Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4921360" data-attributes="member: 55966">I'd like to suggest to both sides here that the homogeneous appearance in prior editions or in this edition all depends on where you look and what bothers you.  It is homogeneous to say that all defenders have a mark ability that encourages enemies to attack them rather than allies.  But it is also homogeneous for all warrior classes in 3e (melee ranger, barbarian and fighter) have the mechanic of moving adjacent and relying on a high AC to save you.  It is homogeneous to have all the classes gain their levels of powers at the same time but it it also homogenous to have all divine and arcane spellcasters use the same spell lists and cast their spells in much the same way.   It is homogeneous to have 1/2 + level as a scaling indicator of character power, but it is also homogeneous to have all classes scale by 3 tiers of BAB.I hear that some bemoan that 3e had mechanical subsystems for how to resolve attacks, or cast spells, or do skills.   However, 4e has mechanical subsystems too in terms of roles, classes, and powers.   Roles have different mechanical subsystems in that you are a tank, buffer/healer/, enemy plan disruptor, and high damage dealer.  Within those roles there are rules subsystems known as classes.  For example, a Warden plays differently than a fighter because he has more immediate reactions and terrain altering powers.  A fighter plays differently from a paladin because a fighter does more damage while a paladin can take more punishment and negate or diminish enemy attacks.  Within those classes there are powers which contain rules subsystems in and of themselves.  While it is true that powers have unifying elements, they also contain a modular approach to rules that makes each power slightly different from its brothers.  It matters which powers you take, and the more powers that are introduced, the more 4e can experiment with mechanics that provide differentiation.  For example, fighters were fairly monolithic in terms of what they did in the early days, but the more powers that are introduced, the more divergent fighters became.  It matters now what weapon you focus on.  A fighter that uses his shield as his primary weapon is different than a fighter who uses an axe, spear or sword as his primary weapon.I can understand if it bothers someone that everyone gets their powers at the same levels, or if roles have certain abilities in common (like healing word), or that powers are largely made by mixing damage with a set (but flexible) list of conditions.   But prior editions had unifying rules elements too.   It bothers me in prior editions that rogues are not sufficiently mechanically distinct from fighters, in that both move adjacent to a target and rely on a high AC to keep them on their feet.   It bothers me that sorcerers and wizards use the same spell list.  It bothers me that you always had to use strength vs. AC to resolve a melee attack, and it didn't matter how nimble or fast you were.   Like I said upthread, I don't mind common mechanics as long as the narrative play is different.  If the mechanics are different, but the end result of narrative play is the same (you have to increase your defense abilities and maximize your damage output) then I couldn't care less about differing mechanics.  I take no special pleasure in figuring out different mechanical subsystems to achieve the same goal.    I must also point out there was also some homogenization of mechanics that occurred in each subsequent edition as well.   THAC0 instead of a weapons table, 9 spell levels both for arcane and divine spells instead of 7 for clerics and 9 for magic users, and an increasing reliance on the D20 die.  Did it lead to greater homogenization?  In some ways, but you have to decide whether game balance and ease of comprehending the rules are as important as game complexity and wildly divergent play experience.I would also like to suggest that homogenization of some rules elements also led to greater options in play as well.  For example, when fighters had a very rudimentary action resolution (roll d20 to hit, roll damage die) there wasn't much you could do to differentiate fighters.  Wizards and clerics on the other hand could be wildly different in play (schools and spheres) because they had spells.  Now that every class uses the powers system (which is one of the examples of homogenization) you can have fighters that look, feel and play much differently.So I suggest to you all that 4e isn't more homogeneous than prior editions, it is just has mechanics that provide different subsystems of play in different places.   For those that say that 4e's choices of where they chose to homogenize the rules led to less varied stories or play experiences as a whole, I will simply say that you are wrong, and I hope this very long post has convinced you of that.  I can assure you that our 4e games are just as varied in story and style as yours are, if you have a good DM.</blockquote>

Verification