Henry
Autoexreginated
Caveat Spector?
Removing homogenity from 4e
- Thread starter jmucchiello
- Start date
Caveat Spector?
Well, the last was as a matter of historical fact not Gygax's design -- and someone has been arguing that such exclusivity is just what's missing in the "homogeneity" of 4e.
The first stands to common sense. If a covering of leaves is what keeps one from seeing a steel-jawed trap, then removing the leaves permits one to see it. A ranger, or a character with secondary skill as forester, hunter or trapper, might have a special chance of noting signs of the trap even while it is well camouflaged.
The surest way to avoid getting killed by poison is to avoid poison, and the blind can't be petrified by meeting Medusa's gaze. Having the second chance of a "saving throw" is handy, though! Getting a "save" where others don't is an advantage when failure often means death (as with booby-trapped treasure chests).
The first stands to common sense. If a covering of leaves is what keeps one from seeing a steel-jawed trap, then removing the leaves permits one to see it. A ranger, or a character with secondary skill as forester, hunter or trapper, might have a special chance of noting signs of the trap even while it is well camouflaged.
The surest way to avoid getting killed by poison is to avoid poison, and the blind can't be petrified by meeting Medusa's gaze. Having the second chance of a "saving throw" is handy, though! Getting a "save" where others don't is an advantage when failure often means death (as with booby-trapped treasure chests).
Betote
First Post
Hussar
Legend
Yes, because all traps are ridiculously easy to find. Yup, if all traps are simply leaf covered vice jaws, then sure, no problem. Then again, why bother with a thief at all in that case? However, IME, most traps are significantly harder to find. Which, in turn, led to every group turning into special forces members, and all sorts of methods for opening a chest.
-------------------
Anyway, on the issue of mechanical homogeneity leading to homogeneous characters, I have to say I disagree with the basic premise.
Step away from D&D for a second. There are any number of systems where every character has access to exactly the same mechanics with no variation at all. Most skill based systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds, for example. In GURPS, every character is made using a pool of points and no character has any unique mechanics to differentiate one from another. Same in Savage Worlds - 5 points between your stats, 15 points for skills, 1 major or 2 minor hinderances and possibly 1 edge. Done.
Yet, the variety of characters in those systems is pretty wide. I've never heard anyone complain about sameyness in their GURPS characters. Yet, no GURPS character has any niche protection whatsoever. Nor does any Savage World's character.
The "If all you have is a hammer" line has been repeated a few times here. Yet, do we really need to use nails, glue and screws to build characters in order to gain uniqueness? Does it matter if I put it together with a Phillips or Robertson screw? To abuse the analogy anyway.
The obvious difference between skill based systems and 4e D&D is the class system. The question is, does the package of skills you gain with each class (and by skills I mean more than just things like stealth or perception, but also class abilities and powers, which are generally covered by point buy systems like Savage Worlds) provide enough uniqueness to distinguish one character from another?
Some people are claiming that it does and others claim that it doesn't. I'm on the fence. I don't know.
But, I do disagree with the basic premise that mechanical diversity is required in order to make diverse characters. Skill based, or point buy systems show that to be wrong.
BryonD
Hero
What part of GURPS is equivalent to +1/2 level to all skills, saves and attacks?
Who says there is one correct response? It depends on what the persons wants from their gaming experience.
I strongly disagree that point buy systems in any way show this to be wrong.
However, I will agree that in a very general assessment it is true that mechanical diversity may be set aside without losing diversty.
It is not true that all systems with unified mechanics are overly homogeneous. It just happens to be true for 4E.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
To the whole mechanical diversity thing here, what of the pre-3E Fighter? Take a single classed Fighter from any edition of D&D prior to 3E, and what really differentiated them from other Fighters? Take away stats, and focus on the class itself and what do you see?
Remathilis
Legend
Choice of Weapon to Specialize in?
The problem isn't that all fighters feel alike; that's a given. Its that other classes feel like fighters as well. They all resolve all their attacks like a fighter does. They advance levels like fighters do, gaining powers and feats at the same rate as fighters. They improve their to-hit, AC, skills and saves at the same rate as fighters. Heck, most of them have the same number of trained skills as fighters!
"What of the pre-3E Fighter?" Just so! Mechanical diversity is just one aspect.
As to 3e, well, it does not have the 4e powers but it does have additional feats and skills. Presumably, one could add in those to taste.
Plus five for trained is a pretty good bonus. The +1/2 level ends up outweighing it in absolute terms, but I'm not sure those terms mean quite the same things in 4e.
The way the 4e powers system is set up may make it easier to figure out game balance among characters, but the desired balance itself is the reason for that common basic type (divided into controller, defender, leader and striker subtypes).
As to 3e, well, it does not have the 4e powers but it does have additional feats and skills. Presumably, one could add in those to taste.
Plus five for trained is a pretty good bonus. The +1/2 level ends up outweighing it in absolute terms, but I'm not sure those terms mean quite the same things in 4e.
That's my own experience, too. One feature built into 4e (and strongly encouraged in Champions) is that all characters are of the same basic type -- the "combat monster" -- that in other games might be just one of several.
The way the 4e powers system is set up may make it easier to figure out game balance among characters, but the desired balance itself is the reason for that common basic type (divided into controller, defender, leader and striker subtypes).
thecasualoblivion
First Post
This is(and I've said it before) a narrow view. Classes aren't defined by advancement or resolution of mechanics. They are defined by their level 1 class features and the tactics they use. The Fighter aggressively bullies people(Defender, non-Defenders don't do this) and can severely punish enemies they are bullying who try to move away from them(this is unique).
Trained skills? You don't know 4E very well. Fighters have three trained skills, and only the Barbarian class shares this number. The rest have four or more.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I didn't give any example.I work with the materials that you give me. Crappy example, crappy trap
By the way, being rude and then adding a smiley isn't sufficient protection around here. You may want to work on having a point without being rude. It'll make your stay more pleasant for everyone, emphatically including you.
Cheers, -- N
Similar Threads
