Removing homogenity from 4e

Sorry, but, "Make up your own rules" isn't really a rule to me. If I could just "make up my own rules" then 4e is every single bit as wide open as 3e.

Yup, I've got three options. I had to wait years to get those, but, yup, I got three options. Look, if the claim on the table is that 3e, after 8 years of publication, plus the OGL has more options than 4e after a year and a half, then sure, no problem. I'll agree to that. It bloody well should. Several hundred books vs a couple of dozen, I would hope you have more options.

If this isn't about 3e vs 4e, then stop talking about how 4e does what you want so much better than 3e. Stop using 4e in your posts to argue against our points. Otherwise, we'll go back to our arguments about all the things 4e doesn't let us do.

Now, on those 3 options you admit to having, 2 of those are core. And they're all guidelines for a build. Taking the cosmo feat allows you to have what you want with any class. That opens up many options. Core, the fighter can multiclass a bit with some of the other classes. That is more than 3 options.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

To me, 3e's heterogeny is largely an illusion when the pen hits the paper. For any given concept that mixes combat with non-combat, your choices are very, very limited because 3e uses non-combat to balance combat abilities.

If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices. Totally agree. I want to make an archer? The list is as long as my arm. I want to make an archer that knows stuff? Wow, did my list just shrink.
I disagree. I have not found a character concept (and in my group I'm known as the guy who always plays "different" types of characters) that I could not do in 3E. On top of that, the system encouraged players to come up with new classes/prestige classes to fill any perceived gaps if you really wanted to do something outside the square. Now 4E could do the same but creating classes is a little tougher and most of the stuff is combat/(in initiative) focused and the encouragement to come up with such classes is luke warm at best.

As for the balancing thing you mention, I think this is certainly something that 3E initially struggled with. Multiclassed spellcasters always struggled to keep up and so core classes were written in to try and fix this. However, by the end of it's run, I think just about every conceivable character archetype had been covered in 3E - the scout for example in answer to your archer with skills. Or Ranger with a level of expert if you really wanted to overload on the concept.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

You know, this discussion is going nowhere. Hussar is claiming that in 3e your out of combat abilities are somewhat tied to your abilities and that is limiting. I'm arguing that it's not as as limiting as he says it is, but I do believe it's still there.

Can we change the discussion back to removing homogenity from 4e?
 

Can we change the discussion back to removing homogenity from 4e?
That would be neat, eh? ;)

How "heterogenous" does the game have to be? Do we really need the distinction between "at-will" users like 3E Fighters (or Warlocks) and "daily power users" like 3E Wizards? The distinction between spell slots and power points? Is that the degree of distinction that is required?

So, here is one idea. Recharge rates for powers are either at-will or by #of encounters.

If you don't like every character to have at-will powers that go beyond the 4E equivalent of basic attacks, you can do that - but please be so nice to give them a fair chance to have these basic attacks still effective. So a Wizard might be allowed to use his Int bonus when wielding a Staff in melee instead of Strength.

So, here are the concepts:
The unit of time is no longer a unit of time. We do count encounters to determine when we regain powers. An Extended Rest (6 hours, once per day) counts as a single encounter for the purposes of healing, but resets all action points.

- Characters have healing surge numbers based on their class and are generally expected to start each adventure or similar "narrative unit" with their full complement.
- Characters start play with one action points.
- Everyone regains one healing surge per encounter as a baseline. At 11th and 21st level, this increases by another healing surge.
- Everyone gains one action point per encounter as baseline. At 11th and 21st level, this increases by another action point.
- You can still use only one action point per encounter to gain an extra action. At 15th level, this increases to up to two action points per encounter.

- Characters with the martial power source gain more action points and healing surges than other classes. The baseline is that at 1st, 3rd, 7th and 13th level they either gain one additional action point or one additional healing surge after each encounter. The ratio depends on the class or role. (Defenders tend to get more healing surges, Strikers more action points.)
- Characters with the martial power source have "encounter" powers. Each power can be used only once per encounter, and activating them costs you a healing surge or an action point. This expenditure represents the physical exertion (healing surge) required for powers as well as the difficulty of seizing the right moment (action point).
- Powers for characters of the martial power source are about twice as strong as their at-will powers or basic attacks at 1st level and slowly increasing.

- Characters of the arcane power source have spells. They can gather up to 4 spell points. They gain one spell point depending on their level:
1-4: 1 spell point per 3 encounters
5-8: 2 spell points per 3 encounters
9-19: 3 spell points per 3 encounters
20+: 4 spell points per 3 encounters
At the start of each adventure (or similar narrative unit), spellcasters are assumed to have all spells prepared.

- Characters of the arcane power source can spend one spell point to prepare a spell, but restricted in such a way he cannot store simply spells of all his highest level spells, but going down. Once per combat, they can spend 1 action point and 1 healing surge to regain a spell already cast this encounter. At 15th level, they can do this a second time per encounter, but it must be for a different spell.
- Powers of the arcane source are about 6 times as strong as at-will powers at 1st level, and slowly increasing their power.


This system still allows some minor benefits of resting, but to recover fully you will take very long. It might be advisable to provide (costly) rituals to speed this up. (Maybe the cost of half a magic item of the parties level, usable once per day.)

To give a rough impression on power difference:
Basic Attack: Ability vs defense; 1 [W] or 1d8 + ability modifier damage.
Martial Attack: Ability vs defense; 2 [W] + ability modifier modifier damage and the target is immobilized.
Arcana Attack: Area Burst 2; Ability vs defense; 2d8 + ability modifier damage and the target takes ongoing damage 5 (save ends).
Arcana Attack: Ability vs Defense; 4d8 + ability modifier and the target is stunned until the end of its next turn.

Unfortunately, the system doesn't really deal with utility powers yet.

The idea is that arcane powers recharge considerably slower but also pack a lot more punch. I am not sure if that is already heterogeneous enough, and off course - why are encounters such an import unit in this game world? ;)

But ideally, things should still be relatively "balanced" assuming that people don't just rest for a few days between every encounter.
 


Mustrum Ridcully, I think thats a pretty cool idea. I like how the resource management is primarily in battle for martial characters, and primarily out of battle for arcane characters. I don't know how much the players of martial characters are going to like choosing between a martial power and a healing surge / action point, but I like it. To my ears it sounds more interesting than the at will/encounter/daily system that every class has right now.
 

Mustrum Ridcully, I think thats a pretty cool idea. I like how the resource management is primarily in battle for martial characters, and primarily out of battle for arcane characters. I don't know how much the players of martial characters are going to like choosing between a martial power and a healing surge / action point, but I like it. To my ears it sounds more interesting than the at will/encounter/daily system that every class has right now.
Then my work here is done and others can pick up the torch. Right? ;)
 

If I could just "make up my own rules" then 4e is every single bit as wide open as 3e.
No it isn't. It is easy to say and sounds nice and obvious on the surface. But it is completely false and goes right to the core of the problem.

In 4E, the math works and you shall not change the math. Make up anything you want for 4E, but you are required to bring the homogeneity along with it.
 

No it isn't. It is easy to say and sounds nice and obvious on the surface. But it is completely false and goes right to the core of the problem.

In 4E, the math works and you shall not change the math. Make up anything you want for 4E, but you are required to bring the homogeneity along with it.
You can still change how you arrive at the math, as long as you keep the "baselines" intact.

4E Psionics are an example of that. Encounter Powers are essentially replaced by Power Points.

The approach I posted above does something similar - though it is creating a "new math" (not 4E) math, but a math that can be just as good designed and calibrated as 4E design.

Aside from that - if you don't like the homogenity that is required* for the math to work, you apparantly don't value the math itself either. So there shouldn't be a problem for you, personally, to "violate" the math with all kinds of house rules and variations in either your game, a GSL product or 5E. (And I am not sure what else can we talk about if we are talking about "Removing Homogenity". Of course the core system and the books as we have them stay as they are without doing the aforementioned.)

*) If it is really required and not just a more convenient way to achieve it...
 

If your concept is pure combat or pure out of combat, you have a plethora of choices. Totally agree. I want to make an archer? The list is as long as my arm. I want to make an archer that knows stuff? Wow, did my list just shrink.
If it doesn't work for you then you should play a different game, just as I don't play 4E.

Because "archer" is going to include under it all archers that know stuff, the archer list will be longer for me as well. But I find the literally thousands of valid options under "archer who knows" stuff to be more than adequate. And I find it bizarre that anyone else would think that list is too short.

I'm not saying that you have to like 3E. I'm saying that claiming the options for archer that knows stuff options are unreasonably limited in 3E is like me claiming 4E is bad because you can not make a guy who is good at fighting with daggers.

There are lots of valid options. The vast array of splatbooks and 3PP stuff put tons of options at your fingertips, but for me personally, if someone had come to me the day I got my 3E PH and said they wanted a diplomatic fighter or an archer who knows stuff, I would have easily been able to make it happen.

And yes, I might have "made up" a knowledge class skill feat. If you have a problem with that then I see the issue as being in you, not in the game. Which is fine, of course, the game needs to cater to you, not the other way around. But the game not fitting your needs does not make it bad.

4E does not fit my needs because it is too homogeneous (among other things). That doesn't make it implicitly bad. It just makes it a very poor choice for me. And obviously this also applies to quite a large group of other people as well.

I can give you ways to solve your 3E problem.
I have not see any ways to remove the problems that come with "the math works" in 4E.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top