Mike Mearls comments on design

[Driddle]

DM: Wow, you guys got your butts kicked. Perhaps you should rethink you strategy.
Players 1, 2, & 3: If only there were some easy-to-understand index of what the various classes are capable of and good at so we could adjust our strategy accordingly and/or choose classes that suit our preferred playstyles!

Players 1, 2 & 3 cont.: ... Because we had absolutely no idea that a "fighter" fights, a "rogue" is a sneaky thief concept, and that a "cleric" has many magical healing options via spell-thingies. Yes, for us, an easy-to-understand index would be invaluable.

:\

Not sure that was the point you were trying to make, but it's valid just the same.

 

[TerraDave]

I wonder, though, could this be the only adept feat in the book?

As in when it shows up on the SRD stripped of all IP content could it just appear as Adept, as with Bigby's and Pushing Hand?

Based on a Design and Development article from a while ago (that was taken down and changed), there where these traditions with funny names (Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern Adept), who used these implements (Orb, Staff, Wand, Tome).

As I think more about it, these wizards changes seem to be the source of more "gnashing of teeth" then any other suggested changes. And they backed down a little on the implements. But, from the little we know, there will be feat chains for each funny named tradtion. So a good number of feats.

As I calm down, it just seems sort of funny-silly. But seriously, whoever came up with this, what where they smoking? And where can I get it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Players 1, 2 & 3 cont.: ... Because we had absolutely no idea that a "fighter" fights, a "rogue" is a sneaky thief concept, and that a "cleric" has many magical healing options via spell-thingies. Yes, for us, an easy-to-understand index would be invaluable.

:\

Not sure that was the point you were trying to make, but it's valid just the same.

But how does a fighter fight? Is a fighter better suited with charging the enemy and keeping them busy? Or should he run around the battle field?
How do you fight "sneaky"? Should you snipe with a crossbow from hundreds of feet away, or should you try to get behind your enemy while he is busy with the fighter? Should you look out for trouble coming from behind, or should you scout and search for traps?
And what the hell is a cleric anyway? I guess some kind of religious guy, but what does he do? Should he enter the room with blazing guns (Grammaton Cleric )? Does he call a divine lightning to strike down his enemy, or summon an angel for aid?

 

[Umbran]

The roles simply point out to new players "Hey, if your picking this class, you should focus on these things in battle". Experienced players will still be able to make characters that go against the grain.

Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.

It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).

If you remove the idea that a "fighter" is anything other than a metagame concept, then classes are more building blocks to reach your goal - rather than the class having grain to go against, the class is the tool you use to shape the wood, and the role merely a suggestion of whether the class is better as a chisel or a router.

 

[Nebulous]

When filing serial numbers off things, it helps to have something left after you're done. I can't file anything off Golden Wyvern Adept unless I change the name completely, and that's a pain in the ass.

Cheers,
Cam

Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me. It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it. I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.

 

[Cam Banks]

Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me. It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it. I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.

I should note here that I don't mind at all if goofy names like Golden Wyvern Adept and Emerald Frost whatever are in the rulebooks. Heck, they can add them as the examples of wizard traditions as I mentioned above. It's the hardwiring them into feats that are useful outside of those traditions and have no specific connection to them other than flavor, and which are impossible to deduce the purpose of unless you read up on them, that I don't like. It isn't the same as a spell with a wizard's name tagged on the front; it's like changing Knowledge (arcana) to "Golden Wyvern Acuity."

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Slander]

Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.

It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).

If you remove the idea that a "fighter" is anything other than a metagame concept, then classes are more building blocks to reach your goal - rather than the class having grain to go against, the class is the tool you use to shape the wood, and the role merely a suggestion of whether the class is better as a chisel or a router.

Very true. It'd be excellent if the developers were able to effectively impart the concept of "role first, pick classes to suit" on new players.

In my experience, that type of thinking is an "intermediate" level approach. "Novices" tend to look at the class name first and go from there. At the very least, those who do take the novice approach will still have some guidance on how to make the most of their choice.

Edit: I'm sure there are others, but from the WotC/TSR catalogue, Alternity did a very good job of presenting this concept. Actual class selection was the fourth step in the creation process. You first came up with an idea, chose a race, selected a career (which was a freeform, personal description of what your character did/who he was), and then chose the best class to match everything you had laid out. Hopefully the devs can take a page from their own history.

 

[Steely Dan]

"Novices" tend to look at the class name first and go from there.

Yeah, when I first started playing back with 1st Ed, I went for thief, only to later realize I was basically a fighter with a crappy Thaco and poor hp only to be completely eclipsed by basically every other class in the game…

If someone had taken the time; or if the actual books/rules explained it better I would have gone for ranger to realize my vision.

 

[glass]

Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.

I wonder if some of the anger directed at 4e is actually residual anger from the cancellation of (Paizo) Dungeon and Dragon.


glass.

 

[TerraDave]

don't forget residual anger over 3.5.

Some is still around.