Classes need to be ready to go from the beginning

[Wolv0rine]

While this doesn't address the IH Hunter class, I did want to say about the Leader role 4E is introducing... I think a nice ability for Leader types would be the Teamwork feat (as it is in D20 Modern). That was one of the best friggin' feats in D20M IME, and the Leader could also have the ability to give bonuses to Teamwork if the feat itself were taken by the party. That would help to cast the leader as a tactical party leader as opposed to "the boss of us" leader that some people are bound to presume it's supposed to be.

I can't really speak on the IH Hunter class, because I didn't like IH, but yes I do agree that classes should be interesting to play from L1. That doesn't mean super-competent, and it doesn't mean front-loaded, but definitely interesting and fun and full of later promise.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I never believe there is nothing you can do. With a bit of creativity the weakest of characters could become a power house or have something to do. I think people tend to think if "Doing something" as in combat actions. Try using potions or scrolls or something else. Distractions. Try and losen Stalagites from the ceiling to hit the foe. Whatever. Your never helpless. Or maybe even try to reason with your foe. A high enough diplomacy and a high enough check and hey this could change really quick.

There is ALWAYS something to do, sure. The question is: Is it WORTHWHILE and EFFECTIVE?

I love playing ALL the roles in the party. The thing is, I have to feel like my role is doing something important in the combat.

I'm not helping and I'm not important if:

-An enemy has 800 hit points and someone else in my group is doing 100 damage per hit and I can do 1d6 damage per hit
-The enemy is hitting for 100 damage a round and I can only heal 1d8+1 damage with a scroll
-Everyone in my party has +20 to hit and the enemy has a 22 ac, and I'm giving the party +1 or even +2 to hit
-I am trying to loosen an 80 hp, hardness 8 stalactite with 1d8+1 damage
-It is a DC 25 diplomacy check to reason with an enemy and I have -10 to the roll due to it being a "rushed diplomacy check" and I have a modifier of +4
-I manage to convince the DM that something I do counts as a distraction and gives the enemy -2 to hit(mechanically, I've just given myself a 10% that my action has any effect at all)
-I minus 1 from all cover for the party(in this case I've basically giving +1 to hit, ONLY with ranged weapons, and ONLY against targets with cover, and it only matters if the die roll is exactly ONE off. Statistically, it should happen..once in...never)

Assuming you had ALL of these as options, you basically don't HAVE options.

This isn't saying that it's no fun to play a support character. When you do something really cool as a support character, they are a LOT of fun to play and a great character concept. However, I have to feel that I'm turning the tide of battle and without my powers we wouldn't win.

Maybe you should play First Person Shooters instead of DnD. It seems you have an absolute distaste for the cooperative part of it.

That's exactly the point. I love the cooperative part of D&D. In my mind cooperative means "codependent". Each person has a job to do that is absolutely vital to the success of the party. If anyone doesn't do their job, then we all die. Thus, we cooperate in order to win.

Most MMORPGs have this balance worked out pretty well.

If one of the roles fails, everyone fails. So, for instance:

-If the cleric doesn't heal, the tank dies
-If the tank doesn't protect the party, they die
-If the rogue doesn't do damage fast enough, the battle goes on too long and strains the healing of the cleric and everyone dies
-If the wizard doesn't control the battlefield well enough, the party gets overwhelmed and dies

However, when everyone works together, then everyone lives and has a fun and exciting encounter. That's when the cooperative nature of D&D is at it's most fun.

 

[Jack99]

That's exactly the point. I love the cooperative part of D&D. In my mind cooperative means "codependent". Each person has a job to do that is absolutely vital to the success of the party. If anyone doesn't do their job, then we all die. Thus, we cooperate in order to win.

Most MMORPGs have this balance worked out pretty well.

If one of the roles fails, everyone fails. So, for instance:

-If the cleric doesn't heal, the tank dies
-If the tank doesn't protect the party, they die
-If the rogue doesn't do damage fast enough, the battle goes on too long and strains the healing of the cleric and everyone dies
-If the wizard doesn't control the battlefield well enough, the party gets overwhelmed and dies

However, when everyone works together, then everyone lives and has a fun and exciting encounter. That's when the cooperative nature of D&D is at it's most fun.

Okay.

Cooperation means working together, not depending on each other. If we go by your homemade definition, and model DND after it, wouldnt that be like playing the MMORGs you mention, just with dice and no graphics?

Second of all, this balance you speak off, only exists in the minds of some players. To circumvent this, all you need to do is think outside the box. For example regarding the healer needing to heal or they fail:

"If you bring enough dps, you dont need the healing"

This holds true in MMORGS, and in DND.

Lets not try to model DND after a certain perception of WOW raiding.

 

[Glyfair]

The issue Merric is talking about is the element of "Importance Factor".

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the title of the thread - "Classes need to be ready to go from the beginning." Merric's main issue isn't that playing a support character is bad, or any of the other major things mentioned here. It's that at first level the character isn't ready to perform his role.

I don't know the class, but it certainly seems the class becomes effective in its abilities much later, but at first level seems to be hoping maybe he makes a roll so his abilities have some minor effect on the combat. That's the old "magic-users bite at first level, but wait until you hit 18th level!" effect.

 

[Victim]

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the title of the thread - "Classes need to be ready to go from the beginning." Merric's main issue isn't that playing a support character is bad, or any of the other major things mentioned here. It's that at first level the character isn't ready to perform his role.

I don't know the class, but it certainly seems the class becomes effective in its abilities much later, but at first level seems to be hoping maybe he makes a roll so his abilities have some minor effect on the combat. That's the old "magic-users bite at first level, but wait until you hit 18th level!" effect.

No, because old MUs could at least do something awesome (sleep) in one fight.

 

[Glyfair]

No, because old MUs could at least do something awesome (sleep) in one fight.

Which was great if you had one fight before resting. Indeed, in AD&D you didn't have the "pick up the crossbow" option you have in 3E. Hope you have lots of darts after that sleep!

Besides, as I've said before, I'm not a fan of the "you get overpowered here, but suck everywhere else" method of balancing things. It never really worked in our games.

 

[Victim]

Which was great if you had one fight before resting. Indeed, in AD&D you didn't have the "pick up the crossbow" option you have in 3E. Hope you have lots of darts after that sleep!

Besides, as I've said before, I'm not a fan of the "you get overpowered here, but suck everywhere else" method of balancing things. It never really worked in our games.

I'm not saying that it works either. I'm saying that it's better than just sucking everywhere.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Cooperation means working together, not depending on each other. If we go by your homemade definition, and model DND after it, wouldnt that be like playing the MMORGs you mention, just with dice and no graphics?

I don't see a problem with that. Almost all the MMORPGs out there were attempts to make D&D WITH graphics. Heck, I think some of the early ones would have LOVED to been called D&D Online if they wouldn't get sued for it. In the process of making them they just discovered some of the flaws with D&D before even D&D did.

Second of all, this balance you speak off, only exists in the minds of some players. To circumvent this, all you need to do is think outside the box. For example regarding the healer needing to heal or they fail:

"If you bring enough dps, you dont need the healing"

Yes, it's true. Some of the roles can be replaced but it makes it more difficult. There's a section about this in the PHBII. You can replace a healer with more damage and do well in most encounters. However, if you run into a creature that is hard to kill for some reason the party will do much, much worse than they would if they had a healer to survive a longer fight.

Lets not try to model DND after a certain perception of WOW raiding.

My question is...why not? Part of what early MMORPGs discovered is what the designers of 4th edition are discovering now: If you don't feel your class is useful...you will want to play something else. If a class is thought to be useless enough, it will rarely get played except by those who like the THEME of the class. Even these people won't be as happy as they would have been if the class was useful AND had the same theme.

And for the record, I don't even like WoW...but it has nothing to do with the way the classes are designed to work with each other. If anything it's because that compared to EQ and EQ2, it felt like there were a number of classes that WEREN'T needed. I played a cleric in both EQ and EQ2 and I liked the fact that without me, there was no party(for the most part). I felt like if I made a mistake or I wasn't there, the party was doomed. Even though all I was doing was keeping them alive, I felt like I was being worthwhile.

I've played a number of different online games and I've found that the point based ones where you could tailor your own class felt the least fun, since I felt like it didn't matter if I was there or not, EVERYONE in the group had my powers. I might as well just stand there.

 

[MerricB]

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the title of the thread - "Classes need to be ready to go from the beginning." Merric's main issue isn't that playing a support character is bad, or any of the other major things mentioned here. It's that at first level the character isn't ready to perform his role.

I don't know the class, but it certainly seems the class becomes effective in its abilities much later, but at first level seems to be hoping maybe he makes a roll so his abilities have some minor effect on the combat. That's the old "magic-users bite at first level, but wait until you hit 18th level!" effect.

Worse than that, I'm afraid. Magic-Users have sleep at 1st level!

Anyone who has played with me - of whom there are very people on these boards - know that my favourite classes are wizard, bard and cleric. Two of those are support characters. I'm generally happy playing such a character because there are a few compensations, one of which is that I play high-Int, high-Cha characters who take the leadership role in the group - and Clerics and Bards are great at that.

My friends love having me around, on the rare occasions I play rather than DM, because I *will* take that leadership position. They're there to enjoy the game, but they prefer someone else to be making the hard decisions and being the primary "face" of the group. So, I have my time in the sun, and even if my character is a little less effective in the combat side of the game, I can still be useful and make tactical decisions.

My highest level 3e character is a 14th level cleric of Pelor that I played from 1st level. I had a blast with him, even if later on my role was merely to heal the barbarian... although my utility spells would often prove very useful. I was the only PC in that campaign not to die - and it was a lethal game. However, from watching my friends avoid the cleric, and seeing the reactions of those coerced into playing it... it has issues. I'm about to redesign the stats of the Cleric in our Savage Tide game - make him a Cleric 5/Crusader 1. What he loses in the one spell level he gives up will be made up for by the actual fun stuff the Crusader can do. (Healing when you hit in melee? That gives you a reason to be there!)

The Hunter? Urgh. I don't own Iron Heroes, although I spent some time perusing the rules during the 4 sessions I've played of it.

It certainly didn't help that the GM created the characters, and saddled me with a 10 Charisma, no-Diplomacy skilled PC. My role as the party spokesman was toast then. But, hey, I'm an experienced roleplayer! I can do the silent hunter, being quietly effective!

Hmm. I can help people ignore cover. Including myself, mind you. And I can ignore difficult terrain. Well some of it. If I spend a round not doing stuff, I can ignore more cover! Cool.

Except for a little problem: I don't have Precise Shot. From what I can gather from IH, the Hunter can't even get Precise Shot until 4th+ level. The Archer does have Precise Shot, though, and so at least I'm making the combat better for one other person. Everyone else is in melee, and that cover ability is oh-so-important. Not.

I think the Hunter gets really effective from levels 4 onward, but from my experiences, I am beginning to think Iron Heroes is a really, really badly developed game. That the designer of Iron Heroes is the lead developer of D&D 4e worries me.

Perhaps the Hunter has good skills? Well, they're not bad. Only problem is this: the Rogue/Thief of the group had better. Not only more skill points, but in Iron Heroes, that class has max ranks at level 1 of 6 rather than 4. Oh, and it has Sneak Attack... so it's already more effective in combat than I was. I probably could have been in heavier armour... but no shield.

I don't actually think Iron Heroes is a bad game. It has plenty of fans, and looking at what the other PCs could do... fantastic! However, any RPG needs to demonstrate part of what makes it good from the beginning. Most people will begin at 1st level, and if one of the classes is a lot weaker than everything else... the poor people who play that class may end up going somewhere else for their entertainment.

My first real experience of the AD&D game was playing a 1st-level magic-user with the shocking grasp spell as my only spell. Tell me again why my character was along?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Underpowered is hard to determine. But it seems that for a bard to be effective at anything other than granting small bonuses to the party, one has to really know what ones doing and min/max like crazy.

Heh.

There's a concept of something being "strictly inferior". That is, you can point to every element of a statblock and demonstrate that they're worse than another. In those cases, you can definitely say, "Inferior".

The Hunter isn't strictly inferior... I think. The Bard certainly isn't, and can do a bunch of things in D&D no-one else can.

Cheers!