How would you prefer D&D class abilities to be handled?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I said before that I kind of want it to be like magic items...here's what I meant by that:

Each ability you have should have a "slot."

Going back to my "noncombat roles" observation, there are basically four slots in any point-based resolution system: damage, make attacks better, heal, or make defenses better.

That's four slots.

Each class could fill those four slots, and use unique mehcanics to do each thing. Rogues damage with sneak attacks, make attacks better with disabling strikes, heal by inspiring with slick moves, and make defenses better by granting stealth. Fighters deal damage with melee attacks, make attacks better with taunts to the enemy, heal by gaining temporary hit points, and make defenses better by protecting their allies. Et cetra.

This makes some solid differences between the class abilities. A rogue doesn't play like a fighter, and they have different capabilities against different challenges. Those slots define how you interact in combat.

As you level up, you gain more options for these four slots, but these four abilities are always "equipped." So your fighter might gain a command that heals and also lets you make a free saving throw, but your rogue would gain a stylish stunt that could move you around after healing you. This would be kind of similar to the 4e powers system, but would be loyal to each "slot."

How 4e does magic items is that each item has a slot: waist items improve health, foot items improve mobility, etc. Each slot has a corresponding bonus that is narrow and flavorful. The different items you can equip in those slots are variations on that theme.

So my character has four abilities. He can customize those to a certain extent when he gains a level or spends a feat, but those four abilities are my character's core.

Everything else is gravy.

That's very rough, but that's kind of how I would envision an ideal D&D system. Unique, class-specific abilities that use different mechanics depending on the class, but also that are streamlined into a few over-reaching, defining characteristics so that you don't have this unwieldy deck of 10 different powers to use at any given moment.

I find this idea interesting, but where is really the improvement or change to 4E? You define 4 slots, and say each slot gets more options? This still means you end up with 10 or more different powers.

The change I notice is that you no longer define class roles but power roles (which work very similar to the class roles). This certainly is an interesting approach, but I am not seeing how you expect to avoid the deck of 10 different powers.
I think this approach would be brilliant for a single-player game, by the way - because if every class has powers for the "roles", you never have a glaring weakness (aside from a lower party size ).
So... I guess what I am saying is that your approach is videogamey?
If it's any consolation for you, I am not using this term as an insult. And it's not MMORPGy - MMORPG benefit well from classes with fixed roles since you expect groups of players to tackle quests and dungeons. A single-player campaign for Neverwinter Nights... not so much.

I like the talent tree system from Starwars. I was hoping that it would be imported into 4E, but it wasn't for whatever reason.

I think the reason is that talents are often just class-specific feats.
Another reason is tactical resource management and time-independent class balance.
Talents can work in different ways:
- They can give a constant benefit (A bonus or a new combat ability)
- They can give a one-time benefit (once per day, once per encounter, and so on).

If you just have constant benefits for every class, there is very little in the way of tactical resource management. You don't have to make any smart choices about when to use which talent. Or can "undo" a bad choice by using a costly one-time benefit.
You're always having the benefit and can do it anytime.
If you give only one-time bonus, you lose the chance for variety.

If you create a mix of talents, some constant/at-will, others one-time benefits, you have to balance powers that are "at-will" against powers that are "per day" or "per encounter". But now you no longer have a time-independent balance assured - a character A with a lot of daily refreshing powers will be stronger if he has a lot of time and can recover their powers, while a character B with a lot of at-will powers will always be of the same strength. So if you can afford the 15 minute adventuring day, character A is more effective then B, and if they have to fight through an encounter dungeon in one day, B "wins". You can no longer achieve a character balance without defining your "average work day" and put measures in place to enforce that.

So, this naturally leads to the 4E approach: Everyone has the same number of at-wills, encounters and dailies (plus a light, class and race based variance). You keep all the options for tactical resource management, without introducing time as a character balance changer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the class abilities be kept simple and straightforward a la 1e, and let the differences between characters of the same class come out via personality and in-game actions rather than mechanics.

Generating (or "building") a character should not be a game unto itself.

Lanefan

I enjoy fleshing out a character with game mechanics, and making this mechanics fit "thematically" to the character. I don't like it when games don't offer this kind of customization.

So, if generating or building a character is a game unto itself, it should only be won by making the characters abilities fit my vision of the character, not because I just made the most powerful build I could come up with.

 

[Leatherhead]

I think the reason is that talents are often just class-specific feats.

That is what I like about them though. It's an alternative class feature system that lets you cherry-pick and/or specialize in the kinds of class features you want, instead of having completely prepackaged builds (archer ranger vs two-weapon ranger comes to mind), but with enough restriction so that the classes mean something.

 

[Clavis]

IMHO the strength of a class and level system is ease and speed of character creation, and the role-playing focus provided by strong archetypes. All of that is lost if you bog down the system with options. The biggest problem with 3rd Edition was the excruciatingly slow process of character creation. I could literally do my taxes in less time than it could take to make up a high-level PC. So I prefer the old-school system of pick a class, and customize it through role-playing. I want to adventure, not work on a spreadsheet.

One thing I have noticed is that the youngest players tend to like simpler systems, teens and twenty-somethings tend to like complicated character generation with lots of options, and the 30 and above crowd tend to once again prefer simpler, focused systems.

 

[Greg K]

teens and twenty-somethings tend to like complicated character generation with lots of options, and the 30 and above crowd tend to once again prefer simpler, focused systems.

This has not been my experience. The 30 year old + gamers I know also like lots of options- Mutants and Masterminds, 3e, GURPS, Rolemaster, Hero, and WW

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find this idea interesting, but where is really the improvement or change to 4E? You define 4 slots, and say each slot gets more options? This still means you end up with 10 or more different powers.

The idea is that those 4 "slots" are basically the only powers you get to select between in a given encounter. You don't have 10 different options for what to do this round, you have 4. It's much easier to weigh the pros and cons of this limited selection (especially as each one has an express purpose: if you need healing, better use your Healing Power. If you need to weaken a tough enemy, better use your Debuff Defense/Buff Attack power)

When you gain levels, you change what those four are (upgrades and the like) but you don't get more options in a given encounter.

The conditions/status ailments/whatnot might be affected through feats more than anything else. You take a feat that lets you knock people prone with one of your Damage powers. You take a feat that lets you push an enemy back with one of your Debuff Attack powers.

The change I notice is that you no longer define class roles but power roles (which work very similar to the class roles). This certainly is an interesting approach, but I am not seeing how you expect to avoid the deck of 10 different powers.

I think this approach would be brilliant for a single-player game, by the way - because if every class has powers for the "roles", you never have a glaring weakness (aside from a lower party size ).

So... I guess what I am saying is that your approach is videogamey?
If it's any consolation for you, I am not using this term as an insult. And it's not MMORPGy - MMORPG benefit well from classes with fixed roles since you expect groups of players to tackle quests and dungeons. A single-player campaign for Neverwinter Nights... not so much.

Yeah, this was more to make each class viable with any other class, so that no one is "forced to play the Wizard" or anything. A team of four fighters is just as capable as a team of two rogues and a cleric, but they will play differently.

I don't take the videogamey as an insult. This theory comes out of my work on FFZ, so that's probably inevitable. But in a videogame, it's pretty easy to deal with, experiment with, and find the ideal power from amongst a big list (random combats and few penalties for dying (or little risk against weak enemies) let you try different strategies over and over again). At the tabletop, you don't get much experimenting time (every combat could be your last one!), and each decision is much more important. You can't grind, and having 10 or more options for what to do in a round is a little paralyzing. So while it has its roots in the videogame, a system with fewer powers would work better at the table than a system with a library of different effects.

If I had four at-wills, choosing what to do would be easier (and maybe I could power them up by turning them into an encounter or a daily, to keep that resource management aspect of the game).

 

[Najo]

The idea is that those 4 "slots" are basically the only powers you get to select between in a given encounter. You don't have 10 different options for what to do this round, you have 4. It's much easier to weigh the pros and cons of this limited selection (especially as each one has an express purpose: if you need healing, better use your Healing Power. If you need to weaken a tough enemy, better use your Debuff Defense/Buff Attack power)

When you gain levels, you change what those four are (upgrades and the like) but you don't get more options in a given encounter.

The conditions/status ailments/whatnot might be affected through feats more than anything else. You take a feat that lets you knock people prone with one of your Damage powers. You take a feat that lets you push an enemy back with one of your Debuff Attack powers.

Are you changing powers in and out of the "slots" between adventures? If so, how many total powers do you envision a character having? How would you handle this so as to not effect the game's verisimilitude?

 

[Najo]

I think the reason is that talents are often just class-specific feats.
Another reason is tactical resource management and time-independent class balance.
Talents can work in different ways:
- They can give a constant benefit (A bonus or a new combat ability)
- They can give a one-time benefit (once per day, once per encounter, and so on).

If you just have constant benefits for every class, there is very little in the way of tactical resource management. You don't have to make any smart choices about when to use which talent. Or can "undo" a bad choice by using a costly one-time benefit.
You're always having the benefit and can do it anytime.
If you give only one-time bonus, you lose the chance for variety.

If you create a mix of talents, some constant/at-will, others one-time benefits, you have to balance powers that are "at-will" against powers that are "per day" or "per encounter". But now you no longer have a time-independent balance assured - a character A with a lot of daily refreshing powers will be stronger if he has a lot of time and can recover their powers, while a character B with a lot of at-will powers will always be of the same strength. So if you can afford the 15 minute adventuring day, character A is more effective then B, and if they have to fight through an encounter dungeon in one day, B "wins". You can no longer achieve a character balance without defining your "average work day" and put measures in place to enforce that.

So, this naturally leads to the 4E approach: Everyone has the same number of at-wills, encounters and dailies (plus a light, class and race based variance). You keep all the options for tactical resource management, without introducing time as a character balance changer.

Do you (or anyone else reading the thread for that matter) see an alternative way to give characters class based customizing choices and a selection of powers that are not stuck on the at-will, per encounter, per day model of 4e but still gives you tactical choices not effected by the time balance issues previous editions of D&D had?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you changing powers in and out of the "slots" between adventures? If so, how many total powers do you envision a character having? How would you handle this so as to not effect the game's verisimilitude?

You'd probably only change them when you level up, and then only to become more effective (there'd never be a choice between a lower-level ability and a higher-level ability based on secondary effects -- your highest level ability is always your most effective). You could customize it further with feats.

Like, a Wizard gets Fireball as his "Damage Slot Power" at 1st level. Between 1st and 30th, it gets upgraded to do more damage, encompass a wider area, keep things on fire after it explodes, knock enemies back and down...these effects are cumulative, so that by 30th level, your fireball is doing all of that.

You could take Wizard-specific feat called "Frost Mage" that changed your Fireball's damage to ice (for instance), or a feat called "Direct Assault" that changes it to a line or a ranged attack roll (and might deal slightly more damage).

But no matter what, the Wizard can always use Fireball. And people who are intrested in more options can take some power-altering feats, while those who are happy with a simple ability can take other feats, making the scaling complexity dependent on the player...what they want, they get.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The idea is that those 4 "slots" are basically the only powers you get to select between in a given encounter. You don't have 10 different options for what to do this round, you have 4. It's much easier to weigh the pros and cons of this limited selection (especially as each one has an express purpose: if you need healing, better use your Healing Power. If you need to weaken a tough enemy, better use your Debuff Defense/Buff Attack power)

But I don't want easier!
Damn, I suppose I have reached the same point I already have with Raven Crowking. Sure, I get what you're aiming at and what your goals are... I just don't share your goals.

When you gain levels, you change what those four are (upgrades and the like) but you don't get more options in a given encounter.

Ah, I see.

The conditions/status ailments/whatnot might be affected through feats more than anything else. You take a feat that lets you knock people prone with one of your Damage powers. You take a feat that lets you push an enemy back with one of your Debuff Attack powers.

I think one of the core problems of the "always on" kind of stuff is... that it's always on. Balancing feats or talents forces you to avoid the overpowered combos that are too easy to attain. And by "harder to balance" I also mean that it limits what you can do at all. Some effects just can't be done without them becoming to powerful.

For example, lets say the Rogue has the feat that lets you knock people prone with his Damage power. The Fighter has the feat that lets him push an enemy back with his debuff attack. Suddenly you have a character combo that can easily disable a melee opponent. If these two powers are only "once per encounter", the problem is not as serious. So what, if the Rogue and Fighter time well and hit, they have negated one round worth of attacks from their enemy. Better time this to a moment where it's important - maybe when the Wizard needs some space (or at least less getting hammered to death).

Yeah, this was more to make each class viable with any other class, so that no one is "forced to play the Wizard" or anything. A team of four fighters is just as capable as a team of two rogues and a cleric, but they will play differently.

I recently had an interesting experience, from which I am not sure I can see if it's something universal. The last session had 2 Defenders, 1 Striker and 1 Healer. The Healer was barely needed, and while one of the Defenders was a Fighter multiclassed with Wizard, it didn't appear we needed that, either. There are certainly different strengths for different composed parties, but it didn't feel as if covering the roles was as mandatory as I thought it was. Well, so much for anecdotal nothings.

If I had four at-wills, choosing what to do would be easier (and maybe I could power them up by turning them into an encounter or a daily, to keep that resource management aspect of the game).

Careful with that, you're close to have 12 powers now!