Removing homogenity from 4e

[fanboy2000]

Fanboy,

Its not a bad build (to be honest, I think its pretty good) but has a few flaws.

You know, I as I was making the character, I was thinking to myself: "gee, now I want to play him." To bad I almost always DM.

* First Strike is utterly useless unless Quinn can get into Melee. Catching your foes with CA is pointless because a shortbow can't get Sneak Attack.

True. I knew this while I was making the character. That said, hand crossbows do a d6 instead of a d8, and they have a shorter range. Max damage on TS from the short bow with hunter's quarry is 22. (Average if both attacks hit is 12.5) Max damage from TS from the hand crossbow with both hunter's quarry and first strike is 20. (Average is 12) So, it's actually (slightly) more advantageous until sneak attack damage goes up to 3d6 at 11th.

* Both ranger powers are encounter powers. This means if the fight takes to the air (for example, fighting harpies or gargoyles) the rogue's damage output drops after 2 rounds (1st: TS + HQ, 2nd C&R, 3rd+ BA, BA, BA)

If I equip Quinn with a hand crossbow and use sly flourish, his damage output is 1d4+5 for an average of 7.5 or a max of 9. With a basic ranged attack it 1d8+4 for an average of 8.5 or a max of 12. Of course, with a hand crossbow, Quinn can use trick strike and deal good damage for a third round before switching to sly flourish.

* All those rangers powers still work with a hand-crossbow. And it doesn't cost him a feat (better spent on backstabber or Weapon Expertise) & he can still use Sly Flourish as needed.

Very true. The only thing he loses in that scenario is range. Average damage output sly flourish goes up. (Way up.)

* Its a specific racial build: An elven rogue (for example) loses TS as a dilettante (though he gets shortbow prof for free, even if he can't use it with a single power until 4th and C&R). The poor halfling shortbow archer is REALLY boned; he gets neither free power nor free feat. Guess that's why those guys use slings, eh?

Probably. I would think, however, that halflings wouldn't want to use anything with the word "short" in it's name. Or maybe that's dwarves.

(Did I mention eladrin can use LONGSWORDS with rogue powers at the cost of a feat and a SA die?)

No you didn't. I knew there was a reason I liked eladrin so much.

Personally, WotC could fix the problem with a single feat:

Sniper Shot
Prerequisite: proficient with shortbows, Sneak attack
Benefit: You can use a shortbow with any ranged rogue power or class ability that normally allows you to use a crossbow. Your sneak attack with such powers is 1d6 less than normal when using a shortbow.

Yet WotC seems fine with not printing said feat. Because rogue = crossbow, like it or not.

It may just not have occurred to them. Sometimes, things that seem obvious to use, just don't occur to the designers. Even with playtesting, things fall though the cracks.

Next, how to give fighters something to do when the dragon takes to the sky...

Um, make him a half-elf with Warrior of the Wild?

 

[fanboy2000]

Are Hybrid rules in the core books?

Nope, still in playtest. Of course, they're in their second playtest slated for PHB 3 inclusion, but last I checked, no one considered playtests core.

Personally, I think that hybrid classes will address a lot of the flexibility issues with 4e. It won't address the homogeny issues some have with 4e, because the power structure will still be in place. Which is fine with me, I like it.

 

[AllisterH]

Again, the core rules is an interesting question.

For example, if you had a new person to D&D and they ask, "What should I pick up", my response would actually be.

Try this "Test Drive" first and then come back and see if you're still interested in it.

The funny thing is that the character builder on that test drive page actually incorporates everything from PHB to PHB II (Presumably, when PHB III is released, the sample character builder will be updated to include everything from PHB II to PHB III).

So, wouldn't the character builder be considered "core"?

 

[Hussar]

But, hang on, since we're talking sliding goalposts, the bow using rogue is completely changing the arguement.

Bow using rogue is not a character concept. It's a class concept, but, unless the guy walks around actually IDENTIFYING himself as a rogue, you're off base. Claiming that the names don't fit is a pretty weak arguement as well. Change the names! Good grief, is that really that hard?

Unless you think that changing the names of powers equates with having a code of honor that I cannot break and I MUST be Lawful Good and I MUST be a holy warrior in order to get what I want.

Funny that you picked 8th level. Nice. How about 6th? As a fighter, I should be getting my iterative attack. As a 3/5 fighter/rogue, I've got a 6 BAB, which makes a fairly big difference. Heck, at 6th level, if I'm a 3/3 F/R, I lost my iterative attack until next level. Again, fairly big loss. Plus, despite the fact that I don't want it as it's not part of my concept (a point you guys ignored the first time around) I suddenly can't wear heavy armor if I want to take advantage of the rogue abilities (for some reason Henry V walks around in leather armor) and I can now find traps, even though that has NOTHING to do with my concept.

In 3e, you effectiveness out of combat is inversely proportional to your effectiveness in combat. There's a reason that of the 4 base classes, only rogues get 8 skill points. If I want to make a character concept that mixes combat with non-combat (unlike our bow wielding rogue, which is a bit of a misleading example as it doesn't actually address my point), I'm forced by the rules to accept a bucket full of additional abilities and restrictions.

In 4e, it costs me a single feat.

Now, fair enough, let's expand from core. It has been suggested I take swashbuckler. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't swashbuckler considered extremely weak in combat? That doesn't really match with McFightswell does it? Additionally, swashbucklers can't wear heavy armor. My Henry V character just got shelved, yet again.

Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder. Nice.

At the end of the day, there's three reasons I don't buy into this whole thing.

1. I don't buy the basic premise. The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false. Games like GURPS and Savage Worlds both prove this to be false. There is no mechanical diversity between your character and mine in GURPS or Savage Worlds. There are no class based mini-games. Yet, we are very capable of creating diverse game play in those systems.

2. I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming. As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions. Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?

3. It was mentioned that this is a common complaint. I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true. It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game. That 3e art was all anime inspired. Those complaints weren't true. I'm not convinced that this one is either.

 

[billd91]

3. It was mentioned that this is a common complaint. I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.

Hey, how about we start accepting that people aren't lying or wrong about their feelings, reactions, or experiences? Can we do that?

People have been talking about how they feel about 4e after playing it. And others have been agreeing with them. How can they be wrong about what their impressions of the game are?

You don't feel the same way? Fine! Enjoy. But don't expect them to feel the same way.

 

[Remathilis]

Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder. Nice.

Now waitasecond. I said Pathfinder handles your problem better in its core than 3.5 does in ITS core. Cosmopolitan is 3e feat beyond the core that does what you want. In 4e, they made Cosmopolitan core. That's like saying 3e doesn't handle your idea of playing a dragon-man warrior who channels infernal power, but 4e does. Yeah, because 4e made dragonborn and warlocks core.

Inversely, 3.5 handles my character concept of a half-man, half-orc savarge warrior full of primal fury better than 4e because I can do it in the first PHB and I don't need another to complete the concept. By the time you open the 4e doors to "its available in supplement X" I can open the door to all manner of 3e supplements.

Besides, Pathfinder found a simple and elegant way of fixing the problem without a feat, without elaborate multi-classing, and without forcing every class to use the exact same mechanic. Nice.

 

[Thasmodious]

1. I don't buy the basic premise. The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false. Games like GURPS and Savage Worlds both prove this to be false. There is no mechanical diversity between your character and mine in GURPS or Savage Worlds. There are no class based mini-games. Yet, we are very capable of creating diverse game play in those systems.

Agreed. I like unified mechanics. Much less book consulting, much less player confusion, much more gameplay.

2. I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming. As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions. Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?

I agree completely. I always found 3e very limiting from a character creation standpoint. You had to put on tights and kneepads and wrestle the hell out of the system to wrangle a concept into existence, fighting with it the whole time. Every bit of its "flexibility" came from piling more and more classes, prestige classes and feats into a pool and then finding the right combination, like some crazy multiple choice test that never had the actual answer you were looking for.

3. It was mentioned that this is a common complaint. I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true. It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game. That 3e art was all anime inspired. Those complaints weren't true. I'm not convinced that this one is either.

Yeah. I find 4e extremely flexible. And the rebirth of the fighter/mage is just gravy for me, as that was always my favorite classic combo. My two favorite classes. My favorite change to character building from 3e? Getting rid of craft/profession/perform. Which is shorthand for getting rid of the philosophy that every aspect of a character needed to be statted. Now, my fighter can be a musician/songwriter/basketweaver if I want him to be and without having to give up the ability to use his massively strong legs to occasionally lift himself from the ground.

 

[LostSoul]

1. I don't buy the basic premise. The idea that you need mechanical diversity in order to have diversity of play is false.

I like to look at it this way: you don't need diverse mechanics with unique sub-systems to create diversity within the game world itself.

However, some people like the effect that unique subsystems provide. I like all the different types of magic in Palladium Fantasy; I don't think it would be as interesting if all the classes used the same mechanic to work their magic (ignoring that all classes use PPE as fuel).

 

[Campbell]

Besides, Pathfinder found a simple and elegant way of fixing the problem without a feat, without elaborate multi-classing, and without forcing every class to use the exact same mechanic. Nice.

The example in question addresses the skill system. Of course every class is using the exact same mechanic . That being said I do find Pathfinder's Skill System more palatable than 3e's. However, it still doesn't fix some of my other problems with 3e's skill system.

 

[Freakohollik]

But, hang on, since we're talking sliding goalposts, the bow using rogue is completely changing the arguement.

Bow using rogue is not a character concept. It's a class concept, but, unless the guy walks around actually IDENTIFYING himself as a rogue, you're off base. Claiming that the names don't fit is a pretty weak arguement as well. Change the names! Good grief, is that really that hard?

Unless you think that changing the names of powers equates with having a code of honor that I cannot break and I MUST be Lawful Good and I MUST be a holy warrior in order to get what I want.

This argument isn't about the names, it's about the feel of the class. If I want to be a shortbow rouge, I shouldn't have to be a ranger. There should be some significant difference between a rouge and ranger. A difference that goes beyond a ranger is a rogue who uses a bow.

Funny that you picked 8th level. Nice. How about 6th? As a fighter, I should be getting my iterative attack. As a 3/5 fighter/rogue, I've got a 6 BAB, which makes a fairly big difference. Heck, at 6th level, if I'm a 3/3 F/R, I lost my iterative attack until next level. Again, fairly big loss. Plus, despite the fact that I don't want it as it's not part of my concept (a point you guys ignored the first time around) I suddenly can't wear heavy armor if I want to take advantage of the rogue abilities (for some reason Henry V walks around in leather armor) and I can now find traps, even though that has NOTHING to do with my concept.

If your definition of McFightsWell means does not give up a single point of BaB, then you can look up thread for my core pure fighter Suave McFightsWell. But, I've played plenty of 3e and I don't believe that never giving up a single point of BaB is a hard requirement for being a good fighter. This guy is still a good fighter with his sneak attack. I would argue that having sneak attack is actually better than having the iterative attack in many cases. Once he does get his second iterative attack (the only one that matters) he'll actually do more damage with his attacks because of sneak attack.

On the concept part, I'm not sure why this goes against your concept. Forgive me if I missed it in another post.

On the armor part, the only rogue ability that won't work is evasion. He's still better against fireball than the pure fighter because of the bonus to reflex saves. If you want to be like Henry V and wear leather armor, go ahead then, your evasion still works. Don't worry about accidentally finding any traps and breaking your character concept, finding traps requires you to put ranks in search and actively search for traps. Neither is required.

In 3e, you effectiveness out of combat is inversely proportional to your effectiveness in combat. There's a reason that of the 4 base classes, only rogues get 8 skill points. If I want to make a character concept that mixes combat with non-combat (unlike our bow wielding rogue, which is a bit of a misleading example as it doesn't actually address my point), I'm forced by the rules to accept a bucket full of additional abilities and restrictions.

In 4e, it costs me a single feat.

Well suppose I'm playing 4e and I want to be a McFightsWell, but I want access to a lot of the rogue skills. I'm looking at burning a lot more than one feat.

In 3e, I just take a few levels of rogue.

Both 3e and 4e have this issue, and it's one of the reasons I don't like the skill system in either edition.

Now, fair enough, let's expand from core. It has been suggested I take swashbuckler. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't swashbuckler considered extremely weak in combat? That doesn't really match with McFightswell does it? Additionally, swashbucklers can't wear heavy armor. My Henry V character just got shelved, yet again.

Remalthalis actually agrees with me that I cannot make my concept in 3e and that I should switch to Pathfinder. Nice.

If you want to bring in non-core, then forget swashbuckler and go to Pathfinder. You're still essentially playing 3e.

2. I disagree that 3e had as many options as people are claiming. As I mentioned above, because combat and non-combat abilities were tied together, if you have a concept that includes those two elements, your choices are actually very, very limited and frequently force you to make many concessions since each class comes front loaded with a bucket of abilities and restrictions. Never mind Suave McFightswell, how about his brother Knowitall McFightswell?

If your definition of options means, "what skills can I take". Then maybe you have a point. But, 3e's options comes not from skill choices, but from its multiclassing and feat systems. Both of which are downplayed a lot in 4e.

3. It was mentioned that this is a common complaint. I'm not entirely convinced that it is that common, but, also, just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true. It was a common complaint that 3e played like a video game. That 3e art was all anime inspired. Those complaints weren't true. I'm not convinced that this one is either.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that homogenity in 4e is a large flaw with the edition though. I think thats part of the reason why some see it and some don't. Someone upthread made this point too, it's a good insight. Those who like the system won't see this one aspect of it, if others are claiming that it is a big problem. Homogenity is a pretty subjective term, and if you don't perceive it now, after 20+ pages, then I don't think anything more in this thread is going to convince you. I don't mean that as an insult or anything negative. It just means it's not there when you play the game.