Role rigidity

[pawsplay]

Here's a concern I have: in SW Saga, the bonus feat list for Scoundrels is very small. With Talents eating all the tastiest chocolates, what's really left? If there's too much stuff like Danger Sense and Sidestep and so forth, there will be a lot of exception cases in combat, which drags things. If there's not, I'm having trouble imagining what's left.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think it is the existence of roles that turns people off, it is the focus (combat) and the standardization of playstyle that 4E presents (combat).

Let's take, for example, 1st Edition AD&D with nothing but the three core books. There are 10 classes in the PHB and 10 roles to boot. There were no "strikers" in AD&D. Fighters were different than paladins and rangers and monks (all "fighter classes")

And there's not even universal agreement on that. I've always seen 1e monks as more a scout-type class along with Thief and Assassin, though the RAW may well have defined them as a "fighter class".

and filled different roles in the game -- both in and out of combat. Wizards and illusionists were not the same in anything beyond the mechansims of spell prep and d4 hit diece; nor were thieves and assassins. The cleric and druid were also dissimilar in how they functioned mechanically, where they fit into the party structure and their place in the meta setting. 4E, by contrast, has 8 classes and 4 roles. The roles are geared toward the characters' place on the combat/encounter team (as evidenced by the fact of the mantra of "equal time" for all PCs in combat situations and the fact that even sweet fey who take your will with a stolen kiss get a ginormous combat form in 4E). These things are not equivalent. Saying that there's always been fighters in D&D is true, sure, but the nature and role of the various kinds of fighting men have varied within and between editions.

Otherwise, you make good sense, and I agree.

Lanefan

 

[DreamChaser]

I don't know why you can say so authoritatively what the target audience for 4e is.

Those things you claim to "know" that 4e won't cater to? Well, 3e did very strongly, and was instrumental in bringing back many "prodigal son" gamers who had wandered away from D&D in the intervening years.

Your whole post is a very thinly veiled "quit whining and go play GURPS" post. With an emphasis on "very thinly veiled."

It was, I suppose, exactly that.

In response to the "how can I know?"

Obviously, I can't. I have only my experiences and opinions (like everyone here). My experience playing in 1e (starting at 10 years old), 2e, 2e (S&P), 3.0, and 3.5 and noting that the things that people at the local hobby shop always seemed to rave about seemed to be my least favorite parts of the game. *shrug*

I will freely admit that my above post is purely my views, my speculation, and my annoyance.

I don't think it is the existence of roles that turns people off, it is the focus (combat) and the standardization of playstyle that 4E presents (combat).

...

There were no "strikers" in AD&D. Fighters were different than paladins and rangers and monks (all "fighter classes") and filled different roles in the game -- both in and out of combat.

...

The roles are geared toward the characters' place on the combat/encounter team (as evidenced by the fact of the mantra of "equal time" for all PCs in combat situations and the fact that even sweet fey who take your will with a stolen kiss get a ginormous combat form in 4E).

The rules have always been about combat. I will admit that it has been some time since I looked through a 1e PHB or DMG, but the portion of said books that related to role play were very slim. Fighters had no out of combat role, nor did druids, or monks (unless you count the limit to the high number of those classes. They included the interesting way of challenging for a limited position...by combat).

Not to say that there have been zero social encounter spells and abilities, but they have always been fewer and farther between than the combat portion. Why? I would guess that it is because just like when kids play (or used to play) cops and robbers - the conversation during the arrest didn't cause fights...who shot who caused fights. The rules are created for that. The role play is, and always has been, created by the players - even when it is supported by the rules.

In terms of sweet fey being armed to the teeth: nymphs killed with a glance until 3e (now they merely blind). If a creature is all sweetness and light with no real way to threaten the party except by blackmailing them, there is no need for it to be written in the Monster Manual. All we would need to say is "use statistics for a female elf with DR 5/cold iron and a Bluff and Diplomacy bonus of +38"

Regarding party role, so far I have seen this as a descriptive rather than prescriptive designation. If you had asked me to choose the two classes in 3e that best fit the description of a front line fighter whose main job is dishing and taking damage, I would have said paladin and fighter. Ditto strategic damage for rogue and buffer for cleric. Ranger as a striker seems to have people bent out of shape (I wonder if this is ACTUALLY the issue...is it the final death of Aragon the ranger? *smile*) but then I don't think that the 3e ranger would fit that. The 4e ranger sounds like it will.

Again, not a problem in my book.

And to clarify, I am not just saying "Go play GURPS." I love D&D and I like others to like to too. I'm saying, if you don't like the direction of 4e once 4e is out, cool. Keep playing 3e. If you "mostly" like it, change it. But I don't understand the surprise being caused by "role rigidity" in a game that has always had rigid roles.

DC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it is the existence of roles that turns people off, it is the focus (combat) and the standardization of playstyle that 4E presents (combat).

Combat is a (THE, perhaps) key element of a D&D game. I hear the new social encounter rules will also make discussions like combat. Everything will be a combat!

That said, D&D is more than just combat, because if it was just that, it'd make a better videogame than a table-top game.

I am a little afraid that some of this non-combat stuff is going to be trampled in the rush to make combat a tighter focus.

That would suck.

 

[Minicol]

that sounds an awful lot like role rigidity to me. You can argue that it's a good thing, obviously, but tying what were combat options for any appropriately built character to one or two "character archetypes" and telling us that our character archetype is our class is greater role rigidity than allowing those options to be taken by any class.

Rigor mortis ?

 

[IceFractal]

It's no more or less flexibility than the current feats offer:

3.5: Cleric with archery feats
4E: Cleric with a couple levels in Ranger

And if the multiclassing works the way they've been indicating, this won't hurt your Cleric abilities any more than taking archery feats instead of spellcasting/turning feats would.


Of course, if they explicitly included some advice to the effect of:
"The class names and flavor given in the PHB are just the most common examples. Use the classes that fit what your character can do, and then give them the flavor you imagine."

It would be quite helpful. There's more than a few people who don't get that concept at all, or say they get it, but still feel like the class names define the character.

 

[resistor]

If the intention is really to have highly multiclassed characters, I think a system more like d20 Modern (where the base classes are Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Wise Hero, and Charismatic Hero, corresponding to the six ability scores). When you have classes like Ranger and Cleric, it seems somewhat counterintuitive to turn around and say "Well, they don't really mean anything. Just pick and choose to get the abilities you want." With the d20 Modern approach, the classes themselves still having mean, while making it completely reasonable to pick-and-choose levels.

For instance, you swashbuckling character is some mix of Fast, Smart, and Charismatic (possibly some Strong). Your average wizard is mostly Smart, with bits of Wise or Fast. A D&D-style fighting cleric is Strong and Wise. A paladin might be Strong, Tough, and Charismatic, etc.

(Note: I'm not necessarily saying I would adopt this system myself. Just that, if we accept free multiclassing as a goal, I think this would be the better solution.)

 

[Desdichado]

D&D has not always had rigid roles. Even in your own post, you admit that 2e's kits and 3e's design philosophy both have much more relaxed roles.

What you really mean was "in 1e D&D had rigid roles."

 

[Klaus]

If the intention is really to have highly multiclassed characters, I think a system more like d20 Modern (where the base classes are Strong Hero, Fast Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, Wise Hero, and Charismatic Hero, corresponding to the six ability scores). When you have classes like Ranger and Cleric, it seems somewhat counterintuitive to turn around and say "Well, they don't really mean anything. Just pick and choose to get the abilities you want." With the d20 Modern approach, the classes themselves still having mean, while making it completely reasonable to pick-and-choose levels.

For instance, you swashbuckling character is some mix of Fast, Smart, and Charismatic (possibly some Strong). Your average wizard is mostly Smart, with bits of Wise or Fast. A D&D-style fighting cleric is Strong and Wise. A paladin might be Strong, Tough, and Charismatic, etc.

(Note: I'm not necessarily saying I would adopt this system myself. Just that, if we accept free multiclassing as a goal, I think this would be the better solution.)

Grim Tales is just that: d20 Modern adapted for Fantasy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Combat is a (THE, perhaps) key element of a D&D game. I hear the new social encounter rules will also make discussions like combat. Everything will be a combat!

Do things become a combat just because there is a rule framework for resolving it?