Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4923051" data-attributes="member: 957">Way back in the very first week after 4E was announced, I found myself in several debates regarding whether the 4E skill system should look like the Saga skill system.  I was strongly opposed (and at the time naively certain WotC would never do such).A frequently cited example of why this system was needed was the wall obstacle.  In 3E a rogue can *very easily* climb a wall that a typical wizard will find challenging.  It was explained to me that this was a terrible break down in the game because either the wall was a challenge to the rogue and thus hopelessly impossible for the wizard, or it was possible for the wizard and made the rogue's skill at climbing pointless.Now climbing walls is certainly not the key function of a good RPG.  But it was a simple example of how the diversity in builds could be a problem.  This could apply to just about any skill.  And also applied, though generally not to the same extreme, to saves and attacks/AC.  To me, this is a beautiful thing.First and foremost because these are the archetypes I want.  The rogue can climb walls and the wizard can't.  The wizard can learn spider climb if he wants to.  Or you can build a wizard who *can* climb as well as a rogue if you are willing to focus on that.  But, in the default situation, the rogue is a hell of a lot better at climbing.Second, this is fun at the table.  When they get to the wall that is a moderate challenge for the wizard, letting the rogue not even roll is a very brief nod to the rogue player.  Thirty real world seconds later the game has moved on, but the rogue player still has that little vicarious buzz of coolness from being told not to even bother.  Big deal?  No.  Fun?  Yeah.When they get to the wall the wizard cannot climb, then it is a real challenge.  The solution may be a simple as burning a spider climb.  Ok, no big deal.  But it may be more complicated.  But it is a challenge for the players to creatively solve rather than being a predestined "math works" just gotta roll high enough obstacle.Extrapolate that to hundreds or thousands of aspects of every encounter and you get how I see it.4E is balanced.  I will READILY agree that 4E is better balanced than 3E.  3E was built as a system to model characters.  And then it was made as balanced as possible.The mantra we heard over and over from Mearls was "the math works".  4E was built to be very well balanced and then it was made to model characters as best as possible.  Does that mean it fails at modeling fantasy archetypes?  No.  Not at all.  It does a good job of it.  I'd even say it does a better job of modeling fantasy characters than 3E does of being balanced across the board.But that balance brings with it a lot of homogeneity.  The climb ability of the rogue and wizard are not nearly as diverse as they are in 3E.  And so on for hundreds or thousands of other little things.And that is critically important to me.3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance.4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building.  If everything was equal, then 4E wins.And if what is really important to you is a tactical combat mini game, then 4E wins in a blowout.  (And you can expand this to include non-combat mechanical resolution of conflict)  This is why a fair number of people say that 4E feels too much like a mini game to them.But everything is not equal.  If creating a character you want to get into the skin of is the most important thing, then 3E wins.  Because character building and balance are not equal.  Balance is important.  It must be good.  And while not up to 4E, 3E is still easily “good” in this column for me.  But balance is an order of magnitude less important than character building.  Character building is a must have deal breaker.  And for an RPG it is all about the modeling of the character that the mechanics provides.  See my sig.  RP is not between the covers of a book.  You can play a 100 point GURPS game and say that your character is Superman.  And you can roleplay superman to your hearts content.  A 100 point GURPS character does not model superman, so the net result is a poor overall experience, no matter how great you role play.  That is an absurd extreme example, but it illustrates the point and is on the correct axis.If3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance = A and4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building = B.Then A >> B.So I pretty much agree with the wood analogy.You’ve got all kinds of wood.  You have very diverse wood.  Your balsa is vastly different than your pine, oak, and cherry.  But I want balsa, pine, oak, and cherry and I also want iron and clay and steel and glass and silver and paper.  And it is ok with me if paper needs to be really careful.  He is paper, it is part of his character.  Being 12th level does not give him the same +6 as steel.  And if you tell me that paper needs to at least have a fair chance at doing anything steel can do, then I will tell you that you have made paper and steel too homogeneous.</blockquote>

Verification