Give me choices!

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure I see how "more defined class roles" leads to a more homogenized experience or one unified class with talent trees as Raven Crowking put forth (not sure if you were joking, sorry).

I'm not sure how what we are seeing in the previews actually leads to "more defined class roles". Indeed, everything I have seen thus far appears to point to "less defined class roles" with a glaring neon finger.

But, as you say, we will eventually see whether WotC has some hidden trick up their sleeve that wows us all.

RC

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I was thinking about a post I had read earlier in the announcement phase of 4e where they said traps would now be something that everyone participated in, because the rogue finding and disabling traps was boring for everyone else. All I could think was really? Was it that boring to wait the span of exactly two dice rolls (one to search & one to disable device) for a rogue to have his spotlight? My player's who play rogues love this aspect of their character (certainly more than doing the most damage in combat), those who don't enjoy searching and disabling traps, picking pockets and opening locks choose not to play rogues.

The question I wonder, is when my rogue player comes to 4e and finds out this aspect of his character is no longer special...will he like it? Does the fact that he can crit hella monsters make up for this (especially if being a combat monster wasn't his thing in the first place?).

Better yet when my player who loves combat but could care less or even dislikes involving himself with traps (who in 3e could stand back and let the rogue do his thing here) finds out he now has to interact with traps...will he enjoy the game more or less? I mean if he wanted to do this in the first place he'd be playing a rogue...right?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, I was thinking about a post I had read earlier in the announcement phase of 4e where they said traps would now be something that everyone participated in, because the rogue finding and disabling traps was boring for everyone else. All I could think was really? Was it that boring to wait the span of exactly two dice rolls (one to search & one to disable device) for a rogue to have his spotlight? My player's who play rogues love this aspect of their character (certainly more than doing the most damage in combat), those who don't enjoy searching and disabling traps, picking pockets and opening locks choose not to play rogues.

I'm guessing you haven't read the encounter traps section in Dungeonscape that I'm fairly certain 4th Ed will be based on.

In that system, rogues still get to search and disable traps. And if they do their job right then no one has to face the trap at all. However, if you don't have a rogue or the rogue fails a disarm check, it tends to cause an effect that the entire party is involved in.

And then each character deals with the trap in their own way that fits their class. If the trap is magical, the Wizard may be able to dispel it. If blades come out of the walls and start slashing at the party, the fighter and barbarian can sunder the blades and destroy them. The rogue, meanwhile can disable each square of the trap one by one in order to save people from the continuing effects of the trap.

It has all the excitement and diversity of a combat. Plus, against a magical trap with nothing to sunder or smash, the rogue and the wizard may be the only ones who can disable it.

I look forward to more of these traps in the future as I've had a lot more fun encountering them than I did previous traps.

 

[Imaro]

I'm guessing you haven't read the encounter traps section in Dungeonscape that I'm fairly certain 4th Ed will be based on.

In that system, rogues still get to search and disable traps. And if they do their job right then no one has to face the trap at all. However, if you don't have a rogue or the rogue fails a disarm check, it tends to cause an effect that the entire party is involved in.

And then each character deals with the trap in their own way that fits their class. If the trap is magical, the Wizard may be able to dispel it. If blades come out of the walls and start slashing at the party, the fighter and barbarian can sunder the blades and destroy them. The rogue, meanwhile can disable each square of the trap one by one in order to save people from the continuing effects of the trap.

It has all the excitement and diversity of a combat. Plus, against a magical trap with nothing to sunder or smash, the rogue and the wizard may be the only ones who can disable it.

I look forward to more of these traps in the future as I've had a lot more fun encountering them than I did previous traps.

So traps become combat (this actually seems like it's becoming the answer to everything in 4e)...I mean you want to heal somebody...whack something. You want to disarm a trap...whack something....

And again the rogue isn't really special at disarming these traps because now the wizard or the barbarian or the fighter or whoever can disarm them. I guess this line of reasoning makes me wonder...what is the point of having classes again? A role is suppose to limit and specialize a character, if there are no limits on what you can do then why do you need any particular class? Just let an "adventurer" class pick all their abilities from a big list.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not sure how what we are seeing in the previews actually leads to "more defined class roles". Indeed, everything I have seen thus far appears to point to "less defined class roles" with a glaring neon finger.

Really? I see "wizards don't buff people anymore" as a nod to making the cleric's role more distinctive. I see "more things are being made into class abilities" as a nod to class distinctiveness since you can't play one class and just get feats to give you the abilities of another class.

I see the cleric's ability to heal while attacking adding to his distinctiveness as no one else will be able to do that(except other leaders and the paladin in small amounts).

Sure, other people can do some form of self healing, but I'm guessing it will be limited and take their entire action.

Giving fighters specific powers to protect their allies helps "define their role".

The idea of defining roles is having the class inform you of what they are supposed to do. Right now, when someone makes a cleric they know they can heal, buff their allies, buff themselves, strike their enemies with spells, debuff their enemies, movement powers, divinations, raise the dead, attack well with weapons, wear heavy armor, and probably some other things. This causes some players to get rather confused as to what they are supposed to do this round. Are they supposed to cast heal, divine power, prayer, protection from energy, flamestrike or hold person?

However, if you change it so that the cleric does a limited number of things well you instead have a more defined role. If you can only cast prayer, bless, protection from energy, flame strike, and heal then you still have a choice, just less of one. And any time you have less choice, your role is more defined.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Still low levels, 2-3.
Rogue, Sorcerer, Duskblade. Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Wizard, Psychic Warrior.
Rats, NPCs, gnolls, stirges, rats, spiders and snakes.
No deaths, yet.

Healing access is limited.
Excursions are 5-10 game days.


Thus far, I'd say 75% of the game has been urban. Your questions suggest the only type of D&D adventure is a tromp into the wilderness fighting monsters. If that were the case, we wouldn't even play D&D, we'd play WoW and sit in the forest killing boars for two months.

Wha? So the only reason to play D&D is when you want an "urban" adventure? Otherwise, play WoW???

 

[Imaro]

Really? I see "wizards don't buff people anymore" as a nod to making the cleric's role more distinctive. I see "more things are being made into class abilities" as a nod to class distinctiveness since you can't play one class and just get feats to give you the abilities of another class.

I could've sworn I saw a tidbit that stated you could take a "training'' type feat to grab some abilities from another class...I'll try to find it.

 

[Voss]

The combat rules have always been the most detailed rules in the game, and yet the game has not always been "about" combat in the way 3e (and, apparently 4e) make it out to be. 1e and 2e were very much about exploration, and you could optomize a character (especially in 2e) for all sorts of non-combative things.

RC

Sorry RC, but my 1e and 2e (and BECMI, for that matter) experiences were almost all about combat (95%) and largely indistinguishable from each other. The 'exploration' angle was just the way to find more combat. 3e was slightly less about combat (about 85% rather than 95%). Mind you, I don't expect that to change very much. D&D *is* tactical combat with a light coating of other systems and a DYI (if you care) RP experience.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And again the rogue isn't really special at disarming these traps because now the wizard or the barbarian or the fighter or whoever can disarm them. I guess this line of reasoning makes me wonder...what is the point of having classes again? A role is suppose to limit and specialize a character, if there are no limits on what you can do then why do you need any particular class? Just let an "adventurer" class pick all their abilities from a big list.

As far as I can tell, the idea is that everyone can do SOMETHING during the game. They might not be the best at it, but they will have a way to contribute.

Previously there were long periods of time when one class would not be able to contribute to a situation causing the player to sit there and stare off into space while waiting for the time when they could do something. Often said player got bored and started talking to other people at the table and distracting everyone from the game at hand.

So, when a trap goes off, now all members of the party can help defeat it, in their own way. Rogues will be distinctive in that they are the only ones who can DISARM the trap. However, you won't have automatically lost because you didn't bring a rogue.

Everyone can defeat enemies but they all do so in their own ways. Being a wizard means being the guy who kills with spells rather than a sword, being a rogue means using sneaky tactics to kill, while being a fighter means using straightforward tactics. You play the class that has the abilities you want without "I will die if I ever get into combat" as one of the choices.

Everyone can get through social encounters...in their own way(or at least that's my theory).

Everyone can get through non-combat challenges in their own way as well.

It might not be the same amount of ease for all classes, but they do have a way. While a trap attacks everyone in the room every round, the rogue may disable their own square first with one disarm roll and stop all the damage to themselves. Meanwhile the fighter might take 2 or 3 rounds of pounding on the trap in their own square, while being attacked every round.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see the cleric's ability to heal while attacking adding to his distinctiveness as no one else will be able to do that(except other leaders and the paladin in small amounts).

See, that's exactly what I keep hearing:

the cleric's ability to heal while attacking adds to his distinctiveness as no one else will be able to do that (except others).​

(Voss, sorry your early D&D experiences were so limited.)


RC