Removing homogenity from 4e

[fanboy2000]

In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.

snip

Maybe 4e lets you have a decent diplomacy more easily, but you have to give up some fighting ability in either edition.

Here's an idea: take the Society-Noble background in PHB II and use it to make Diplomacy a class skill. Just don't make Cha a dump stat and voila! A fighter decent at Diplomacy. No need to take a feat. (Though as Mustrum points out, you can still take skill training, just like 3e. In fact I'm fairly sure that backgrounds were in 3e to.)

Another route would be to hybrid fighter and rogue, but I prefer the background way.

Both 3e and 4e tie your class to your out of combat abilities.

Very true.

[Education is a] feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

Well, many of things that I now associate with 3rd actually started in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Epic levels, level adjustments, and effective character level are just a few. Also, some of my favorite spell casting feats came from that book. It wasn't until the 3.5 core rulebooks that those things became part of the core rules.

 

[Mallus]

Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...". Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...

Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype

4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!

(just a little help from the Cricket Gallery )

 

[Rechan]

A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

Your DM has to also allow the book.

A multitude of options mean little if you aren't allowed to use the source they come from.

 

[billd91]

The only real drawback is external; if the rest of the part contains more tightly focused/optimized characters -- of course, that's a problem with any bard...

Not just the bard but any character at a table with divergent style types between optimizer and more casual builders. And even then, if the optimizer is good at RP-ing things soft even while building for hardball, you might not have a conflict.

Henry V figures large in my brain right now. Our local, but nationally respected, outdoor theater company (American Players Theater) has it in their schedule this year. Fantastic production. Great fun.

 

[Imaro]

4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!

(just a little help from the Cricket Gallery )

So why is it okay to sub "Ranger" for my "Rogue" in 4e... especially since he doesn't get the Rogue's utilities... or backstab... or Paragon Paths, or...well you get the point. But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?

 

[Imaro]

Your DM has to also allow the book.

A multitude of options mean little if you aren't allowed to use the source they come from.

Isn't this true for any roleplaying game with supplemental books?

 

[Remathilis]

My experience of 3e character creation is you start with an idea/archetype, then you root through the books looking for the best mechanics to represent it (ie, the selection of the archetype precedes any engagement w/the rules).

And yet, when Imaro asks to play a rogue with a shortbow...

4e ranger, take Stealth, take Skill Training in Thievery. Easy-peasy!

Isn't that starting with an idea/archetype (thief with bow) and rooting through books to find the best mechanic to represent it (archer-ranger with rogue-skill training)? while absolutely ignoring the rangers own archetype fluff?

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Rechan]

Isn't this true for any roleplaying game with supplemental books?

The issue here though is that 3e's being praised for it's extensive character creation method - but that character creation method is hampered by the fact it's highly dependent on supplements.

If 4e has fewer options (and those options are all the same), than it has fewer things to lose by denying supplements.

 

[Remathilis]

So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.

Sure, I can get what I want eventually but, what if I don't particularly want to wait three, four levels down the road to play the character concept that I probably should be able to play right out of the gate?

I mean, Suave McFightswell is hardly a unique snowflake here. We're talking about an archetype that's pretty common, whether it's Wesley from The Princess Bride, or any number of other stories.

Of course, this is the easy one as well. It's not like we're dealing with casters in the mix. I'm talking about a pretty bog standard character type that should not be at all difficult to make.

Play Pathfinder. They removed the skill point defect for cross-class skills (so all skill ranks add +1). Class skills get a +3 kicker as long as you have 1 rank, but even if you never take another class but fighter, you could still have a +20(+cha mod) at 20th level (vs. a character with diplomacy, who would have +23+cha).

REALLY missing that +3 Class skill bonus? Take a level of a class with diplomacy as a class skill OR take Skill Focus for that extra +3.

As a bonus, you effectively get Gather Information for free, since its rolled into diplomacy.

Oh, and if your hurting for skill points, declare fighter your favored class and take the +1 skill rank/level option (opposed to +1 hp/level).

 

[Mallus]

But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?

Of course they can. I never said otherwise.