Rule of Three: 7/11

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, he didn't say it was easier to know your job was to tank, just that it was easier to tank. I think if you took the fighter from 1st-3rd edition and gave them the two abilities he mentioned, it would be easier to tank with them as well.

 

[D'karr]

Wow, just wow...

 

[Marshall]

It almost seems like he's saying, "We were going to do an effects based game, but hey, the Hero system already exists!"

Seriously, going forward with the current methodology, when you look at it and know its problematic, is not going to do the game any favors.

The problem is rules bloat ladies and gentlemen and strangely enough, renaming powers and abilities isn't the way to reduce that.

Why is the solution to "Too many powers" designing different versions of existing classes? Arent you just doubling down on the problem?

Isnt the real solution to start obsoleting the crap, errataing the overly specific and improving on whats come before instead of rehashing?

 

[FireLance]

I think what I'd like to see would be for themes to become the macro building blocks of a PC. Themes would grant access to benefits, which would be the micro building blocks, and which could be constant benefits, at-will, encounter or daily powers, etc.

You could have race themes, class themes, background themes, even role and power source themes. Level is your measure of power as it determines how many benefits you can choose. However, themes grant you breadth of options - the more themes you have, the more options you can choose from.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The issue isn't just the proliferation of powers, nor is it really the massive amount of power overlap. Fundamentally, the issues with powers come down to two main issues with effects:

1) There's no real division of effects along any metric (class/role/source/race). Due to this, there's no real identity established by most of the power sets.

2) The number of unique effects in general is relatively small. The number of powers increased, but the number of effects stayed relatively the same. Therefore, we see a lot of duplication.

The two of these combined creates the symptom of homogenized powers.

The way to solve it is similarly two-fold:

1) Don't focus on expanding powers without expanding effects. New effects don't have to be complex, but they do need to add something new. Otherwise, there doesn't really need to be new powers.

2) Reserve some effects to establish identity. Perhaps anyone can Push, but maybe only controllers can Pull. Perhaps only Divine characters can do surge-less healing. Not every class should have access to every effect.

 

[Dice4Hire]

To me, the best example of how things should be with powers is ?????? Word.

A lot of classes have it, but it is subtly different for each class. One can heal a bit more, one can slide, another can grant an attack bonus, or .... and feats can add even mroe versatility to the power.

So the same basic effect, but each minor change makes the power more unique.

If more powers worked like this I would like it.

Overall, if I were designing things, I thinkk I would take a page from psionics augmentation, and allow classes a list of augments to go with a series of basic powers. So a fighter could add things like push and prone, while a wizard could slide and pull better. Later both could stun, but it might be slightly different for each class.

 

[MrMyth]

So, highest AC, Hit Points, Attacks and Damage wasn't "role insulation"?

Well, I've seen some situations that might be an explanation for what he's talking about:

Round 1: Fighter runs up and starts smacking an ogre. Ogre swings back, bounces off the fighter's armor.
Round 2: Ogre walks away from the fighter and smashes a wizard into jelly.
Wizard's Player: Darnit, Fighter, aren't you supposed to keep these guys off of me?!?

A well-built fighter could be quite durable, but in many cases, that only discouraged enemies from attacking them. Having features to encourage (but not force) an enemy to focus on the fighter, or that make it hard for enemies to get away... does, I think, help make sure that they can fulfill those expectations.

Wait a minute, Rich... If every player of 1E and 2E knows the role of the Fighter is to protect the Wizard, and it's the role of the Cleric to keep the Fighter on his feet, then how can you say "role insulation" makes it easier to play a Fighter...?

Oh, I see. In 4E, you gave made it game jargon like, "Role", whereas in 1E or 2E it's just a "job" the class does.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with jargon - if so, he would have said, "Some folks didn't realize a fighter was supposed to be a meat-shield."

It wasn't that they made the fighter's job obvious, it was that they made it easier - by actually having abilities that let it fulfill that function. I think that's all he's talking about - all of the roles have more defined core abilities that ensure they can fulfill their role. Defenders mark, leaders have healing words, strikers have a damage bonus, and controllers... well, controllers are trickier, but tend to hit multiple enemies and apply nasty conditions.

Now, once can still build a 4E fighter focused more on damage than defending, in the same way they can build a 4E cleric who doesn't do much healing outside of their built-in healing words.

But the point is that those healing words are always there. The marking is always there. They will always, in some way, be able to deliver the expectations of their role, even if the player wants to focus the core of the character elsewhere.

That, I think, is all that is being talked about in terms of 'role insulation'.

 

[P1NBACK]

Round 1: Fighter runs up and starts smacking an ogre. Ogre swings back, bounces off the fighter's armor.
Round 2: Ogre walks away from the fighter and smashes a wizard into jelly.
Wizard's Player: Darnit, Fighter, aren't you supposed to keep these guys off of me?!?

Except... when you are engaged in melee, you can't just run past someone. The only movement actions you can take are "Defensive Movement" such as a Fighting Withdrawal or Retreat. A Fighter needs only engage the Ogre and the Ogre must deal with the Fighter, or figure out some way to disengage.

Therefore, your example is false, and not by the rules. If Rich Baker is talking about the Ogre just "running past the fighter" or whatever, then clearly he doesn't know the rules.

Adding in two complex powers that don't do anything better than the basic rule of being engaged in melee and fighting withdrawal movements is not my idea of "easier".

Combine this with the fact that every defender in 4E has their own rules for acting as the tank means that the effects of complexity are cumulative... For each defender you add (with their own version "Combat Superiority" and "Combat Challenge") means that the system as a whole gets more and more complex.

Complexity /= "easier" for me.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Except... when you are engaged in melee, you can't just run past someone. The only movement actions you can take are "Defensive Movement" such as a Fighting Withdrawal or Retreat. A Fighter needs only engage the Ogre and the Ogre must deal with the Fighter, or figure out some way to disengage.

No you can't you can move normally to get away from a fight, you just take Opportunity Attacks. And for some monsters like Ogres, they're tough enough they don't care if they take Opportunity Attacks.

 

[P1NBACK]

No you can't you can move normally to get away from a fight, you just take Opportunity Attacks. And for some monsters like Ogres, they're tough enough they don't care if they take Opportunity Attacks.

lol

We're not talking about 4E in this example. Thanks for the input though.