A problem with 4E is that all characters were equal. Totally, totally equal. A problem with 3.X is that some characters could dominate. Give me a system where each character has their chance to shine in their own environment, but nobody dominates. It's nice to just be able to say sometimes, "Stand back guys, I got this."
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Let us shine.
- Thread starter Number48
- Start date
I would suggest that because 4E was geared towards balance that it allowed characters to "shine" without "dominating". After all... to achieve that, you need a character to do good without being too good too often.
4E characters have never been actually "equal", because they all have different trained skills (meaning their participation to the challenges outside of combat would always lean towards certain characters over others), and while within combat... the differing roles meant that each of them had a different focus which became highlighted depending on the type of encounter they found themselves in. The defenders could and did compel monsters to go mano-a-mano against them and lock them down... the strikers did do massive amounts of damage when the enemies required it of them... the leaders did keep people on their feet when the entire party got bombarded by massive amounts of injury... and the controllers did wipe out or hold back waves and waves of enemies that threatened to overtake them.
Counter this to certain times when characters are built in other systems where one character can and does do it all... and that's where you run into the most problems. The cleric in 3E being a prime culprit depending on how he gets built.
That being said... I think more often than not, a character dominating over just shining tends to be the result of a DM not being on top of his game, as opposed to any particular game system. The DM should have the skill and the agency to keep all PCs in check just by the types of encounters he throws at them.
harlokin
First Post
I respectfully disagree.
The problem with 4E was that characters felt generic, and you were shoehorned into playing a Role.
The good thing about 4E was that all the Classes were given equal opportunity to shine, and had a clear design concept.
The problem with 3E was that Casters were more powerful and versatile than non-casters.
On the other hand 3E felt more viscerally enjoyable, particularly after The Book of Nine Swords (3.75e?) came out.
Klaus
First Post
Unless you are the guy being told to "stand back" because someone else "got this". Every character should be able to contribute to every challenge, be it combat, exploration or interaction.
I've seen many people use the Incredible's Syndrome fallacy ("when everyone is super, no one is"). Every character can be competent, and contribute in different ways.
Klaus
First Post
Your second point is a consequence of your first point. Classes were designed with a role in mind, making them clear and distinctive.
The "shoehorned" part comes from saying "I want to play a Fighter, but I don't want to be a Defender", instead of "I want a front-rank, heavily armored warrior, but I don't want to be a Defender. What class is there for me?", and then picking the class that best reflects your concept.
I wasn't being clear, my fault. It's amazing how people assumed I was talking about combat. I was more thinking, "this is a den of thieves, my kind of people," and "If you don't know how to conduct yourselves at court, let me do the talking." I'm talking about situations where your character concept allows you to shine in a mechanical way. I'm not talking about nuking the enemy, and I want to avoid the wizard just casting a spell being the best.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
You know, in WotC's defense, the equality of all of the classes was our idea. They were responding to the countless complaints from us 3.X players about how clerics/druids were too powerful, the fighter didn't have enough options, and so forth.
They gave us what we asked for, and it turned out to be less awesome than we thought it would be.
They gave us what we asked for, and it turned out to be less awesome than we thought it would be.
Li Shenron
Legend
Well, my experience with 4e was limited to a bunch of evenings, so I'm probably wrong...
But anyway, it sounds like 3ed was conceived as a game where everybody should shine, each at different moments of the game, or in different battles with revolving circumstances.
While 4e sounds like it was conceived as a game where everybody should shine the same all the time*, hence nobody really shines, maybe glow.
...but then again I'm probably wrong.
*combat
But anyway, it sounds like 3ed was conceived as a game where everybody should shine, each at different moments of the game, or in different battles with revolving circumstances.
While 4e sounds like it was conceived as a game where everybody should shine the same all the time*, hence nobody really shines, maybe glow.
...but then again I'm probably wrong.
*combat
