Removing homogenity from 4e

[BryonD]

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.

That is not the issue I have spoke of.

I do consider the changes being made in recent developments to be steps in the right direction. To be clear, they are too little and too late. But they most certainly address the spirit of some of my problems.

I don't think anything can fix the problems inherent to the system adequately to make 4E stop being an inferior choice for my preference.

But this doesn't even begin to address the problem for me.

The bottom line remains that no matter what path you take, thou shalt arrive at the same math and thou shalt keep the baselines intact. I prefer games without this kind of restriction.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is not the issue I have spoke of.

I do consider the changes being made in recent developments to be steps in the right direction. To be clear, they are too little and too late. But they most certainly address the spirit of some of my problems.

I don't think anything can fix the problems inherent to the system adequately to make 4E stop being an inferior choice for my preference.

But this doesn't even begin to address the problem for me.

The bottom line remains that no matter what path you take, thou shalt arrive at the same math and thou shalt keep the baselines intact. I prefer games without this kind of restriction.

I could try to ask why, but I guess that's like asking why you like your favorite brand of ice cream. Even if you can make me understand you, it won't change my favorite brand of ice cream.

 

[Hussar]

See, it's stuff like this that makes me not buy into the criticism. Freakaholic, I agree, we're probably closer to agreeing than disagreeing, just coming from a glass half empty/half full sort of thing. But, then you get this sort of hyperbole:

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.

Thousands of options? Really thousands? Sorry, no. We just proved that the list is about three, maybe four options.

This is why I don't buy into this discussion all that much. Saying that there are "thousands of options" is flat out wrong. We've just SHOWN it was wrong. But, BryonD feels free in completely ignoring the last three pages because it doesn't fit with his argument.

I had this exact same go around in 3e. Anything that did not fit into someone's pre-defined conceptions was ignored and any criticism must be taken as gospel. I didn't buy into it then and I certainly won't buy into it now.

Now, if you wanted to say, "I want more options in 4e, how can we do that?" I'm 100% right behind you. NO problems whatsoever. That's a laudable goal and a very valid critique.

But, "3e has thousands of options for every single concept and 4e doesn't" is, IMO, complete and utter hyperbole.

 

[rjdafoe]

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

Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype

I see what you have done here - you have picked a weapon that can't be used with powers or sneak attack and then have complained your not competent with it.

You certainly can make a rogue who uses a shortbow, you just will not be as effective as one who uses a crossbow.

This was a FEATURE that lots of preople claim that they could do with 3E, and now it is a flaw in 4E.

It all comes down to how youo look at something. If you are looking to break the system, or looking for things that you think are broken/bad/don't agree with, then you WILL find that in any system.

The great thing about roleplaying games is that it is not a computer game. All of them have the same thing in common - the DM. A good DM may allow your shortbow to be used with powers and sneak attacks. Jsut as good 3E DMs allowed stuff or changed stuff in 3E.

Maybe your a RAW type person? Then, well I guess you have decided to make a non-optimum character. That does not mean that he can't do damage, use a shortbow, or be incompetent with his weapon, it just means you are not optimal.

or

You pick the Ranger class - Archer Build, multiclass in Rogue with the Sneak of Shadows feat (gives you thievery). You can bump up Thievery in a number of ways. Use Hutters Quarry on the target that you are attacking and away you go. You can mulitclass further as well. If you choose 1/2 Elf you can choose a power from the Rogue class and use it as an encounter power. You can take Rogue Paragon Paths as well. It requires more planning to get the flavor and skills that you want, but it can certainly be done.

 

[fanboy2000]

This is on page 1

In what way to you see 4e's mechanics as being homogeneous, and how is this a bad thing?

Sorry, but I've been through this easily a hundred times in the past two years.

There are people who can see it and people who can't. But recycling the argument all over again isn't going to be productive.

I was stupid and starting responding here because I was called out in the OP.
I should not have.

This on page 26

The bottom line remains that no matter what path you take, thou shalt arrive at the same math and thou shalt keep the baselines intact. I prefer games without this kind of restriction.

I'm glad you decided to start describing what you feel is homogenous about 4e in this thread. While you had been through it a 100 times in the past two years, I had not. I've just recently started reading these boards regularly, (because now I'm DMing a game) so I was unaware of your position and how it differed from Rem's. I was wondering how, and if, they differ.

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.

I hesitate to ask this because I've afraid the response will be that that you've answered this a million times and that I either see it or I don't and that's ok because I'm me and you're you, but how am I required to bring the homogeneity with me when I make a change?

That said, I think that you're reply is somewhat out of sync with statement you quoted. You may be right that 4e's math pervades any house rules, but Hussar was specifically addressing the side argument of PC builds. If a Player just wants is a rogue who can wield a short bow with the same competence she wields a hand crossbow, I, as the DM, can simply house rule that the short bow is useable with all her ranged rogue powers and leave it at that. By contrast, if another Player playing 3e wants to play a straight fighter with max ranks in diplomacy and bluff as a class skill, I as the DM, can simply say to him "that is fine, you can take diplomacy and bluff as class skills."

Such rulings by DMs are possible in every RPG I've ever played, whatever the underlying mechanics are.

 

[BryonD]

See, it's stuff like this that makes me not buy into the criticism. Freakaholic, I agree, we're probably closer to agreeing than disagreeing, just coming from a glass half empty/half full sort of thing. But, then you get this sort of hyperbole:



Thousands of options? Really thousands? Sorry, no. We just proved that the list is about three, maybe four options.

This is why I don't buy into this discussion all that much. Saying that there are "thousands of options" is flat out wrong. We've just SHOWN it was wrong. But, BryonD feels free in completely ignoring the last three pages because it doesn't fit with his argument.

I had this exact same go around in 3e. Anything that did not fit into someone's pre-defined conceptions was ignored and any criticism must be taken as gospel. I didn't buy into it then and I certainly won't buy into it now.

Now, if you wanted to say, "I want more options in 4e, how can we do that?" I'm 100% right behind you. NO problems whatsoever. That's a laudable goal and a very valid critique.

But, "3e has thousands of options for every single concept and 4e doesn't" is, IMO, complete and utter hyperbole.

Hussar, why do I reply to you. Over and over you put BS quotes in my mouth.

You said "archer who knows stuff" and then try to falsely represent the past three pages as proving something about that.
I could easily produce a thousand of archers who know stuff just by varying the knowledge skills I choose, fighter and ranger builds, and alternatives for how to improve access to skills.

I also never said you can not build alternative versions of a concept in 4E. That is just routine Hussar BS putting words in other people's mouths.
I've said that whatever variety you make, the math works will still be bolted on and I find that homogeneity unappealing.

But a the past three pages could show that some round things are red because some apples are red, and I could say that I don't like red baseballs. A typical Hussar reponse would be that Bryon claims you can't have red things in sports.

Everything you said was wrong. STOP putting words in my mouth. I'd say just stop putting FALSE words in my mouth, but as you clearly can not tell the difference, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to you own words rather than butchering mine.

 

[BryonD]

This is on page 1


This on page 26

Yeah, yeah....
I did drop out for a while. And this thread has been going for quite some time and I've dropped in and out of it over time.

I hesitate to ask this because I've afraid the response will be that that you've answered this a million times and that I either see it or I don't and that's ok because I'm me and you're you, but how am I required to bring the homogeneity with me when I make a change?

I put a fairly long post fairly far back in the thread. I got several XP notifications for it and that may be the best place to look.

I certainly suppose you could make a new class with its own BAB, skill progression, defense progression, etc... But you'd be so out of touch with the rest of the game that playing something else would make more sense.

 

[fanboy2000]

Well, I did a manual page by page search for your long thread. I don't think I found it, but I did find a few references to math that I missed:

But you are still telling a story, ever bit as varied as mine, that is mechanically resolved by a system that puts "the math works" as the golden rule of design.

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...

I still hadn't found it when I came across this post on page 17:

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.

Perhaps you posted it on the other homogenous thread?

 

[Voadam]

Ok, I think we're talking past each other. Let me recap.

What I want is a Henry V style character. He can belt out the monologues and convince people to do stuff, and he can mix it up with the best of them. So, with that in mind:

What I want

Full, or at least close to full attack bonus
Heavy armor
Full diplomacy ranks or at least close to full.

What I don't want

Spells
Magical abilities
Alignment restrictions
Abilities that a nobleman would not likely have.

Now, from what I've seen, my choices are:

• the Cosmopolotin feat (non-core - Eberron Campaign Guide IIRC, so, 3.5),
• Greg K's don't play 3e, just make up your own rules option,
• Burning a feat and going cross class (the only actual option out of core)

Again, I'm not talking about a unique snowflake here. Commander Carrot from Pratchett fits this bill pretty well. Any non-magical Knights of the Round Table sort also fits. Whatsisface, Maximus from Gladiator fits this bill. Heck, the guy from 300, I'm so bad with names, also works here.

It's a pretty common archetype, yet, for all the vaunted options of 3e, I've actually got surprisingly few choices for making what I want. And, most of those choices aren't a very good fit either.

You think you need mechanical max diplomacy to play those guys? Not just roleplaying a speachy leader? Charisma alone is insufficient mechanically cover the concept with a stat? I think Roy from OotS fits this archetype as well and does fine without apparently maxing his diplomacy.

Fighter with maxed core class intimidate might work for some of these badass warrior leader concepts. However if you mechanically want to nonmagically change NPC's attitudes in 3e then it is indeed the diplomacy skill you want.

So you have your 3 presented options

1 RAW fighter with feats and maxing cross-class
2 Cosmopolitan feat from a splat
3 Tweaking classes as suggested in the rules

Core you could also go with the npc aristocrat class who gets the armor and weapons, 3/4 BAB and class diplomacy skill. This could be taken straight or multiclassed with fighter for the concept. This has the drawback of being a little weaker combat balance wise as an NPC class.

You also have the rogue for nonmagical multiclassing, which will work with some of those concepts (300 group fighting and surprise devastating attacks seem to fit sneak attack). This has some class features you might not want (trapfinding, etc.)

You also didn't have to wait until 3.5 for cosmopolitan though, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting came out pretty early in 3.0 and has the feat in there. As well as education which makes all knowledge skills a class skill.

And then there is the PHII knight, who I expect has diplomacy, though I don't have it in front of me to check.

Unearthed Arcana presented a variant rogue who got fighter bonus feats instead of sneak attack if you feel the SA is objectionable.

As noted you have the Complete Warrior swashbuckler which gives 1/1 BAB, no spells, class skill diplomacy, but they do go for a light armor concept.

I forget if the samurai has diplomacy, though he has the japanese flavor and two weapon fighting style.

I've only seen marshalls second hand so I don't know if their inspiring aura powers are clearly supernatural as written or 4e warlord style inspiring with flexible fluff.

However I do agree that the class RAW skill/cross class skill and few skill points set up of 3e is an obstacle to branching out of the D&D archetypes.

In archetype 3e every core class except fighter, barbarian, and wizard can max out diplomacy. If you want to be a nonmagical big weapon heavy armor warrior with good mechanical diplomacy you have to put in effort to work the system.

I much prefer making all skills class skills or going with the pathfinder skill system where cross class is not crippling in point expenditure.

* I see I was scooped on the aristocrat idea. Ce la vie.

 

[fanboy2000]

I certainly suppose you could make a new class with its own BAB, skill progression, defense progression, etc... But you'd be so out of touch with the rest of the game that playing something else would make more sense.

Oh ye of so little faith!

You don't have to go to the trouble of creating all new classes to get mathematical diversity, you just have to adjust the underlying rules (and one or two minor changes to existing classes).

A few simple house rules for mathimatical diversity:

House rule #1 only add half your level to skill on your skill list, whether you are trained or not.
House rule #2 only classes with the martial power sourse can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
House rule #3 Barbarians can add half their level to the basic melee attack and basic ranged attack powers.
House rule #4 you may only add half your class level to defences your class gives you a bonus to.
House rule #5 you may add 1/4 of your class level to all other defences.