D&D 4E Rich Baker on his 4e Warlord

[Rechan]

Does that assumption need to be the worst case scenario, though?

Wellll, I wouldn't call it "worst case scenario". More a step behind Bad, but still two above Worst.

It's really disconcerting how little we know, when it comes to class ability customization/flexibility. We havn't been shown anything about talent trees (or if they're even present), or what.

I'd be ecstatic of lots of class abilities could be swapped out (I'm looking at you, Turn Undead) in exchange for something else, but I do not think that's going to be the case. For instance, it's been said at least twice now that Warlords' abilities revolve around Melee, that they have little range options. So, clearly the Warlord isn't customizable with a ranged build. I also am willing to bet money that the majority (if not all) of the Rogue is a Melee Striker and the majority (if not all) of the Ranger is ranged striker.

For a guy who seems to be generally pretty optimistic about 4E, that seems like a weird place to immediately go to.

Hey, we all gotta find a problem somewhere. Otherwise, you're MerricB.

 

[Rechan]

The fact that half elves "multiclass better" doesn't necessarily mean that they get some special "these guys multiclass better" ability like the favored class abilities in 3e. It could also mean that they have racial abilities which are useful to a diversity of class types, or that they have a wider selection of racial abilities which make them easier to customize. Don't know for sure, obviously, just that there are options.

This is a really, really good point.

It's been pointed out that some races have good options for classes (Dwarf Earthsomethingorother helps fighters was given). Half-elves just might have more options.

 

[Rechan]

For one, the people designing 4E are the ones designing those later, more powerful, less-dependent-on-a-single-stat core classes.

That still doesn't quell my fears. As I said, it doesn't failsafe against some other wonkiness.

Besides. Some of those classes weren't great. Look at the Dragonfire Adept. Dear lord. And I feel that the Dragon Shaman has similar problems of 'trying to do too many things and getting hamstrung by it'. I tried to stat up a Dragon shaman for a game and it was real frustrating, as once more it was a 28 pointbuy game.

 

[Rechan]

Well, what they mean is, who are these other characters who are going to be benefiting compared to the guy with his ability scores spread out, if everyone has a need for multiple good ability scores? If everyone is in the same boat, then there's no character who is breaking the game by putting all his point-buy into one stat. He's missing out on stuff he could be doing if he wasn't overspecialized.

...

So who is your hypothetical character substandard compared to? You have avoided answering the question, and I think it's because you know what the answer is.

The problem comes, as I demonstrated with the Paladin, when you have an ability that you can't swap out, that sits on your character sheet, that is there as a form of balance, that you get little to no use out of because you don't have a good stat the ability needs.

I don't know how to "compare" it anything. But I think it's a waste and a source of frustration to say "Whoo, I leveled up - and what I get this level is useless because I don't have x in my y stat. Yay for me". Or "Because I wanted to actually hit something with my monk, I'm going to get hit because my monk can't wear armor because the designers assumed I'd have a stat in my Wisdom but I need the Str to hit that guy because my BAB sucks". While Ed the Monk is dealing with "To die effective or get by with no kills", Bob the Cleric can put his two good stats in Wis and Str, hit things, wear armor, AND cast spells.

Simply saying "Well everyone has to do it" is a cop out, because the above isn't fun, and if everyone has to do it, that means everyone gets to suffer.

 

[Exen Trik]

Compare the Core classes in the PHB to the classes presented in later books. If you'll notice, the later classes are stronger. Or rather, they're not so restrictive. You could draw from that observation that, when the Core classes were created, they expected them to be more powerful than they are.

So who's to say that a similar assumption on the part of the designers won't also be made? That the PHB classes won't be as wonky in some manner?

3e was a major experiment, with issues that went beyond just balancing the numbers. The glut of prestige classes, feats, and other bennies that followed were largely made to correct problems, express character and class concepts that the core didn't work well with, and allow alternate styles of play. And when new stuff comes out, especially when it introduces new options, it's hard to keep the same balance you had before.

So 4e comes around, and we get not just classes that provide feats and skills, but powers and paths. This leads to classes that inherently have options out the whazoo, simply because theres so many avenues in which to take them. Powers every level results in more versatility then the 3e fighters feat per two levels could ever had hoped for, and even having just a few paths means more options in class abilities than most of 3e's classes, variant classes, and prestige classes (WotC's, at least) combined could muster. Adding a bunch of 'set in stone' class abilities along the lines of paladins grace and monks evasion runs counter to the greatest strengths the classes have by design.

Plus, they seem to be giving the playtesting a good, concerted effort, so along with making sure the obvious class choices work they should give playing against type (be it by race or ability score) and multiclassing a fair look as well.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The problem comes, as I demonstrated with the Paladin, when you have an ability that you can't swap out, that sits on your character sheet, that is there as a form of balance, that you get little to no use out of because you don't have a good stat the ability needs.

I don't know how to "compare" it anything. But I think it's a waste and a source of frustration to say "Whoo, I leveled up - and what I get this level is useless because I don't have x in my y stat. Yay for me". Or "Because I wanted to actually hit something with my monk, I'm going to get hit because my monk can't wear armor because the designers assumed I'd have a stat in my Wisdom but I need the Str to hit that guy because my BAB sucks". While Ed the Monk is dealing with "To die effective or get by with no kills", Bob the Cleric can put his two good stats in Wis and Str, hit things, wear armor, AND cast spells.

Simply saying "Well everyone has to do it" is a cop out, because the above isn't fun, and if everyone has to do it, that means everyone gets to suffer.

And what you're doing here, as others have already pointed out, is taking the 3.5 classes as the benchmark and complaining about their MAD. What you should be doing is starting from a place where every character needs multiple good abilities and assuming that every character isn't going to be, as a result, completely gimped by their ability scores since, as you point out, that would suck. I think that perhaps it's a safe assumption that they didn't go with a system that sucks and is eternally frustrating for all.

Perhaps given the experience with MAD in 3.5, they might design things a bit differently this time around? Yes?

 

[Ahglock]

I think inflicting MAD on all classes is a bad idea as well.

Using wisdom as an example. Mentioned in one of the articles wisdom is the power stat. Now this is just a guess but using saga and the force powers, there is a feat hat gives you access to a # of force power for an encounter = to your wisdom bonus+1 minimum of 1. You can take the same power multiple times so you can use it multiple times in the encounter. This changes wisdom from a useful attribute for the perception bonus and will save bonus to a must be decent attribute for all classes that use powers.

Want to play an absent minded professor, cool, you'll suck, but go for it.
Want to play a reckless rogue, great idea, you will suck but have fun.
Want to play an oblivious barbarian, sounds like fun, how much suck would you like with that.

MAD does the impossible it actually makes character design less varied than SAD. When you tie attributes to class roles a decent attribute becomes a requirement. It makes it far to punishing to take a dump stat for flavor or character development reasons.

 

[hong]

The problem comes, as I demonstrated with the Paladin, when you have an ability that you can't swap out, that sits on your character sheet, that is there as a form of balance, that you get little to no use out of because you don't have a good stat the ability needs.

I don't know how to "compare" it anything. But I think it's a waste and a source of frustration to say "Whoo, I leveled up - and what I get this level is useless because I don't have x in my y stat. Yay for me". Or "Because I wanted to actually hit something with my monk, I'm going to get hit because my monk can't wear armor because the designers assumed I'd have a stat in my Wisdom but I need the Str to hit that guy because my BAB sucks". While Ed the Monk is dealing with "To die effective or get by with no kills", Bob the Cleric can put his two good stats in Wis and Str, hit things, wear armor, AND cast spells.

Simply saying "Well everyone has to do it" is a cop out, because the above isn't fun, and if everyone has to do it, that means everyone gets to suffer.

Note that this is an issue not in terms of game mechanics, but managing expectations.

 

[Cadfan]

Personally, I never thought that 3e MAD was all that bad. The only classes I can remember disliking MAD on were the spellcasters with two casting stats. I loved the concept, but it was tough to pump one mental stat up to a 19 by 17th level, and still pump the stat that determined saving throws.

Everything else I was pretty much cool with. But then, I live in a point-buy-only world where paying through the nose for an 18 is usually a terrible decision. Even a 16 is a tough call. I'd happily play a 14/10/13/10/14/12 Paladin, for example. A somewhat minmaxed fighter with the same point buy is probably only going to be a 17/12/14/10/10/8. So he's got +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 ac, and +1 hp per level. That's hardly a crisis of effectiveness, and I do get results for my ability score points.

 

[Irda Ranger]

It occurs to me that the half-elf may only be better at multiclassing as a Warlord. Half-eves have inspiring presence. They may have other CHR-related powers. Warlords are Leaders. QED.

That's not to say there's favored classes or anything, but merely that their racial abilities somehow predispose them to making a good Warlord multi-class, just like 3E Elves make good Rogues because of their Dex and sensory bonuses.