D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Hellcow]

Maybe Keith is right and all that's still in 4e, just hidden away where we can't see it just yet.

Hey, check my posts again. I'm not promising any of that's there. I'm the one saying that 4E is KotOR, not SWG. I'm saying that it takes the hero's journey and does it really well. But in some ways I think you might look at it as an evolution of 2E that uses some of the same principles as 3E, as opposed to an evolution of 3E. Again, it's not GURPS or Hero, both of which have the strength of letting you model virtually anything. 4E goes back to that core - that idea of the adventuring party built around fighter-rogue-cleric-magic user - and runs with it (though your party could be paladin-ranger-warlord-wizard). I haven't had any trouble telling the stories I want, and one of the big things I do feel is that people ahven't had an opportunity to see the depth of NONCOMBAT play (which I feel is stronger than 3E). But if I want to tell a story that doesn't fit the traditional class roles at all? If I want to run a campaign about a traveling circus troupe? I'm more likely to use Hero to do it.

(With that said, you could certainly make a strong man a fighter, a juggler/acrobat a rogue, have a hedge wizard doing prestidigitation for the kids, and have a retired warlord as the ringleader, using his inspirational skills to hold the troupe together - but each one would certainly have more firepower on hand than you might expect from a group of 3E experts.)

I'm not promising that 4E will be all things to all people. My point is that I think it's a stronger system for not trying to do so. It's chosen a direction and wrapped the mechanics around it; meanwhile there are many other systems that work well for stories you CAN'T tell in it. Aside from D&D and Champions, the main game I've played over the last few years is Over The Edge, and one of the things I love about OTE is that it's a setting where the typical hero is more likely to be an android cocktail waitress or a recently divorced exterminator than a sacred champion of the Silver Flame. And when I want to tell a story about an android cocktail waitress and recently divorced exterminator (they fight crime, in case you're wondering), I'll do it in OTE; I don't feel cheated because 4E isn't designed to support it.

4E provides many options to make characters unique, but it still holds to those core roles. It won't be for everyone - but for those who don't like it, there's 3E, Hero, GURPS, Traveler, OTE, and on and on. For me 4E does a great job at what I've always wanted from D&D - but your mileage will certainly vary.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

There are some restrictions that certainly appear ominous right now. The classes are more narrowly focused (at least the rogue and fighter are) than in 3E, the better to fit into their designated role; but this makes problematic character concepts/classes that don't neatly fit into the role framework. This includes a number of 3E classes, like the druid and artificer; it also includes self-sufficient concepts like wuxia monks and swordspersons, who are generally depicted as being good at everything. So not only does the multiclassing mechanic have a lot of heavy lifting to do, but it'll even have to work against a core principle of 4E, since the whole point of roles is to ensure that people aren't good at everything.

I'm not entirely sure I buy even this narrower version of the 'more restrictions' argument. From what we've seen all of the 'focus' elements of the character classes are bonuses. I would buy the restricted roles argument if there were corresponding negatives but they don't seem to be there. Or at least no more so than there were in 3E, you still have to have some sort of membership in a magic using class to be a spellcaster and so forth.

As such the classes just seem to be adding options. Now I can understand not wanting a car with four wheel drive. But four wheel drive comes with lots of design problems like heavier maintenance and so forth. Having free training in stealth doesn't seem like it comes with any drawbacks. It's just a feature you might not use.

The thing is, I think 4E, even from the preview materials we have seen thus far, has made the idea of class from 2E and 3X functionally meaningless. Look at it in light of the new material the old class concepts seemed to be constraints you built your character against. 4e and 1e on the other hand, use classes as structures that give your character abilities. This is a little unfair since 3X also had some power structure granting classes like the Monk, but the basic point is that even though I think 4E is not a radical departure from 3X in most ways you can't think of class as occupying the same position in character creation that it used to.

To use an unfavorable comparison: 3E classes=straight jackets 4E classes=power armor. Both are restrictive. The difference is that no matter how soft and yielding the straight jacket may seem it isn't doing anything for you other than keeping you in line.

The character comes before the class now. From the novice player's perspective we are back to 1E, you look through the classes, read the builds, and then pick the cool thing you'd like to do. This is great for new players, just like 1E was.

From the advanced player's perspective the builds guide you to the class. You pick what you do and then you pick the class that best supports that. Or, being an advanced player, you modify/create your own class that does. And because you have the roles to guide you it's lot easier to create a class that is neither overpowered nor useless. Thus Mike Mearls on classless gaming and the DMG.

And I happen to think that's awesome.

I understand that if you're use to thinking in terms of classes rather than in terms of characters this approach might seem frustrating, Rogue just doesn't mean what it use to mean. In retrospect I have no idea what rogue was supposed to mean aside from skill monkey, but there you are.

 

[Remathilis]

I never particularly liked 3E's combat system. It felt to me as if it had been designed by an entirely separate team - that one person had actively set out to streamline character generation, while someone else had sought to add layers and layers of complexity to combat.

While I can honestly say I was never "in the room" when these decisions were made, I can hazard a GUESS. The idea is similar to what 4e is trying: simple PC creation rules, complex combat abilities. It was an attempt to create options (should the fighter sunder, grapple, or full attack?) without reducing the value of the basic attack (something 4e has decided against). The problem was, as the game got bigger and numbers higher, the whole thing ground to a halt.

This probably stemmed from the countless complaints about sub-systems in 1e/2e and how they interacted, or often didn't interact (compare non-weapon profs to thief skills, bend-bars with strength checks, and how many versions of martial arts rules were printed?) Third tried something radical: a unified system that covered (or tried to) every contingency a PC could try. Strike a weapon? *Sunder*. Restrain your friend? *Grapple*! However, by adding a rule for nearly everything (from AoOs to bull rushes) the game became nearly impossible to recall from memory, let alone run without having a rule-book (or rule summary) in front of you at all times. In essence, by trying to account for all of 1e/2e's sub-systems, they bloated the main system with rules for corner-case scenarios.

My guess is 4e will remedy this by keeping rules like grapple or sunder tied to powers that only arise as corner-case, uncluttering the main mechanic for speed and retention. It also removes the need for sub-systems, and thus keep things unified. Its not the perfect balance, but its a lot better than 1e/2e's "A system for every action" or 3e's "A page of rules for every action" builds.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Then why was 3x -- much more simulationist and less abstract than 2e -- so popular?

The market may have changed a lot since 2000, but in 2000, more rules and more detail was what people clearly wanted, or 3e would have flopped. (4e is still more detailed and simulationist than 1/2e, which were very abstract.)

Strictly as a friendly question:

How was 3E more simulationist than 2E?

I can see details of the one maybe being more world crafty than the other, but even there it's just specific weapon damage vs specific armors of one vs. npc classes (?) for the other.

 

[Hellcow]

I'm not entirely sure I buy even this narrower version of the 'more restrictions' argument.

I'm inclined to agree. Setting aside multiclassing, the core rogue class abilities are focused in a particular direction - although even there, even without any feats, any consideration of race or skills, looking purely at combat, I can make two first level rogues with completely different ability sets.

But mentioning just what's come up at DDXP, I'll point to the fact that many of the things that were previously "rogue" - critically, trap monkey - are now tied to the Thievery skill. So you don't need to have a rogue in your party just because you're scared of traps; you just need someone else who has the Thievery skill. It could be the ranger; he probably has a high Dex, and it fits with a "scout" character. It could be a wizard, who has taken an interest in complex devices. In practice, in 3E you'd do this by having your wizard take a level of rogue to get the trapfinding feat. In 4E, he just needs training in Thievery, and there's a number of options for pulling that off (admittedly, it's not the norm for a wizard - but neither is it hard to do).

And that's not actually touching on true 4E multiclassing.

The four roles do fit with the classic "fighter-cleric-thief-MU" paradigm, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need a thief in the thief slot - and again, there's lots of ways to make two fighters feel unique.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"

When I first came across that one, I burst out laughing. I eventually managed to call Rebecca in to take a look, and she rolled her eyes and said "Hrmmm."

-Hyp.

 

[Hellcow]

I'll also note that I've got nothing against options in combat. Again, I'm an old Hero player, and I loved all the options in Fantasy Hero. It's not that I disliked the fact that I COULD trip or grapple in 3E; I just found the implementation cumbersome in comparison to many of the other core systems.

 

[Remathilis]

There are some restrictions that certainly appear ominous right now. The classes are more narrowly focused (at least the rogue and fighter are) than in 3E, the better to fit into their designated role; but this makes problematic character concepts/classes that don't neatly fit into the role framework. This includes a number of 3E classes, like the druid and artificer; it also includes self-sufficient concepts like wuxia monks and swordspersons, who are generally depicted as being good at everything. So not only does the multiclassing mechanic have a lot of heavy lifting to do, but it'll even have to work against a core principle of 4E, since the whole point of roles is to ensure that people aren't good at everything.

Which is a boon and a curse.

If you were designing a game played mostly as a "solo" (as in you didn't need to rely on teams) you'd want PCs who were good at a lot of things. However, the co-op nature of D&D tends to do the opposite: if everyone is good at everything, why have teams beyond "safety in numbers"?

To whit: Try running an all-Jedi group in Star Wars d20 (pre Saga preferred). Everyone is a kick-ass warrior, everyone has a collection of magical ability, everyone has a boat-load of useful skills, and everyone is crowded trying to be in the limelight. You have room for a little focus (diplomat, mechanic, healer, warrior) but in the end, a few points more in X skill or Y feat doesn't make you distinguished from your brethren. Its the curse of "sameness" where everyone is nearly equally competent to do anything, therefore no one is happy since they have nothing they "shine" in.

(I should note that before anyone points out that "all the same class WOULD create similar PCs", Pre-Saga SW d20 made it absolutely suboptimal to pick a non Force Using class. A jedi could be as skilled a pilot, diplomat, warrior, mechanic, etc as a scoundrel, noble, solider and tech specialist AND have a lightsaber, the force, etc. Playing a non-Jedi in a group of Jedi (or any game with more than one FU, IMHO) was equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot then trying to run the NY marathon against Jesse Owens)

D&D has always tried to keep the team dynamic. Its worked with varying success (play a 1e thief post 10th level and see how much you contribute). 3e did the best job with it, but even then, certain classes (cough, CoDzilla) pulled a Jedi on the group. I'm happy to see the disappearance of these multi-role classes, since that will allow PCs a chance to shine in there roles and avoid the "if he can do the same thing I can AND something equally useful, what good am I?" problem (aka the bard syndrome)

 

[Lizard]

To whit: Try running an all-Jedi group in Star Wars d20 (pre Saga preferred). Everyone is a kick-ass warrior, everyone has a collection of magical ability, everyone has a boat-load of useful skills, and everyone is crowded trying to be in the limelight. You have room for a little focus (diplomat, mechanic, healer, warrior) but in the end, a few points more in X skill or Y feat doesn't make you distinguished from your brethren. Its the curse of "sameness" where everyone is nearly equally competent to do anything, therefore no one is happy since they have nothing they "shine" in.

This is odd, since it's a major problem I have with 4e -- everyone gets better at everything. The tenth level wizard has +5 Athletics, +5 Acrobatics, +Streetwise, +5 Everything. Sure, he might be better at Arcane stuff, but he's got no real weak spots. And his pal Joe the Fighter has a +5 Arcane check, presumably from listening to the wizard blather on for ten levels. Further, everyone can heal themselves (Second Wind), everyone has the same power structure (this many at-will, that many daily), and a lot of the powers look the same mechanically, just with different special effects. The difference between a 4e Magic Missile and a 4e crossbow? Not much. Warlocks are no longer unique blasting machines; Wizards are no longer masters of a wide range of magical effects. (All the non-combat stuff seems to be rituals, and I've gotten the impression anyone can learn rituals.)

So I'm very intrigued that you see it as the opposite.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'll also note that I've got nothing against options in combat. Again, I'm an old Hero player, and I loved all the options in Fantasy Hero. It's not that I disliked the fact that I COULD trip or grapple in 3E; I just found the implementation cumbersome in comparison to many of the other core systems.

It was not only cumbersome, but really senseless for those untrained in it except maybe in very special cornercases...
...in fact, everyone who knows the rules and has basic math skills would never try to disarm or trip anyone...

... and grapple was usually something monsters initiated, and usually, when you were alone, you were dead...

and though these were the mechanics I liked most about 3rd edition, but it is depressing that they are never used, because of aforementioned problems...