On homogeneity, or how I finally got past the people talking past each other part

[yarael]

Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.

You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.

Your fighter suffers a terrible fate brought on by Irontooth. Time to roll up a new PC. "Screw tanking" you think, I'm gonna play a wizard.

So you roll up a first level wizard. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 dailies (of which you can only have one at a time). You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy an implement and cloth armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level wizard, ready to go.

See what just happened? The steps feel EXACTLY the same. Sure, your powers have different parameters (1[W]+Str vs. 1d6+Int), your weapons and armor is different, and your class abilities are different to fit your role, but in the end, both classes are the same skeleton with different clothes thrown on them.

The feeling gets worse as you level up. No class has new exclusive class abilities to look forward to; just another encounter or daily power at the EXACT same level as everyone else. In 3e (and earlier) classes gained unique powers at different levels (rogues get evasion at 2nd, rangers at 9th) or spells were different levels depending on class (Animate Dead: 5th level MU, 3rd level Cleric). Now? You get rituals at the same level no matter if your a wizard, cleric, warlock, or a fighter with Ritual Caster.

When all you have staring down the pipeline are more/better attack powers and a 1/2-dozen utility powers (most of which are just combat abilities minus the attack roll) The classes seem to blur. Who cares if the daily power you got was Fireball or Flame Strike; they're both Atk vs. reflex cubes that deal Xd6 + stat amount of fire.

It also doesn't help that every class gets better at fighting, casting magic, skill-use, AC and defenses at the EXACT SAME 1/2 level rate. Sure, it makes for easier math, but before the fighter had the best to-hit, the rogue had the best reflex save (by miles, not by +2) etc.

"But Remathilis." you say, "What about roles? Clearly a fighter doesn't share the same role as the wizard, ergo he doesn't share the same play-experience?" True, to an extent. Sure D&D has four roles (and they've always had them, more or less) but while a wizard might be in the back rolling to hit with magic missile and a fighter up front rolling to hit with tide of iron, another lingering element bubbles up:

Each role feels exactly the same. All defenders have a mark. Each mark might do a different effect, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if your a swordmage, warden, or fighter, your main purpose is to run-up, attack, mark, and repeat. Same with leaders: Every leader has a XXX Word-like power that, as a minor action, gives healing surge + extra hp back. The individual amounts and methods vary, but sure as the sun is hot, if it says "leader" you'll find it has some variant on the Healing Word power in its class list.

Oddly, one role has avoided this straight-jacket: Strikers. Some deal Xd6 damage, some grant 2 or more ability score mods to damage, some just have insane [W]s to each power. A barbarian DOESN'T feel like a rogue because if D&D did anything, its created hundreds of permutations on ways to deal damage. Its also the reason controller doesn't feel unified; it lacks a strong-enough mechanical element (heal, tank, damage) to keep it unified. "Crowd Control" doesn't work well on its own.

Lastly, I originally thought getting rid of different "subsystems" would streamline the game and make it easier to play. Why learn a new mechanic just to play a wizard, psion, warlock, etc? Well, here's why. They played different so the game FELT different. A fighter could be a crafty tactician, or he could run up a kill-kill-kill. A wizard needed careful resource management and a more patient player (at least to be effective). A rogue needed to know the ins-and-outs of the skill system, etc. In essence, they were all little mini-games. Those mini-games are gone, and every class is poorer for them.

I think no one (except the most stubborn h4ter) would argue you could roll up a elf druid an play him EXACTLY as a dwarf fighter, but there is a lot of sameyness in the new "one class frame to rule them all" method of advancement. Classes like the psion (which eschews encounter powers for PPs) earlier would have fixed I think a number of complaints (for example, making wizards more daily-heavy while making fighters masters of encounter-powers).

Admittedly I did not get past page 3 in the how to remove homogeneity from 4E thread, so I don't know if this ever got picked up on. Also, I am a 4E fan who never understood what all this talk of homogeneity was about. But this post helped me understand far better, and several posts after by the "other side" helped me understand how folks where talking past each other.

I will highlight the first moment of clarity for me.

"You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go."

I read that, and thought, "THAT's an argument that 4E is homogeneous?!? Gosh! look at all the choices! I get to choose 2 out of 5 powers, 1 out of a different group of 8 or more powers, yet another 1 out of any more powers. I get 4 skills to choose from! I get at least 1 feat choice, a race choice with real mechanical relevance. Choices from many different weapons with their own stat choices and feat progressions! Compare that to a 3X fighter. If I'm lucky I get 3 feat choices, 3 skill choices, a much more diminished relevance for weapons, and a race choice that lets me get that 3rd feat."

As I continued to read Remathilis's great post it started to crystallize what this homogeneity was that he was talking about. He wasn't talking about the lack of variety of choices you get to make, but the lack of variety of the types of choices you get to make.

Later posts by "anti-homogeneity" folks helped me understand why this idea is hard to internalize. We all look and say, gosh, there are so many choices to make, that nothing feels the same. Some typical (but not actual) quotes.

"Each class plays differently"
"There are a huge variety of tactical choices"
"Obviously you have never played, as it plays differently"
"Each level has different choices to make"

While the "homogeneity" might say something along the lines of...

"Each class is built the same"
"Every round I am doing the same thing"
"Each class plays the same"
"Each level has the same choices to make"

"Each level has different choices to make" vs "Each level has the same choices to make" gets to the root of the talking past each other part.

An analogy. Say I am a carpenter. I love wood, different grains, species, color, warmth. I design and build a kitchen/dining room. I use cherry for the cabinets of the main part. I use maple for my island. I use a hard oak sealed for my countertops. I have a lovely chestnut brown bamboo for my flooring. I have a pine wainscoting that accepts a wonderful stain. I revel in the variety of my wood, working with each to interweave the grains together, making a wonderful composition.

Another person walks in and says, "Wow, that's a lot of wood! This kitchen could have used some color!"

One person revels in the details of what they are doing. In 4E they may love the tactical nature of combat, the battle for position. They like predetermining their powers, paragon paths and feats, trying best to align them together in a cohesive whole. They see the clear distinction between the 7th level encounter powers, and send considerable time deciding which best works, either from a tactical standpoint or thematically.

The other likes the "big" choices to matter. They want their wizard to do things differently, mechanically, from their fighter. They want the visceral around the table play experience to "feel" different. Roll different dice, use different rules, keep track of resources differently. They still revel in the different choices, but the choices they make are less concerned with detail, and more about the "big picture" idea they have in their head.

(of course insert a better description of the latter player in here, as I am clearly not one of them. I struggled mightily with that description. )

I guess, looking back, 3.X clearly supported both kinds of player. There were certainly enough fiddly choices to made to satisfy detail guy. And there were enough mechanical differences that big picture guy was happy. 4E is probably more appealing to detail guy because he doesn't have to master many different systems to revel in the interweaving of complexity he likes. 4E is certainly less satisfying to big picture guy, cause there is only one system to dip into. One choice in comparison to all the myriad of choices detail guy sees.

Another way to put it. In 3.X you said, "I am playing a Fighter" and already choices had been made for you. You have an extra feat and no spells. That choice mattered. In 4E you say, "I am playing a Fighter" and you still have exactly the same choices ahead of you as if you were playing a wizard. You still have a class feature, the same number of at wills, encounter powers, etc... Your initial choice doesn't matter, in that you still have the same types of choices to make, even if your option for those choices are different.

At least that is what I have taken away from the discussion...

 

[maddman75]

I really don't get the argument. Yes, you use the same mechanical structure to define each character. This applies to pretty much every RPG ever, except D&D. There's no real reason to define them differently, it makes the game work a lot better to have a common structure.

And no class-specific abilities? Every single at-will, encounter, utility, and daily is class specific!

Not to deride anyone, but 'too homogeneous' I translate to mean essentially the same as 'video-game' 'anime' or 'MMO-like', which is "Its all newfangled and not like the stuff I already know".

 

[hailstop]

That's a good clarification post.

I wasn't getting the whole 'it's homogeneous' arguement either but this makes sense.

 

[yarael]

What I am trying to get at is that, in this discussion, there are two fundamentally different types of personalities. Unless, or until, you try to get into the skin of the other, you won't get their argument. I was trying to help both sides try to do just this.

I just thought of another example from 3.x vs 4E in prestige classes vs paragon paths.

Detail guy sees just as much choice available to him (yes, even originally, because if you compare the prestige classes available in the first 3 books, as opposed to paragon paths in 4E, there were, if you were lucky, 4 to choose from for a given character concept) in 4E paragon paths as in 3.x prestige classes.

Big picture guy sees his choices greatly diminished. First off, it is already decided that he will take a paragon path. Then it is already decided at what level he will take it. It is already decided that he will only take one. So many choices taken away. All that's left is to decide which one and go.

One person sees so many choices available to them, each choice making them different from the charcters. Another sees the fundamental choices already made for them, with nothing available to make them different from another character.

 

[Remathilis]

It also helps to note the the homogeneity people are arguing depends on the section of the rules referenced!

Guy 1: 4e characters are so alike because everyone uses the stat+1/2 level to determine attacks.
Guy 2: Yeah, well, all 3e warrior types are alike because all they can do is full-attack every round!

Guy 1 brings up a char-gen example, Guy 2 counters with a combat example. Both sides are guilty of this.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I stayed out of that whole thread cuz it really didn't seem to apply to me. The whole premise is that the homogeneity of 4E (that classes gets powers and abilities at the same rate) is actually a huge strength to me. Every character class plays differently to me (granted I have only tried a barbarian and a paladin so far but I have also DMed most every other class) and this is enough differentiation for me. I do appreciate that others want the up and down, good level/bad level thing of 3E and older editions but, for me, I just don't want that anymore.

edit - I just re-read this post and I really think I was trying to get across that this was just my opinion given how many times I say 'me'

 

[ferratus]

Well my entire point was that the two editions were homogeneous depending on where you looked and on what bothered you.

I don't seem to have gotten any agreement on that sentiment. I was just told 4e is more homogeneous as an ideal truth.

 

[Woas]

Wait. I have some questions.

Is this so called homogeneity considered good or bad? Or both/neither depending on who you ask?

Furthermore how does the same-ness of character mechanics diminish one's ability to mold their character in-play?

 

[Rechan]

Is this so called homogeneity considered good or bad?

The assumption is that it's bad. Sameness is bad because lots of choices are good.

(Just a thought, but this drive for lots and lots of options might be a very American notion. If you walk into the grocery store in America, you can find an entire aisle of just cereal. 40-50 different kinds of cereal. Other countries simply do Not have that variety present.)

Furthermore how does the same-ness of character mechanics diminish one's ability to mold their character in-play?

In play in what sense? Like, how their character acts?

The issue is purely one of mechanics and what you're allowed to do.

 

[Nifft]

IMHO some of the choice-restrictions that people dislike about 4e are deliberate, and are a result of the choice to silo certain things -- for example, in 4e you can't sell one of your skill choices to be slightly better at combat, so everyone has at least a decent minimum number of trained skills.

In contrast, 3.x put this choice front & center. Do you want this spell slot to be used for HEALING or for SMITING (or for utility magic)? One resource, many uses.

(4e's utility powers are a bit of a grey area for me. I'm not sure which silo they're supposed to be in.)

Cheers, -- N