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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4936195" data-attributes="member: 20998">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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How many people complain they can’t build the superhero they want in the HERO system or M&M?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How many people complain they can’t build the character they want in Earthdawn, Deadlands, or WFRP?</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification