Mechanics and Roleplaying

[Cheesepie]

EDIT: Considering the post posted right before me, I suppose the previous contents of this post is off-topic! (Good thing, too. That horse has been beaten quite enough now.)

 

[Toryx]

I've always preferred rolling up my stats as opposed to the point buy or standard array so I try to talk my DM into doing that as much as possible. Given the reduction of random aspects to the game in 4e, however, I think it's going to be less and less possible for me to do this.

So given a choice between standard array and point buy, I prefer the former. It's just a lot more straightforward a choice for me and I'd rather spend my time choosing feats and powers than figuring out the exact perfect balance of attributes.

My biggest concern right now with 4e isn't the lack of variance (though I do think that'll be an issue) as much as the possibility that if you're not playing the most min maxed character then you're going to regret it. I like interesting choices more than optimum ones, and one of 3.5's biggest problems (imo) was that if you didn't create your character with the best of everything, you'd likely die quickly or never be able to contribute as effectively as the rest of the party. From what I've seen, 4e has made this even more true and even if there are a lot of options for your 2 or 3 at-will powers, there'll always be the obvious best choice that you ignore at your great peril.

In the end it depends largely on the DM and the other players in the group so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I have always been a fan of point-buy, it allows customization and preserves intraparty balance.

Now, on regards to an array, I find that it is very useful when dealing with newbie players, since it allows me to spend less time with abilities and more with class/race selection.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Hmmm... perhaps I'm not being as clear as I think.

I'm not comparing classes across editions. I'm comparing them within the edition. I'm not really discussing how Fighters "gained" options or Wizards "lost" options. I think that's a difficult discussion to have, because 3e and 4e are incredibly different.

In other words, how different can 2 4e fighters really look, mechanically?

Do you mean in stats, power, armor, weapons?

I mean, we still have at least 15 other variations.
This guy uses a different weapon: uses a shield, one handed used 2 handed, 2 handed weapon, ranged.
Powers: Only 2 at will (3 if human), 1 encounter, (out of 4), and 1 Daily (out of 4).

Unless certain powers are the best across every combination: there will be variances.

Than change armor: one guy has decent Dex or Int so uses light armor; another heavy.

Than race changes stats, etc.

So we still can have lots of variances. Now 2 humans will not be as varied.

 

[nute]

I don't allow mechanics in my roleplaying games. They get grease all over my dice.

 

[Irda Ranger]

In other words, how different can 2 4e fighters really look, mechanically?

Race
Sub-Class/Build
Weapon Choice (for Fighters, this matters)
Skills
Feats
Powers
Equipment

Plus, as you say, personality, religiosity, motives, goals, campaign setting, etc.

It's sort of a Catch 22 for WotC though, isn't it? You want each character to be unique, but the Fighter has to stay within his role (Defender) and not trample on any of the other Defender's core turf either. Wizards has done such a good job of making the rules transparent that suddenly you realize how small a box you're in. It's not that you're really worse off than before, but now you realize it.

To help with the feel of this, I'm encouraging my PCs to pick a non-combat Cliche Role for their character and then define it with Skills. Therefore a Noble might have Diplomacy, History, Insight and Athletics, while a Mob Enforcer might have Streetwise, Intimidation, Bluff and Athletics. Sprinkle with relevant Crafts/Professions (these are free) and you're done. The more you focus on the role your PC plays in the world, the less the mechanical similarities matter.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Being of the era where you rolled 3d6 straight and roleplayed what you got and liked it, I have based character personality on the abilities. I agree in 3e the skills would eventually overshadow the abilities. In 4e even more so. Still if I am DM'ing I will allow rolling, that said, given the retraining, the extra attribute boosts and the new skill system, initial stats will have very little impact.

 

[silentounce]

Being of the era where you rolled 3d6 straight and roleplayed what you got and liked it, I have based character personality on the abilities. I agree in 3e the skills would eventually overshadow the abilities. In 4e even more so. Still if I am DM'ing I will allow rolling, that said, given the retraining, the extra attribute boosts and the new skill system, initial stats will have very little impact.

Amen, couldn't they have at least listed that as an option? Just for old times sake? It's not like it would have taken a ton of space. Heck, there are no class prereqs any more. And there aren't minimum abilities for spells any more either, right? Granted, I guess you wouldn't qualify for some feats anymore. The favorite character I ever played was a gnome illusionist in 2 ed. He had a 2 wisdom and only a 15 intelligence. It was 3d6 straight down that gave me that and sort of defined the character for me. When I rolled the 3 for wis, I thought, if he was a gnome then it would be 2! Heh, could have gone thief with him, but the bumbling absent minded professor type character was great fun to play. That probably never would have happened with another method, even 3d6 arrange to taste. And he actually survived longer than the majority of other characters I made in that era.

Considering PC death rate back in the day though... well, a lot has changed since then.