Let us shine.

[harlokin]

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

4e had the design philosophy that all the Classes should be roughly equal in power.

3e didn't seem to have a design philosophy other than continuing to remove what restrictions/limitations there had been on casters, while limiting non-casters to what was deemed 'realistic'. The only Classes that shone ever were casters, although I suppose the non-casters probably had a niche in latrine digging.

 

[keterys]

Different PCs definitely shine at different points in 4E.

One battle the barbarian gets his crit on and clear cuts through the elite and his friend.

Another battle the wizard force moves everyone together and puts them all to sleep.

Another battle the party is positively stunned at the amount of healing from the cleric.

Etc.

 

[SkidAce]

4e had the design philosophy that all the Classes should be roughly equal in power.

3e didn't seem to have a design philosophy other than continuing to remove what restrictions/limitations there had been on casters, while limiting non-casters to what was deemed 'realistic'. The only Classes that shone ever were casters, although I suppose the non-casters probably had a niche in latrine digging.

I never understand this point of view, albeit having tried.

The games I have seen everyone shone in their area of expertise*. I play in the military so we keep forming and reforming groups with different styles of play, and nobody ever left the game or even hinted that casters made them unhappy with their characters.


*granted we did not play epic levels.

 

[SKyOdin]

I never understood this idea that any individual character needs to shine above the others, to be honest. Some of the most fun I have had in D&D has come when the whole team is having a blast together. On those days where everyone in the party is doing their thing and we are all feeding off the positive energy in the air. Even on days where the plot calls for one character or another to take center stage, the rest of the team is still there and helping save the day. Then at the end of the day everyone recalls all of the awesome stuff they did.

Just one character doing awesome stuff at a time just doesn't sound as fun. It lacks that same energy that everyone gets when the entire party is on a roll.

Its those days when someone's character just isn't working, that they aren't contributing, that drags the mood of the game down.

 

[SlyDoubt]

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.

Can't really agree there while I understand what you mean. You're right about how much the approach determines things but 4E really does force you to focus to be useful to the party. In 4E there is really no room for characters who have a relatively balanced ability stat spread.

Look at Valeros from the PF Beginner Box. 16, 15, 12, 13, 8, 10. A fighter like that in 4E would be laughed at. In 4E what use does a fighter have for intelligence?

4E has higher stat requirements for relevant abilities because individual ability scores have very little value. Since powers generally use 1 main stat and one secondary depending on build. Add to that the stat pairings for defenses and it's very easy to make a very powerfully min-maxed (Though I don't like using this word here) character. Which is essentially required anyway because good luck hitting a cr +1 soldier with str 15 or lower.

 

[harlokin]

I never understood this idea that any individual character needs to shine above the others, to be honest. Some of the most fun I have had in D&D has come when the whole team is having a blast together. On those days where everyone in the party is doing their thing and we are all feeding off the positive energy in the air. Even on days where the plot calls for one character or another to take center stage, the rest of the team is still there and helping save the day. Then at the end of the day everyone recalls all of the awesome stuff they did.

Just one character doing awesome stuff at a time just doesn't sound as fun. It lacks that same energy that everyone gets when the entire party is on a roll.

Its those days when someone's character just isn't working, that they aren't contributing, that drags the mood of the game down.

I agree.

I can appreciate the arguments of those who want mundane non-casters, because they favour a gritty low-fantasy game (even if it's not to my taste).

I have no tolerance for those who want to gimp non-casters because the poor casters won't feel as speshul if anyone else has nice toys.

 

[keterys]

In 4E there is really no room for characters who have a relatively balanced ability stat spread.

This is untrue, though depending on the prejudices of the gaming group it may seem that way.

That prejudice may apply in _any_ edition of D&D, however.

Some min/max groups will look at any fighter and wonder why they have Int 13, in OD&D, AD&D, 3e, PF, or 4e. Such groups might also wonder why the fighter took the Perform skill in 3e, or multiclassed bard in 4e, etc.

The games are _very_ playable with suboptimal stats. In fact, the difference is almost identical in all of the editions (+1 hit and damage) between the more focused and less focused PC.

 

[fba827]

I don't think it comes down to game system. I think it is more about DM's choice in adventures.

If the DM is setting all the adventures in the den of thieves, well then it will be the rogue/thief/scoundrel who always shines. Conversely, a DM next door might favor a campaign arc centered around a wizard academy.

I know when I DM I tend towards a certain theme because I find that particular theme more flavorful and easier to inspire me. Comparatively, another DM within our group tends to favor certain other kinds of environment when he DMs because those other environments inspire him. Thus if your PC isn't the type that can shine in the environment favored by the DM in question then you will have to sit back and let the PCs who are designed for that environment do the heavy lifting.

Whereas if a DM had different arcs that leaned in to different environments at different points of the campaign, that would give different types of PCs their own moment to be in the spotlight.

all that is an issue for the DM to consider regardless of game system/rule set.

 

[SlyDoubt]

This is untrue, though depending on the prejudices of the gaming group it may seem that way.

That prejudice may apply in _any_ edition of D&D, however.

Some min/max groups will look at any fighter and wonder why they have Int 13, in OD&D, AD&D, 3e, PF, or 4e. Such groups might also wonder why the fighter took the Perform skill in 3e, or multiclassed bard in 4e, etc.

The games are _very_ playable with suboptimal stats. In fact, the difference is almost identical in all of the editions (+1 hit and damage) between the more focused and less focused PC.

In my experience there's a much bigger gap in 4E. That may be due to all kinds of things and so I'll just leave it at that. I mostly agree with what you're saying so that's good enough for me.

 

[keterys]

I've got a 4E fighter with a 14 Charisma and Insight, Diplomacy, and Intimidate all trained. I'm pretty sure there are some tables that would think I was being ludicrously inefficient.

On the other hand, I _also_ have to reduce his damage so as to not be too powerful for some other folks I play with...

I have the first so I can shine in the RP-y sections... also because I can't keep my big mouth closed, so was going to be making those checks anyways.

And I reduce my damage to make sure other PCs are not outshined by me in the combat sections.

Heck, I also reduce my ability to defend because there's another defender in the party. I do that more for me, though. I'd rather let her do her thing without itching to screw it up by doing my own

It's all a balancing act, and you'll see it happen in D&D, HERO, GURPS, and White Wolf.