Removing homogenity from 4e

[billd91]

Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is necessary to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.

That's not the point of his example. A character class can explicitly do a specific activity. A character race can do so under certain circumstances. Does that, or does that not, imply that others cannot do that particular activity?
To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.

Regarding the bowl of stew, if a fighter had a 15% to eat a bowl of stew at 1st level and the advancement table said that he got 5% better per experience level... what would that say about a cleric eating a bowl of stew?

 

[Barastrondo]

There is no way to determine this without knowing how many encounters are done per day. And average damage is just a start.

Indeed. The long-term resource management of milestones and encounter/daily powers makes it more difficult to break down "average damage per round" figures. This is particularly true because so many powers are built to capitalize on teamwork: try running the numbers for a rogue who is assumed to always have a party member helping her flank versus the numbers for a rogue who must rely on her own powers to achieve combat advantage. The latter is at a serious disadvantage.

Ironically, with a bit more homogeneity in 4e, this calculation would be a little easier to run.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Ironically, with a bit more homogeneity in 4e, this calculation would be a little easier to run.

No, thanks. We have enough of it, already.

Cheeers,

 

[Nifft]

what would that say about a cleric eating a bowl of stew?

Stew Clerics are broken and you darn well know it!

"ChowDerzilla!", -- N

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

To me, that implies a certain amount of exclusivity with that particular activity.

As a 2E DM, I always looked at the thieving skills as a base chance of success that nothing could resist. I mean, everybody can try no move silently or hide in shadows, but a thief had a chance of doing so regardless of how good was the perception of those looking for him, that's why he rolled on a d% and all important modifiers were related to himself.

In the same manner, a fighter would be able to find a trap, but he goes purely on his own perception, working against the complexity of the mechanism and the degree of success of the one who set it there trying to hide it. A thief, though, with extraordinary skill, has his eyes especially trained to find them, much like the dwarf with the stone workings.

I don't know if this solves your problem, but it has always worked for me, and also make the thieving skills more extraordinary and interesting than class-exclusive non-weapon proficiencies.

Cheers,

 

[howandwhy99]

You cannot remove the homogeneity from 4E because the game itself is supposed to be a similar experience for every player who plays it. It is undeniably the same game no matter whose table you play at. If you choose the same options exactly as you did with your previous character, your character is near identical. If you purchase the same equipment, there is no mechanical difference.

The biggest reason for the experience of "same 'ol, same 'ol" is the diversity of game play is no longer at the strategic Class level, but at the tactical Sub-Class level. Your role is no longer your Class. Where magic-users sought out magic to explore and fighting-men combat, now every class is about one experience: the power-based fighter. One's subclass within that is the 4E Role: Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader. Further differentiation, a sort of sub-sub-Class, received the old title of "Class". In truth, all players are playing the role of a combatant with the vast majority of rules giving differentiating PC abilities at that.

The rest of the game: magic, religion, skills, etc., were all divorced away from that system. If you want a less homogeneous game experience, focus your play on non-tactical combat elements. ~edited

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a 2E DM, I always looked at the thieving skills as a base chance of success that nothing could resist. I mean, everybody can try no move silently or hide in shadows, but a thief had a chance of doing so regardless of how good was the perception of those looking for him, that's why he rolled on a d% and all important modifiers were related to himself.

In the same manner, a fighter would be able to find a trap, but he goes purely on his own perception, working against the complexity of the mechanism and the degree of success of the one who set it there trying to hide it. A thief, though, with extraordinary skill, has his eyes especially trained to find them, much like the dwarf with the stone workings.

I don't know if this solves your problem, but it has always worked for me, and also make the thieving skills more extraordinary and interesting than class-exclusive non-weapon proficiencies.

Cheers,

This pretty much sums it up. A fighter tries to find the trap and might succeed, with the level of success being variable and unknown. A skilled thief does find the trap, boom done.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe there's a special rule somewhere for a fighter eating a bowl of stew, or using a garderobe afterward, but the notion that a written rule is necessary to permit any activity strikes me as patently ludicrous.

Really. Since there is no special rule that says my fighter CAN'T find traps, pick pockets, seduce princesses, eat rocks, control the weather, spontaneously combust or fly to the moon, I can automatically do all those things, right?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Really. Since there is no special rule that says my fighter CAN'T find traps, pick pockets, seduce princesses, eat rocks, control the weather, spontaneously combust or fly to the moon, I can automatically do all those things, right?

I always thought of rules as not telling you directly if you have the possibility of doing it, but rather what are your chances of doing, if you try. If the rules don't say how much of a chance you have, you may take it as meaning you have no chance, but I prefer to think of them as saying consult the DM to know what are your chances.

Cheers,

 

[Remathilis]

I always thought of rules as not telling you directly if you have the possibility of doing it, but rather what are your chances of doing, if you try. If the rules don't say how much of a chance you have, you may take it as meaning you have no chance, but I prefer to think of them as saying consult the DM to know what are your chances.

Cheers,

Which is my point. Why have a special rule for thieves to find traps if, theoretically, anyone can do it?

More imporantly, how would I determine if the fighter can FIND the trap? Roll a percentile like thief skill? What's the threshold for success? 1%? 5%? 15%? Make it an ability check (which may/may not be better than the thieves % amount)? Allow the player to succeed/fail based SOLELY on the description of his method of searching (and if so, why stop at trapfinding: "I shoot him in the left eye to blind him.") Or how bout a purely arbitary method (flip a coin)?

While I can play a rules-lite game, I perfer to have SOME rules!