Removing homogenity from 4e

[Nifft]

In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.

... who got XP for killing orc babies.

In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.

Clerics are angsty anti-heroes?

"I thought Paladins were Defenders", -- N

 

[Mallus]

In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.

FYI, in my 2e campaign paladins were religious warriors whose alignments and abilities varied according to which of 17 religions they belonged to (I had a lot more free time back then...). They ranged from NE bodyguards to mage-priests to LG demon-killing crusaders to NG healer/judo masters.

In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero

I see what you've done here. You've turned "paladins are no longer required to be Lawful Good" into "no paladins are Lawful good". Pretty sneaky, sis.

My 4e paladin isn't an angsty anti-hero at all. He's a jovial and enthusiastic cross between Don Quixote, Peter Pan, a Gnostic, and Lizardman from Soul Calibur. He can be a touch... violent, but on the plus side, he has absolutely nothing against orc babies.

 

[BryonD]

For me I guess, a power that says Push 2 versus Slide 1 is much more of a difference in play than a fighter who gets 2 feats versus paladin who has Detect and Smite evil.

If you are only playing a tactical mini game then Push 2 vs Slide 1 is huge.

I find that Fighters and Paladins have had a lot of similarity in all editions, 3E and 4E included. From a purely tactical mini pov 4E has probably done the best to remove this issue, in the particular case of paladin v. fighter.

Though 4E paladins still always get better at climbing and sneaking no matter what and all their attacks and defenses are always within the same math approved window no matter what the character concept. And so on...

But there are areas where 3E is certainly guilty of sameness and this is one.

 

[AllisterH]

I actually LIKE the Saga/4e (keep in mind, SWSE also uses it) method of increasing competence.

A 30th level paladin SHOULD be better than his 1st level self at sneaking/climbing since what the hell was he doing for all those 30 levels?

The only skill that trips my "Hmm, that doesn't work" is SWIM.

However, this is much more palatable to me than the reverse where unless you explicitly put points in a skill, you actually get WORSE at level appropriate skill checks. Even with PF collapsed skill system from 3.5, there's just way too many skills I find that a high level character is incompetent with.

Furthermore, from my own DM perspective, I like the fact that there's a much greater range over which I can construct skill checks that involve the whole party (I always hated the wide-range that skill points could create).

Chalk up for me a great point in the "Homogenity is NOT inherently a bad thing"

It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.

I actually get more non-combat usage of skills than ever before since the players feel more confident in using them even in opposed contests.

One thing about this discussion is how two people can see the same thing and get two different interpretations...

 

[BryonD]

Furthermore, from my own DM perspective, I like the fact that there's a much greater range over which I can construct skill checks that involve the whole party (I always hated the wide-range that skill points could create).
Chalk up for me a great point in the "Homogenity is NOT inherently a bad thing"

It is a feature not a bug.
I never said it was inherently a bad thing.
I said it was there and I said it was not a good fit for how I want to play.

I'm glad to see the discussion come to this point. I've got no dispute with the idea that some people love the homogeneity.

I don't know if you saw my long post upthread or not. But I explained why, to me, the wide-range of skills is a wonderful thing and forced consistency is a detraction. It is cool that we are completely opposite on preference, but my position is explained if you want to see it.

It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.

I don't think it is "only" a tactical mini-game". I think (again for my personal tastes) it is only a really good tactical mini game and a fair to middling role playing game.

I prefer the choice to take history to be based on whether or not the character would know history.

 

[BryonD]

BTW, I do realize SWSE is the same.
I gave mine away because I knew I would never use it.

 

[Fifth Element]

In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.

Say what? A 4E paladin is only angsty if it's a shadar-kai. (I loathe shadar-kai). What are you on about?

 

[AllisterH]

BTW, I do realize SWSE is the same.
I gave mine away because I knew I would never use it.

"Heathen!!!!"

(Just joshing you...I lvoe SWSE but just don't get to play it enough since for some reason, my SW friends are, in their own words "A boycott of Wars until Lucas excises the Prequels"

Seriously, these are 30+ year old people (male and female) and I'm like "Huh"

 

[MerricB]

"Heathen!!!!"

(Just joshing you...I lvoe SWSE but just don't get to play it enough since for some reason, my SW friends are, in their own words "A boycott of Wars until Lucas excises the Prequels"

Seriously, these are 30+ year old people (male and female) and I'm like "Huh"

LOL.

I'm currently playing in a Saga/DoD campaign, and it's interesting to see what bits of 4E we really miss. #1? Healing surges. Star Wars tends to be too binary in "hit" or "not hit", and for my low-HP noble, one hit and I tended to be out of the session... because healing is just too hard.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's funny, but people think 4e is "only a tactical mini-game" but the inclusion of the half-level feature in 4e meant for me that I would use more skills and I would use things like History and not be worried that a character would feel left out.

Actually, this is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Keep in mind that I really like the idea of giving everyone some basic-level competency at doing tasks. This can even increase with level, and I'm not too worried (3e wizard has a bigger BAB at 20 than at 1, even though he never whacks things with his staff or shoots his crossbow).

But the fact that everyone has approximately the same skill bonuses at every level means that you aren't left out, but also that nobody is anything special at doing anything. There's no meaningful difference. I could train in History, or not, and it wouldn't matter, because the guy who chose to train in, say, Perception, will get the same bonus to his skill challenge check as I do, assuming he bats his eyelashes right at the DM.

Now, this is something that 4e is changing. Skill powers, more rituals, tinkering with exclusivity, these are all great things that make having a different skill actually matter.

Of course, it still doesn't matter in a skill challenge, but that's honestly more the fault of the Skill Challenge system than anything else.