Removing homogenity from 4e

[MichaelSomething]

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

GURPS, Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying game, True 20, Champions/Hero, Shadowrun, Star Wars Saga, Mutants and Masterminds, Hackmaster, Spirit of the Century, etc.

There are countless RPGs out there. The perfect RPG for you is out there. You just have to look for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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 don't think that's true, though. In 3e, the skills and the rest of your abilities seemed "silo'd" off from each other. The number of skill points really only affected the spotlight time of classes that were supposed to be skill-centric (like the rogue). The points didn't make up for anything. Fighters got a full BAB and full Fort save advancement, d10 HP, and paid for it with less impressive powers (feats were OK, but they weren't great). Rogues got a lower BAB and lower HP and a full Reflex save, but they gained a host of special abilities to use in combat, including especially the Sneak Attack, which could do tremendous amounts of damage.

The skill points, I don't think, calculated into that at all. That's why whenever someone was like "I want to give the fighter 4 skill points!" or "I want to give the sorcerer Diplomacy!" no one, to my knowledge, ever screamed back "NOOOOOOOOO! THE BALANCE! YOU HAVE DESTROYED IT!"

4e actually follows that pattern. Fighters receive less skills than rogues. This isn't a balancing mechanism, it's an archetype mechanism (and, in 3e, it was a way to make the rogue feel special -- so many more skills than anyone else!).

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.

Archetype! Not that it's hard to change. It doesn't even throw off balance in either edition just to let fighters take Diplomacy as a class skill.

If you stick with a single concept - either combat or non-combat, you have a bajillion choices to fit pretty much anything...But, when you start mixing the concepts, your choices get whittled down considerably.

Again, I think you're off-base with the idea that 3e design was somehow paying for one with the other. 3e seemed to me to be a step in the right direction from 2e, balancing combat with combat. The noncombat restrictions and limitations were more for an archetype standpoint -- niche protection, really. In fact, 4e dismantling some of those protections ("everybody participates!") is part of what makes 4e so homogeneous: it doesn't matter what you do, you'll be as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else.

 

[tyrlaan]

I think folks are getting caught up arguing the wrong points about BryonD’s assessment that 4e is too homogenous. Shaking up how many types of what powers one class gets over the other and similar notions make aspects of the mini-games across classes different, but that’s merely the tip of the iceberg regarding the diversity BryonD and others feel is lacking. The fundamental issue is in the “everything advances at the same rate” mechanic so deeply rooted into the 4e rules.

Everyone gets 1/2 level advancement to all skills, attacks, and defenses. While this produces excellent game balance, it can make things a bit bland. The common rationalization I’ve heard for this advancement (which seems to come under skepticism primarily when talking about skills) is that the players are adventurers and therefore a cut above the rest. i.e. they should be better at swimming etc, and continue to improve. But the problem is we all play adventurers in DnD. So if we’re all special, no one is. This is the cost of giving up some diversity in exchange for balance.

How do you make 4e less homogenous? Actually, Fanboy2000’s ideas might go a long way toward doing that. However, I ultimately think it’s very hard to effect changes when the core of the issue is at the heart of the game. But I’ll throw in a few additional unpolished ideas anyway:

• Establish social/non-combat roles in a vein not too different from combat roles. Each role comes complete with some skill bonuses and/or skill powers (do we really need to wait for WotC to tell us how to build them?). Perhaps the “diplomat” role gives a bonus to Diplomacy and Insight and provides an encounter skill power that lets you score multiple successes on a skill challenge or “undo” a failure on a skill challenge through silver-tongued goodness.
• Provide Ability powers – powers available to characters with a certain ability score. Perhaps an extra smart fighter can use an ability power to get a tactical advantage on his next attack. Maybe an especially hearty bard can muster out an extra tune of healing per day. And so on.

Also, I’ve noticed the somewhat tangent and lengthy discussion about robust character build support. The ability to support diverse character concepts isn’t exactly the same as having a diverse game, but for what it’s worth I think people expect too much of DnD in this regards, regardless of edition. Game systems that use character classes to model characters will never support all builds for all people. You will always come up with a concept that the rules don’t support or only support marginally well. Yes, some games lessen the gaps more than others, but the gaps are still there.

It’s my opinion that if DnD is supposed to be all things to all people, then it should have just been point buy. Pay X for your attack progression, Y for your feat progression, Z for Awesome-Kill-All Daily Power (or better yet, build your own powers). If DnD is supposed to model a specific flavor of medieval fantasy, then the rules should enforce/support that specific world to eliminate the gaps. Examples to further my point:

• How many people complain they can’t build the superhero they want in the HERO system or M&M?
• How many people complain they can’t build the character they want in Earthdawn, Deadlands, or WFRP?

 

[Krensky]

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:

Give FantasyCraft a look.

For the Suave McFightswell example:

Charismatic Aristocrat Soldier. Buy a moderate Charisma and a decent Intelligence (say, 14 in each, Charismatic will boost Cha by two). Take Bluff and Sense Motive as your Origin skills, and take Talented (Actor) as your level one feat.

From his origin (think race) Suave would be able to able adjust the disposition of non-adversaries twice a session, roll two action dice to boost Cha based checks, give a team mate a +1 to all saves for a scene (like an encounter), get a +2 to Impress and Bluff rolls.

Soldiers (the class here) get 4 skill points a level, plus his bonus from a decent Int. The Talented (Actor) feat gives him a free rank in Impress every time he buys one in Bluff, even though it isn't a class skill in this example. Plus a full BAB, high will save, good fort save, good defense and initiative progressions and all sorts of other combat goodness.

Suave won't be as good (mechanically) a combatant as someone who took an origin like Strong Fighter, but he'll still kick lots of ass and chat up the ladies with the best of them (+9 in Impress and Bluff at level 1). Oh, and he'll have a better then decent shot at seriously messing up the Mage in a fight. He's also well positioned for the Swashbuckler, Edgemaster, or Paladin expert classes.

This isn't the only way to do it, but it's a fast and dirty (and obvious) rendition of the concept.

 

[SSquirrel]

The noncombat restrictions and limitations were more for an archetype standpoint -- niche protection, really. In fact, 4e dismantling some of those protections ("everybody participates!") is part of what makes 4e so homogeneous: it doesn't matter what you do, you'll be as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else.

See I have problems with statements like this. If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6. I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.

These all seem like reasonable tiers of focus in a skill and shows how wide the gap can really be. Let's hope the Mage can come up with a good reason to use an Int based skill in this skill challenge for traversing a pit instead of making an atheletics check. (No I don't need the examples, I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head)

If the DC is 25 then Willy the Wizard will need a 19 to succeed, Wanda the Warlord needs a 13 and Fozzy the Fighter needs an 8. Will it be difficult for Willy to succeed? Yes, but in 3E he would have had only a +1 and it would have been impossible to succeed. Here he has a low chance of contributing with the Athletics check (assuming he doesn't work some Int angle for fulcrums and leverage or whatever) and when he actually succeeds he will feel like a part of the team instead of just having to sit in the back and hope the rest of the party could manage something.

I see this as an improvement. If the numbers were +10, +12 and +14, then I could see complaints that there is no reward for specialization. The gulf isnt' quite as wide in 4E as it was in 3E, but it is still there, clearly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6. I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.

Mostly because everyone gets SOME skills they focus in, and, 90% of the time, you're going to be able to use that skill in some respect in a skill challenge. In other words, it reads better than it plays at the table.

That +6? Why would you ever use it? The DM doesn't tell you what skills to use in a skill challenge, you make that decision, and if the challenge it broad enough, and you're persuasive enough, you get to do it. An average party of 5, even if they are super-diverse and have their highest skills being 5 totally different skills (say, Athletics, Bluff, Sneak, Perception, and Nature), are mostly going to be able to use those skills in a given challenge. Mostly, it doesn't work out that they're quite that diverse, especially given the "duality" of ability scores (Str/Con; Dex/Int; Wis/Cha), you're more likely to have 3 different skills as the party's "highest skill." If the DM is permissive, and "says yes," more often than not, you get your highest bonus on the check.

And, heck, even if you need to take a 2-3 point hit, the DC's are low enough that it's not a big loss.

So, in the end, everyone winds up having a +17 to the check. That +6 only gets used in specific, limited, obvious instances, depending wildly on how flexible your individual DM is.

I see this as an improvement. If the numbers were +10, +12 and +14, then I could see complaints that there is no reward for specialization. The gulf isnt' quite as wide in 4E as it was in 3E, but it is still there, clearly.

The gulf never comes into play, due to 4e's "Everyone gets to try their best skill!" skill challenge design. If you can think of a way for your Athletics to convince the Duke that he should give you the MacGuffin (maybe you challenge his fastest scout to a foot race!), you get +17. You never have to use your +6 in Diplomacy or your +10 in Bluff. Maybe, at worst, you have to use your +14 in Insight. Since the DC is only 20 anyway, it doesn't really matter. Everyone contributes basically the same thing.

There are other ways that noncombat in 4e is exceptionally homogeneous (rituals, for instance, do a slightly better job, and are getting better, but are kind of an expensive crapshoot).

 

[Remathilis]

See I have problems with statements like this. If you are level 10 and only have a 12 in the relevant skill and it is not a class skill, you have a whopping +6. I fail to see how that is anywhere close to "as effective in a skill challenge as anyone else" when someone with a 14 stat and the skill as a class skill will be at +12 and someone with an 18, class skill and skill focus has a +17.

These all seem like reasonable tiers of focus in a skill and shows how wide the gap can really be. Let's hope the Mage can come up with a good reason to use an Int based skill in this skill challenge for traversing a pit instead of making an atheletics check. (No I don't need the examples, I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head)

If the DC is 25 then Willy the Wizard will need a 19 to succeed, Wanda the Warlord needs a 13 and Fozzy the Fighter needs an 8. Will it be difficult for Willy to succeed? Yes, but in 3E he would have had only a +1 and it would have been impossible to succeed. Here he has a low chance of contributing with the Athletics check (assuming he doesn't work some Int angle for fulcrums and leverage or whatever) and when he actually succeeds he will feel like a part of the team instead of just having to sit in the back and hope the rest of the party could manage something.

I see this as an improvement. If the numbers were +10, +12 and +14, then I could see complaints that there is no reward for specialization. The gulf isnt' quite as wide in 4E as it was in 3E, but it is still there, clearly.

The difference between a +12 and a +6 ISN'T as big a deal when your DCs are Easy: 10 Medium: 16 Hard: 21. The guy with a +6 has to roll a 4, 10, or 15 to make those checks. The guy with the +12 is passing easy and medium without failure, and hard on an 8. Either way, if the guys with lower numbers shoot for easier DCs in a SC, you can EASILY rack up those successes.

(Of course, we're also ignoring racial bonuses, magic item bonuses, feat bonuses, etc. Its REALLY easy to get that +6 to a +10 even if your untrained at 10th)

The same DCs are used for stunting on page 42, btw.

So unless your using some of those skills at their PHB-defined DCs and not the ad-hoc DMG ones, the gulf is rarely a problem.

 

[fanboy2000]

Let's crunch some numbers

Of course, we're also ignoring racial bonuses, magic item bonuses, feat bonuses, etc.

Well, then lets crunch some numbers.

I got two 4e PCs Sadie, a human wizard, and Adrian, a elven rogue. (I’m tired of halfling and half-elf rogues) I got them both at 1st level and 24th level, just for comparison.

Skills compared: Acrobatics for Adrian and History for Sadie (I didn’t choose arcana for reasons I like to think are obvious.)

Twinks used: I used the background rules from PHB to get a +2 to the corresponding skills. Both characters have skill focus in the relevant skill. Both characters also have racial bonuses in appropriate score, and both skills are keyed off their highest ability score. Needless to say, the numbers are mirror images of each other.

Foolish assumption: I’m assuming this is a game where history matters.

First level
DCs Easy: 5 Moderate: 10 Hard: 15

Adrian: Acrobatics: +15, History -1
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 6 or higher, Moderate: 11 or higher, Hard: 16 or higher
Notes: What surprised me in making this character was that intelligence is a good dump stat for rogues. The Int skills, Arcana, History, and Religion aren’t important to many rogue character concepts and dexterity can be used in AC and Ref calculations. Particularly when one remembers that wisdom and charisma are more useful to most rogue concepts.

Sadie: Acrobatics: -1, History +15
History Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
Acrobatics Easy: 6 or higher, Moderate: 11 or higher, Hard: 16 or higher
Notes: Again, the use of dexterity as a dump stat doesn’t seem to bad when one considers that intelligence can be use instead of dexterity for AC and Reflex defenses. This was probably more illuminating to me than anything about skills.

24th level
DCs Easy: 16 Moderate: 24 Hard: 29

Epic level Adrian: Acrobatics: +30, History +12
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 4 or higher, Moderate: 12 or higher, Hard: 17 or higher
Notes: Easy got easier, but moderate and hard got harder by one. This was surprising. Some people may think that a 4 for easy is bad, but my thinking is that the DC is easy for a reason. Under the old DC from the unerretaed DMG, our rogue wouldn’t know much history, even easy history because the DC would be 28 and Adrian wouldn’t get that except on a 16. That doesn’t seem very easy to me. Of course, I gave Adrian Agile Athlete so the chances that he’ll get a higher number are increased.

Epic level Sadie: Acrobatics: +12, History +30
Acrobatics Easy: Auto Success, Moderate: Auto Success, Hard: Auto Success
History Easy: 4 or higher, Moderate: 12 or higher, Hard: 17 or higher
Notes: Same as above, with an addition. Acrobatics is one of the skills a PC can use to end a grab. (The other being Athletics, which Sadie has a +13 in.) If a Fell Wyvern grabs Sadie (not a bad idea, really) Sadie can try to escape by rolling Acrobatics vs. Reflex, but she won’t succeed. (Same is true if she try’s Athletics.) So, even with the add half your level, Sadie’s SOL if she’s grabbed by a Fell Wyvern. (And the Ref 34 isn’t that bad for the Fell Wyvern’s level.) Adrian succeeds on a 4.

For what it’s worth, 1st level Sadie can break free of a grab on a 13 with acrobatics or a 9 with athletics if the grabber is a 1st level Kobold Skirmisher.

And lastly, if the PCs have to balance on a narrow and unstable surface (DC 25, based on page 181 of the PHB), Adrian succeeds automatically, but Sadie needs to roll 13.

What about a non-twinked out skill like perception? At 24th level Adrian has a +23 while Sadie has a +13. If a Voldsoul Specter is in the area and rolls a 10 on his stealth check he gets a 35, Adrian only needs an 11 to find him. Sadie, however is screwed again, she will need Adrian to detect the monster.

On one hand, these are extreme situations. On the other hand, their not that unrealistic given the different archetypes at play. Adrian is a skilled rogue with a good skill set just like I would expect based on the rogue stereotype I’m familiar with. Sadie’s good an arcana and esoteric knowledge, but isn’t very observant or a quick thinker. She could almost fit the absent minded wizard stereotype.

I’ve included their character sheets, just so you can check the math.

 

[fanboy2000]

Some additional thoughts

Even at 24th level, Sadie isn't as good at acrobatics as Adrian was at 1st level.

At epic levels, static DCs set at a mundane or heroic level are basically auto wins even for things that the PC is untrained. This is fine with me, because it seems to me that, after 24 levels of adventuring, a PC would pick-up a thing or two from his or her companions. But epic level DCs are still the provence of the specialist with auto successes. Which is sorta fine with me. As a DM, I don't like auto success.

The liner progression seems to work to keep PCs more powerful than NPCs or monsters of lower levels, but also seems to do a good job of keeping PC archetypes in place. It's a little counter intuitive, but given that many skill checks are opposed and the NPC or monster bonus is based on level, it seems to work.

 

[amnuxoll]

GURPS, Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying game, True 20, Champions/Hero, Shadowrun, Star Wars Saga, Mutants and Masterminds, Hackmaster, Spirit of the Century, etc.

There are countless RPGs out there. The perfect RPG for you is out there. You just have to look for it.

I've tried most of those and none meet my criteria. Someone also recommended FantasyCraft. That's a dud too.

I think what's needed is a true balance between the spirit of 4e and 3.5e and I don't think that exists.