Removing homogenity from 4e

[Rechan]

Ow, my head!

 

[Dannager]

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.

Stopped reading here.

The idea that a swordmage functions, as a defender, in a similar way to a fighter is simply wrong.

A fighter's modus operandi is to remain within reach of the target's he's marked, and use that to both keep them marked and take advantage of his mark's abilities.

A swordmage's modus operandi is to mark something and then get as far from it as possible, focusing his attention elsewhere while trusting that the distance from his marked target will encourage it to attack an ally, triggering that mark's abilities (which are vastly different from the fighter's) from a distance.

Claiming that the two "feel exactly the same" demonstrates to me (and no doubt to most other experienced 4th Edition players reading this thread) that you are speaking from ignorance, and have not actually had any experience with - or even looked closely at - the classes in question.

This only lends more credence to the notion that those who decry 4th Edition's supposed homogeneity are those who don't actually know enough about the game to make claims like that.

 

[Tallifer]

Someone has thus far conceded that 4e strikers all play very differently.

I assert that defenders play very differently as well. So far I have played a paladin and a fighter and what a paradigm shift!

The paladin, relying on his charisma, is the diplomat and interrogator of the party. In combat, he must decide when and how to use his ranged prayers without provokign opportunity attacks. He must figure out how to mark and make it stick with his divine challenge and sanction. Also, he heals. His will is stubborn, his reflex clumsy and his fortitude mediocre. So he is never dominated or afraid, but he can easily be burnt.

The fighter is not particulary good at any skills, although his perception is decent. Marking and defending is easy and impressive. But when the dragon flies upwards, he is stuck with throwing a javelin. His will is mediocre, his reflex clumsy and his fortitude like a rock. He is never frozen or slowed, but he burns like toast and sometiems runs away.

The paladin is a human. Action surge, an extra feat, an extra at will, an extra skill, needs eight hours and makes a lousy guard. Plus it sucks when the ranger wakes him up to fight and he must put on his armour.

The fighter is warforged. Resilience, warforged tactics, never sleeps, wears his armour all the time and guards everyone else.

As for "get a feat, get a daily, blah blah." I cannot think how to reply to someone who cannot see how different each class's daily powers are. Yes, soem things have similarlities, but that was the same in every edition. I remember my eyes glazing over as a 1st edition wizard: "Bleah a new level, a new damage spell, a useful spell, and a whole pile of obscure, complicated, remotely useful spells." The other more wizardly players could not understand my lack of enthusiasm. And they were right, just as it is right to dismiss claims of homogeneity in 4th edition.

 

[Remathilis]

Claiming that the two "feel exactly the same" demonstrates to me (and no doubt to most other experienced 4th Edition players reading this thread) that you are speaking from ignorance, and have not actually had any experience with - or even looked closely at - the classes in question.

Played a swordmage from 1st to 4th level through Spellgard. Does that count?

As a former player, DM, and advocate of 4e, I am extremely insulted that since I had the audacity to point out that, to me, a swordmage felt similar to a fighter, I am somehow ignorant of the game. Try again.

Secondly, I pointed out that there is SOME diversity among classes filling a role, but not enough IMHO. An assault swordmage sure is better off marking and running (though a shielding or ensnaring can certainly be used as a tanker-character). Sure, every mark is different. A fighter gets attacks, a warden shifts enemies closer, a paladin deals damage, and a swordmage either teleports or reduces damage dealt, but at the end of the day what does the class do? It marks a foe (shutting them down) and then focuses on other enemies. You might say, "Thats a defender's job" and I say "right, which is why they all feel the same; they all do the same job."

Compare this to the 3e prototypes of the classes: duskblade and fighter. Plays differently, has different goals, and can be built to fit a variety of concepts.

Listen I was in your camp solidly a few months back. I liked the fact every leader got a minor-action heal power so that healing flowed no matter what leader class I was. Except when I switched from a cleric to a bard to an artificer, I felt like I was doing the exact same thing, only the clothes were different. Attack, buff ally, heal as needed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Its called unnecessary complexity. If you can accomplish X with one system, accomplishing X with 12 systems is unnecessary complexity. 12 systems is what we in the RPG world tend to call clunky.

Seems to give away the argument right there, IMNSOO.

Accomplishing X with one system instead of twelve systems is ipso facto more homogenous and less diverse.

It may indeed be better, but it seems a bit disinegnuous to say, "What homogeniety!?" and then proceed to extoll the virtues of One System X.

 

[Remathilis]

Someone has thus far conceded that 4e strikers all play very differently.

Well... not ALL differently. There are three types of strikers.

* Archers (archer-ranger, beastmaster-ranger, warlock, sorcerer) do as much damage as possible while standing as far away as possible from the target.
* Skirmishers (two-blade ranger, rogue) do as much damage as possible in melee by using flanks, shifts, and other movement to avoid reciprocal strikes.
* Tactical Nukes (barbarian, avenger) do as much damage as possible to a single target as quickly as possible.

Still, that's a lot more diversity than leaders or defenders have. Controllers (as I pointed out) don't seem to really fill a unique niche; they either act as defenders (stopping foes from attacking others), strikers (doing large damage) or leaders (granting allies bonuses to rolls), often at the same time.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Seems to give away the argument right there, IMNSOO.

Accomplishing X with one system instead of twelve systems is ipso facto more homogenous and less diverse.

It may indeed be better, but it seems a bit disinegnuous to say, "What homogeniety!?" and then proceed to extoll the virtues of One System X.

Again, for the 3rd time, it depends on where you are looking for variety. Variety in design or variety in results. What is really accomplished by having 12 ways to achieve the same result.

 

[Nagol]

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

<snip>

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).

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.

Others in my group have no interest in that form of mini-game and generally choose character-types that avoid it.

Still others prefer a lessened role and bulid hybrids or choose character types with a limited set of strategic choices.

I dislike heavy positional play on the battlefield. I *don't* like looking for the optimal position my character should occupy on the battlefield and continually re-evaluating the geometry and reacting to forced movement.

4e's emphasis on tactical positioning, and it's de-emphasis on strategic preparation makes the characters feel the same to me. I know my choice of race, class, and ability set will affect the battlefield positioning that makes the character effective, but the amount of strategic preparation is similar and bland regardless of character choice.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Again, for the 3rd time, it depends on where you are looking for variety. Variety in design or variety in results.

If there are no problems represented by screws or bolts, you won't miss your screwdrivers and wrenches.

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

What is really accomplished by having 12 ways to achieve the same result.

It is mind-boggling to me that you feel this is the best way to present your argument.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well... not ALL differently. There are three types of strikers.

* Archers (archer-ranger, beastmaster-ranger, warlock, sorcerer) do as much damage as possible while standing as far away as possible from the target.
* Skirmishers (two-blade ranger, rogue) do as much damage as possible in melee by using flanks, shifts, and other movement to avoid reciprocal strikes.
* Tactical Nukes (barbarian, avenger) do as much damage as possible to a single target as quickly as possible.

Still, that's a lot more diversity than leaders or defenders have. Controllers (as I pointed out) don't seem to really fill a unique niche; they either act as defenders (stopping foes from attacking others), strikers (doing large damage) or leaders (granting allies bonuses to rolls), often at the same time.

Actually, there are three types of strikers, though you have it all wrong.

Archer Ranger is actually most effective at point blank range, ducking in and out of melee and trying to be as close as possible.

Beastmaster Ranger is a melee weapon using character

Warlocks are best even closer than Rangers, especially Fey and Infernal Warlocks who can pretend to be Defenders. Warlocks excel at being pests above all else.

Sorcerers do tend to stand back and fire, but don't have to. They are also unique among strikers in being able to nuke groups.

Skirmishers(Rogue, Ranger) don't avoid reciprocal strikes so much as they avoid being attacked by multiple enemies. They are perfectly capable of trading hits with one enemy. Rogues care about position and advantage, while the Ranger can just run up and trade hits if he wants.

Barbarians are chargers, who get to do chain attacks when they crit or kill things. It bears saying that Barbarians have almost no control over their nukes.

Avengers deal less damage in a single round than any other striker(calling Avengers high damage is something I haven't heard before), and are all about consistency and pretending to be a Defender



There are three basic types of controllers though:

1. High Damage/Low Control--Ranger, Barbarian
2. Medium Damage/Medium Control--Rogue, Sorcerer
3. Low Damage/High Control--Avenger, Warlock