Removing homogenity from 4e

[Crimson Lancer]

I'd rather have a bit of homogeneity and some much-needed improvements to the Skill System than keep a Skill System that, as Hussar said, actively encouraged super-extreme specialization. I also never liked how extreme the Point spread was between Classes, simply due to "archetypes" or (even worse) someone's Intelligence score. :S

 

[BryonD]

I'd rather have a bit of homogeneity and some much-needed improvements to the Skill System than keep a Skill System that, as Hussar said, actively encouraged super-extreme specialization. I also never liked how extreme the Point spread was between Classes, simply due to "archetypes" or (even worse) someone's Intelligence score. :S

No argument from me.

I don't share that point of view. But I don't share everyone's taste in music either.

 

[BryonD]

There is another perspective to take as well.

Ironically, I don't think this is a different perspective.

BryonD, you are absolutely right, I think. 4e is more homogeneous than earlier editions.

Ok, I'll follow on the rest, but full stop right here.
This is my claim. So you agree with me. The end.

But, and you knew there was going to be a but here didn't you , there's a question of degree.

Ok, the rest of this is just tangent....

Why are you telling me there is a question of degree when I have repeatedly stated that this is a relative matter?

If the range in 3e is 0 to autowin and the range in 4e is 20% to 80% success rates, that means that 4e has a flatter curve. Certainly. But, that ignores the effects of the rules in play.

IME, what generally happened was you had players who would never bother taking a few ranks in a skill because they were just wasted slots. If you focused, you would reach that autowin state, with autofails in everything else. The problem was, at higher levels, you couldn't spread the points around to give yourself a decent chance at a number of things, simply because you didn't have enough points (barring a few classes of course).

So, the range actually led to fewer options being exercised at the table. Everyone laser beam focused on a few skills and, across the group, you usually had someone who autowin'd every time.

I don't follow why you claim that one person with an autowin constitutes an autowin for the party. And even if that is a problem, you are wrong to claim that 4e solves it, because, as fanboy's example shows, individual autowins are just as rampant in 4E. So if any one person having a autowin constitutes a failure to you, the 4E and 3E are both a failure on this.

But I don't see that as a failure (for either game). The rogue autowinning his way past the wall does not reduce the experience of getting the plate-wearing fighter and climbing incompetent wizard over the wall with him.

But that is neither here nor there. I respect a preference for homogeneity on these issues. I just most certainly do not share that preference.

My point in this thread is that homogeneity exists in 4E. We agree. The end.

 

[Primal]

There is another perspective to take as well.

BryonD, you are absolutely right, I think. 4e is more homogeneous than earlier editions. But, and you knew there was going to be a but here didn't you , there's a question of degree.

If the range in 3e is 0 to autowin and the range in 4e is 20% to 80% success rates, that means that 4e has a flatter curve. Certainly. But, that ignores the effects of the rules in play.

IME, what generally happened was you had players who would never bother taking a few ranks in a skill because they were just wasted slots. If you focused, you would reach that autowin state, with autofails in everything else. The problem was, at higher levels, you couldn't spread the points around to give yourself a decent chance at a number of things, simply because you didn't have enough points (barring a few classes of course).

So, the range actually led to fewer options being exercised at the table. Everyone laser beam focused on a few skills and, across the group, you usually had someone who autowin'd every time.

Regarding skill points and success curve, I have to agree in general, but I think there is a lot of room for maneuvering both for players and DMs. For example, my favorite PC, a 16th level human fighter (been playing him for 15 years or so) has spent almost all his ranks on cross-class skills (Diplomacy, Tumble, various Knowledges) because I know the DM will only rarely (i.e. when it's not outright lethal to fail or when it concerns someone's "specialty" or when the attempted task logically demands it) sets DCs higher than 20-25. So even my several meager +2 Knowledges might benefit the group -- at least by succeeding "partially". I know it's a gaming style preference, though, so I'm not arguing that your claim is not a valid one (I often bump into this problem when playing in other groups).

However, 3E *does* have a wider scale of numbers in use than 4E, so I'm not surprised if folks (like myself) who're used to "wasting" a few ranks on Craft, Diplomacy, Profession, Perform (and so on) see two PCs of the same class being very similar to each other on the basis of numbers (skill modifiers, stats, HPs, Defenses, etc.). I mean, the only difference between their fixed HPs is the difference in Con score; likewise with skills (unless one of them picks the +5 bonus via a feat) -- some of which are already predetermined and the list of class kills isn't too long even for the rogue. And so on.

Now, from a purely "min-maxing" perspective, I'm fairly sure that this very same "similarity" between PCs of the same class will pop up in PF RPG sessions; after all, why invest your two ranks per level in anything else but class skills, since you effectively gain +3 ranks automatically? However, this effect may be lessened somewhat in most groups because of the removal of cross-class skills, but I'm sure the issue will come up every now and then with some classes (i.e. those who still gain only two ranks per level).

 

[AllisterH]

Wouldn't it depend on the skill though?

In 3.5 for example, there are 3 types of skill rolls.

Opposed Rolls. - Basically you're going to want to max these out since every level, the opposition is going to get better so just throwing a couple ranks into it doesn't cut it.

Fixed DC - Tumble for example. You only need a certain fixed DC so you don't need to max it out every level.

Increasing DC - Balance for example is a skill that might not necessarily be needed to increase every level since there's no automatic reason why a DM would use increasingly narrower/slicker surfaces (although, again, given that D&D is a level based system, many DMs would probably think that at level 10, the environment should be more dangerous than what it was back at level 1)

 

[Crimson Lancer]

A more realistic System is completely removing the 1/2-Level Bonus from 4E, IMO. Remove Minions, remove the 1/2-Level Bonus, subtract a Monster's Level from its Attacks and Defenses, and it would probably fit a lot more people's idea of what DnD should be.

IMHO, that's actually less work than fixing many of 3.5's problems. :S

 

[fanboy2000]

The important point here is: There is homogeniety.
Your example demsotrates this.

Of course my example demonstrates this. I said, back on page 6 (a post I linked to in the post that you quoted) that there is homogeneity. I hope you didn't write two lengthy replies to me thinking that I was arguing that 4e wasn't homogeneous.

The point IS NOT: No one should like 4E.

I never thought it was. You, specifically, have mentioned that your dislike of 4e is your opinion and you weren't forcing it on anyone.

The point IS NOT: The homogeniety can not be rationalized.

I'm sorry. I ask that you indulge me. I'm sure you can understand that some people want to explain and describe their preferences.

That said, the title of this thread is "Removing homogeneity from 4e." Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like in order to remove the homogeneity from 4e we need to do three things: 1) find out what, specifically, in 4e is homogenous, 2) find out what, specifically, the person unhappy with with 4e's homogeny wants to do instead (i.e. what kind of diversity does the player want), and 3) propose houserules that remove the homogeny and allow the unhappy player to do what they want.

Mind you, this assumes that the player wants to remove the homogeneity from 4e, if the player doesn't then perhaps another thread is for them.

Anyways, I think we've got number 1 covered. Number 2 is a little harder. I think your post in the other thread does a good job of laying out, specifically, what you want out of a game. There's been a dearth of number 3, but I think we're starting to get there. That's why I proposed a houserule in the post you quoted. You asked "why do that when there are other games that are better as built?" Well, I don't know. I do know that if someone wants to play 4e, but has issues with the math, there's a few solutions out there. In fact, I've just come up with another one: give everyone a number of skill points equal to the number of skill they can train. X4 at 1st level. All the 4e skill system is mandatory max skills points in everything. In fact it you can see the roots of it on pages 79-81 of Unerathed Arcana.

I think that proposals of houserules are vitally important in a thread about removing an undesirable trait in a game.

 

[Primal]

Wouldn't it depend on the skill though?

In 3.5 for example, there are 3 types of skill rolls.

Opposed Rolls. - Basically you're going to want to max these out since every level, the opposition is going to get better so just throwing a couple ranks into it doesn't cut it.

Fixed DC - Tumble for example. You only need a certain fixed DC so you don't need to max it out every level.

Increasing DC - Balance for example is a skill that might not necessarily be needed to increase every level since there's no automatic reason why a DM would use increasingly narrower/slicker surfaces (although, again, given that D&D is a level based system, many DMs would probably think that at level 10, the environment should be more dangerous than what it was back at level 1)

If you're replying to my post above, the guideline we use in my group is that every skill check (unless something that should logically be only possible for the "handful few" or nigh-impossible) should be possible to succeed at without a natural 20 -- or, at least, yield some sort of "partial success" if your check total is 20+ (e.g. you might fail in the balance roll, but manage to grab a windowsill). This applies even to fixed DCs. As a result of this, everyone feels more secure in spreading ranks among a number of skills that fit the character, instead of min-maxing the skills you're expected (as a member of your class) to excel at.

 

[AllisterH]

If you're replying to my post above, the guideline we use in my group is that every skill check (unless something that should logically be only possible for the "handful few" or nigh-impossible) should be possible to succeed at without a natural 20 -- or, at least, yield some sort of "partial success" if your check total is 20+ (e.g. you might fail in the balance roll, but manage to grab a windowsill). This applies even to fixed DCs. As a result of this, everyone feels more secure in spreading ranks among a number of skills that fit the character, instead of min-maxing the skills you're expected (as a member of your class) to excel at.

But how do you deal with opposed skill checks such as Bluff vs Sense Motive or Move Silently vs Listen?

 

[BryonD]

Of course my example demonstrates this. I said, back on page 6 (a post I linked to in the post that you quoted) that there is homogeneity. I hope you didn't write two lengthy replies to me thinking that I was arguing that 4e wasn't homogeneous.

Actually, yeah. Your posts contrasting the two characters left me with the impression that you were attempting to prove diversity. And your initial response reinforced my assessment.

I apologize for misunderstanding.