.

3E I don't know as well, but I'm not aware of any paladin-specific mechanic comparable to Valiant Smite.

I don't know, 2E paladins were a bit different from fighters or rangers when surrounded by foes.pretty sure 2e paladins have a ten foot aura of protection, that gives evil opponents a -1,penalty to attack. If they have a holy sword they project a circle of power that provides magic resistance. Also +2 to saves he recieves, wasn't too shabby in the AD&D system (bonuses ike that were much harder to come by prior to 3E). Their ability to turn undead,also gives them a potent ability for wading into battle with the undead.