New Legends and Lore:Head of the Class

[Yesway Jose]

Drat it, Kamikaze, I've been giving you XP when you talked sense but I disagreed--and now I agree with everything you said and can't. Someone spot me for the man!

Done!

Regarding the fighter, what if the core build is a simple fighter is modelled on a fictionally simple fighter. He's just an average dude with a sword and shield who wades into battle and just hacks away. Both the character and combat options are simple for him.

Then you have the alternative fighter builds. These include a tactical fighter who dances into combat, flanks, maneouvers, etc. Both his character options and combat options are all more complex.

Best of all, for the simulationists, it's based in fiction.

 

[Skyscraper]

Love this column. The idea is interesting, but:

1) if the core class option is only to show new players how to play, all players in a given group are likely to evolve towards the advanced class options after having played a bit and the game is likely to remain "complex".

2) The over-reliance on math in 4E is one thing that makes the edition tedious and cumbersome. Sure, you can get mathematically balanced classes and encounters, which is fine; but DMs (and players) don't necessarily care about designing an encounter, a PC or a game, they want to PLAY.

The old editions were interesting not only because of simplicity. They were interesting due to the feel of the game. 4E is a superb tabletop tactical game, but it strays away from the role-play experience that defines D&D at the outset. Math mattered less in older editions, thus no one tried to power-game (or everyone did, but to some lesser degree). It was the in-game decisions that mattered, what you chose to do, how you tried to get the best benefit form your wall of stone or your improbable Lower Water spell, or how you tried to lure the Vecna cultist into a trap to kill him; not the design decisions or which power you had and whether or not your PC was balanced with the others. I think that any attempt to simplify the game should be oriented towards that direction, i.e. bringing back player (and DM!) in-game decisions at the forefront, instead of their decisions being what power they'll choose (or be imposed) or what encounter the DM will design.

... All this from one who thinks great things about 4E and plays it quite a bit. If they're going to rethink the game, I would hope that they go about it differently, myself.

 

[TerraDave]

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.

Well, he has just about promised "dials" (or scales) for complexity in past columns.

 

[fba827]

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.

This. exactly. was my first thought on the topic as well.

It's a minor difference, but it makes a big difference to me personally.
I suppose it's a matter of getting the customization to be considered "normal" for the game rather than "supplemental gimmicks"

 

[MacMathan]

Beaten to the punch by TerraDave-

I think it is best not to read these articles in a vaccum, in the previous articles he talked about having dials for complexity

 

[MacMathan]

I like the ideas Mearls is talking about here. Unfortunately I don't think 4e could have followed the essentials first path even though it might have been the proper way to do it as the backlash among the experienced option liking players would have been evn more massive.

Maybe they can do this now as they clean up 4e. Essentials so far has been a great way to get people into the game who are new or in some cases just don't want to read over 3-5 different books for options.

IME the essentials characters are holding even with their more custom counter parts during heroic tier. So far it looks like they may even be good up to mid paragon with some well written paragon paths. Beyond that it gets tough IMO.

Of course after that many levels maybe the players will be experienced enough to want to retrain their essentials characters with more of the advanced options?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think it is best not to read these articles in a vaccum, in the previous articles he talked about having dials for complexity

I don't think Kamikaze is so reading, and I know that I'm not. I picked up on the dials things right away, before he used the term.

What he describes here, however, is not a dial. It is faking a dial. Faking one can be useful, but it isn't the same thing.

 

[MacMathan]

I don't think Kamikaze is so reading, and I know that I'm not. I picked up on the dials things right away, before he used the term.

What he describes here, however, is not a dial. It is faking a dial. Faking one can be useful, but it isn't the same thing.

True, without more detail of implementation it could devolve to that. Hopefully there is enough modularity to allow it.

I guess the ideal would be complete granularity for the DM to determine what he wants to allow, a more fine tuned version than todays limitations by splat book.

If that is not feasible then I guess I would be okay with mayber 3 or 4 notches on eac dial. You are correct a binary choice is too limiting.

 

[occam]

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?

Oddly enough, Hasbro produced the digital version of Life. Now it becomes clear; we finally see the real corporate influence of Hasbro on WotC. 4th Edition D&D is nothing but a marketing vehicle for the Game of Life!

 

[Mouseferatu]

As I posted in the 4E forum...

I'd be all for something like this, if it could be pulled off.

That's a big "if."

What I want is a game that, at it's core, you can pick up and play as quickly and simply as BECMI, and that's a complete game at that level if you want it to be.

But, a game that also includes customization options that can go as far as 4E's level.

And I want you to be able to play characters created both ways in the same campaign.

No, you can't make such characters 100% balanced with each other, but you can make them close enough.

Similarly, I want a D&D where you can play combat as mechanically as 4E or as abstractly as (say) 2E, and the system supported both.

Basically, Ari's perfect D&D is the core efficiency and--optionally--the complexity of 4E, the flexibility of 3E or Pathfinder, the setting and (again optionally) narrative play of 2E, the aesthetic of 1E, and (yet again, optionally) the simplicity of BECMI.

While I'm at it, I would like a miniature pony that eats garbage and poops gold ingots.