Role rigidity

[HandofMystra]

Potions and Wands (with that whole level of sorcerer)...

We also build PCs so that they can take multiple roles. For example, my martial cleric can heal or, until a recent change in the rules, could do a fair job on rogue skill checks

 

[HandofMystra]

This rigidity could be a problem if you were restricted to one class. But you're not. So as long as you're not someone like the person described by Cadfan, who's more interested in the class written on your sheet than how close you can get to your character concept, you should be fine.

You are missing my point. In organized RPGA play, typically several people show up to play a four-hour mod at a certain level. You could get a 10th level table of four fighters. The module writers are aware of this and try to write mods that will allow any party to have a chance to succeed. I am concerned that if roles are more rigidly defined in 4E that will be more difficult.

 

[Odysseus]

You are missing my point. In organized RPGA play, typically several people show up to play a four-hour mod at a certain level. You could get a 10th level table of four fighters. The module writers are aware of this and try to write mods that will allow any party to have a chance to succeed. I am concerned that if roles are more rigidly defined in 4E that will be more difficult.

I believe that the roles may well be more rigid, however it won't be a problem as the power levels will be better balanced.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Well, to nitpick, a wizard has the mage advanced class. But still, you make a good point for the non-magical classes, at least.

(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.)

I agree, and as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I have done. My homebrew, which started out as heavily house-ruled D&D now comes recommended with d20 Modern + d20 Past as its default ruleset.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

First of all, if we keep the classes in D&D (as we should do, IMO; some sacred cows you don't slaughter, no matter what!), then those classes must be meaningful.

The situation in, say, 1e AD&D was that your class dictated most of what you could possibly do, ruleswise: every fighter with the same stats was more or less identical, and none of them could pickpocket, ever. (I'm ignoring dual-classing here, because it both sucked and blew.) And if you were a wizard, you couldn't wear armor or wield a sword, period. I think it is mostly agreed that this was too restrictive; 2e didn't really fix anything in this regard.

3.*e has been much better about this: you can make wizards who fight with swords and wear armor, or fighters who are good at pickpocketing; and two 9th-level fighters with the same stats can be very different. There have been problems, though, with things like trying to multiclass a primary caster with anything else, or with clerics being better fighters than fighters, and so on. So obviously, there is room for change and (hopefully) improvement.

As far as I can tell, the 4e designers want to keep your class choice meaningful, yet allow you to do things beyond the primary scope of the class (this may, depending on what you want, require multiclassing or taking of certain feats). But it shouldn't be easy to "steal" another class' shtick.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.)

I agree with your assessment. Trying to both say that your character is defined primarily by his or her class but it's a simple mechanical choice to throw on levels of another class is a mixed message. I would be just as happy with the 6 classes for stat focus, plus maybe a couple more for what they are currently calling "power sources"... So a druid could be strong, wise and wild and a ranger fast, strong and wild....

But saying "Doing this fits the flavor of the rogue... but there is no flavor to the classes so just dip in rogue if you want it!" requires a bit more cognitive dissonance than I'm willing to devote to the new edition.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don't think that role rigidity is going to be that much of a problem... For a couple of reasons.

First, there's always multiclassing, which apparently 'works better' than it has in the past. So if you want to have cross-role abilities, you can easily multiclass into a class with that other role.

Secondly, it appears that most of the class abilities are going to be squashed into talent trees, so you can pretty easily house rule a way to take talent trees from other classes... Something drastic like, "all talent trees are available to all classes." or the less radical "any class can choose a single talent tree from another class." or even, "Take feat X to gain talent tree Y." If we're lucky, the "feat for access to a talent tree" won't even require a house-rule...

I know that many people say, "you shouldn't have to use house-rules to get what you want" but... Sometimes that's not the case, and this is one where, even if you co need to use a house rule, it probably won't be all that complicated.

Later
silver

 

[DreamChaser]

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."

No. I meant what I said. Perhaps to clarify, D&D has always begun with rigid class roles.

I pointed out this trend during late 2e (even Unearthed Arcana did it to some extent in 1e) which (I believe) contributed to a transition into 3e.

3.*e has been much better about this: you can make wizards who fight with swords and wear armor, or fighters who are good at pickpocketing; and two 9th-level fighters with the same stats can be very different.

This is true to a point...you CAN by taking sub-par feats / cross-class skills and reducing your efficacy in your core role (perhaps substantially). On some things, you simply cannot. Fighters cannot learn spells beyond the few granted by the feats in Complete Arcane. A wizard cannot effectively learn Open Lock (the DCs are too high for the cross class ranks to be worthwhile).

I don't see how this is less rigid than anything defined so far.

You are missing my point. In organized RPGA play, typically several people show up to play a four-hour mod at a certain level. You could get a 10th level table of four fighters. The module writers are aware of this and try to write mods that will allow any party to have a chance to succeed. I am concerned that if roles are more rigidly defined in 4E that will be more difficult.

If the module writers are aware of it and able to accommodate it now (where the rules all but dictate the presence of a cleric to survive), then they will be able to in 4e.

What you have described is not an issue of the rigidity of the rules but rather a reflection of the unique quirks brought about by organized play.

DC

 

[Lanefan]

This is true to a point...you CAN by taking sub-par feats / cross-class skills and reducing your efficacy in your core role (perhaps substantially). On some things, you simply cannot. Fighters cannot learn spells beyond the few granted by the feats in Complete Arcane. A wizard cannot effectively learn Open Lock (the DCs are too high for the cross class ranks to be worthwhile).

And either class can hire or recruit someone of the other class to perform these tasks if needed. You don't have to do it all yourself!

Lanefan

 

[Desdichado]

No. I meant what I said.

In that case, you're simply wrong, and even your own post explains how.

Perhaps to clarify, D&D has always begun with rigid class roles.

I pointed out this trend during late 2e (even Unearthed Arcana did it to some extent in 1e) which (I believe) contributed to a transition into 3e.

Always begun? What does that even mean? It did begin with rigid class roles, and after a few years it started trending towards more flexible character build options.

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make. It always began that way, but started migrating away from it in the mid-80s and has continued that migration ever since?

That point doesn't support your conclusion, it supports the opposite.