Give me choices!

[MerricB]

My impression of 4e design is that it's building a system that will give players distinct, meaningful actions.

Distinct means the gnome is gone. (If any race had an identity crisis, it was that one).

Meaningful means that the classes work in different ways, and each excels in something useful. It means that when your turn comes up, you actually have a choice to make, and your friends can't run your character by remote control. (Consider the Bard: haste, bardsong, finally act).

The characters will be active: your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense. Your paladin gets to smite the enemy while giving a bonus to an ally.

All in all, I like the sound of the game that is being created.

Cheers!

 

[Patlin]

I like most of what I hear, though I'm a bit worried that the class/role stuff will be more restrictive than 3e. A lot will depend on the multiclassing system, and the details on that have been sketchy.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

My impression of 4e design is that it's building a system that will give players distinct, meaningful actions.

Distinct means the gnome is gone. (If any race had an identity crisis, it was that one).

Meaningful means that the classes work in different ways, and each excels in something useful. It means that when your turn comes up, you actually have a choice to make, and your friends can't run your character by remote control. (Consider the Bard: haste, bardsong, finally act).

The characters will be active: your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense. Your paladin gets to smite the enemy while giving a bonus to an ally.

All in all, I like the sound of the game that is being created.

Cheers!

How exactly is eliminating a race distinct? especially if it's going to be in a future handbook? Why does gnomes have an identity crisis?

How were classes in previous editions less meaningful? I really don't get " your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense," part. Were the other classes beating up on the ranger, fighter? Did some classes fall asleep at the wheel? And how exactly does the paladin smiting an enemy while giving a bonus to an ally, addressing "having fun at your expense."?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Meaningful means that the classes work in different ways, and each excels in something useful. It means that when your turn comes up, you actually have a choice to make, and your friends can't run your character by remote control. The characters will be active: your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense.

Sounds a lot like 3.0/3.5.

The more things change . . .

 

[MerricB]

Sounds a lot like 3.0/3.5.

The more things change . . .

You can see some of this in 3e. However, certainly with the "aid another" mechanic, 3e has a bunch of "do this and your friends have more fun than you". Bard song, for instance.

Cheers!

 

[Shortman McLeod]

You can see some of this in 3e. However, certainly with the "aid another" mechanic, 3e has a bunch of "do this and your friends have more fun than you". Bard song, for instance.

[Shrug] Depends on one's concept of "fun", obviously. Many players bitch that it isn't "fun" to "have to be the cleric and heal everyone." Other players have great fun doing just that.

 

[JohnSnow]

How exactly is eliminating a race distinct? especially if it's going to be in a future handbook? Why does gnomes have an identity crisis?

How were classes in previous editions less meaningful? I really don't get " your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense," part. Were the other classes beating up on the ranger, fighter? Did some classes fall asleep at the wheel? And how exactly does the paladin smiting an enemy while giving a bonus to an ally, addressing "having fun at your expense."?

In reverse order:

Because the paladin can still smite an enemy while giving a bonus to an ally. That way, he doesn't have to give up his attack to use his spells.

Yes. Bards, for example. Fighters at high levels. I could go on.

Yes. Particularly the cleric and druid, which were capable of doing the fighter and ranger's jobs better than the fighter and ranger.

Classes in previous editions could be built in multiple ways. For instance, the archer cleric, or the lightly armored, skirmishing fighter. Most of these builds (except the ones involving clerics and druids) were sub-optimal.

What's the distinct flavor of gnomes? How are they not a mixed-up hodgepodge combining elements of dwarves, elves, and halflings? The more similar races you have, the greater the possibility of confusing overlap. More to the point, with open access to all classes, halflings and gnomes were just TOO similar. And if you need more evidence, there was even a Nodwick strip discussing the ridiculous similarity among the short races.

If someone can give me an example of distinctive flavor for "gnomes" that doesn't immediately invoke either "villain" or "comic relief," I want to hear it. And until that happens, the gnome race lacks a meaningful niche.

 

[MerricB]

How exactly is eliminating a race distinct? especially if it's going to be in a future handbook? Why does gnomes have an identity crisis?

In 1E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves, except they had some illusionists.
In 2E, Gnomes were illusionists - but illusionists were weak magic-users.
In 3E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves or elves, except not.
In 3.5E, Gnomes were good bards.

Huh? Where did that last come from?

I'm getting the feeling with 4e races that each of them is very clearly defined. You don't have the gnome, which was some hybrid of the elf and dwarf without any good mythological background to go with it.

How were classes in previous editions less meaningful? I really don't get " your action isn't just allowing someone else to have fun at your expense," part. Were the other classes beating up on the ranger, fighter? Did some classes fall asleep at the wheel? And how exactly does the paladin smiting an enemy while giving a bonus to an ally, addressing "having fun at your expense."?

The Fighter and Ranger were having fun.

The Cleric and Bard weren't. Well, they were occasionally, but often not.

Here's a typical 3e combat:

Fighter: I hit the monster with my sword.
Wizard: I blow the monster up with my spell.
Rogue: I sneak attack the monster.
Monster: I hurt you all!
Cleric: I... *interrupted by others* "Heal us!"

When a character has to do something to aid another party member instead of the cool thing they could have otherwise done (like cast flame strike), then they lose the opportunity to have fun. Ok, there are some players who enjoy purely being supportive, but they're not universally found in groups - which is why some groups had a lot of trouble getting a cleric.

However, "aid another" effects are good to have around. It's just that they don't work as sole actions. So, by grouping them with a "smite the enemy" action you keep them in the game and allow the cleric, paladin or whoever to still have fun.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

[Shrug] Depends on one's concept of "fun", obviously. Many players bitch that it isn't "fun" to "have to be the cleric and heal everyone." Other players have great fun doing just that.

Indeed. I've no problem with optional support characters in theory.

The problem is the practice of requiring every group have a cleric... when the group doesn't have someone who wants to play one. It's the biggest problem with 3e. If you don't have a cleric in a 3e group, you are really in trouble.

Cheers!

 

[Wolfspider]

Here's a typical 3e combat:

Be careful not to confuse your personal experience with combat in D&D3.5 with everyone's experience. For example, I never in 7 years of heavy play ever observed a single combat that went the way you described. Characters loaded up on healing potions and healed themselves in combat when they needed it and let the cleric blast away along with the wizard.