How Flexible will 4th Edition Be?

[shurai]

I've looked around for a thread that discusses this and haven't found much information. Feel free to correct me with a link, if this is violating the We Already Talked About That, Doofus rule. : ]

What I really want the most out of a gaming system, as a player, is freedom when it comes to developing my character. That is, within the usual limits of fairness and context (that is, the context of the campaign setting), I want to more or less do whatever I want. I never, ever want to be restricted by the rules.

What I'd really like to hear about 4th Edition, more than anything else, is that substantially more freedom and flexibility will be present in the Core with regard to character design, as compared with 3rd Edition. I must admit that I don't feel 3rd Edition has enough freedom, at least not in the Core.

How likely is this? What do we know about it so far?

Edit: Heh, periods end declarative sentences, not question marks. : P

 

[pawsplay]

I know that if dwarf fighters can have "earth power," that tells me that:

- dwarf fighters cannot have "flower power"
- elven fighters do not get the "earth power"

So while it may be customizatizable to a high degree, I do not get the impression it will be more "free." Indeed, if racial options are sweet enough, I think you would end up with a bunch of cookie cutter characters.

As I've noted before, if an elven fighter does not wish to use his race's signature options, and he does not get access to dwarf options, he gets penalized twice. Axe wielding elves may not be happy in 4e, remains to be seen.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's will be about the same.

 

[Bront]

I know that if dwarf fighters can have "earth power," that tells me that:

- dwarf fighters cannot have "flower power"
- elven fighters do not get the "earth power"

So while it may be customizatizable to a high degree, I do not get the impression it will be more "free." Indeed, if racial options are sweet enough, I think you would end up with a bunch of cookie cutter characters.

As I've noted before, if an elven fighter does not wish to use his race's signature options, and he does not get access to dwarf options, he gets penalized twice. Axe wielding elves may not be happy in 4e, remains to be seen.

I disagree.

4E looks to be very free. Character options based on class and on race, and you appear to be free to choose any, all, or none of them. Sure, a Dwarf's options may not be the same as an Elf's options, but that's the case now for the most part, as a dwarven fighter and an elven fighter are very unlikely to be built the same (If for no other reason than the 4 point con difference).

Elves tend to use Swords and Bows, while Dwarves use Axes. So Elves may have an extra racial trick with swords and bows, and Dwarves with an Axe. Doesn't mean an Elf can't use an Axe, he just won't have said special trick. Perhaps his elfishness might make another axe trick more effective though.

Being "Free" does not mean "I can do anything I want". It means you have many options, and no two characters of the same race and class need look the same. 3rd Ed had much of that, removing racial restrictions on classes, which ment while some races were at a disadvantage at a particular class or task, they could still chose to take it. I expect 4E to build on that concept.

What I hope, is that a nitch class like the Swashbuckler isn't needed, as you can now do something similar with ability trees, feats, and other abilities of a fighter. If they free up the core classes, you will need less expanded core classes like the Scout, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Samuri, or Ninja, as you can replicate them with the core classes easily. That would be freedom, and I think that is something they are trying to do, from all I have read so far.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

As flexible as my morals.

 

[pawsplay]

Elves tend to use Swords and Bows, while Dwarves use Axes. So Elves may have an extra racial trick with swords and bows, and Dwarves with an Axe. Doesn't mean an Elf can't use an Axe, he just won't have said special trick. Perhaps his elfishness might make another axe trick more effective though.

Being "Free" does not mean "I can do anything I want".

If he doesn't get the dwarf trick, and he can't use the special elf tricks with his fighting style, he will compare unfavorably to both elves (who cleave to the stereotype and choose elfy abilities) and dwarves (who can more deeply specialize in his chosen style).

 

[The Grackle]

If he doesn't get the dwarf trick, and he can't use the special elf tricks with his fighting style, he will compare unfavorably to both elves (who cleave to the stereotype and choose elfy abilities) and dwarves (who can more deeply specialize in his chosen style).

That's assuming the racial tricks are better than the standard ones. He has less choice, but his limited choices might be just as good. He'll have the same number of feats/talents to spend no matter what he spends them on, so he should be comparable.

He could still be an axe specialist who was just as good w/an axe as he could've been w/a longsword or just as good good w/an axe as if he was a dwarf. But he'll have a non-dwarf and non-elf set of tricks.

Or I hope that's how it will turn out.

 

[pawsplay]

That's assuming the racial tricks are better than the standard ones.

If they're not, then do they mean anything other than writing Earth Power on the sheet instead of Knightly Surge or whatever? Or to look at it another way, they don't have to be strictly better, simply available; Weapon Specialization is balanced against just about any other 3.5 feat, but if you want to use a greatsword the majority of the time, you definitely want Weapon Specialization if you can get it. Defense builds want Combat Expertise, runners want Run, etc.

Racial traits, because they are unavailable to members of other races, have to be:
a) more powerful
b) as powerful, which means they allow you to deeply focus on a particular area, or
c) less powerful, in which case they're a dirty trick

So my assumption is that they're aiming for B. That's "balanced" in a certain sense, but strictly speaking, it means a nonhuman character will have more options to choose from IF they pick from the favored suite of abilities.

Interesting thought: will humans have funky-cool racial abilities, too?

 

[howandwhy99]

If you look at saga, the flexibility is far closer to Grim Tales or D20 Modern. I think that's what the Roles are some what like. GT and D20Modern base their classes off of the 6 ability scores. 4e is likely combat roles.

What should also be included are Cultural Rules. Rules that the group/DM create that limit the flexibility of what characters can choose while within a culture.

Dwarves casting arcane spells is okay, but it removed part of D&D's inherent setting. Not providing and demonstrating how to bring back a setting, any setting, would be remiss IMO.

 

[shurai]

What I hope, is that a nitch class like the Swashbuckler isn't needed, as you can now do something similar with ability trees, feats, and other abilities of a fighter. If they free up the core classes, you will need less expanded core classes like the Scout, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Samuri, or Ninja, as you can replicate them with the core classes easily. That would be freedom, and I think that is something they are trying to do, from all I have read so far.

Hear, hear! Have we heard one way or another yet about additional non-Core base classes in 4th Edition?