Removing homogenity from 4e

[thecasualoblivion]

The crux of this whole thread is that some people value variety in mechanics and character building, and some value variety in tactical play.

I can actually say that variety in mechanics and character building mean nothing to me if it doesn't lead to variety in play. I found that 3.5E while it had almost infinite variety in mechanics and character building, in play it ended up being spam your most powerful attack(that you most likely built your entire character around) and try not to die. I also didn't like how cumbersome 3.5E's infinite variations could make the game.

 

[MerricB]

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.

I'm fascinated that you don't keep the parallels going.

The difference between playing a 2E Fighter specialised in bow and a 2E Ranger specialised in bow is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.

The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.

(!)

 

[FireLance]

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

Apart from the power structure (mostly at-will abilities vs. mostly daily abilities), what would you consider to be the other key aspects of difference that would not be covered by the mechanics or flavor of the current rogue and wizard classes?

 

[gribble]

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 think more what I was saying is that if the same DM picked up the core books and played by the letter of the rules outlined in them, the 3.x experience will feel like the players have more options and the tactics will be a lot more free form than the 4e game, at least in my experience with the two systems.

That's my take on it. And I think at that point (having both expressed our takes on it), we should probably stop derailing the thread.

 

[AllisterH]

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.

This is a prime example of what we're talking about.

A ranger is one that is constantly shifting/moving around the battlefield trying to get in close to active Hunter's Quarry/Prime Shot and all the while trying not to get swamped.

A Chaos sorceror with an Arcane Eye familiar has no good reason to move out of the back rows and should be much different in play (throw in his wild magic feature and the player is constantly looking at his dice).

Way different in feel Kamikaze Midget and I think this is what makes 4e fans pull out their hair at the claim of homogenity. In play, there's so much difference between characters that many feel 4e doesn't get enough credit.

Like I said, I never really found much difference between say a human barbarian and a half-orc fighter at 1st level in 3.x since n paper, they looked different but in play felt the same. Conversely, even at 1st level in 4e, the human barbarian plays differently than the half-orc fighter...

(As an aside, I just love the characer builder...Took me 5 minutes to build two 1st level characters to see what choices I had - Hell, I even made it simpler by using the same race - human)

 

[AllisterH]

I think more what I was saying is that if the same DM picked up the core books and played by the letter of the rules outlined in them, the 3.x experience will feel like the players have more options and the tactics will be a lot more free form than the 4e game, at least in my experience with the two systems.

That's my take on it. And I think at that point (having both expressed our takes on it), we should probably stop derailing the thread.

You know, I wonder about this.

One of my complaints about the previous editions DMGs was that they really didn't teach "HOW to run a game". They taught "how to make a world" but not actually running an effective game.

For example, in pre 4e when everyone operated on different paradigms (at-wills versus encounters versus dailies), the DMG shocking never talked about how to make this work.

Wouldnt you say that this should've been prime DMG advice?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The difference between playing a 2E Fighter specialised in bow and a 2E Ranger specialised in bow is a lot more subtle, and they'll feel very similar for much of the time.

Pretty true, there. Of course, they had a lot of "fluff"-style abilities to tell them apart. They wouldn't feel the same when, for instance, tracking the Ranger's favored enemy over the land. They'd be almost the same when fighting that favored enemy, though. And 2e, remember, operated under the philosophy that fluff was part of the balancing mechanism, so you were "supposed to" play up the differences. Not that many did, but TSR attempted to design the difference into the classes.

In 4e, a fighter and a ranger are both pretty equally adept at the non-combat aspects of the game, leaving the only difference of note in combat.

The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.

True. For instance, you can no longer specialize in a bow as a fighter, and, in fact, if you want to use a bow in any meaningful way, you have to be a 4e Archer. Which means that every bow-user is the same (instead of one being a lightly armored skill-based tracker and another being a heavily-armored front-line bruiser who didn't have many other options). Which sort of brings it full circle, except without the noncombat dimension, which 4e makes nearly identical between all characters.

Now, in combat, the two are indeed fairly dramatically different. But they still get the same number of the same type of powers, all with damage and other rider effects.

I mean, it's not too big of an exaggeration to say you could simplify every power from the big block of powers with only one power: "Attack," which lets you buff/move an ally, mark, impose a status/move an enemy, or just deal raw damage. Once per day, you can use it to deal a lot of damage, once per combat you can use it to deal more damage, and you can switch off between two effects normally (say, two specific statuses).

Apart from the power structure (mostly at-will abilities vs. mostly daily abilities), what would you consider to be the other key aspects of difference that would not be covered by the mechanics or flavor of the current rogue and wizard classes?

Power structure is one of 'em. But there's also the mechanics themselves: as a wizard, you made your enemies roll dice to prevent you from wreaking havoc. As a rogue, you made percentile rolls and tried to avoid most kinds of combat (which you weren't that good at, except in the DM-subjectively-fiddly Backstab). This is sort of the difference that the 3e rogue tried to carry over (as the skill-monkey). There's the way you learned and accessed wizard spells through the vancian system and the way you learned and accessed thief skills throug point investment. Your approaches were different: thieves went in under the radar and ran away when discovered, wizards would cast a spell, and run away after that.

Now, it wasn't all good, but the other extreme that we have now isn't really great, either. It's well-balanced and dull, which is just the opposite problem of poorly balanced and varied.

A ranger is one that is constantly shifting/moving around the battlefield trying to get in close to active Hunter's Quarry/Prime Shot and all the while trying not to get swamped.

A Chaos sorceror with an Arcane Eye familiar has no good reason to move out of the back rows and should be much different in play (throw in his wild magic feature and the player is constantly looking at his dice).

Way different in feel Kamikaze Midget and I think this is what makes 4e fans pull out their hair at the claim of homogenity. In play, there's so much difference between characters that many feel 4e doesn't get enough credit.

Ranger: "I shoot him and deal a lot of damage."
Sorcerer: "I shoot him (with magic) and deal a lot of damage."
Warlock: "I shoot him (with dark magic) and deal a lot of damage."
While we're at it,
Rogue: "I stab him and deal a lot of damage."
Barbarian: "I axe him and deal a lot of damage."
TWF Ranger: "I knife him twice and deal a lot of damage."
Beastmaster Ranger: "I hit him and also my pet hits him and we deal a lot of damage."
Also,
Cleric: "I buff and do damage."
Warlord: "I buff and do damage."
Bard: "I buff and do damage."

I've played many games of 4e. I've DMed many games of 4e. I'm not ignorant of the actual experience of 4e. I am still very bored with the lack of meaningful options for doing something new with a different class.

The differences are subtle; they're not dramatic and obvious and meaningful, they're fiddly and particular and detailed. There are there, but the similarities vastly outnumber them, and the similarities are what make me numb. Especially when compared to how dramatically different even 3e classes were (less different than the 2e classes, more balanced, but still bold enough to try power systems as different as Incarnum and Psionics).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The crux of this whole thread is that some people value variety in mechanics and character building, and some value variety in tactical play.

What's wrong with cake and eating it too? I value both highly and I don't think anyone's been taking the either/or line on this.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The difference between playing a 4E Fighter and a 4E Archer/Ranger is quite great.

(!)

I agree. If the Archer/Ranger handed his bow to the fighter, the fighter would say "what do you expect me to do with this?!"

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[fanboy2000]

And now a message from...hey who are you?

Remathillis, you're argument is odd to me. For one thing, I agree that 4e is more homogenous that 3.5 and 3e. And thank goodness. I often felt that 3e kept taking simple concepts and making them unnecessarily complex just for the sake of making them different. Saves for spells are a good example. Making the spell an attack roll is more interesting to me, and more honest. (Honest in the sense that players of spellcasters often spent as much time trying to augment their save DCs as meleeers (is that a word?) spent augmenting their attack modifiers.

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.

Well, to be fair, paragon paths and epic destinies have features. They have powers too, but they also give out new "class" features as the PC progresses through them.

That said, daily and encounter powers replace, in my mind, many of the class features 3.5 had. That 4e wizards and fighters both get a power at 2nd level doesn't seem, mechanicly, all that different from a 3.5 wizard getting a spell at the same level a fighter gets a bonus feet. In 4e, it's unified under a single word, in 3.5 the mechanics are split.

Now this ignores the differences between spells and feats, but many other 3.5 classes got major class features at the same levels other classes.

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.

I never liked this. I hated, hated, that sorcerers got their spells later than wizards. Talk about trying to balance everything, I find that a worse example of poor balancing than anything in 4e.

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.

Well, I care. For one thing, powers seem to me, on the whole, better than they Fireball/Flame Strike comparison you gave. The at-wills Cleave and Magic Missile are vary different in my mind and showcase how, even though everyone gets 2 at-wills, there is a lot of varity in the what those at-wills give you. The same goes for the encounter and daily powers.

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.

Well, as I said above, everyone tried to increase their abilities. The 1/2 rate just makes the process more honest to me. Making the rate the same across the board allows players who don't want to spend a lot of time finding ways to be better still be viable. As a DM, I feel that my new players can start off reasonably well with un-optimized PCs than they could in 3.5 and 3e. My personal experience seems to bear this out. But I wouldn't be surprised if this is just bias confirmation on my part.

"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. [snip] Each role feels exactly the same.

I think everything I have to say about this is covered by my discussion of powers above.

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. [With t]hose mini-games...gone...every class is poorer...

Sorry for editing, but this reply is a lot longer than I originally planed.

Anyways. I like playing wizards. Not because I like the mechanics behind wizards. The magic sub-system in previous editions of D&D was only o.k. for me. I liked it, but I would have loved the simple mechanics of a fighter with the flavor of wizard.

You know what the best part of 4e homogeny is for me? The level mechanic. It replaces Level adjustment, effective character level, character level, and hit dice. I hated hit dice and level adjustments. I danced on their graves.