Removing homogenity from 4e

[gribble]

You will learn to love the hammer, all the new and exciting ways you can grip it, swing it, and pound nails.

This reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
That and an ex-girlfriend who exemplified that quote by trying to hammer in the screws that held her TV cabinet together. Man that thing had a vicious lean on it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion. I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.

I can't speak for the OP, but Remathilis did a bang-up job of demonstrating a lot of why 4e feels "homogenous" to me. While not exhaustive, it's pretty demonstrative of the "sameness" I feel.

 

[Tallifer]

This the the pain I felt when I tried 4e.


I *like* the resouce management that comes with Vancian magic. Spell selection is a stratgic mini-game of its own. I'm very good at designing a "hand" of effects from a limited set of choices for use against my expected opposition.

Take a wizard. Give him the Class Feature Tome of Readiness. Give him the feats Expanded Spellbook and Improved Tome of Readiness. Do not leave your ritual book at home. Tada! More spells to choose from every day!

(By the way, this will be my next wizard. he promises to play very differently from my orb wizard.)

 

[Rechan]

When I look at a discussion like this, I think of three things:

1. WotC has committed to 4E for the long term. At this point feedback will not change 4E, only sales.
2. WotC has made it clear that the era of D&D supporting the OGL is over, and it isn't coming back. Thinking of things in OGL terms(an alternate version of 4E for people who have issues) isn't really realistic.
3. For those who hope to hasten the release of or have a role in influencing 5E, it bears saying that 4E was designed based on feedback from people who were actually playing 3E, not naysayers who disliked the system. If 4E maintains an acceptable level of sales, naysayers will be ignored when it comes to 5E.

Further, WotC would only swing in the opposite direction of 4e is if they believe that it's worth it, from a consumer standpoint. When you make a new edition, you have to consider how many you'll lose vs. how many you gain. If the number you gain is more, win for you. If it's less, loss for you.

So the question of "more complexity with 5e" is: Would WotC gain more of those that dislike 4e and want more complexity than those that they would lose? And would that more complexity gain them more, or less, new players (newbs or converts from other systems)?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I can't speak for the OP, but Remathilis did a bang-up job of demonstrating a lot of why 4e feels "homogenous" to me. While not exhaustive, it's pretty demonstrative of the "sameness" I feel.

Its also indicative of the shallow approach to the game those of us who have disagreed with the OP have described.

 

[Dannager]

i think he means homgenous in this sense by the following

I am a 1st level X, and my race is Y

I have some at will powers, encounters powers, and a daily power

to use them i roll a d20, and add about +7, and does some dice damage plus about +5 damage and one of maybe 10 different effects

whether im an orc, ranger, wizard, dwarf or warlock...this is how it works for us all. Mostly

occassionally i can do a minor thing that can change the above

-this is my assumption of the OP.

If this is actually what the OP and others mean by homogeneity, this discussion was doomed from the get-go.

The above is not an accurate depiction of how 4th Edition gameplay works.

It is a slanted, piecemeal summary designed not to faithfully explain how the system works but rather to make it look like a particular viewpoint has more credence than it actually does.

If you want to improve the game, start by criticizing it honestly.

 

[gribble]

As someone who has played/run a lot of 4e (more than once a week, on average, since it was released last year), across all 3 tiers of play, I don't see how anyone can honestly claim 4e isn't homogenous.

I see 3 main areas where this is clearly demonstrated:
1) character creation/advancement, as shown by someone a couple of pages ago.
2) scaling across the tiers - low level play feels much the same as high level (except the numbers are bigger - higher defences, more damage, more conditions).
3) individual character choice in combat.

The first two are clearly more homogenous than most other systems and (as Wulf pointed out) have been touted as "features" of 4e by WotC and fans, so I don't see how people can claim otherwise.

The third is more about the fact that every character chooses a suite of powers which basically define what they do. Other than daily powers, they have this suite available for each combat - it's sort of like a pre-programmed list of actions they can/will take in combat. I haven't seen a lot of tactical variety in 4e. Most combats play out the same for most characters, because of the set of powers they have that defines what they do. The best DMs can do a lot with opponents and terrain to disrupt the "program" of actions, and make the players really think about their actions, but they can't (and shouldn't, IMO) do that every combat.

I think the third point may be the source of a lot of the frustration that some people feel with 4e. I'll admit I'm not sure about what can be done to fix it... Psions certainly are a step in the right direction, although I'm worried that monks actually make the problem worse (not only are your standard actions "pre-programmed", but your move actions are too!)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I still say that finding and discussing a game you do want to play is healthier than discussing how to change an existing game many are satisfied with to serve you.

 

[FireLance]

"Man, those 4e players. Would you believe that they have forty words for PC?"

Can we take it as a given that some see the 4e classes as homogenous and others don't, and get back to the discussion of how to add variety to the 4e classes?

One way that I think we can add customization and variety to the 4e classes is through the use of feats. Feats with classes or power sources as prerequisites could effectively become one way to add new class features to the game. You can even roll the old idea of talent trees back into the feat framework.

Feats can even be used to tinker with the baseline power frequency framework - a feat to sacrifice an encounter power for an additional daily power, or vice-versa, for example.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The response I had, and still have, is simply a request to define "homogeneous" for me so I can contribue to a logical discussion. I would like to know where the OP is coming from, and I'd like to make sure I understand his terminology.

I think the best summation of this is from Remathalis (see below). For myself and most of my group, the homogeneity comes from:
- Everyone uses the same psuedo-vancian system will/encounter/daily (As a DDI subscriber, I like the look of some of the things on the horizon to enhance variety).
- The half-level bonus to just about everything bugs the hell out of me.
- Damage is the unifying mechanic.
- Everyone and everything has exactly the same chance of alleviating a particular condition.
- In an encounter, our groups tactics always seem to be the same, with one character's encounter power looking to bounce off another character's specific encounter power looking to bounce off...etc. rinse repeat. The optimal tactics always seem too obvious.
- Monsters do a small handful of things again and again. Incomparison, 3E monsters had more variety/complexity (but obviously too much for some which is why WotC reigned this in).
- A particular build of a class feels (to me) exactly the same as any other build of that particular class.
- The Races do not seem as mechanically differentiated as before. Sure, my Tiefling gets a token encounter power here or there, but that is nothing compared to the mass of powers that seem to more totally describe what the character does. There are two players in my group (compared to the other 5) who don't really roleplay their characters effectively. If I didn't have it written down on my sheet, I would have no idea that one of them was an Eladrin and the other an Elf - I'd just assume they were human. As to what weapon everyone uses, again I'd barely have a clue, we all seem to be using the same thing sort of.

While I don't enjoy 4E as much as I do previous editions, I still like to play it and find it enjoyable enough. Removing some of the homogenizing simplifications however would go a long way to me enjoying it more. So thecasualoblivion, I understand that I'm most likely not playing it right and that Wizards are not going to do anything to really help me here and I understand that this is your opinion... so, could you just ease back on the submit reply button and give some other people some threadspace to offer some interesting suggestions or houserules or ideas or something that might help, make me think or perhaps even entertain me on this issue. Your defending of 4E and your opinion can most likely ease up a little and make this thread a happier place. In essence, I think the topic is viable and does not deserve to be shutdown.

Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.

You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.

Your fighter suffers a terrible fate brought on by Irontooth. Time to roll up a new PC. "Screw tanking" you think, I'm gonna play a wizard.

So you roll up a first level wizard. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 2 dailies (of which you can only have one at a time). You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy an implement and cloth armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level wizard, ready to go.

See what just happened? The steps feel EXACTLY the same. Sure, your powers have different parameters (1[W]+Str vs. 1d6+Int), your weapons and armor is different, and your class abilities are different to fit your role, but in the end, both classes are the same skeleton with different clothes thrown on them.

The feeling gets worse as you level up. No class has new exclusive class abilities to look forward to; just another encounter or daily power at the EXACT same level as everyone else. In 3e (and earlier) classes gained unique powers at different levels (rogues get evasion at 2nd, rangers at 9th) or spells were different levels depending on class (Animate Dead: 5th level MU, 3rd level Cleric). Now? You get rituals at the same level no matter if your a wizard, cleric, warlock, or a fighter with Ritual Caster.

When all you have staring down the pipeline are more/better attack powers and a 1/2-dozen utility powers (most of which are just combat abilities minus the attack roll) The classes seem to blur. Who cares if the daily power you got was Fireball or Flame Strike; they're both Atk vs. reflex cubes that deal Xd6 + stat amount of fire.

It also doesn't help that every class gets better at fighting, casting magic, skill-use, AC and defenses at the EXACT SAME 1/2 level rate. Sure, it makes for easier math, but before the fighter had the best to-hit, the rogue had the best reflex save (by miles, not by +2) etc.

"But Remathilis." you say, "What about roles? Clearly a fighter doesn't share the same role as the wizard, ergo he doesn't share the same play-experience?" True, to an extent. Sure D&D has four roles (and they've always had them, more or less) but while a wizard might be in the back rolling to hit with magic missile and a fighter up front rolling to hit with tide of iron, another lingering element bubbles up:

Each role feels exactly the same. All defenders have a mark. Each mark might do a different effect, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter if your a swordmage, warden, or fighter, your main purpose is to run-up, attack, mark, and repeat. Same with leaders: Every leader has a XXX Word-like power that, as a minor action, gives healing surge + extra hp back. The individual amounts and methods vary, but sure as the sun is hot, if it says "leader" you'll find it has some variant on the Healing Word power in its class list.

Oddly, one role has avoided this straight-jacket: Strikers. Some deal Xd6 damage, some grant 2 or more ability score mods to damage, some just have insane [W]s to each power. A barbarian DOESN'T feel like a rogue because if D&D did anything, its created hundreds of permutations on ways to deal damage. Its also the reason controller doesn't feel unified; it lacks a strong-enough mechanical element (heal, tank, damage) to keep it unified. "Crowd Control" doesn't work well on its own.

Lastly, I originally thought getting rid of different "subsystems" would streamline the game and make it easier to play. Why learn a new mechanic just to play a wizard, psion, warlock, etc? Well, here's why. They played different so the game FELT different. A fighter could be a crafty tactician, or he could run up a kill-kill-kill. A wizard needed careful resource management and a more patient player (at least to be effective). A rogue needed to know the ins-and-outs of the skill system, etc. In essence, they were all little mini-games. Those mini-games are gone, and every class is poorer for them.

I think no one (except the most stubborn h4ter) would argue you could roll up a elf druid an play him EXACTLY as a dwarf fighter, but there is a lot of sameyness in the new "one class frame to rule them all" method of advancement. Classes like the psion (which eschews encounter powers for PPs) earlier would have fixed I think a number of complaints (for example, making wizards more daily-heavy while making fighters masters of encounter-powers).