On the subject of powers, builds and "sub classes"

[Reynard]

So you agree that waiting around during the ascribed "Skill Monkey Moment" isn't a good thing, then?

Indeed. I don't think I ever suggested "the skill monkey moment". Rather, I suggested expanding the range and viability of the classes by making use of the powers system to create subclasses -- in the case of the ranger and the rogue, subclasses that more closely mimic earlier editions' definitions of those character types. Nothing in that is suggestive of throwing the baby out with the bath water, as far as full group involvement in an encounter goes. In fact, I very specifically brought up Shadowrun 4E (although I should have been more specific about which edition when I brought it up) because that game system has the very element I am talking about: encounters that happen on multiple levels, in in multiple dimensions, with all PCs involved and contributing but not necessarily punching/stabbing/shooting the bad guys.

The Decker problem is what we're talking about. You're taking the issue far beyond what was said.

I know what the decker problem is, hence bringing it up, as well as its solution in Shadowrun 4E. Try as you might, you can't wrap this back around to that bugbear of the early-adopter pro-4E camp ("Who wants to twiddle their thumbs when the rogues disarming the trap?!") That's nowhere near what I am saying, so you might as well drop that line of argument here and now.

 

[hong]

Only if you think that the definition of fun is "being badass" as opposed to "being involved".

The definition of fun in combat is being badass. If you don't want to be a badass, you can always not roll the dice.

Shadowrun 4e solves a lot of these problems by integrating hacking, decking and going astral into the same game space as walking around shooting things.

4E solves a lot of these problems by allowing skill challenges to take place as part of a fight.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Rather, I suggested expanding the range and viability of the classes by making use of the powers system to create subclasses -- in the case of the ranger and the rogue, subclasses that more closely mimic earlier editions' definitions of those character types.

WotC has to sell PHB2, 3, and 4 somehow.

Nothing in that is suggestive of throwing the baby out with the bath water, as far as full group involvement in an encounter goes. In fact, I very specifically brought up Shadowrun 4E (although I should have been more specific about which edition when I brought it up) because that game system has the very element I am talking about: encounters that happen on multiple levels, in in multiple dimensions, with all PCs involved and contributing but not necessarily punching/stabbing/shooting the bad guys.

Zan & Jayna: Wonder Twin Powers, de-activate!

Zan: Wow Sis, we beat the Legion of Doom once again! Its a good thing our powers of transforming into Water and Animals was what was necessary to save the day!

Jayna: That's right! It's a good thing we're members of the Superhero Genre instead of the Sword and Sorcery Genre!

Zan: Right, because in the Superhero Genre abilities are never changed or altered and you always face the same Rogues Gallery and challenges!

Jayna: Now we know why there are many different types of Genres that have distinct conventions and tropes-

Zan: And Knowledge is Half the Battle!

 

[SSquirrel]

Only if you think that the definition of fun is "being badass" as opposed to "being involved".

4E skill challenges, making characters stronger to start with, etc all work to make everyone more involved than prior editions.

What kind of amazes me is that while I, an avowed 4E skeptic, am suggesting that perhaps the game system is more robust than it appears on the surface and might have already in-built tools for doing something other than fighting (because, as important as combat is to D&D, we all know it isn't the be all and end all of the game -- there's better systems with less baggage if that's what you want), it is the 4E prosalatizers that are essentially saying, "No, combat is all that matters."

I don't believe that statement has ever come from my mouth in 20 years of gaming. We're telling you that the system already has numerous built in ways to handle what you want to accomplish, rather elegantly even, but you want to add more complexity to the situation.

The idea behind 4E is to have everyone able to join in for all situations, maybe not as optimally as someone focused on an area, but still decently. There is a mechanical system designed already to handle combat, one for skills and skill challenges, one for traps, and they all tie together. I don't think, given the design intents, you will see any classes released by WotC that minimize their combat contributions. THAT is all I have been saying.

 

[Reynard]

Zan & Jayna: Wonder Twin Powers, de-activate!

Zan: Wow Sis, we beat the Legion of Doom once again! Its a good thing our powers of transforming into Water and Animals was what was necessary to save the day!

Jayna: That's right! It's a good thing we're members of the Superhero Genre instead of the Sword and Sorcery Genre!

Zan: Right, because in the Superhero Genre abilities are never changed or altered and you always face the same Rogues Gallery and challenges!

Jayna: Now we know why there are many different types of Genres that have distinct conventions and tropes-

Zan: And Knowledge is Half the Battle!

Personal note: this, this here, is the single most dismissive and annoying and insulting kind of post there is. Telling a little story with a snarky grin rather than actually address the other party of a discussion? Dickery.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Personal note: this, this here, is the single most dismissive and annoying and insulting kind of post there is. Telling a little story with a snarky grin rather than actually address the other party of a discussion? Dickery.

Ad Hominem is not your friend. However-

According to my observations of page 119 of the PHB open in my lap, Rogues do a lot more debuffing and skirmishing attacks than front-line fighters, and according to my observations of page 116 they aren't able to do the toe-to-toe thing as much as Fighters or other shiny knights.

And further, a quick power comparison of the 15D of Rogues to Fighters show that even without taking into account the performance gap of weapon damage between the classes, Fighters are more powerful in combat than Rogues.

So, yeah. Just because the Rogue isn't a cripple in combat doesn't mean he's turned into a "Badass".

Still needs a response.

 

[Reynard]

The definition of fun in combat is being badass. If you don't want to be a badass, you can always not roll the dice.

I am not sure how drifted to this area of discussion where we assume complete combat incompetence, but let's stop it because that's not at all what I'm talking about.

4E solves a lot of these problems by allowing skill challenges to take place as part of a fight.

Well, right, but if skill challenges are important to the fun of the game and they are designed to keep everyone involved, much in the same way as pure combat, what is th downside to giving players the same range of meaningful choices they get in cambat? Why would this be at odds with the overall design philosophy of 4E? Because, otherwise, skill challenges become an exercise in dice rolling with no real player choice beyond which bonus they are adding to their die roll, and just chucking dice without any player input is kind of dull.

 

[hong]

I am not sure how drifted to this area of discussion where we assume complete combat incompetence, but let's stop it because that's not at all what I'm talking about.

Because rogues sucked at combat in earlier editions. Actually, they just generally sucked, if you go back far enough.

Well, right, but if skill challenges are important to the fun of the game and they are designed to keep everyone involved, much in the same way as pure combat, what is th downside to giving players the same range of meaningful choices they get in cambat?

Point me to how players do not get meaningful choices out of combat.

 

[Reynard]

Because rogues sucked at combat in earlier editions. Actually, they just generally sucked, if you go back far enough.

But they were good at the other stuff that was, in those earlier editions, an importanty part of the game. But that leads us down a different path of discussion, of whether balance between both PC power and player involvement is more important in a given encounter, in an adventure or over the course of a campaign.

Point me to how players do not get meaningful choices out of combat.

Point me to where they do (from a mechanical perspective, mind, because that's what we're discussing here).

 

[hong]

But they were good at the other stuff that was, in those earlier editions, an importanty part of the game. But that leads us down a different path of discussion, of whether balance between both PC power and player involvement is more important in a given encounter, in an adventure or over the course of a campaign.

And rogues are still good at all that stuff. They are now also badass.

Point me to where they do (from a mechanical perspective, mind, because that's what we're discussing here).

There sure do seem to be a lot of people here discussing the meaningful choices you get out of combat.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230233