Removing homogenity from 4e

[Remathilis]

I'll agree with Hussar (and Merric) that Skill Training was a great feat to put in the game; it should've been right there in core 3e.

But I don't view it as the end-all, be-all to the homogeneity debate. Oddly, in 4e its a bit of a wasted feat, IMHO. First of all, AFAIKT there is no skills anymore (sans arcana) that can't be used untrained. Even thievery used to disarm traps can be done untrained. Second, all skills rise at the same 1/2 level rate, no matter if they are trained or not. So all "Skill Training" does is grant a +5 bonus to the roll. Essentially, its a better version of Skill Focus (+3) and the two stack.

So I agree 3e needed something like this in its core (and thankfully, Pathfinder plugs that hole for me). Still, when the difference in +5 only (and typically, that's all the difference) and the DCs are so ridiculously low to begin with (seriously, DC 5? unless you have a -1 or lower, why bother rolling?) it almost seems like a waste, especially when your already being feat-taxed for expertise, paragon defenses, etc.

 

[rjdafoe]

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.)

Unless you change your way of thinking.

I look at is a different way:

Let's face it, 4E has different assumptions. An expert at thievery maybe only +5 or +8 levels better than someone who is just good enough. If you look at it another way, the numbers aren't all that bad. It is just less of a window. Someone with +10 to use a bow is an expert compared to someone that is +6. And it goes up like that as well.

You don't have to be +20 in something to be considered and expert.

BTW, I play tons of RPG games. While I may make fun of some, it is not the RPG game system, it is the group of players, and the world that keeps me coming back. I can never seem myself not palying a game, based upon what rules the game uses.

And yes, I have a hard time understanding people that say the rules get in the way, but that is just the way I am. I guess I am different than alot of people in that way.

 

[MerricB]

I'll agree with Hussar (and Merric) that Skill Training was a great feat to put in the game; it should've been right there in core 3e.

But I don't view it as the end-all, be-all to the homogeneity debate. Oddly, in 4e its a bit of a wasted feat, IMHO. First of all, AFAIKT there is no skills anymore (sans arcana) that can't be used untrained. Even thievery used to disarm traps can be done untrained. Second, all skills rise at the same 1/2 level rate, no matter if they are trained or not. So all "Skill Training" does is grant a +5 bonus to the roll. Essentially, its a better version of Skill Focus (+3) and the two stack.

So I agree 3e needed something like this in its core (and thankfully, Pathfinder plugs that hole for me). Still, when the difference in +5 only (and typically, that's all the difference) and the DCs are so ridiculously low to begin with (seriously, DC 5? unless you have a -1 or lower, why bother rolling?) it almost seems like a waste, especially when your already being feat-taxed for expertise, paragon defenses, etc.

IME, the multiclass feats (which are Skill Training+) are very popular, with Skill Training being used for character concepts that can't otherwise be realised.

+5 isn't insignificant in 4e. At low levels, yes, DCs are typically easy for all types of check. (A 5 DC indicates a task that even someone untrained should be able to succeed). It's very interesting to look at the DCs required by skill challenges - the basic "skill" checks are higher.

"Easy" is: without any bonus whatsoever, you need a 5 or better to succeed. If you have bonuses, you should make it.

"Moderate" is like this: "If you're trained in this skill, you'll need about a 5 to succeed. If you're not trained, you'll need a 10".

"Hard" works like this: "You need to be trained and focused to succeed on a 5. Not focused? 10. Not trained? 15."

All of those checks are made easier by high ability scores. For prime stats, you probably don't need to focus in them; but focusing is great when it's not in a stat you're increasing.

Personally, I think "Easy" is a waste of space.

The skill system in 4e is bizarre, though. Skill challenges and one-off skill checks need different target numbers, but the developers have implied that but have muddied the issue terribly with their errata without fixing it.

Huh: Mike Mearls has posted an article on the Maths Behind the DCs - DDi subscribers only. In it, he discusses the problems with the DCs, and that it's ok to increase them and how it works. Still a lot light on detail, though.

(DC 5 is much more of a problem in a skill challenge if you have to roll and you need to roll 6 times).

Cheers!

 

[Remathilis]

The skill system in 4e is bizarre, though. Skill challenges and one-off skill checks need different target numbers, but the developers have implied that but have muddied the issue terribly with their errata without fixing it.

Huh: Mike Mearls has posted an article on the Maths Behind the DCs - DDi subscribers only. In it, he discusses the problems with the DCs, and that it's ok to increase them and how it works. Still a lot light on detail, though.

I still think the revised DC were the greatest misstep the designers made in 4e. Most of the "easy" DCs are a joke, and even the "hard" DCs rarely are difficult. While the originals were hard (and perhaps a bit too hard) I never saw a failure on a skill challenge (except when I started making all things hard and added my own ULTRAHARD which was worth 2 successes). Sadly, the Page 42 DCs follow the same pattern.

 

[BryonD]

You don't have to be +20 in something to be considered and expert.

For myself, I never claimed that being considered an expert has anything to do with it. It is about the lack of difference whether your expert is at +4, +9, or +20.

BTW, I play tons of RPG games. While I may make fun of some, it is not the RPG game system, it is the group of players, and the world that keeps me coming back. I can never seem myself not palying a game, based upon what rules the game uses.

I'll play any game with a good group. But I'd rather play a great game with a great group than a fair game with a great group.

And yes, I have a hard time understanding people that say the rules get in the way, but that is just the way I am. I guess I am different than alot of people in that way.

The rules don't get in the way. But they are not all created equal either. Why not play the best one for your own preference?

 

[BryonD]

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

I do quite well with my own reputation without you misleading people regarding what I say. You've done it several times and I will clearly call it out whenever you do it.

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.)

When did I say anything about homogeny? Does genetics play in to this?

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.

I don't see how you have made that case at all. Yes, I'll agree that 4E does a better job of creating characters who are masters of everything. But that is not a diversity of width, it is a homogeneity of width.

You may LOVE that, and that's cool.
But that doesn't make sameness over a wide range not be sameness.

 

[Hussar]

I do quite well with my own reputation without you misleading people regarding what I say. You've done it several times and I will clearly call it out whenever you do it.

I think we'd be better off if you'd back down, just a smidgeon on the antagonism. I didn't misquote you here. You're the one who claimed "thousands of options" and I said that was false.

When did I say anything about homogeny? Does genetics play in to this?

Wow, sue me for a mistype. I missed a couple of letters. You misspelled "in to". Let's call it a draw shall we?

I don't see how you have made that case at all. Yes, I'll agree that 4E does a better job of creating characters who are masters of everything. But that is not a diversity of width, it is a homogeneity of width.

You may LOVE that, and that's cool.
But that doesn't make sameness over a wide range not be sameness.

I'll point out that in this entire thread, I have yet to make a single value judgement about what I like or don't like. Not a single one. I'm not the one who feels the need to repeatedly state that a particular game is bad. At least you're starting to tack on the "for me" once in a while.

The problem with your point is that you insist that every single class plays out exactly the same. If someone disagrees with that point, then there is no more problem with sameyness. Now, I do disagree with that point. Just because two characters have similar combat potential at the same level does not mean that they play the same.

But, again, it doesn't MATTER if 4e is as flat as a pancake. That wasn't what I was discussing.

What I actually WAS disagreeing with was the idea that I have all these "thousands of choices" as you put it. I don't. I just showed that I don't. Suave McFightswell has at the outside about a dozen options (which in my version of math is not "thousands" thus the hyperbole comment) half of which do not actually satisfy the criteria I listed.

Now, things got a bit muddled with the knowlegeable archer example, because we didn't actually build that. But, I'm pretty sure that if I listed a series of criteria, I'd probably get the same results.

Your point about "sameness of choices" in 3e brings it right back to my initial problem. That unique characters require unique mechanics. That's just not true. I showed that already. GURPS contains not a single unique mechanic based on character creation. Not one. Every single choice works in play EXACTLY the same - it uses the same mechanics. Yet, I've yet to hear that GURPS suffers from homogeneity. Savage Worlds as well. Actually a fair chunk of skill based games all use standard mechanics.

I don't play Hero. Are there unique mechanics based on individual powers?

BryonD, I find your argument very, very flawed. To accept your premise that 4e is too flat, I have to accept that it is a requirement to have unique mechanics. I don't accept that and I can prove that that's false. Second, to accept that 3e gives me "thousands of choices" I have to ignore the fact that if I step outside of pre-defined concepts (as MerricB and others have pointed out better than I did) my choices go from buckets to teacups.

Depth vs breadth of choice.

Third, I have to accept that all 4e classes play the same because 4e classes adhere to a mathematical framework which balances the combat abilities of a class against all other classes of the same level. I don't accept that. There's more than enough people who claim that this isn't true to think that it's probably not. Plus, I can look at actual game play, like the PvP podcasts and hear that this isn't true.

Now, the goal of this thread - introducing additional mechanics to increase choices is a very good thing. It's always good to have more choices.

My objection is to how the issue is being framed. "4e is seriously flawed. All the choices are exactly the same and it needs to be fixed. How can we fix this and make 4e a good game?" is far too loaded an approach for me. It's no different than how people framed "fixes" for 3e as well. It bugged me back then and it still bugs me now.

 

[amnuxoll]

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.

...


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.

I've been playing 4e since it came out and I just can't seem to get into it. I am absolutely delighted by many of the rule changes they've made but I was feeling BryonD's same *blech* over an undescribable sense of homogenity. Recently I started playing a d20 game again (Iron Heroes) and that old sense of *FUN* came roaring back at full power. Nonethless, I couldn't really put my finger on why.

Finally, Hussar, your post seems to just about nail it for me. I'm skeptical of a few of the details but the spirit of what you're saying here is exactly what I'm not liking.

I'm convinced there's some middle ground here. It's not Pathfinder which, while an improvement, still has a lot of the same flaws of 3.5e. I think it should be possible to get a d20 system that can have combats like 4e (fast and tactically interesting), get you invested in your characters like 3.5e but still be fairly balanced. This is what I want in my D&D 5e.

Frankly, I may not be able to wait. Is anyone out there cooking up a good homebrew that fits this combo?

:AMN:

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What I actually WAS disagreeing with was the idea that I have all these "thousands of choices" as you put it. I don't. I just showed that I don't. Suave McFightswell has at the outside about a dozen options (which in my version of math is not "thousands" thus the hyperbole comment) half of which do not actually satisfy the criteria I listed.

As far as I see it, you had a handful of options for Suave McFightswell with at least two being very good fits. To my mind this should be enough to ask for a system. The aristocrat going into fighter would seem to be the most natural expression of this. I thought your point was that "even 3E" could not do every different type of character. In all honesty, I can't think of one that it cannot, and as I said upthread, I've tried a lot of different things.

While "thousands of options" takes in all the fine permutations of the system (BryonD being technically correct but still used for exagerative effect), as long as you have a handful that may focus on one thing or another, I think the system (and in this case 3.x) has done its job.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

I didn't claim that you outright "couldn't" make Suave McFightswell in 3e. I pretty much assumed that we'd get there eventually, although, I admit for the first bit, I was getting a bit worried. 3e came through in the end though.

The entire purpose of the sidebar, and I appologise for the massive side track this thread took, was to show that you don't really have the options that some were claiming. The claim on the table that started this whole thing was that we had buckets and buckets of choices for every possible concept.

My point was to show that you don't. Looking at it, I think my reasons might have been flawed. It's not that classes balance combat vs non-combat ability but rather classes are closed in by concept - fighters fight, they don't talk. Ok, that's too strong, but, see MerricB's posts for a better phrasing than mine.

If you stick with a single concept - either combat or non-combat, you have a bajillion choices to fit pretty much anything. Short Bow Wielding Sneaky Guy? Scout, Ninja, rogue, ranger, and probably a dozen more that will fit the bill. Knowledge guy who knows what man not wot of? Gobs and gobs of choices.

But, when you start mixing the concepts, your choices get whittled down considerably.

Unless, of course, you include casters in which case, you just pull the "I Win" lever of most utility type spells in 3e and you can be anything. But, that's an issue with core casters and the proliferation of spells in the system moreso than a failing of the system itself. There's a reason pretty much every caster that came out after the PHB massively restricts the spell lists.