Removing homogenity from 4e

SSquirrel said:
How are you surprised that classes of the same role do the same job?...All classes within the same role should produce similar results.

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell.

There's only four classes in the game now. There's only one ability ("attack") and it's various permutations. There's only one way to get abilities, and only one way to spend those abilities. There's one way to advance through the levels, and everyone gets equal rewards at each level.

That's quite a bit more homogeneous than earlier editions. Regardless of the benefits of this homogeneity, the actual different options are much more limited (though there's a lot of variations on the few options that exist).

I really wouldn't call 3,000 copies of the same picture in a slightly different tint "variety." Especially not when we're used to 3,000 different pictures.

The problems with accidental suck and overpower were certainly real, and needed to be addressed. That doesn't mean that the current model is the best middle ground, though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And we reach hammers again :mad:.

One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat! No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard! Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!

Was it flawed? Yes. But it was an attempt at giving the game more focus then just "CHSSST CHSSST RANDOM BATTLE!"

And then 4e comes in and :|'s at this.

This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious. We fight. We fight. We fight. Skill challenge. We fight. By giving the non-fighting bits more rules behind them, the game shifted it's focus to include them more. Again, yes, the skills system had its flaws. But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching." And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have outside of combat is even smaller. Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e. But once the fight is done, the first wizard can't light things on fire. The second wizard can't make illusions of doors.

In before HOUSE RULES!
 

And we reach hammers again :mad:.

One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat! No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard! Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!

Was it flawed? Yes. But it was an attempt at giving the game more focus then just "CHSSST CHSSST RANDOM BATTLE!"

I've played 2E, 3E, and 4E.

Before 3E's skill system, all the skill stuff was pretty much based on ad hoc DM rulings and semi-arbitrary dice rolls. Played AD&D this way for years and enjoyed myself. Later on, 3E had this skill system, which was fun to play with on paper during character creation, but after playing 3E for years I realized that while it was a noble effort, the end result was inferior to the DM fiats of 2E. Last year of my 3.5E DMing found me disregarding the skill system entirely and doing it 2E style. We were all much happier for it, as whatever good points 3.5E skill system had, my contempt for it took away.

Now in 4E, we have a skill system halfway between more or less. I'm still running skills 2E style, but I'm using trained/untrained/high stat to guide my DM fiats and have some handy numbers for the dice rolls I occasionally ask for.
 

And we reach hammers again :mad:.

One of the reasons 3e was such a big deal was because it refined the NWP into the skill system - holy crap, you had skills now, things you did outside of combat! No longer were you reduced to just a single charisma roll, now you could go in and either specialize into diplomacy or intimidate or bluffing, but you could also choose to generalize between then, or specialize fully in talking itself as a rogue or bard! Dude, check it out - my ranger and druid both get survival, but my ranger totally has Track as a free feat!

Was it flawed? Yes. But it was an attempt at giving the game more focus then just "CHSSST CHSSST RANDOM BATTLE!"

And then 4e comes in and :|'s at this.

This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious. We fight. We fight. We fight. Skill challenge. We fight. By giving the non-fighting bits more rules behind them, the game shifted it's focus to include them more. Again, yes, the skills system had its flaws. But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching."
I don't understand what you're asking for that isn't totally served by Skill Challenges, narrative, or a combination thereof. Narrative is a huge part of 4E.

Rules are a crutch.

And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have outside of combat is even smaller.
And how many 3.5E Rogues didn't have Hide, Move Silently, Open Locks, Sleight of Hand, Escape Artist, and Disable Device? Neither of us have any statistics, but I suspect that more than two-thirds of all Rogue characters were trained in all of the aforementioned skills, meaning that skills certainly weren't what differentiated most Rogues. Since it's also obvious that Rogues didn't have much to distinguish themselves from one another in combat, most of the differences between characters must have been narrative, and narrative is exactly what 4E uses, in addition to a wide variety of combat powers.

Additionally, why do you say the skill list was cut "brutally short"? That's kind of like saying that improvements in car safety features has made driving "brutally dull".

Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e. But once the fight is done, the first wizard can't light things on fire. The second wizard can't make illusions of doors.
Sure they can: it's narrative.

Maybe instead of calling the game "lame and dumb", you should look to the folks you play it with...
 

I've played 2E, 3E, and 4E.

Before 3E's skill system, all the skill stuff was pretty much based on ad hoc DM rulings and semi-arbitrary dice rolls. Played AD&D this way for years and enjoyed myself. Later on, 3E had this skill system, which was fun to play with on paper during character creation, but after playing 3E for years I realized that while it was a noble effort, the end result was inferior to the DM fiats of 2E. Last year of my 3.5E DMing found me disregarding the skill system entirely and doing it 2E style. We were all much happier for it, as whatever good points 3.5E skill system had, my contempt for it took away.

Now in 4E, we have a skill system halfway between more or less. I'm still running skills 2E style, but I'm using trained/untrained/high stat to guide my DM fiats and have some handy numbers for the dice rolls I occasionally ask for.


Wait, I'm confused here...what exactly does a skill being trained, untrained or high have to do with using GM fiat? I mean aren't the numbers in 3e and 4e based on DC... regardless of the actual skill? I guess I'm trying to understand why 4e is a better fit for you than 3e... and what method you're using for skills?

Honestly it sounds like you more or less arbitrarily decide on success or failure when it comes to skills... if so why does it matter what skill system you actually use?
 

Wait, I'm confused here...what exactly does a skill being trained, untrained or high have to do with using GM fiat? I mean aren't the numbers in 3e and 4e based on DC... regardless of the actual skill? I guess I'm trying to understand why 4e is a better fit for you than 3e... and what method you're using for skills?

Honestly it sounds like you more or less arbitrarily decide on success or failure when it comes to skills... if so why does it matter what skill system you actually use?

Because granularity(what 3.5E offers that 4E does not) is of no use in that regard. You're either good at it or you aren't.

If a character is trained in Athletics, or has a high check thanks to stats, I don't ask them to roll to climb the rock wall with lots of handholds.

If a character is trained in Diplomacy, or has a high Charisma, I don't have them roll to see if they can talk the natives out of eating them.

ect.
 
Last edited:

This is why I, at least, find the game so homogenious. We fight. We fight. We fight. Skill challenge. We fight.

Why won't you take us at our word that our 4e game sessions aren't like this? It makes me angry and sad to read it. I don't mind criticisms that one doesn't like a particular mechanic, or that they would prefer if 4e had more of one element of play. But when people have been telling you for over a year now that their games have the same mix of action and roleplaying that they've always had, and that 4e is not a barrier to it, why not believe it?

But instead of fixing the flaws and building up on giving a robust out of combat set of mechanics for doing things that don't include smacking someone with a club, 4e just sort of threw it away and made skill challenges your one stop shop for "Ok we aren't fighting and my fingers are twitching."
I have my problem with skill challenges myself, but not all 4e non-combat encounters are skill challenges, nor even the majority of them. It is supposed to be specifically for a complex task that requires group cooperation. That said, more options for out-of-combat resolution is always a good thing and something D&D in all editions has too long neglected.

And with the skills list so brutally cut short, the number of differences two rogues have outside of combat is even smaller.
I'm not so sure about this. I suppose it was possible to make a pick-pocket focused thief who didn't know anything about locks and traps in 3e, but the pressure from your party to put ranks into those skills above all was pretty overwhelming. So I think it was one of those "illusionary choices". It was the case in 2e as well, where open locks and F/R percentile abilities were always maxed out first, followed by move silently and hide in shadows.

Plus I think you're underestimating the effect that different builds (and their associated ability scores) play on character options. An artful dodger rogue is going to be far more about bluffing, diplomacy and other charisma related skills, while the brutal rogue will not. That's quite a significant difference out of combat. There is also the ability to choose a non-class skill with an appropriate background, which can help distinguish rogues from each other.

I do take your point that it would be nice to have specialized rogues who would say "I'm a cat burglar" or "I'm a safe-cracker", but I can't agree that it should come at the expense of a general level of proficiency in dungeon cracking skills. As a rogue you have to be useful for the adventure too, as well as have fidelity to a character concept.

Ok, sure, one wizard throws fire and does damage to enemies, the other...throws illusions and does damage to enemies, somehow, I guess, that's probably the lamest and dumbest thing about 4e. But once the fight is done, the first wizard can't light things on fire. The second wizard can't make illusions of doors.
There are some illusion powers that simply disrupt or disorient foes, and there are lots of precedents for damaging illusion spells in prior editions. Shadow evocation and Phantasmal Killer for example.

I also can make a wizard light things on fire out of combat, or make illusions of doors without house rules. I use the fire attack spell to attack an object.

To make an illusion of a door I use a combination of prestidigitation and the bluff skill. This isn't a house rule, it is just an expectation on how the new skill system works. You don't just use bluff to tell lies, but you use it for any endeavor that involves deception. A more recent option is to use the ritual that creates illusions of objects, which wouldn't have to be sustained by the concentration of the illusionist.

Two very simple ways to do exactly what you said 4e can't do without house rules, which means you don't know the system very well. Which is why your posts are so infuriating to me. When you say that 4e doesn't allow for x type of gameplay and I know otherwise, I get the sense that you are implying that I don't know how to run an engaging D&D game at all levels, which is why I play 4e.
 
Last edited:


Because granularity(what 3.5E offers that 4E does not) is of no use in that regard. You're either good at it or you aren't.

If a character is trained in Athletics, or has a high check thanks to stats, I don't ask them to roll to climb the rock wall with lots of handholds.

If a character is trained in Diplomacy, or has a high Charisma, I don't have them roll to see if they can talk the natives out of eating them.

ect.

How does 3e interfere with this... you have a DC and if 10+Rank is equal to the DC you don't ask them to roll... I'm still not seeing how granularity interferes with what is essentially... "I will arbitrarily decide if you succeed automatically or not at a task"... And honestly it sounds like you're arguing against the granularity of ranks...but 4e has quite a few ways to add to skills now, attribute/trained/focus/backgrounds/magic items/etc. I mean the granularity in ranks can be pretty high so I guess I'm not seeing the difference unless you're talking about the granularity in differentiation.... which again has no effect on your method
 

How does 3e interfere with this... you have a DC and if 10+Rank is equal to the DC you don't ask them to roll... I'm still not seeing how granularity interferes with what is essentially... "I will arbitrarily decide if you succeed automatically or not at a task"... And honestly it sounds like you're arguing against the granularity of ranks...but 4e has quite a few ways to add to skills now, attribute/trained/focus/backgrounds/magic items/etc. I mean the granularity in ranks can be pretty high so I guess I'm not seeing the difference unless you're talking about the granularity in differentiation.... which again has no effect on your method

It isn't as good of a quick reference.
 

Remove ads

Top