New Legends and Lore:Head of the Class

[TerraDave]

In terms of Mearls actual column...This goes a bit farther in clarifying what he has been hinting at. And its not that far from where 4E is, post essentials.

Thats the thing, is this something new. or will it all just be a sneakey defense of what is there? Or maybe, most likely?, new, but not that new.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He's ignoring the middle ground, here.

The thing about a sliding scale is that there are many points between the two extremes. A system that provided only a Complex Option and a Simple Option wouldn't be able to grow and change with a player.

At each decision point, a character should be able to choose "simple" or "complex." Being locked into a choice for about two years of game time isn't great, especially as you get better and learn a system more intimately.

Perhaps you have a fighter who starts out basic, but eventually learns their abilities well, and wants to opt into more complicated powers further down the line.

Perhaps you have a wizard who is happy to have complicated illusion powers with a wealth of options, but would like simple powers when it comes to damage-dealing.

Perhaps you have a barbarian character who revels in tactical combat, but who wants to be able to grunt and be effective when out of combat.

I'm actually slightly seeing this with my Essentials-mostly game now. Level 3 seemed a little underwhelming for everyone ("I get to use my encounter power again!"), in comparison to Level 2 ("I get to choose a new power!"). They could've benefited from some scaling complexity, a sliding scale that let them take the easy option, OR, let them take another option. Without a feat tax.

One of the characters also likes burning things and going beyond his power set, so for him, a satisfyingly complex resolution mechanic for stunts is essential. Another one likes to take the diplomatic route, so having a complex interaction mechanic would make my job as DM much easier.

A class structure that had a "simple class" and a "complex class" is a step in the right direction, but it's not far enough. We need to give them the opportunity to be simple or complex as they desire at every decision point, not just once, and then they're stuck with it 'till the character bites the dust.

We also need options for "simple combat" and "complex combat," and "simple noncombat" and "complex noncombat," and, again, it needs to be a sliding scale, and maybe even different for each character, so that at each point, people are getting what they want out of the game.

That's a taller order than "Here's some classes with a defined progression, and here's some that give you more choice!"

....though I totally agree that it's not fair to make the fighter simple always and the wizard complex always.

 

[FireLance]

He's ignoring the middle ground, here.

The thing about a sliding scale is that there are many points between the two extremes. A system that provided only a Complex Option and a Simple Option wouldn't be able to grow and change with a player.

From the context of the article, I think he's suggesting that the simple option should be a pre-selected complex option. For example, the simple fighter gets a +1 bonus to all weapon attack rolls, but the complex fighter gets to choose between a +1 bonus to all attack rolls, a +1 bonus to all defenses, or a scaling damage bonus. There may also be occasions where the player may get to choose between a constant bonus and an encounter or daily power, e.g. the simple fighter may get a +2 bonus to weapon damage rolls, while the complex fighter may get to choose between that and a 1st-level daily attack power.

The evolution of complexity can then be handled via retraining.

 

[Yesway Jose]

The article makes sense to me. It's like the usual RPG videogame where you can either allow the AI to auto-level your stats and you just play the game, OR you can manually tweak the stats yourself to optimize the character differently.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The evolution of complexity can then be handled via retraining.

Retraining will suck the life out of any goodwill he is trying to build with those who enjoy any degree of fantasy world simulation. Swapping out learned non-magical abilities as if they were gear is very much a videogame element.

 

[FireLance]

Retraining will suck the life out of any goodwill he is trying to build with those who enjoy any degree of fantasy world simulation. Swapping out learned non-magical abilities as if they were gear is very much a videogame element.

Gosh. I hadn't realized that forgetting stuff you haven't used or practised in a while and learning new stuff is videogamey. So, exactly which software company produces Life (tm) the videogame?

 

[Gundark]

In terms of Mearls actual column...This goes a bit farther in clarifying what he has been hinting at. And its not that far from where 4E is, post essentials.

Thats the thing, is this something new. or will it all just be a sneakey defense of what is there? Or maybe, most likely?, new, but not that new.

I tossed that around too, but (to me) it sounded like he was speaking of what is to come rather than what we have. Were he speaking of the current environment I'm assuming he would have spoken about core 4e and essentials 4e ( which if I remember correctly he didn't even mention).

I am wondering if he is talking about a new edition, or some new book that is released for 4th, but test drives 5th

 

[ExploderWizard]

Gosh. I hadn't realized that forgetting stuff you haven't used or practised in a while and learning new stuff is videogamey. So, exactly which software company produces Life (tm) the videogame?

Retraining rules and skill attrition do not share any of the same functionality. When you don't maintain a skill then you become less proficient at performing it over the time of disuse.

Retraining doesn't work that way. You don't get to perform the same abilities that you may have used as recently as the day before. In addition, you can suddenly do things at an expert level that you have never before attempted.

Learning new abilities and having old ones degrade with neglect isn't videogamey. The binary on/off switch hotswap certainly is though.

 

[Naszir]

I'd prefer if to flip things around. Lay out all the options first and then give example/suggested builds afterwards. Players, if they wanted to dive right in, would just choose one of the suggested builds and follow the class progression.

A little off topic but I also like to see the definiton of feats nailed down a little more. The whole crossover of feats giving powers never seemed right in my mind. I'd also like to see feats split into feats and enhancements. Feats are things you do, they are situational bonuses (my character does an extra 1d6 damage when flanking). Enhancements would be those choices where you get permanent bonuses or abilities (languages, armor training, weapon training)

 

[FireLance]

Retraining rules and skill attrition do not share any of the same functionality. When you don't maintain a skill then you become less proficient at performing it over the time of disuse.

Retraining doesn't work that way. You don't get to perform the same abilities that you may have used as recently as the day before. In addition, you can suddenly do things at an expert level that you have never before attempted.

Learning new abilities and having old ones degrade with neglect isn't videogamey. The binary on/off switch hotswap certainly is though.

I would say that it is up to the DM and players to narrate the retraining in a manner that is consistent with whatever level of realism they want to achieve in their games.

Since retraining is (currently, at least) tied to the rules for levelling up, whatever narration that is used to justify how the character gains new abilities from his new level (and thus "can suddenly do things at an expert level that [he has] never before attempted") can also be used to justify the new abilities from retraining. All that is needed is for a sufficiently long training period to make it plausible that the lost abilities have atrophied.

Yes, you can deliberately wreck your own sense of verismilitude if you focus on the fact that the rules do not prescribe a minimum length of time required for retraining and feel forced by the rules to treat retraining as a binary on/off switch. However, that does not mean that the concept of retraining itself is videogamey, or that others cannot implement it in a manner that is more congruent with reality if they want.