Can 4.0 style class roles and 3.5 character customization co-exist?

Najo

First Post
I listened to Mike Mearls interview on http://theoryfromthecloset.com/.

They discussed 4e class roles and the theories behind them in 4e design. Essential, each role has certain strengths and weak areas. This leads to teamwork and tactical play as a party uses the abilities of their characters together. This is something that is very powerful in 4e's game design and combat and I think the designers are on to something with class roles.

Likewise, I think the multiclassing and character options in 3.5 (although a bit overwhelming) had something good about them. Players could create a character that felt more like their concept, or that character could react to events within their life that change them. This feature is good for the story driven roleplayers and something I think those players find lacking in 4e.

The issue with this style of customization though (according to Mearls) is that it leads to optimization of character damage output, and it works directly against the concept of class roles.

So my question for our community, is there a solution that gives the class roles style of play and tactics of 4.0 with the character customization of 3.5 or are these two aspects of game play diametrically opposed?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Answer in 2 parts:

First, I don't think 3.x style multi-classing and 4e roles are diametrically opposed - it's more of a sliding scale - on the one side, you have something with no multi-classing or customization, sort of like OD&D (at least what I've heard about it, only played those rules for one night) where you start out as something and that's it for your adventuring career. On the other end you have a classless system where characters just pick powers of the appropriate level. 4e is a little farther towards one end of the slider, 3.x is a little farther towards the other end - they're both honestly pretty close to the middle compared to some of the other systems out there.

Do I think 4e could use a little more customization? Definitely. And I've heard a couple of the designers say that one of the reasons they made multi-classing a feat-based system was so that they could add in more multi-classing options with new feats going forward. I'd like to see something along those lines come along. The beautiful thing about 4e's set-up though is that you have to purposefully try to make ineffective characters now - we have a player in one of my groups who is legendary for making bad builds - he took a swashbuckler character who couldn't do more than 10 points of damage a hit and had no way of bypassing DR into the Abyss in one campaign - with 4e, he's still having fun and playing characters he wants to play, but they're characters who contribute to the survival of the party. It's a nice change. :)

Second, I think too many people are hung up on class names and fluff at the moment - I've heard people complaining that they couldn't make a fighter who was a great archer. That complaint just doesn't make sense to me - make a Ranger, don't pick Nature as a class skill, and call yourself a fighter. It works out pretty well. I'm aware that those are extreme cases, but I have seen that specific complaint and similar ones on these boards.
 

I think the multiclassing and character options in 3.5 (although a bit overwhelming) had something good about them. Players could create a character that felt more like their concept, or that character could react to events within their life that change them. This feature is good for the story driven roleplayers and something I think those players find lacking in 4e.

The issue with this style of customization though (according to Mearls) is that it leads to optimization of character damage output, and it works directly against the concept of class roles.
Just to clarify - are you saying that customisation is good for the story-driven, but open to exploitation by the damage-maximisiers? Or are you saying that the story-driven, in their quest for story, also unhappily become damage-maximisers?

Either way, the natural solution is to look for ways of having mechanically-driven story-relevant differentation that don't matter from the point of view of damage/combat role.

Paragon Paths will be one part of this. An increasing selection of powers will be another, especially if (in the course of actual play) one puts narrative responsibility in the hands of players, allowing them to shape their character's story out of his/her power selection and use.

Skeptic also posted an interesting non-damage-related background mechanic a couple of months ago.
 

So my question for our community, is there a solution that gives the class roles style of play and tactics of 4.0 with the character customization of 3.5 or are these two aspects of game play diametrically opposed?

There is. You have to enter more variables in the equation of combat that just the current one which is hit points. If you keep only one variable, the goal becomes to optimize this variable. If you have more variables the goal becomes more a question of style.
 

I think that class roles were present in 3rd Edition, however they weren't as widely acknowledged or quantified as they are now. Also, I believe that the sheer breadth of options available to players by the end of the game's shelf life blurred the division between them.

My friends and I have bandied about the idea of making generalized classes based on roles, I.E. Defenders, Leaders, Controllers, Strikers as opposed to Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, Rogues, etc. and simply allowing them to pick any power from their chosen powersource, thus adding a degree of customizability (sic) to our 4th Edition games.

This was however only a theoretical exercise and we quickly discovered that this system would inevitably lead to everyone playing Defenders with damage output of Strikers and the AoE capability of Controllers.

I think that we will soon see a major swelling of player options for 4th Edition in the coming year, but I think that even with more multiclass feats and classes (I've heard rumors that powersource books such as Martial Power will expand on these options) that there will always be the hard, fast wall of class role limitations that precludes some of what people may want to achieve with their characters.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think that limitations and weaknesses are part of what makes a compelling 3 dimensional character. Afterall, what would Superman be without Kryptonite? Furthermore, I've always thought of D&D as a team sport, and 4E does a good job of encouraging cooperation and group cohesiveness, which is a boon as relationships are another part of what I feel helps define a character. To belabor the comic book references, I think that Cyclops and Wolverine are more interesting together, than they are individually.
 

What is the goal of customization?
Typically, you want to achieve a certain character archetype you have in mind. But this can be for thematic or for combat style purposes. Very often, you want to do something that is not exactly nailed down to one of the existing classes. In a class based system, a high customization potential is like a band-aid for someone that doesn't actually like classes - or a band-aid for the fact that you can't have classes for everything reasonable or unreasonable players come up with.

Once you have roles, it becomes harder to allow limitless customization. You'd have to ensure that no customization allows you to weaken your role. 4E multi-classing basically is the only thing that does this. That's why it is also so strongly restricted - you can multiclass with only one class (independent of role).

The risks of a high degree of customization is that you can have combinations that work _really_ well, and you have that are weak. Every point-buy based games suffers from this problem, and regardless whether intentional or not, they encourage system mastery.
Typically, combinations that work well are those that let you cover multiple roles (but in most games, and especially 3E, it comes down to Striker + Defender - you deal maximum damage and can take maximum damage) well. And the weaker combinations are those that limit you to one (causing you to have an achilles heel) or combine multiple roles without getting the chance to achieve anything really useful (combining Leader/Defender in 3E - Cleric/Wizards without Mystic Theurge).
 

Every point-buy based games suffers from this problem, and regardless whether intentional or not, they encourage system mastery.
Not true. As I said there is a solution. See 40k or other similar point buy mini games that treat victorious conditions with more parametres*, variables if you want if the game is build in a way that you cant optimize for every parametre.
*For example you get victory points for various strategic achievements.
That D&D rules lack such a thing it does not mean it cant be done.
 

Not true. As I said there is a solution. See 40k or other similar point buy mini games that treat victorious conditions with more parametres*, variables if you want if the game is build in a way that you cant optimize for every parametre.
*For example you get victory points for various strategic achievements.
That D&D rules lack such a thing it does not mean it cant be done.

Without wanting to disagree, I am not sure how I see that relates to the quoted part.

I can still use system mastery to optimize for one (or more) of these parameters.

But you might point out something else - even 4E still has system mastery. The parameters you might want to consider are the abilities to lead, control, defend or strike. And you can try to optimize either aspect. (How strong the impact of system mastery will be, I don't know yet...)
 

I just wrote up a reply and the server timed out on me way faster than it used to. What is up with that? It logged me out to and lost my reply.

In summary, Conan is a good example of a character who is better built in an organic/ simulation style customization. He is hard to reflect his life path in the 4e system without metagaming, which harms character immersion for the player.

Conan begins as a barbarian, learns rogue skills for a while, becomes a mercenary and then fighter in an army and eventual the nation's king. The whole time I would say his role is defender.

In 4e, he would be a fighter, take skill training in acrobatics, nature and stealth. Then a couple of multiclassing feats in rogue. The end result would mechanically be Conan, but the journey while playing would not feel the same as the 3.5 character did.

Regarding the point with Warhammer 40,000 (and Warhammer Fantasy), the armies in those games are already in roles. They do not represent true open customization. Though they use points, each army is mostly self contained, has specific strengths and weaknesses and then is further restricted by what is core, special and rare in the list itself. This guides the way the army plays and how far it can customize.
 
Last edited:

Without wanting to disagree, I am not sure how I see that relates to the quoted part.

I can still use system mastery to optimize for one (or more) of these parameters.

But you might point out something else - even 4E still has system mastery. The parameters you might want to consider are the abilities to lead, control, defend or strike. And you can try to optimize either aspect. (How strong the impact of system mastery will be, I don't know yet...)

The problem was not about system mastery but whether you can combine customization and efficient deployment of tactics, similar to the ones that come with different roles in 4e.
 

Remove ads

Top