Removing homogenity from 4e

[BryonD]

This core books argument is getting old. Don't you have anything better?

Demonstrating a variety of minigame battle tactics as a counter to homogeneity has been old for a while as well. But I'm not seeing much better come out on that front either.

 

[Hussar]

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.

You missed my point.

I'm sure that people believe what they are saying. Sure. No problems.

People also told me that 3e played like a videogame. Told me repeatedly. For the better part of ten years. Does that mean that 3e plays like a videogame? It certainly doesn't for me.

Freakaholic - Like I said, I don't want those levels of rogue. I am not interested in playing a fighter/rogue. I don't want the extra abilities. Perhaps my concept is honorable warrior- something like a samurai - so sneak attack is totally out as well.

In fact, why does "I can talk to people well" automatically get married to "I can stab people in the back really well"?

Remalthalis - Cosmopolitan does, in fact go a long way. Although, that's only a single skill. Like I said, if I want to be Knowitall McFightswell, I'm really screwed. A guy with fairly extensive knowledge on a number of subjects that is also good with his weapons. Like Solomon Kane for example. I don't want any casting abilities.

See, again, you guys have told me that I should make a fighter/rogue if I want Suave McFightswell. But, that's the only choice. In 4e, I can take any martial character, burn one feat, and I've got my concept. Doesn't this mean I actually have more choices in 4e? In 4e, I've got 5 choices at 1st level, where all it costs me is a feat. In 3e, I've got 2 choices (core), none of which I can be at 1st level, and, if we go beyond core, I can do it by burning a feat. However, I'm still stuck with 2 skills per level, meaning I can be Suave McFightswell, but, pretty much nothing else.

Shock and horror if I want to be Suave Knowsalot McFightswell. That just isn't going to happen. A smooth talking warrior trained at Sitswell academy for the Destruction of Monsters. Not happening.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

See, again, you guys have told me that I should make a fighter/rogue if I want Suave McFightswell. But, that's the only choice. In 4e, I can take any martial character, burn one feat, and I've got my concept. Doesn't this mean I actually have more choices in 4e? In 4e, I've got 5 choices at 1st level, where all it costs me is a feat. In 3e, I've got 2 choices (core), none of which I can be at 1st level, and, if we go beyond core, I can do it by burning a feat. However, I'm still stuck with 2 skills per level, meaning I can be Suave McFightswell, but, pretty much nothing else.

Shock and horror if I want to be Suave Knowsalot McFightswell. That just isn't going to happen. A smooth talking warrior trained at Sitswell academy for the Destruction of Monsters. Not happening.

BARDS NO LONGER EXIST...!

No seriously, there's been like five posters here who have each given a different way of getting diplomacy and you've kinda ignored every single one of them.

 

[Hussar]

How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways:

1. Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
2. Paladin - umm, really? A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept?
3. Fighter/Bard - Again, I have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
4. Cosmopolitan feat - probably the best option of the bunch. However, this only gives me access to one skill (with a +2 IIRC) and I only get 2 skill ranks per level. Sure diplomacy gets bumped, but poor bluff or sense motive (also pretty important talky skills) get left behind.
5. Don't play 3e. Play Pathfinder instead.

Did I miss any? I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up. If I missed one, please link. I'm not ignoring any of them. I'm simply insisting that I get my character concept. It's not like I've got some really bizarre concept here. A well spoken warrior (not the class) shouldn't be all that hard. It's a pretty common concept in the genre.

This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the "unlimited options" that people claim. Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want.

And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e. That's not my point. All that means is there are limitations in both systems. I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e. That's totally not my claim. I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse? heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.

You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Bard gives you abilities that have nothing to do with your character...?

You get Fascinate, Inspire Courage, Countersong, and Bardic Knowledge.

Bardic Knowledge can easily be given to any character, ever, and still fit their character. The other three?

"I don't put points into Perform and thus don't gain any of the abilities."

So uh, there go those abilities that have nothing to do with your character!

 

[Freakohollik]

How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways:

1. Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
2. Paladin - umm, really? A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept?
3. Fighter/Bard - Again, I have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.
4. Cosmopolitan feat - probably the best option of the bunch. However, this only gives me access to one skill (with a +2 IIRC) and I only get 2 skill ranks per level. Sure diplomacy gets bumped, but poor bluff or sense motive (also pretty important talky skills) get left behind.
5. Don't play 3e. Play Pathfinder instead.

Did I miss any? I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up. If I missed one, please link. I'm not ignoring any of them. I'm simply insisting that I get my character concept. It's not like I've got some really bizarre concept here. A well spoken warrior (not the class) shouldn't be all that hard. It's a pretty common concept in the genre.

1. Fighter/rogue - Hardly a "suite of abilities", the only ability here that goes against your concept is sneak attack. Unless you will now expand your concept to not include dodging fireballs, surprise attacks, and traps. And, I still consider that a McFightsWell shouldn't be able to sneak attack a flimsy argument, as well as the idea of getting too many abilities.

5. You addressed Pathfinder with a smiley face. While cute, it's not a very good argument. I believe your implication was that it's not 3e. Well I'll argue that if 3.0 and 3.5 can both be a part of "3e" there is room for pathfinder as well.

You neglected to mention the swashbuckler option. It gets full base attack bonus, d10 hp, and the social skills you want. If you think it's too weak, take a few levels of fighter for the feats. Also, in 3e you can get along just fine as a melee fighter if you have 16 or so strength.

You missed my core pure fighter build upthread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...omogenity-d-d-4th-edition-19.html#post4928614. I forgive you since it was only vaguely described.

I'll also add that the crusader in tome of battle gets diplomacy as a class skill and can most definitely fight.

This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the "unlimited options" that people claim. Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want.

And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e. That's not my point. All that means is there are limitations in both systems. I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e. That's totally not my claim. I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse? heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.

You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.

Interesting of you to back down from your 4e stance, and I will definitely agree with you that 3e's skill system isn't perfect. But, I'll point out again that 3e's options come from its mutliclassing and feat systems, not from its skill system. I will forever believe that 3e is actually as diverse as I and many others in this thread believe it to be. I'll also note that I have never had a character concept, that I couldn't find a way to make work well enough for me. There are 4 core, and 4 more non-core options for your McFightsWell up there, and I suspect that if we provided that many more options again, you would dismiss them as not part of your concept which seems to be getting more and more exclusive with each post.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, for the knowitall Fighter, there was also a feat that gave you all Knowledge Skills as class skill, IIRC. There is no feat though that would give you all the skill points needed to be a real know it all, of course.

 

[Greg K]

.

Did I miss any? I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up. If I missed one, please link..

Customizing a character from the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).

 

[Freakohollik]

Customizing a character from the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).

This is a good point if we're agreed that we're not comparing 3e to 4e anymore. I find the example given under the class header especially amusing.

 

[BryonD]

I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse? heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.

You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.

Telling me that 9 is too small a number does not make it as small as 3.

I don't see making a suave character who is also good at fighting be not quite as suave as the primarily suave character as a bad thing in the least. Heck, that is part of the diversity. Instead of all suave characters of the same level being virtually the same in the effectiveness of their social graces, you can trade things around. The math might not "work" in a perfectly balanced conflict resolution sense. But the SYSTEM works great in that this guy is the guy I want him to be, Sauvey McFightswell is not going to have the social chops of Sauvey McSauve. And the freedom to make this somewhat suave character outside math approved window is both diversity in action and a boon to creating the character as I want him.

By all means, if "suave" is restricted to being the bets of the best, then 3E is simply not the game for you. But if the diverse options of best of the best, very good, good, fair and really really bad, all have a place in your game, then 3E may still be in the running as a good choice.

But the idea that a character who ranks as an 8 in fighting and an 8 in suave somehow doesn't count as "diverse" just because they are other character who rank as a 10 in either one or the other is irrational. You are pointing to the fact that they are NOT homogenous in power and somehow concluding this lack of homogeniety is evidence of homogeneity.