Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4287612" data-attributes="member: 7635">There can be a problem with too much open-ended flexibility in a game though...1.) It was entirely possible to build a character that "sucks". a ftr1/rog1/clr1/wiz1/sor1/brd1/bbn1 is not equal to ftr7. Even a wiz5/clr5 was not equal to a wiz10. This isn't the "trade-off between versatility and focus" because there is no combination of 3rd level wizard + 3rd level cleric spells that even remotely came close to a 5th level wizard spell. Someone (Monte Cook?) let slip that 3e was full of "sub-optimal" choices (toughness, whirlwind attack) because they wanted to reward players who "mastered" the system like players who played M:TG could build better decks than casual players could. 2.) It was possible to "too narrowly" focus your PC. A lot of later PrCs (for example) became "monster hunter" classes (giant killer, dragonhunter, undead slayer) which posed two problems: a.) the presence of a slayers chosen foe made any encounter with said foe meaningless (and any series of encounters a cakewalk) and b.) made the slayer PC useless against any other type of foe. So your undead slayer PC was bored to death in Against the Giants due to the lack of any option beyond " roll to hit" while the rest of the team sat around watching the undead slayer deal triple damage against nearly everyting in Castle Ravenloft. 3.) False choice. Assuming your game spent equal time in and out of dungeons, how welcomed was a rogue without search/disable device? A cleric who negatively channeled? A wizard without evocation and/or conjuration? A fighter in only a chain shirt and rapier? A paladin loaded on mounted combat feats? Third edition (quietly) assumed that a character of X power could handle Y challenge, but between improper focus and sub-optimal choices, that was nearly impossible to control. A rogue who didn't have sufficient ranks in Open Lock couldn't open the doors in a 9th level dungeon. Or heaven forbid he didn't max out search, you'd be a trap-magnet. This lead (at least in my experience) to players often choosing the "optimal" builds for PCs: rogues with maxed out search/disable device, fighters with power attack. etc. It also lead to PCs seeking out feats/PrCs that didn't "dilute" them from their role: rogues avoided long PrCs without Search/DD as class skills, etc. 4.) The CR system: The CR system assumed four reasonable PCs of a given level. However, we've shown its easy to build unreasonable PCs. That meant the CR system collapsed under its own assumption. A CR 11 dragon might be a good challenge for a 9th level group of PCs if you assume a plate-and-greatsword fighter, a battle-ready wizard, a sneaky/SA rogue, and a positive-energy/healing cleric. Against a diplomacy-heavy bard, shifter-druid, an archery-ranger, and necromancy-heavy sorcerer, that dragon is a MUCH more difficult challenge. The only defense to this is to chuck CR as a measure of power and (hopefully correctly) make your PCs face enemies of CR lower (or higher) than their level but appropriate to their power-ranking. Tailored vs. status quo. Pretty soon, status quo become meaningless and your game's power level begins to look very askew compared to my generally-core-looking game. So in the end, while 3e offered lots of "choice" much of that choice was bunk anyway, and people tended to focus on optimal builds anyway. Why not make that standard?4e takes a lot of the guessing game out of the equation. Every PC is good at its role. You have to work VERY hard to make a rogue who can't disable a trap of a given level or a cleric who can't heal his allies in combat. You can take on secondary roles (a battle cleric is a good warrior, a wizard can act as a secondary healer with the right rituals) but you know that a cleric always brings healing, a fighter always brings defense, etc. Most sub-optimal choices have been removed, or clearly spelled out. Its possible still to suck, but overall its easier to make a character good at what he does.Focus is built into you paragon path or epic destiny. Your still a rogue, you still get X sneak attack, and Y to thievery, but you can flesh him out as an assassin, acrobat, or con man without losing focus what made you a rogue in the first place. Lastly, that assumption on what a PCs power level will be a given level (which seems more accurate that 3e CR system, time will tell) allows for a more consistent game play. Your PCs should be able to handle a given challenge at a certain level, with less emphasis on a PCs particular "build." As long as you group has a leader (be it a battle cleric or an inspiring warlord) your set as to who can heal you and how powerful his healing ability is. All that said, I think the "restricting" of options is really just the culling of poor options masquerading a "viable choice". Is it more limiting? Sure. Will that be fixed down the road? I'm certain. However, I'm glad to know I can again look at a PCs class, race, and level and have an accurate measure of his power level and abilities without needing to know every feat, PrC and skill point allocation. It feels good to be home.</blockquote>

Verification