Removing homogenity from 4e

[Storminator]

Funny you mention trapfinding; out of all the games I've played recently, this is one of the areas 4e botched when it came to "improving" on 3e.

<SNIP>

After 3 games with a minotaur druid and a human rogue, trapfinding became "Minotaur, do you see any traps I need to disable?"

<SNIP>

Actually, that's great. Now you have 2 players involved in the "trap encounter" instead of one. 4E promotes teamwork!

 

[Storminator]

My personal fix is to allow a thievery check to find traps.

Were I DMing instead of playing, I'd go with trained in Thievery allows Perception for trap finding. Trained in Nature allows Perception for wilderness tracking. Trained in Dungeoneering allows Perception for underground tracking. Trained in Streetwise allows Perception for urban tracking.

Perception is appropriate for all those skills, but I like to have "setting training" before it can be widely used.

PS

 

[jmucchiello]

So, I posted a thread 27 hours ago. I wonder if there were any responses....

I would like to thank those who stuck with it and posted ideas for doing things differently. Some of them might even be feasible within the GSL. I did not know about the Monk and Psion so that was an eye opener. If one of them had been in the PHB I wonder if the perception espoused by KM in this thread might have been mitigated a little.

I also liked the idea of more class abilities. But with the number of existing classes it's a little late for that.

What do I think is homogenius about 4e? It doesn't matter. That was the thread I forked from. I wanted to know what could be done to reduce that perception. If you don't perceive it, don't post (or state politely you disagree). BryonD was the person I quoted so his response there is a good starting point. Also, KM provided excellent insight into the definition.

At the risk of perpetuating the edition war: Most of the folk who say 4e is tactically varied point out that this class hangs back and this other class runs around looking for flanks. I fail to see how that didn't exist in older editions. But then, I've been using a battlemat for combat since 1e so tactics have always been important in combat. Characters always had combat roles, they just were not strictly tied to class.

Anyway, I don't have to respond to specific posts. Carry on.

And no, I have not played 4e. I haven't played anything in two years. Woe is me.

 

[gribble]

Not rehash an old set of complaints --who am I kidding, that's exactly what I'm doing-- in 3e rogues can easily be out-rogued by spellcasters w/wands (and other sundry items), priests make wonderful self-buffers who can then go toe-to-toe better that fighters, and wizards don't hide so much as they render themselves immune to threats (via invisibility, flight, various explicitly defensive spells).

Hate to burst your bubble, but these probably aren't terribly good examples of things that 4e does "better"...

1. Wizards in 4e can "out-rogue" the rogue - they still get things like expeditious retreat, jump, fly, invisibility, etc which are usually better than the equivalent rogue utility powers (even if the better wizard ones are dailies and the rogue ones tend to be encounters).
2. A 4e strength build cleric can go "toe-to-toe" with enemies just as well as a 4e fighter. In fact, just like 3e they're usually more effective at dealing damage and laying conditions on enemies (whereas the 4e fighter focuses more on marking and disrupting enemy movement & attacks).

I think the best things 4e can do to reduce the homogenity are to concentrate on different classes/builds that promote a different approach than "set-up and use encounter powers, then spam at-wills while deciding whether to blow dailies and/or action points" approach to combat. IMO, the psion is a good example of what should be done - the monk a poor one (because now your move as well as standard actions are pre-determined by your choice of powers). The pacifist cleric is a good example - while he generally fits the above pattern, he will be approaching combat from a different slant than most PCs. Hopefully the skill powers from PHB 3 might also improve things in this regard.

I also really like the idea of giving the classes out of combat abilities to differentiate them. Maybe add one per tier to each class or something like that?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think that a better approach would be to accentuate something that a particular class excels at. For example, rather than declaring that only rogues can find traps I think it would be better for the game as a whole to simply give them a bonus to finding traps. Of course, the pitfall of this is that it can easily lead back into the situation where either the rogue is the only one who can find the trap (because the DC is adjusted for a rogue with trapfinding) or the rogue automatically succeeds at trapfinding even when blindfolded (the DCs are calibrated so that anyone has a chance for success).

Or...

You let Rogues roll and then may roll again taking the 2nd roll. I think this is the classic mechanic that suits this situation. You don't muck around with the DCs in terms of the entire party but you still allow the rogue to be more proficient (higher percentage outcome of success). Win/Win.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem (referring to the above something that only x can do) with this is that you can easily end up with circumstances that negatively impact the game, all for the sake of niche protection.

True, and I think the problem of "accidental suck" was something that certainly needed to be mitigated. It's no fun when you can't contribute to the adventure, but it's ALSO no fun when no one gets to contribute something special and distinct. The roles system, while useful, kind of exacerbates the problem, because it basically means everyone is doing one of four things, and that is all anyone ever does.

I thought of how "accidental suck" was handled before 4e, and I got the impression that it was basically up to the DM. You're supposed to know your characters, and adjust the game to them. If you don't have a rogue, go easy on the traps. If you don't have a fighter, go easy on the combats. This was immensely fiddly, and, by and large, I'm glad to have a system to handle what was a very important and very subjective judgement call in earlier editions.

Here's an idea I'm thinking of: Power sources give you access to all classes within that power source. You can change your class during a short rest.

Power sources in 4e are pretty distinct. Divine power sources are radiant and helpful, primal power sources are wise and strong, martial power sources are quick and tough, etc., etc. They are also distinguished by noncombat role: divine characters get power from their gods, martial characters get power from themselves, arcane characters get power from science-magic, etc.

There are a few downsides to this that I might be able to pave over, but that bear mentioning:

#1: I'd still like a different "minigame" for each power source. A distinctive mechanical schtick. Something like "all Arcane characters use a spellbook, and can swap out powers" or "Divine characters gain one extra power chosen randomly or by the DM" or "Primal characters must choose powers appropriate to the terrain/season/weather they are in" or something.

#2: This could become messy, stat-wise. I might choose a primary and two secondary stats for each power source. This is close to being done already, but this can formalize it (Primal = Wis + Str/Con; Arcane = Int + Cha/Con; Martial = Str + Dex/Con; Divine = Cha + Wis/Con; whatever).

#3: Each character gains a MESSLOAD of powers. This could be crazy intimidating and confusing, even with only one class in use per battle (barring multiclass feats). Perhaps use the minigame mentioned above to limit the potential power palette based on some power-source options (Divine characters are limited by their gods; Arcane characters are limited by their Sacrifices; Primal characters by their Totems, whatever).

 

[Remathilis]

Nonetheless, it would be easy to fix if you simply allow the rogue to use his highest ability score in place of Wisdom. With that feature in place an elven druid would be, at best, a marginally better trap detector than the rogue (whereupon both would no doubt successfully search for traps).

This reminds me of a lot of the problems Melee Weapon Training opened: After a while, you only need one ability score (2 at most) and everything else is seed. First off, a rogue would naturally use his dex instead of his wisdom since his dex is going to be his highest score. So now the rogue has his dexterity covering exploit-attacks, basic attack (MWT: Dex), Init, Reflex Defense, Stealth, Thievery AND Perception checks, and AC. His Cha is covering Will Defense, and he can safely dump his 8 in Wis as long as he doesn't care about Insight or Nature checks...

What about other classes? Wouldn't a ranger want to use his Str to perception to track? Clerics use Wis to Religion, etc.

Lastly, How do you use to Dex (or Str, or Cha) to be more perceptive. It becomes hard to rationalize (again like MWT, I attack you with my CON!) and eventually the concept of ability scores meaning something breaks down.

While I have no problem with the 3 defenses, 2 scores each method, I think the "use X for Y" can be oversold too much by things like this.

The problem with the Pathfinder approach is that it still limits what a "fair" DM can use in the absence of a rogue. Admittedly, I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder to know how trap detection via spells works, but it seems to me that many DMs would simply avoid using magical traps if the party has no rogue because the traps are otherwise unavoidable (assuming the party doesn't have easy access to spells for magical trap detection).

Additionally, the 1/2 level bonus is also problematic. At 1st level it doesn't guarantee superiority of any sort (since 1/2 of 1 is 0) and by 20th it grants a +10, meaning that an average check for the rogue becomes essentially impossible for the next best trapfinder (if the rogue needs a nat 10 to succeed the secondary trap finder requires a nat 20) and if the secondary trap finder has a reasonable chance of discovering the trap, the rogue cannot fail at all (if secondary guy needs a 10 then rogue cannot fail; I'm assuming Pathfinder doesn't use critical successes or fumbles for skills, though I can't be certain as I've only skimmed the Pathfinder rules).

Actually, its 1/2 level, min +1. I left that out.

Trap detection via magic means either using Find Traps (Clr2) or simply using Detect Magic to look for magical auras, which can be dispelled if needed.

And yes, not having a rogue means the DM has to alter the traps he uses. He may have to lower the DCs to search, provide alternate means to disarm or avoid traps, or simply use weaker traps. Really no different than before, except now he can use traps with DCs above 20 and someone has a chance of finding it.

Oh, the +10 does mean easier traps become a nuisance, but it also helps in finding them at farther range, scanning an area quickly, and other DC-upping tasks.

Basic fantasy falls into the same problem. A party without a rogue (or even with a low level rogue) is one that is more likely to stumble into a trap than to have a realistic chance of finding it. Additionally, it seems reminiscent of 1st and 2nd edition in that one's character can't improve in certain areas regardless of how hard he tries (my fighter's main hobby and fascination might be traps, but unless I multi/dual class rogue, he'll never get any better at finding them). That always used to annoy me back in the day.

Well, Basic Fantasy mimics Basic/Expert D&D, so there is a LOT of Class X does Y mechanic. I just pointed it out as a way of allowing others to do something normally reserved for one class without destroying the thieves role. (1 in six ain't much, but its better than 2e's No-way, no-how).

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the 4e approach is perfect (see above). Just that (IMO) the Pathfinder and Basic Fantasy approaches aren't very good ones, at least for my gaming preferences. While I have no problem with a trap-focused rogue having the best chance to find a trap, I don't believe that it should be massively greater than that of a trap-focused non-rogue, and I certainly don't agree that there should be traps that only a rogue can find.

Well, its not perfect, but I think we both agree a rogue needs something to get "trapfinder" back in his title. The "use thievery" method might work.

 

[Rechan]

The topic of traps is kind of funny. I've found that no one ever bothers to DISARM the trap.

It takes usually 4 uses of thievery to disarm the trap. Usually, 1 guy has thievery. While the thief is using his disarm skillz, the trap continues to attack.

It usually takes 4-6 good whacks with a sword to destroy said trap. There's usually 5 guys who can possibly whack that trap.

Which do you think they're going to do?

 

[FireLance]

The topic of traps is kind of funny. I've found that no one ever bothers to DISARM the trap.

It takes usually 4 uses of thievery to disarm the trap. Usually, 1 guy has thievery. While the thief is using his disarm skillz, the trap continues to attack.

It usually takes 4-6 good whacks with a sword to destroy said trap. There's usually 5 guys who can possibly whack that trap.

Which do you think they're going to do?

So, a Thievery check should just deal damage?

Seriously though, it's a good point. The advantage of everything being on one "track", as it were, is that it allows everyone's successes to contribute cumulatively to the same goal. If a Thievery check doesn't deal damage, then it should have an effect on the trap in line with what a pacifist cleric can do - lowering defenses or attack rolls, or even preventing it from functioning for a round.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem with removing homogeneity is that there are also other goals that the system wants to achieve. The system aims at a balance between characters. And this balance is seen "short-term" - e.g. per encounter as the smallest relevant unit. I think going away from this goal is not desirable. You are just removing one issue and replace it with another.

One take to deal with the homogeneous is to change the rules for resting.
For example, let's say in the current setup a at-will has the power of X, an encounter power has the power of 2X, and a daily power of 3X.
A typical combat might be 8 rounds. Character A has 3 encounter powers and one daily power. Character B has 1 encounter power and 2 daily powers.
Character A has a total power of 4X +6X +3X (=13X) in one encounter, and 4X + 6X(10X) in every other. Character B has 4X + 2X + 9X (15X) in one encounter and 4X + 2X (6X) in every other that day.
If the characters go through 3 encounters before taking an extended rest, Character A is better of (power = 33X). If the characters go through 1 encounter and then take an extended rest, Character B is better off (27X).

So, it is in interest of Character B if they take an extended rest early. It is not exactly a bad idea for Character A to do it, too - he has, after all, a daily resource. (And that is true with 3E hit points or 4E healing surges). But in gameplay, it turns out Character B is more effective then Character A.

If we remove the concept of extended rest/sleeping as the way to recover long-term resources, we could get away from that. Say hello to Milestones.

Every time a character completes a Milestone, he could get back his "daily" powers. If we use the 4E definition of that, this means every two encounters.
Character A could be a Fighter. Being a martial character, he of course has no daily powers, that would be ridiculous and unrealistic, as everyone knows.
He has 4 encounter powers (each 2X power). Between Milestones, this is 8X.

Character B is a Mage. Magic is very difficult. In combat, he usually swings a staff. Magic is difficult to control, and it takes a while for the mind to recover from casting a powerful spell. So he has 2 daily powers, each at 4X power. Between milestones, that's 8X.

Character C is a Cleric. Divine magic is not as strong as arcane magic, but the gods provide simpler prayers that can be done in a few minutes by a true believers. C has 1 daily power at 4X and 2 encounter powers at 2X. Between Milestones, that 8X.

Of course, now multiclassing is probably a mess. And does it make sense to have Healing Surges recover too at this pace?