Ah jeez. Apologies in advance to everyone for the piles and piles of text here. I know that endless quote wars and running in circles around the same point is rarely fun to anyone else, but I feel like DracoSuave had some genuine points I did really want to respond to. Most answers sblocked out to try and mitigate endless scrolling for everyone not interested in this little sidequest.
The thing is, the system was always designed to make weapon type matter in more than simple damage stats. Weapon specialization is kinda what the Fighter class is all about from a fundamental level.
[sblock]Oh, absolutely! This is definitely something I've wrestled with myself - I like that a fighter focused in axes can feel different from one focused on hammers. How can I reconcile this with wanting PCs to not be so invested in a single weapon that new magic items are boring or suboptimal, and to disdain trying out other weapons or improvised ones? I'm not sure of the answer.
It ties a bit back into some of these feat threads. Folks suggest that benefits provided can expand options rather than just give sheer numbers. I like this idea - or, even better, building some of this into weapons themselves and letting further options enhance it. We get this a bit with different proficiencies, high crit, etc, but that again all comes back to raw numbers.
If a fighter gives up +3 to hit and +3 to damage by switching from hammers to axes, he'll never have a reason to try out an axe - even an awesome one. But if he gives up the ability to slide enemies farther and knock them down... it is significant, but not nearly as clear cut a choice. He can still be competent with an axe. A fancy magic axe might even give a good reason to switch, or he might find himself in a situation where using an axe is more useful than his normal skill with hammers.
Now, I also don't want to return to the 'gold bag of weapons' for every circumstance, of course. Like I said - a tricky situation. But I feel that the focus on raw numbers tying into specialization was a mistake. You just give up too much when you fall too far behind on hitting.
Again, I think the PHB itself was close to a good balance. A weapon-specialized fighter might have weapon focus, and various powers that gained extra benefits from their weapon. Their weapon choice mattered. But switching to another weapon wasn't
crippling. Once you bring expertise into the equation - or even simply the dozens of other feats they might now also have, all focused on that one weapon - the equation is suddenly much different. [/sblock]
I do agree, but we're not looking at a major investment of attention. 'Okay, you have these feats, okay you have those feats, in the future, could you please look at some feats for performance so I can balance encounters easier? And can you hold back on performance feats? Thank you.'
[sblock]Again, that sort of meddling with character builds rarely is fun for anyone involved. And... it isn't always that easy. By the time my game got to Epic, I tried to get characters on the same page - via advice about options to take, as well as custom items to certain characters to help bring them more in line with the rest. But it was hard, and even working at it, never quite worked right. And you could see some players getting discouraged when they felt so inferior to other PCs.
Some games it can work for, but I don't think it is always that trivial - and given where 4E started, and where it is now, I think it is something that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, by different choices in terms of design. [/sblock]
I can see that point of view. But I think it's a fallacy to think that the proposed solution will do that. It's going to make the game -less- fun for some players, and it's going to make things easier in the long term.
[sblock]Ah, but isn't that the sort of discussion we should be having?
Again, I'm not sure there has been one single proposed solution. But lets look at some of the ones we have had - divvying up feats into combat vs non-combat fields, for example. How would such a design negatively impact some players? What are weaknesses or abuses of that system, and what are ways we can get around that?
I haven't seen much actual discussion on such topics, but instead just a claim that it won't work, or isn't worth it. And I suppose one can certainly feel that way - but, at least for me, I think a possible solution certainly
can be found, and having one
would be a benefit to the system in the long run. [/sblock]
It's not the system demanding the concession. The concession exists in every roleplaying game. Players should, ideally, strive to cooperate in the making of characters. The 'One player has all the powerful stuff and it's making encounter balance crazy' problem has been a problem and question posed since 1st edition D&D. The solution has always been to tone things down and keep things balanced.
4th Edition probably has the least power disparity between the haves and have-nots in the entire history of D&D. Why is it such a huge problem all of a sudden now that the solution is so simple to implement?
[sblock]Again - part of this discussion (at least in my mind) has been the change in 4E from launch to the current environment. We've gotten much closer to a broken power disparity in terms of optimization. Is that inevitable as more options become available? Or could a tighter system keep the gap from widening? I certainly think it is possible.
And I think a solution that involves asking characters to intentionally cripple their effectiveness... will never be an ideal one. Again, the system itself can't ever be perfect, either, but it could be better than it is now. I'm not advocating for all choice to be removed, or for a system that prevents any disparity between characters. But it is entirely possible to have one that allows for optimization to a level where one character can be more
effective than another, but do so without completely
overshadowing them
. And to do so while allowing for a diverse array of choices, and give characters the option to focus on flavor, effectiveness, or both, and provide an environment that can challenge that entire spectrum while all the characters feel capable of being involved in the game. [/sblock]
Me said:
If half the party are super-optimized, and half are not, who is at fault? The optimizers? The other players? The DM?
All of the above. It's a team-sport.
[sblock]That... might be what D&D is to you. For me, it's a game. One where I have fun with my friends. Again - homework, sport, competition, these elements and ideas that if a group is having a problem, it is because they aren't playing it right or working hard enough to overcome the problem... no thank you.
If I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to say about it being a team-sport here, my apologies. I do get the idea that cooperation is good and everyone should be concerned about how to make it best for everyone else. But it is neither easy nor quick to pinpoint exactly what such problems are or how to do it, and the solutions can often offer as much frustrations as the problem itself.
I agree that all of those involved could make choices that allow this problem to be bypassed or mitigated. But that isn't the same thing as them being to blame for it becoming a problem. That blame remains with the fault of the system itself.[/sblock]
The problem is always going to exist. I cannot blame 4ed for creating the problem when it's the system that has that problem less than any other edition of the game. It's NOT as big a problem as people make it out to be.
[sblock]Like I said, I feel it is an improvement. I don't feel that means we should have to settle for nothing better, if we see ways it could be improved further. [/sblock]
When the problem can be solved in every game ever by the application of a DM intervening to ensure the players are appropriate to the campaign and each other... and this solution can be applied universally across the board... why tamper with a system that works fine and has less of disparity than most systems before it?
[sblock]Because that is neither an easy solution nor a universal one, and I can pinpoint many of the elements that cause the growth of that disparity, and can imagine potential solutions to address the issue in the future.
This feels like a trick question. "Why bother trying to make this game better? Isn't it good enough? So what if it has problems - the DM can just fix those? What's the point of a game that solves the DM's problems for him?"
Just to be clear, I accept none of these as valid reasons to accept a problem:
-We had worse problems previously.
-Other games still have this problem.
-A DM can come up with a way to fix the problem.
-Better players wouldn't have this problem.
The one valid reason I see in your argument - fear of 'tampering' - I can understand. You are concerned that changes will make things worse; fair enough. But that's a reason to try and participate and figure out how to avoid such a thing, not a reason to insist no one should bother with it at all.[/sblock]
Well no one seems to have acknoledged the 'Problem is not inherent to the system' part of my posts, because the problem is not inherent to the game mechanics.
[sblock]Of course it is! Yes, there are other universal elements at play - any system that offers choice and a diversity of character options will result in a disparity. But the degree of that disparity currently available in 4E is firmly rooted in the mechanics themselves as well as specific feats and options present in the game.
And those elements, largely, are what folks are looking to address.[/sblock]
And if the absence of two feats is causing such a major disparity, then the solution of suggesting they take those two feats out of the 18 they get is not exactly an onerous solution is it?
[sblock]At level 30, maybe not, though it still feels problematic. Especially the more feats you add that join that list. If you now need Expertise and the Superior Defenses to keep up, you're 4 feats in the whole. 2 or 4, being forced (or, sorry, 'suggested') to take them still points to a flaw in the game.
Not to mention that, at level 11, 2 or 4 feats out of 6 is a much bigger cost. [/sblock]
But are they a problem? Many feats are better than other feats, but that's not a sign that they are a problem.
[sblock]Sure it is. The entire point of having multiple choices to make is that those choices help define your character. Each one should be on the same relative level of power, even if in different areas. It won't always be perfect, but aiming for that balance is certainly the mark of a good system.
Vs, "Hey, this feat gives me +1 to hit some of the time. And this one gives +3 to hit all the time, and reach with my attacks, and my ranged and area attacks don't provoke. Why am I making a choice, again?"
If some feats are universally better than others... then, yes, that's a problem. There might be a reason for it - WotC believes there is, with Expertise - but that still points to a fundamental flaw in the system. [/sblock]
I am simply stating that if there is a problem, it's solution is found within the system already.
[sblock]And we've explained that the proposed solution - DM fix things - isn't a great one for everyone, doesn't always work, and is much less preferrable than one that fundamentally fixes the problem itself. [/sblock]
Given the hyperbole of many adherents of the 'feat system sucks' crowd, literally claiming that you need to be top of the line to be effective... yes, I think it is fair to say they are overstating the problem. Particularly with the perspective that in most other rpgs, the problem is considerably worse. Is that the fault of the system, or the fault of groups that allow the problem to fester without taking steps to work together and fix it?
[sblock]Again, I really dislike this logic. "The problem is worse elsewhere." "The problem is that the group wasn't good enough to make the system work."
You shouldn't
have to make the system work! You shouldn't have to come together and
fix the game you are playing. You should be able to get together and just
play it.
I know that no system is perfect, particularly when catering to thousands of gamers with different tastes and approaches to the game. I know that what we have now is indeed an improvement in this area compared to other games and editions.
That doesn't mean, though, that if we see an area that could be further improved, we should for some reason avoid even considering the possibility of that improvement.
You keep mentioning the lack of need for this endeavor, and warn of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Have you provided any real examples of what it is you fear? How any of these proposed changes will break the system? [/sblock]
I am stating that the issue CAN be addressed and efficiently through party-cohesion and minimal DM overview. Which is as good as you're ever going to get in any game system. Changing feat distribution isn't going to negate the problem, it's only going to delay it a bit until more power-creep changes the next problem to utility powers or themes or whatever.
[sblock]If that is your perspective, fair enough. It isn't mine. I neither think that your proposed solution is as easy, efficient and minimal as suggested, nor that the current environment is "the best we're going to get."
Look, when 4E first hit, it
looked like it would take a very limited approach to how far the gap could widen between characters. It looked like we would have a very discrete set of bonuses - item, feat, power - and that bonuses to attack and defense would be few and far between. We had only a few of them in the PHB and they were very conditional: +1 to hit with combat advantage, +2 to hit with OAs.
Then we had a great many power books in pretty rapid succession, and started seeing many more untyped bonuses and bonuses from other sources, and larger and larger bonuses, and eventually the big offenders in PHB2.
That situation
was not inevitable. I think different design approaches could have avoided it. That's largely what I'm arguing for here. I think it is entirely possible to have introduced variety and options into the game while still keeping a careful eye on how far that disparity gap grows. Power creep is, yes inevitable, but it can be limited and it can be managed. And I think some of the proposed solutions on hand could do just that. [/sblock]
I am not suggesting NOT addressing the problem, I'm suggesting examining if it's a problem in a specific group, and IF it is, working together to solve it as a party, rather than change the system itself as a bandaid hoping that will solve things when it doesn't because the problem isn't relegated to feats, or even fourth edition D&D, but rather that min-maxers always find ways to push the envelope and DMs who have groups with min-maxers and non-min-maxers are always going to have that problem.
[sblock]And I'm saying that, at launch, 4E did a good job of making it perfectly feasible to having min-maxers alongside non-min-maxers and have everyone feel effective and challenged within the same party. It has lost a lot of that, even if it is still better than some other systems.
Adjustments to the system and game design absolutely could have mitigated this, and would have been a far better solution than relying on DM intervention to fix things.
The problem isn't the system, it's min-maxers with non-min-maxers. Changing the system that has the -least- disparity of all D&D editions isn't going to solve the fundamental issue. DM intervention can and will and always has.[/sblock]
By your logic, anything that reduces disparity must improve the game system. Therefore the ultimate gamesystem is one without any options for characters to take, because minmaxers attain their disparity by taking options.
I think I've been pretty clear that this isn't what I'm asking for. That I think there is a level where one can allow a variety of choices and different levels of optimization without allow that disparity to cause party members to operate in entirely different spheres of power. It comes down, again, to the idea of the gap - how wide should the spectrum be, between optimized and non-optimized. In D&D, that's pretty reliant on the core mechanic - the d20. If a character is +5 compared to another, they are still in the same ballpack. If a character is +15 compared to another, however... they aren't.
Aiming for that tighter spread is what I'm arguing for. And the reason I'm asking about past editions and whether you think we should have stopped there is because you seem very focused that "this is it - this is the best we can get". And I'm not convinced of that, in large part because we can directly point to elements that allow that gap to expand farther than desired, and to me that feels like a reason to want to fix them.
I don't feel discussing it is problematic. I feel overstating it is problematic. I feel declaring characters who don't go bleeding edge as 'ineffective' is problematic, dare I say, symptomatic of the problem.
If that is really all your concern is, I think just saying, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't be so absolutist and extreme in your declarations" would have been a lot more effective than "Hey, I think the problem is actually with you."
