Removing homogenity from 4e

[FireLance]

The problem isn't exactly with multiclassing as much as the way the classes are set up. There are almost no class-based non-combat activities. I think this is one of those things where people go "Couldn't you have borrowed this from Star Wars Saga? :" The talent system there allowed for a lot of diversity within classes, and for a lot of cool non-combat related abilities and tasks. 4e, on the other hand, is very much ALL COMBAT ALL THE TIME with a few vague nods towards skills every so often as far as abilities, items, and feats go.

I wonder if that's a bad thing, though. Instead of tying noncombat abilities more closely to class, I would rather go in the opposite direction, along the lines of what one poster suggested earlier - the complete separation of combat and non-combat abilities. Each character would then have a "combat" class such as fighter, rogue or wizard, and a "noncombat" class such as Diplomat, Athlete, or Hunter.

 

[BryonD]

Maybe not in the strict sense, but many have taken the position that it either has variety in mechanics or it doesn't have variety, ignoring that variety can come from other places.

I don't know that you can have your cake and eat it too. A lot of the good points of 4E come from how smoothly it runs. 3.5E's arcane complexities and endless options got in the way of a silky smooth running game in my experience. Just like 3E couldn't be balanced without tearing down the whole system, I don't really believe that 4E can be made so you can break the mold without losing what makes 4E special to those who like it. FWIW, 4E is still very complex and has a multitude of options(compare it to AD&D or oWoD/nWoD), and toes the line between having a lot of fiddly bits to play with and a smooth running game. Sometimes, 4E does cross that line(though I would argue that 3.5E never bothered with the line and just embraced its clunkiness). I don't think there is a lot of breathing room to fiddle with 4E without gumming up the works. It really is built around balance, and if you disrupt the balance it leaves a big gaping hole.

In an ideal world, some people would play their game, and others would play their own. In our world, only one of these games gets to be the current edition of D&D, and the current edition of D&D brings many advantages. Not being on board the current edition of D&D means you lose out on those advantages, but there's really no fix for that.

I'm still not going to get into a 4E discussion. But I will agree with your core statement that it leaves little freedom for fiddling with.

I WILL stand up for 3.X though. You say it didn't run silky smooth for you. Fine. It runs silky smooth for me. I'm not interested in being constrained to simplifications I don't need.

But I didn't loose any advantages when I walked away from 2E and the same is true now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wonder if that's a bad thing, though. Instead of tying noncombat abilities more closely to class, I would rather go in the opposite direction, along the lines of what one poster suggested earlier - the complete separation of combat and non-combat abilities. Each character would then have a "combat" class such as fighter, rogue or wizard, and a "noncombat" class such as Diplomat, Athlete, or Hunter.

I think there might be some issues with the class names. Rogue implies more than a combat style. I think the class design might be based on distinguishing the combat and non-combat role, but the individual class still has both roles fixed down.

For example:
Fighter: Defender + Urban
Rogue: Striker + Urban
Ranger: Striker + Woodsman
Warlord: Leader + Noble
Knight: Defender + Noble

Of course, one could make the second part two different talent trees or something like that. So the Fighter could gain in the "Knight" talent or the "Urban" talent tree.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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 :<.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

And of course, using gigantic frakkin text to make a point (however apt) is particularly conducive to non-confrontational discussions...

I found that 3.5E in play ended up being spam your most powerful attack(that you most likely built your entire character around) and try not to die.

More than a little responsibility for this "breakdown" is borne by the player.

I feel the need to point out that, every single time someone states "NO, 4e HAS LOTS OF VARIABILITY, YOU JUST HAVEN'T PLAYED IT," they immediately bring up combat.

There are only nails, and you only need a hammer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Right. So what are the good or at least neutral differences that are lacking 4e?

Some of the issues you mentioned seem easy enough to fix: returning to monsters making "defense rolls" against the wizard's spells is a fairly simple change which does not really mess with the underlying mechanics of the system.

Some others are a direct result of the 4e philosophy that everyone should be able to contribute to combat. Hence, there are few abilities that are focused on avoiding combat and running away.

Others may be more complicated, but not impossible to add into 4e: for example, you could have a Skilful Rogue class feature (perhaps replacing Rogue Weapon Talent) that gives him a small number of bonus points +1 every odd level that he can assign to his trained skills to increase his skill modifiers.

I think one of the things I miss the most is the different ways of acquiring and using abilities.

Which means, for me, one of the more grievous similarities is "two at-wills, encounter, daily, then same advancement for everyone, always."

Which is, of course, the hardest thing to fiddle with in a balanced fashion.

But many of these other tidbits could go a long way toward making things distinctive. And though Prof C mostly hits on the noncombat angle, I think the salient point is something he articulated pretty well: I should be able to do things as Class X that no one else can do.

Where is the thing I can do as a rogue, or a wizard, or a fighter, that no one else does? It's not my combat role (others do that, though in different fiddly ways), it's not my out-of-combat role (others are basically my equal in this regard). What do I contribute to a party that is binary? That is "Oh, you don't have a Rogue, so you're going to suck at X."

I think this is a harder balancing act than even "power acquisition" rules, because part of 4e's philosophy is that everyone can contribute in some meaningful way all the time. Which isn't a bad philosophy, because it's boring sitting out a challenge you can't contribute to.

I dunno...there are some things that would alleviate the issue before we got to that point, I think. And maybe some sort of expanded roles system or whatnot is useful (In combat, a rogue is a striker! In exploration, the rogue is a trailblazer! In social situations, a rogue is a wit! The rogue is the only class with this unique combination; other classes have other combinations!) in just creating levels of difference.

The more things I can point to on my character sheet and say "I am the only character who can do this," the better the class variety gets, I think.

Which brings us to the OP. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem for 4e. Heck, talking like this, it seems that 4e could even probably accept some add-on systems to mostly solve the problem. And those that don't have a problem don't need to use any of the sub-systems.

Hmm...brain churning...

 

[Obryn]

I think everyone's missing a key question here:

Why isn't this in the 4e House Rules forum?!?!

(I kid, I kid...)

-O

 

[Rechan]

I should be able to do things as Class X that no one else can do.

We get that with class features, though. And the class features really do make the classes (within their role) feel very different to me:

A fighter seriously rocks the mark. No one else gets free attacks any time a monster LOOKS at someone nastily. Compare that with the Swordmage, who can reduce damage dealt to an ally. Nobody can reduce damage. While Paladins get auto-damage.

Druids get to shapechange. And not the shapechanging Wardens get.

Shamans get a Buddy (that can very much rock the casba with proper positioning). Which works very different from the Buddy that beastmaster rangers get.

Warlords boost people's initiative and give them beenies when they use action points. Bards 1) get bonuses to heal you outside of combat, 2) can multi-class into multiple classes, 3) get bonuses to untrained skills, 4) free boost to bluff checks. Clerics can heal like no one's business. That's not really their class feature, but yeah.

Warlocks get extra stuff just for killing their target. Which can vary from teleporting around to getting temp HP.

What do I contribute to a party that is binary? That is "Oh, you don't have a Rogue, so you're going to suck at X."

The problem with that is that if you set it up in such a manner that the Party is going to Suck without X, then that means you gotta have that class or you're going to suck. See 3e Clerics and Healing. If rogues are the only guys that can do X, well you're boned if you don't have a rogue and the situation calls for X.

That also means that if that class is the only class that can do it, that if you want to do that, then that's your only option. Part of what 4e wanted to do is that anyone of any role could stand in for any other character of that same role - you'll inevitably need a healer, but you have more options than just "Cleric", that actually can heal competently.

And while I see your point, KM, about "the progression is the same, ho-hum", I think one thing being neglected IS the Paragon Path/Epic Destiny. They add more class features, that can vary. Granted, they're not as potent as the class's initial features.

So perhaps one avenue is to grant extra class features at each tier. Not suping up existing class features, but giving new, additional ones that differentiate a paragon Fighter from a Heroic fighter, aside from numbers, number of powers and PP.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't know if someone already said that, but I believe the fact that 4E combat is almost exclusively designed around dealing damage also contributes to the feeling of homogenity.

I can't say I was not really disappointed when I saw the illusionist powers in Dragon and instead of creating interesting illusions to deal with the party enemies in new and different ways he was just dealing psychic damage to them.

It also appears that using hp damage as the basic combat currency of the game contributes to the so called grind. If everybody is doing damage every turn, you need monster of high hp, or they won't last more than a single combat round.

Cheers,

 

[Mallus]

It also appears that using hp damage as the basic combat currency of the game contributes to the so called grind.

Using HP as the universal combat currency just makes the system more transparent. Monsters with enormous hit point totals and comparatively low damage output cause the grind.

 

[avin]

I'd like to add some weight on the "sameness" feel of 4E.

Not saying it's worst or better, it just feels too similar, even comparing to things I dislike (2E's different XP for different classes, for example).

The Psion is a nice step away from that feel and I welcome that.