Testing The Correlation Between Class Preference And 4E Love/Hate

[ExploderWizard]

A martial character is like Batman or Captain America in the world of D&D superheroes. They are still doing incredible things. They aren't flying. They aren't teleporting. They aren't conjuring things out of nothing.

This is a big point of debate. Its genre confusion. For some people having four color superheroes runs against the genre of heroic fantasy. It would be like having Gandalf in the X Men. Sometimes genre blends can work out great but they usually run better in a universal system that handles both styles. The 4E design shifted the genre focus away from fantasy and more towards supers with fantasy trappings. Some people are happy with the shift and others would prefer that D&D remain a fantasy game at its core and let those who run it decide how much supers stuff to add to the mix.

 

[mmadsen]

You meant reality sarcastically, but he obviously was meaning the straw man literrally ... it would be impossible for someone to counter sarcasm with sarcasm.

No, I did not mean "reality" sarcastically. It was not in quotes for irony but to fend off pedants who feel compelled to snipe at any use of the word "reality" by saying, "There aren't any wizards or dragons in real life!" They're so terribly clever, you see.

I put "reality" in quotes to signify the reality of the game world, as seen by the characters within it.

Many of the martial powers work great as board-game powers -- and that's not meant to be derogatory, simply explanatory -- but they don't jibe with the characters' understanding of the world. First, of course, the whole notion of once-per-day or once-per-encounter powers doesn't make sense in character. Is it reasonable that the opportunities to pull off those fancy moves would only appear roughly once per fight or once per day? Sure. Would a character know he had such opportunities as a limited resource? No, of course not. It doesn't approximate anything a character might know.

Individual powers make peculiar assumptions about being able to move opponents or otherwise affect them, when the explanation simply doesn't match many situations -- especially against unusual foes, which might be extremely big or small, or unthinking, or lacking various body-parts, etc.

My complaint is not that martial characters are now too cool.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

A martial character is like Batman or Captain America in the world of D&D superheroes. They are still doing incredible things. They aren't flying. They aren't teleporting. They aren't conjuring things out of nothing.

A reasonable analogy. However, while playing as Batman can be pretty damn awesome, its not nearly as much fun when the guy next to you is playing Superman and your up against Doomsday.

Or to use the Marvel analogy, you can put someone like Captain America on the Avengers. But if you have guys like Thor or the Sentry on the team at the same time, you are going to run into situations where Captain America is not really going to need or be able to do much. As a game D&D is about combat and the DM needs to try to keep every player equally engaged. What works in comics, TV, Movies, or Books will not necessarily work in a game situation.

As for the topic of the thread, I generally play as the DM, but as a player I usually end up using more melee oriented classes. I currently run a Dwarven Warlord.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Set]

Ignoring the derail attempt;

I always seem to end up with Clerics or Druids in 3.X. (In previous editions, I preferred some sort of multi-classed elven magic-user.)

I've never liked Rogues, and I've only played Fighter types in GURPS and Vampire.

I'm not a fan of 4E.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm an odd bird.

My favorite PC classes were rogues and clerics. (With bards! being close behind).

I GENERALLY like 4e. I like the fact my rogue characters are able to do more, get into melee a bit, and do all sorts of cool maneuvers and tricks I'd wanted him to.

HOWEVER

My cleric is less thrilled with shooting holy lazers at foes to give his allies boosts, and having overall less options than before (granted, clerics need a tone down from 'Every cleric spell in print. Ever.' but I do lament the loss of some versatility in my casting, even if it is better "balanced".

(My Bard, btw, LOVES the new bard class. Hurrah for not being overshadowed by EVERYONE!)

So where does that put me?

I think the caster classes needed to be taken down a peg or three, but They got dragged down the whole bloody ladder! I miss some of the versatility magic used to have, and think it could have been better preserved while removing the game-breaking elements (easy teleport, knock, etc). OTOH, martial PCs LOVE being able to keep time with the wizards and not be stuck just playing linebacker to the wizards QB.

I guess that throws me in the middle, eh?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No, I did not mean "reality" sarcastically. It was not in quotes for irony but to fend off pedants who feel compelled to snipe at any use of the word "reality" by saying, "There aren't any wizards or dragons in real life!" They're so terribly clever, you see.

I put "reality" in quotes to signify the reality of the game world, as seen by the characters within it.

Many of the martial powers work great as board-game powers -- and that's not meant to be derogatory, simply explanatory -- but they don't jibe with the characters' understanding of the world. First, of course, the whole notion of once-per-day or once-per-encounter powers doesn't make sense in character. Is it reasonable that the opportunities to pull off those fancy moves would only appear roughly once per fight or once per day? Sure. Would a character know he had such opportunities as a limited resource? No, of course not. It doesn't approximate anything a character might know.

Individual powers make peculiar assumptions about being able to move opponents or otherwise affect them, when the explanation simply doesn't match many situations -- especially against unusual foes, which might be extremely big or small, or unthinking, or lacking various body-parts, etc.

My complaint is not that martial characters are now too cool.

The issue is that martial powers aren't based on Simulationist or even Gamist "reality" but Narrative "reality". You only get an opening to use an encounter power once per encounter, or an opening to use a Daily once per day. You, the player, get to pick when that opening happens. Push/Pull/Slide powers are also based in Narrative "reality".

 

[ExploderWizard]

A reasonable analogy. However, while playing as Batman can be pretty damn awesome, its not nearly as much fun when the guy next to you is playing Superman and your up against Doomsday.

Or to use the Marvel analogy, you can put someone like Captain America on the Avengers. But if you have guys like Thor or the Sentry on the team at the same time, you are going to run into situations where Captain America is not really going to need or be able to do much. As a game D&D is about combat and the DM needs to try to keep every player equally engaged. What works in comics, TV, Movies, or Books will not necessarily work in a game situation.

As for the topic of the thread, I generally play as the DM, but as a player I usually end up using more melee oriented classes. I currently run a Dwarven Warlord.

END COMMUNICATION

I guess the part I put in bold text helps explain why the shift from fantasy to supers happened.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I guess the part I put in bold text helps explain why the shift from fantasy to supers happened.

And again, this brings up the following question: What was it about previous editions from a system standpoint that made them other than 90% focused on combat?

Individual behavior by players and DMs make D&D not about combat. As far as the rules have always gone, combat has been 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. This has been true of every edition, from OD&D through 4th. Rules have been there, in terms of Nonweapon Proficiencies, skills, skill challenges, utility spells/powers, but these have never really been truly important to the core game unless DMs and players made them so.

4E DMs and players can use Skill Challenges and ad-hoc making stuff up ala OD&D/1E/2E to get the same level of non-combat focus as has been possible in any edition.

 

[T. Foster]

I guess the part I put in bold text helps explain why the shift from fantasy to supers happened.

I was about to post the same thing.

FWIW, I am dissatisfied with 4E (though perhaps marginally less dissatisfied than I was with 3E/3.5) and I prefer to play barbarians and magic-users (not at the same time, duh!).

 

[ExploderWizard]

And again, this brings up the following question: What was it about previous editions from a system standpoint[b/] that made them other than 90% focused on combat?

Individual behavior by players and DMs make D&D not about combat. As far as the rules have always gone, combat has been 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. This has been true of every edition, from OD&D through 4th. Rules have been there, in terms of Nonweapon Proficiencies, skills, skill challenges, utility spells/powers, but these have never really been truly important to the core game unless DMs and players made them so.

4E DMs and players can use Skill Challenges and ad-hoc making stuff up ala OD&D/1E/2E to get the same level of non-combat focus as has been possible in any edition.

Not quite. I'm not saying that early D&D was full of non-combat rules and fluffy bunnies. Early D&D was focused on adventure and exploration which may or may not lead to a combat heavy game.

4E is designed for heavy combat, and that effect can be felt in the class design as well as the combat rules.