Removing homogenity from 4e

[LostSoul]

fanboy2000, this is the post.

 

[Voadam]

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 don't think that is accurate. 3e tries very hard to make everyone balanced in combat. Non combat is not balanced against combat. Non combat is dictated by D&Dism archetypes.

Rogues are the skill guys with emphasis on sneaky and tricksy.
Fighters ride horses and look scary.
Wizards are knowledgeable.
Clerics know their religion and heal.

You can go against these archetypes but the archetypes also say how good you are at doing so.

Rogues and druids are better with their 8 and 4 skill points a level at cross archetype skill specializing than fighters with their 2 points. Few would argue that the fighter's lack of skill points is designed to balance them against the druid class' weaker combat abilities. No, druids just have a broader field of things their D&D archetype is known for.

Even non combat restrictions like alignment and multiclassing restrictions are there for D&D archetype flavor instead of as mechanical balancing factors.

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

Um, you do know that those rules are useless without a new DC table that doesn't scale by level, right? You need something like this:

House rule #6, static DCs
Each task is assigned a tier regardless of the PC’s level: mundane, heroic, paragon, or epic.
Mundane checks: DC 15
Heroic checks: DC 20
Paragon checks: DC 30
Epic checks: DC 45

fanboy2000, this is the post.

Thank you. I wasn't looking forward to going through the other thread page by page.

 

[BryonD]

fanboy2000, this is the post.

thanks

 

[billd91]

I don't think that is accurate. 3e tries very hard to make everyone balanced in combat. Non combat is not balanced against combat. Non combat is dictated by D&Dism archetypes.

I don't think that captures the process of balancing character classes in 3e either, nor the idea of balancing combat vs non-combat.

I think the 3e designers looked at each class as a whole when determining balance and made sure that a variety of classes would do well in certain types of situations. They made classes likely to excel at close combat situations, skirmish combat situations, stealth situations, wilderness exploration situations, negotiation situations, knowledge situations, a variety of magical situations, and so on. Then they left it to the individual DM, who knows his players best, to provide enough of each situation to enable the players to have a good time.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think that captures the process of balancing character classes in 3e either, nor the idea of balancing combat vs non-combat.

I think the 3e designers looked at each class as a whole when determining balance and made sure that a variety of classes would do well in certain types of situations. They made classes likely to excel at close combat situations, skirmish combat situations, stealth situations, wilderness exploration situations, negotiation situations, knowledge situations, a variety of magical situations, and so on. Then they left it to the individual DM, who knows his players best, to provide enough of each situation to enable the players to have a good time.

I think they were pretty explicit in stating their design goal of having every class balance for combat.

They turned the thief from the AD&D cool tricksy but combat weak skills guy into the heavy hitter damage dealer with low ac and hp but slippery defensive abilities. He's not just a shady skills guy but has a powerful combat role.

Even the bard is supposed to be a party combat support guy who helps out with his bardic music, quirky trickster spells, and backup weapons use. He's a combat buffer and combat trickster, not just a social skills out of combat face man.

How well they met this design goal is debatable but all the core classes are designed to function as combat classes.

I believe having classes turn out to be generally weaker in actual combats (take monks) was a failure to meet their design goal, not evidence the classes were designed primarily to fill noncombat roles.

I think making sure a variety of classes handled different noncombat situations well (knowledge, social, scouting, wilderness, etc.) was a definite design goal but was a separate consideration. I also think making sure multiple classes handled the same combat roles (tank, healer, buffs, artillery) was deliberate. .

I don't think paladins got more skill choices than fighters as a balancing factor that was considered when designing the the class' combat power, I think it was archetype based on paladins as charismatic holy heroes versus grunt soldierly archetyped fighters. I don't think there was any class designed to balance a strength in a non-combat situation by sacrificing class combat ability.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, it strikes me that in 3e, the rules for fairly in-depth class customization were right there in the core rulebook (the DMG's "Witch" variant).

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.

Ah. So what you want is a fighter who has access to the Diplomacy skill as a class skill.

That certainly sounds less in-depth than the Witch variant, and the permission and guidelines to do it is right there in the Core Rulebook.

4e's classes are a bit more complex, since they require a whole pamphlet of powers to come along for the ride. I could still change the fighter skill list (though I don't remember the DMG I discussing that, I'd be a little surprised if that wasn't mentioned), I suppose, but which skills you have matter less in 4e than which powers you have.

Alternately, I'd be fine with a noble learning how to cast some basic peer-manipulation spells, because spells in 3e are an in-world quality (like rituals in 4e, but not like powers), and he certainly knows they're out there.

 

[Hussar]

Let's see if I can do this without causing BryonD to blow a gasket.

In my view, 3e does something extremely well - it allows you to build a character which fits a single concept, either a combat concept or a non-combat concept with an absolutely bucket full of choices. If you want to build a character that is amazingly good at something, 3e will let you do it.

However, that comes at a price. 3e, again in my opinion, balances effectiveness in one area with effectiveness in a non-related area. A combat effective option is often balanced by being less effective, or even completely ineffective (such at being untrained in a skill) in a non-combat element. Thus fighters get there measly 2 skill points per level.

I would point out that I'm hardly the first one to complain of this. There's a reason Pathfinder has chosen to change how skills are allocated to classes after all.

Now, BryonD is absolutely correct about 4e. In 4e you can't make a character that is head and shoulders better than another character at something. The math won't let you. A character's capabilities are hard wired into his level and you don't have a whole lot of wiggle room between the floor and ceiling of that limit. Thus, you cannot be a really good archer or, conversely, a really bad one either. Everyone is balanced. Thus that's the heart of BryonD's criticism of homogeny (I think. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth again, which I'm sure he'll yet again accuse me of.)

However, there is a side effect of this balance. Because the mechanics do not balance like with unlike, you can spread your concept a bit wider. You can be character that is good at combat and non-combat and have a pretty wide number of choices. Or rather, a better way of putting it is, your choices are not drastically reduced if your concept strays from the baseline assumptions of the game.

In my mind, they've simply traded depth for width. Yes, you cannot laser focus in 4e. That's true. Which means that certain concepts are going to be much better created in 3e. Really tight concepts focused around a single (or at least narrow) idea work much better in 3e. IMO, (and I hope that people just take this as my opinion and don't need to blow a pipe here) 4e works better with concepts that are a bit broader in approach, with concepts that mix unlike elements.

That's primarily why I'm not really buying the whole "4e is too homogenous" thing. I think they both have a great deal of ... errr... diversity, but it it is simply expressed differently.

 

[Voadam]

Hussar can you identify a noncombat concept in 3e that requires being balanced by knocking down combat effectiveness? It might not be a style of comat effectiveness you like style wise (your social skill rogue or spell casting classes for your speachmaker example) but you usually get something that is still combat ready (big exceptions being many variations of multiclassing casters).

I agree that in 3e RAW some classes suck at skills in general (fighters stand out) and that going against specific class archetypes for skills is tough and disparately so depending on the class and concept.

I don't think they used this as part of their design balance though. I don't think fighters were given fewer skills and skill points than barbarians because the designers felt fighters were better at combat.

In 3e I believe classes are designed to be balanced in combat. Out of combat though I believe classes are designed to fit into their archetypes and that non combat is not designed to be as balanced as combat is but more to fit D&Dism archetypes.

 

[MerricB]

In 3e I believe classes are designed to be balanced in combat. Out of combat though I believe classes are designed to fit into their archetypes and that non combat is not designed to be as balanced as combat is but more to fit D&Dism archetypes.

This is what I believe... sort of.

I think the design of 3e was beset by a whole lot of legacy issues which caused the entire thing to start falling apart at high levels and caused one or two problems at lower levels. (You can see a lot of these being modified in 3.5e).

Then too, there are realism issues such as the rogue's sneak attack. If the Rogue gets to use his sneak attack, he's one of the most effective characters in combat - possible the most effective character at high levels. Three attacks with +7d6 on the damage code? That's good.

Unfortunately for the rogue, there are a number of popular monster types he can't sneak attack. They all make a lot of sense. However, when every monster in an adventure is of those types - and I saw that a lot in the Age of Worms AP - the rogue suddenly wanders into uselessness. (Late 3.5e sees a lot of scrambling methods of lifting those restrictions!)

The Fighter, on the other hand, starts off really great and gets weaker and weaker as the levels go up; unless you use the Player's Handbook 2 feats, at which point he roars back into contention. (That book made a *huge* difference to my AoW campaign; the Fighter could easily deal 200+ damage a round).

Non-combat is certainly not balanced!

The Wizard, Cleric and Rogue all have their abilities out-of-combat. The Rogue has a lot of skills; the Wizard likewise (virtue of intelligence as their prime requisite), and the Wizard and Cleric have their spells. Then you have the Fighter... with a measly two skill points, if he's lucky. More than one 8-Int Fighter doesn't even have that!

If there's one mistake the 3e (and 2e) designers made, it was adding a "diplomacy" (etiquette) skill and leaving it off the Fighter's list. The great literary tradition as fighters-as-leader is greatly hurt by that. (And Hussar, rightfully, gets quite upset that it's rather difficult to use the rules to fix that).

Note that in AD&D, Charisma is the sole determinant of talky-ability. (And actual roleplaying). As it also has the rather nifty ability of giving you henchmen, it's a really good stat for fighters in that edition!

Cheers!