Legends & Lore: Live together, die alone!

[Imaro]

Don't fight 6 Orcs by yourself while they're awake?

So now that you've told me what he shouldn't do alone...I want to know what the Rogue should be doing alone... and also how does he survive if it goes wrong? You seem to be avoiding the main question and in no way addressing my point about the Rogue's frailty.

 

[Neverfate]

So now that you've told me what he shouldn't do alone...I want to know what the Rogue should be doing alone... and also how does he survive if it goes wrong? You seem to be avoiding the main question and in no way addressing my point about the Rogue's frailty.

Rogues are frail. I never meant to give the idea that they're not. However, to a well played Rogue, frailty rarely matters. Yes, there are bad die rolls, but that can happen to any class. The reason their frailty matters very little in the end is because they are highly effective at everything else. In combat with a party you see them as "reliant on the group dynamic" and that is because the class is extremely opportunistic. Rogues should be stalking the battlefield looking for someone on their knees to kill.

And that brings us to their out-of-combat versatility. They are more likely to have access to creatures/targets who are vulnerable. Have you ever seen a slasher movie? Friday the 13th? Nightmare on Elm Street? Odds are you're going to find someone, and Orc guard or some such creature, in a moment of weakness far before a Cleric or Fighter is going to (who are tripping and falling on heavy armor). Then you use Knockout or the Garrote daily. And murder them. Like a serial killer. You don't fight a room full of people.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm starting to lose confidence in him. He's really giving the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater vibe" with these articles. And, as I and others have said before, the binary thinking in his polls is a terrible way to go.

I might be completely mistaken, but my impression is that the L&L polls are purposely polarized. Given three choices, I expect that most people will choose the middle option most of the time.

I don't think Monte Cook would be surprised to learn that most people want a game that involves teamwork while still allowing PCs to contribute individually. That sort of response is essentially meaningless.

Give players only two extremes however, and you can find where their leanings lie. If they had to choose, would they prefer a more teamwork-oriented or individual-based game? It's certainly not perfect, but the answer to that question just might point the way to a design direction. That's my suspicion, anyway.

As to the article, I think making every class important without being indispensable is a worthy goal, and I'm curious as to how he would go about implementing it. Still, considering the amount of fire Legends and Lore has been under since the beginning, I can't really blame him if he doesn't want to go into specifics.

 

[Imaro]

Rogues are frail. I never meant to give the idea that they're not. However, to a well played Rogue, frailty rarely matters. Yes, there are bad die rolls, but that can happen to any class. The reason their frailty matters very little in the end is because they are highly effective at everything else. In combat with a party you see them as "reliant on the group dynamic" and that is because the class is extremely opportunistic. Rogues should be stalking the battlefield looking for someone on their knees to kill.

No I don't see them as reliant on the group dynamic only because they are oportunistic, though this is a big part of it... they also are for the most part glass canons. If they don't take an enemy out in one strike and have no defender or leader to step in then more than likely they are going to fall, and 4e makes it hard to one shot most standard, elites and solos.

And that brings us to their out-of-combat versatility. They are more likely to have access to creatures/targets who are vulnerable. Have you ever seen a slasher movie? Friday the 13th? Nightmare on Elm Street? Odds are you're going to find someone, and Orc guard or some such creature, in a moment of weakness far before a Cleric or Fighter is going to (who are tripping and falling on heavy armor). Then you use Knockout or the Garrote daily. And murder them. Like a serial killer. You don't fight a room full of people.

The problem is again the frailty of the rogue (and the fact that, at least at early levels most strikers need to hit their peak damage to totally incapcitate a foe... and even then it may not be enough to totally kill most monsters of higher level)... you really don't have enough hit points to survive messing up, while on the other hand the defenders and leaders tend to have the durability to mess up and still have time to flee, heal, etc.. The Controller is in the same boat as most of the strikers. They need defenders or leaders to survive most battles. This is why I think most of the classes in these roles aren't good at solo'ing. 4e really hampers certain classes in one on one situations while others are much better prepared and equipped to handle them, IMO of course.

 

[RHGreen]

Postd in the other thread, but this one's bigger.



The Poll:

O - Characters should be thought of as part of a group.
O - Characters should be thought of as individuals and be self-sufficient.

I don't want to be an moody emo misanthrope with super powers that just happens to be near some other people.

I don't want to be a wet jessy, disabled to the point that I have to cling to others in order to do anything useful.


Where is the option:

O - Characters are self-sufficient individuals that excel when part of a group.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I might be completely mistaken, but my impression is that the L&L polls are purposely polarized. Given three choices, I expect that most people will choose the middle option most of the time.

I don't think Monte Cook would be surprised to learn that most people want a game that involves teamwork while still allowing PCs to contribute individually. That sort of response is essentially meaningless.

Give players only two extremes however, and you can find where their leanings lie. If they had to choose, would they prefer a more teamwork-oriented or individual-based game? It's certainly not perfect, but the answer to that question just might point the way to a design direction. That's my suspicion, anyway.

As to the article, I think making every class important without being indispensable is a worthy goal, and I'm curious as to how he would go about implementing it. Still, considering the amount of fire Legends and Lore has been under since the beginning, I can't really blame him if he doesn't want to go into specifics.

Yes, I get that he wants to find out which way the community of gamers is leaning, and you can't do that by offering a comfy middle ground. That's why polls like this should always have an even number of options; you get meaningful degrees while still not allowing a comfortable middle option. 4 choices might provide a little more detail without having too many middling answers.

 

[Zaukrie]

As to the poll, there are some in the research field that believe very strongly in making people choose an extreme. I don't hold to that model when creating customer surveys, but the theory is fairly widely held that your choices should be extreme in surveys.

I'm thrilled Monte is back with WotC. I love his fluff, and I really liked some of his company's rules work also.

My only regret is not buying the Ptolus book and getting it autographed at Gen Con.....(man, what a fanboi).

 

[Joshua Randall]

I seriously, seriously hope they aren't treating the polls in the L&L column as actual market research.

There would be so much wrong with that I don't even know where to start.

 

[Zaukrie]

I seriously, seriously hope they aren't treating the polls in the L&L column as actual market research.

There would be so much wrong with that I don't even know where to start.

I doubt they are. Back in the day (and hopefully still now) they were pretty mature in market research.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I doubt they are. Back in the day (and hopefully still now) they were pretty mature in market research.

WOTC_Trevor commented on this several times on the L&L thread over at community GA. Pretty much said the same thing. There are going to be 2 choices, no, this isn't really market research, but they feel it is pretty much worthless to have middle options.

Of course my feeling is much like others here. There's really no point to it. I can tell you with what I'm sure will be 100% accuracy which options will get more votes and which polls are going to be tilted to which extreme. I seriously doubt anyone over at WotC (or really almost anyone that would read L&L) couldn't do the same.

[MENTION=82617]Camelot[/MENTION] (et al) I disagree. I think all 4e characters are heavily weighted into the 'team player' mold. SOME characters can function in a limited way on their own, but not very well.

Controllers simply have no point on their own. The wizard is in the best shape here as he can fall back on a fairly deep set of utilities and rituals, and can at least do some credible range attacking if need be. None of the other controllers as I see it are as capable, though the Druid at least has some pretty robust class features and summons help. The Invoker OTOH is pretty well useless.

Leaders are frankly pretty much porked. A STR cleric can fall back on bashing things, but he's going to have a rough time. Warlords are neigh useless on their own. Bards are nearly in the same boat in combat as the warlord, though at least in other situations they have a deep skill list to fall back on in general.

Strikers are a very mixed lot. The barbarian is fairly tough and has some awesome nova potential, so he can maybe bull through. The rogue can sneak around and play sniper. The others are all kinda iffy though. Warlocks are pretty much dead meat, though there are so many possible builds there it is hard to generalize. The melee ranger is probably worst off of anyone. The bow ranger can at least hope to cause significant pain before he's cornered. Beast Masters are probably best off.

Defenders in general probably are overall the best off, especially the fighter, who can do a credible striker imitation and is generally quite tough. Paladins can do OK, but have limited options. The warden is sort of the reflection of the barbarian, limited damage potential but they can at least slog through head-to-head, and at high levels tend to be pretty self-sufficient.

OTOH outside of pure combat situations, which presumably won't come up as much when you're alone, all classes have some depth and certainly can pick up options that are useful in solo situations. The fighter is a bit shortchanged there, but even so the skills he does have are likely to be pretty handy in a lot of cases.

Anyway. I think if you account for the types of situations that solo PCs are likely to be placed in they do have pretty limited combat options. OTOH they can generally operate in other situations, though not all of them in any given scenario. I'd be hard pressed to see any major advance made in this area on what 4e offers. It is kind of a zero-sum game. Less team oriented design would simply be less teamwork, and more would be overkill.