Removing homogenity from 4e

[ExploderWizard]

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

If you are actually rolling up a character there is no guarantee that you will even have an 18 to put in anything.

 

[Remathilis]

Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!

All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition... Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?

Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.

 

[gribble]

Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.

Or, more to the point, not different enough.

 

[MerricB]

Maybe it's a perception thing, but with 4e it seems like the only viable options a character has in combat are the powers in front of them - and most of them are the same every fight.

The problem I have with that argument is that it really boils down to "with a good DM, earlier editions run fine" - which can also be applied to 4e, strangely enough. I've encountered enough AD&D games where fighters are only swinging their swords because it doesn't give rules for anything else to know how some people play with the rules as written and some go beyond them.

With 3.*e especially, it was very much my experience that a lot of the combat options it gave were illusionary. Yes, you could grapple someone, but unless you had taken several feats in grappling, you'd fail. Ditto Bull Rush, Ditto Trip, Ditto Disarm. And, where 3.*e fell into to terrible disorder was when that specialisation was taken as suddenly nothing could stand against your character and you continued doing that action every turn!

This is not to say that 3.*e was a bad game - indeed, for eight years of playing it (often twice a week), I had a lot of fun! Degenerate cases (as there will be in 4e, I'm sure) were quietly house-ruled away when applicable.

But that's my feeling about the matter.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.

Erm... I must have missed something in 4e - or rather seen something that wasn't there. Are you trying to tell me that Wizards don't have spells to pick in 4e? That 4e classes don't have rules and elements that are unique to themselves?

4e does change a few decision points. Domains disappear off to part of the feat system, as do the extra options with turning (channel divinity). The Thief Skill Point choices are reduced so that you aren't making thieves that suck at thieving any more (heh - back to AD&D, revised!)

Others are eliminated or reduced in stature.

Others are new.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The idea of shouting "ADAPT OR DIE" coming from people who are playing a game that came directly from people voicing dissent about the previous edition is mind bogglingly hilarious.



In other news, I thought we had reached a comfortable point where we could discuss a game's flaws and how to fix them without an edition war breaking out. I dislike being disappointed :<.

Again, for the 117th time, it bears saying that the complaints that were listened to were criticisms from people who enjoyed and were playing 3.5E, not the anti-3.5E crowd.

 

[FireLance]

Oh sure, every edition has had similar rules, but there are rules and elements unique to each class. Clerics fiddled with domains and turn-charts. Fighters had more feats to pick. Wizards picked spells. Psions fiddled with power points and power-choices. These are the "mini games" I was one of the first to demonize as "pointless" but later call back as "deferential elements". Some could have been done better, their utter removal makes things feel, too different.

In addition to the feat approach that I mentioned earlier, another way to re-introduce these "mini-games" into the classes would be to come up with alternate class features. The beastmaster ranger and the tome of readiness wizard are two good examples of this approach. Another possibility could be a fighter class feature that grants a bonus feat plus another class feature in exchange for the 1st-level fighter daily power. A fighter with this class feature would have one less daily power than a normal fighter of his level thereafter.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...Making up carefully worded, pointless straw-men is fun!

All you've argued here is that the character creation rules are the same for all 1st level characters, which is just as true in 3rd edition, and 2nd edition, and 1st edition... Notice how 3e has a generic, step by step entry for making and leveling characters that applies to all of them?

I'll disagree with you vehemently on that one. Expanding upon that vehement disagreeance would serve neither the thread, or anyone else for that matter. I think it is fair enough to say though that in creating a 3E character, there are generally different decisions to be made with different classes requiring different things, whether it be matching up feats (which were more significant) with equipment, selecting domains and a particular religious or alignment angle for a character, or selecting spells/weaponry that neatly fit in with a character concept. I think it equally fair to say that 4E homognizes this process to an extent to make character creation quick, simple and easy. If this 4E process was made more vibrant or if you like with greater complexity, it would make some people happy and others less so.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[AllisterH]

While I do believe that "in-play" there's way more variety among 4e classes than ever before, there _ARE_ some 3.x classes that played differently from the outset.

A scout and a rogue in my experience played much differently. A scout wanted to be constantly moving whereas if possible a rogue would move once and set up flanking and then you're good to go.

That's an example of "in-play" difference.

Difference between Constructed and Limited I guess when you look at pre 4E and 4e.

re: Racial abilities.

This is the one I'm a little bit suprised about as well. 4e is definitely the first version of the game where race has a fundamental effect on your character all the way up to 20th level.

In previous editions, once you get past level 5, I never really found much difference between a dwarf fighter and an elven fighter since the racial abilities get swallowed up by both class and feat abilities. In 4e, even at 20th level, an eladrin fighter is still going to be actively using their racial ability and the dwarf fighter will be using his in every combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you trying to tell me that Wizards don't have spells to pick in 4e? That 4e classes don't have rules and elements that are unique to themselves?

The difference between playing a 2e wizard and a 2e thief is very clear from a number of aspects.

The difference between playing, say, a 4e archer-ranger and a 4e sorcerer is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.

4e classes do have difference, but the difference isn't nearly as big as it has been in previous editions. That's a mixed bag, and, so far in the actually published material, hasn't been contradicted. The PHB3 seems to aim to correct some of that, but even the 4e psion is very similar in broad game mechanics to, say, a 4e fighter.

It's all "pick x powers from category y that you can use z times before they recharge, repeat for all categories."