Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[ThirdWizard]

I fail to see how I could get more specific than my merchant example - literally a real, individual character I created for a D&D campaign I played in -- it doesn't get much more concrete than that.

I'm sure your character was concrete in play. But, what you described was a merchant who had no combat experience. I could do that with a fighter, rogue, ranger, or even a paladin who hadn't discovered his gift yet. The concept iteslf is fairly broad, so that part of it wasn't influenced by the rules because it fits any game anywhere any system.

The more specific characters expressed above, however, must use rules to implement them. Take trying to make Indiana Jones into a PC. He has to use the whip. He has to have knowledge of archeology. He has to be able to have influence over others and get the girl and all that. Compare that level of specificity to what you described in your post.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, then we're disagreeing!

That's cool. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in the middle!

 

[FireLance]

The thing I'm most concerned with is the small number of classes combined with a system that at the moment does't shine in flexibility.

There are the four 'roles' and every class seems build around its 'role' in the party (leader, striker,etc..). There seems to be little room for a character to step out of its role and do something else. There seems to be no character that can play several 'roles' depending on how you build your character.

I'm fairly sure you will be able to create such a character. You just have to multiclass instead of taking levels in only one class.

In 3.X your fighter could just as well be the tank (defender) or the main damage dealer (striker) by just taking some other feats and equipment.

And in 4e, you can still have a striker character or a defender character. The former will just have rogue or ranger levels.

One of the most appealing aspects of a druid is his ability to fill many different roles in a party depending on his spelluse and his wildshape. He wasn't as efficient as his 'core' buddies but he could go in melee or stand back and heal (leader) or cast fire and electricity mayhem (striker) or even summon blobs of hitpoints to defend the party (defender).

At the moment I don't see any class coming even close to this kind of flexibility.

One single class, no. But I see no reason why you could not have a character with this flexibility. You just need to multiclass.

Perhaps that is the reason it's not included in the first PHB.
With what we know now, they want you to stick with the 'role' of your class the way they designed it. I find that well...boring.

"Role" is a good way to guide newer players. More experienced players who want more complex characters that can fit multiple roles can multiclass.

You know, I must have used "multiclass" about three or four times in this post alone. Get used to it. I get the feeling you're going to see it very often whenever someone complains about how restrictive the roles are.

 

[solkanar33]

You know, I must have used "multiclass" about three or four times in this post alone. Get used to it. I get the feeling you're going to see it very often whenever someone complains about how restrictive the roles are

.

I know, the rules we know about are sketchy at best and don't provide a proper view of the whole ruleset. We have no idea what the multiclass ruling will be.
Until then, you're right to point out that multiclassing will hopefully provide for the (much needed imho) flexibility in character build.

But the restrictiveness of what we do know is a surprise for me. An unpleasant one at that. I was reading all those euphoric playtest reports about what cool and varied things you could do with your character. What I see now is a staightjacketed character build system with only multiclassing as a valid way out.

Hopefully (I'm certainly not against 4e) future information proves me wrong. I would be glad to fall on my knees in awe and do a few epic quests to atone for my early misguided judgement.

 

[FireLance]

But the restrictiveness of what we do know is a surprise for me. An unpleasant one at that. I was reading all those euphoric playtest reports about what cool and varied things you could do with your character. What I see now is a staightjacketed character build system with only multiclassing as a valid way out.

Hopefully (I'm certainly not against 4e) future information proves me wrong. I would be glad to fall on my knees in awe and do a few epic quests to atone for my early misguided judgement.

I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead? I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote the euphoric playtest reports did just that.

 

[Lizard]

I have to wonder if the seeming limits of the rogue as presented (a small subset of the full rogue, one must presume) are due to WOTCs stated desire not to confuse new players with too many choices. Instead of a range of light armor, rogues start with leather. Instead of many weapons with subtle differences, rogues have a small list, and a bonus to one in particular. Etc. It might be that the real complexity and depth comes from feats/multiclassing, and instead of these things primarily adding a specific ability, they add an additional set of *options*.

There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.

 

[Lizard]

I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead? I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote the euphoric playtest reports did just that.

Are those people representative of the bulk of current 3e players? Are most players going to say, "Wow, I can do all these nifty things!" or "Huh, I can't do any of the things I used to be able to do."

If a new version of a program doesn't include old features I relied on, I'm not inclined to care about the new features I didn't need before...

 

[FireLance]

There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.

Actually, I think "Options, not limitations" was the design goal for 3e. The design goal for 4e seems to be streamlining the game and making it run smoother over more levels. That might mean a rolling back of some options.

 

[Lizard]

Actually, I think "Options, not limitations" was the design goal for 3e. The design goal for 4e seems to be streamlining the game and making it run smoother over more levels. That might mean a rolling back of some options.

I'm quoting Races&Classes, here.

Now, maybe the design goals CHANGED since when that book was laid out, but that was one of the original goals.

 

[FireLance]

Are those people representative of the bulk of current 3e players? Are most players going to say, "Wow, I can do all these nifty things!" or "Huh, I can't do any of the things I used to be able to do."

In the case of the rogue, the key complaints seem to be:

1. Inability to trade off combat ability for non-combat ability
2. Restricted skill choices
3. Equipment restrictions

The first I see as a design philosophy. Whether you agree with it or not, the game is set up so that heroic characters are not allowed to be ineffective combatants unless the player deliberately chooses not to fight well.

I agree that the second is a restriction. However, I see it is a restriction that helps newer players (by making some decisions for them) and is trivially easy for experienced players to relax if they want to.

As for the third, the key issue will be how important equipment (or being a rogue) is for your character concept. In some cases, e.g. using a rapier instead of a short sword, wearing chain armor, or sneak attacking with a two-handed weapon, there may be mechanical advantages that should be paid for with feats or other opportunity costs. In some cases, e.g. dealing significant damage at range, you may need to use a crossbow instead of a bow, or play a ranger instead. Some restrictions do look odd because there do not appear to be any mechanical advantages or niche protection - dealing significant damage with a club or sap, for example. Still, I'm prepared to wait and see whether these concerns are addressed in the actual 4e rules.