The Mathematical Model of the d20 System

[Wulf Ratbane]

The 4E approach seems to be to give everyone powers which have a distinct "feel" or "theme" appropriate for each class. It's not your numbers that define you, it's what these numbers will do to your enemies and allies.

Well, if all the classes play the same, and the only difference is how you describe the "special effect," then I won't be satisfied by that. I want flavorful and mechanical differences.

If a fighter has some kind of "Whirling Death Blossom" move that is functionally identical to a fireball, we have a problem.

Personally, I like this approach, but I still wonder if there are different ways to reach a distinct class profile together with achieving a sweet spot. Maybe Wulf will find one.

Maybe I'll find it in time for 5e.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Maybe I'll find it in time for 5e.

So sometime in the next 10 months?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, if all the classes play the same, and the only difference is how you describe the "special effect," then I won't be satisfied by that. I want flavorful and mechanical differences.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Pushing someone a square and dealing damage at range are not just flavor differences. They are thematic differences that are reflected in mechanics.

If a fighter has some kind of "Whirling Death Blossom" move that is functionally identical to a fireball, we have a problem.

I do definitely agree - if I play a different character class, not just the flavor should differ. For the same reason, I don't like games without a skill system. If I am playing someone that is good at climbing, I don't just want to "roleplay" it. I want a number telling me this is true!

The 4E "basic rules" don't make this happen. But the concrete examples do. It requires a certain discipline of the designers, but then, avoiding power-creep does, too. (That might be a horrifying example, BTW, since power creep was certainly not avoided in 3E)

Maybe I'll find it in time for 5e.

Good luck with that.

 

[BryonD]

Pushing someone a square and dealing damage at range are not just flavor differences. They are thematic differences that are reflected in mechanics.

Sure. But if the fighter pushes an orc 1 square and deals 4d6 damage using martial power X and a wizard pushes an orc 1 square and deals 4d6 damage using arcane power Y, then there is no difference.

The question becomes: how much difference is enough difference?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure. But if the fighter pushes an orc 1 square and deals 4d6 damage using martial power X and a wizard pushes an orc 1 square and deals 4d6 damage using arcane power Y, then there is no difference.

In that particular, entirely hypothetical case, yes. (Though the difference whether one is melee and one is ranged can still be significant. And if it's daily, per encounter or at-will, or which level it is...). If it was repeated more or less consistently over multiple levels, then you'd have a problem.

The question becomes: how much difference is enough difference?

The question is: What is the right amount of difference. Not too little, not too much.

 

[BryonD]

In that particular, entirely hypothetical case, yes.

Yeah, but it points out the distinction between what Wulf was saying and what you replied.

If it was repeated more or less consistently over multiple levels, then you'd have a problem.

yep

The question is: What is the right amount of difference. Not too little, not too much.

The basis of the debate was is there too little or not too little, so the refinement doesn't really add much.

Plus, I doubt there would ever be "too much" difference as long as it was well done. If a completely different magic feel was supported by mechanics that were completely different than swordplay and yet both worked fine alongside each other, that would be great. But if there isn't enough difference, then IMO, that option simply can not be done well. So I'll stick my version of the question.

 

[occam]

Well, if all the classes play the same, and the only difference is how you describe the "special effect," then I won't be satisfied by that. I want flavorful and mechanical differences.

If a fighter has some kind of "Whirling Death Blossom" move that is functionally identical to a fireball, we have a problem.

Agreed. Although you could argue that we already have this situation in 3e, if you separate spellcasters from non-spellcasters. In combat, there's not a whole lot of difference between a ranger and a fighter with the appropriate feats. A cleric and a wizard often accomplish very similar things with different special effects (flame strike vs. fireball), or even the exact same special effects (summon monster, hold person, wall of stone).

From what (little) we've seen so far of 4e, it appears the designers may be aware of this issue: for example, we've seen two defenders (fighter and paladin), and the effects of their powers are quite distinctive from each other; even the two martial strikers (ranger and rogue) don't have powers that play the same. But I think if we do start having cases where a lot of different classes' powers are basically the same other than SFX, it may be more noticeable in 4e than what we have in 3e.

This brings me to one of my main concerns about 4e, which goes back to the early playtest reports from DDXP, where several people described a feeling of "button-mashing", getting into the same routine each combat once you were familiarized with your powers. The standard response was that if you think 4e involves button-mashing, what do you think about 3e, where you usually don't even have a choice of powers (at least for mundane combatants)? Perfectly reasonable response... except that some, at least, definitely felt it more in their initial 4e experiences. It instilled some worry in me, too, although it took me a while to figure out why.

Ironically, I think the "wahoo" feel of powers in 4e may be the very thing that makes them seem like old hat after a while. In 3e (and before), there usually isn't much to a non-spellcaster's attack: roll to hit, roll damage. Sure, you might occasionally mix it up with a feat or a bull rush or something, but the typical procedure is almost subconscious. You may not be flipping over tables or pushing opponents around the battlefield, but you don't usually notice that.

The dynamic nature of 4e powers forces you to pay attention to the effects of your action, because you're doing all kinds of cool extraordinary things. But after the 5th Tide of Iron, won't it get to seem a little ho-hum? And will you notice that more because the initial thrill is gone? (A thrill which was, granted, harder to come by at all in 3e.)

I have the same concern about monsters. It's cool interesting that a goblin picador can harpoon you and pull you around the battlefield. But how many goblin picadors can you fight before that just becomes annoying, along with most goblins' ability to shift away when you miss them? Earlier D&D goblins are as boring as they get, being nothing but a weapon and a few hit points in combat, but you never expect the coolness from goblins, so you don't usually miss it.

My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.

 

[ValhallaGH]

My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.

4e is not the first game to have flavorful and tactically interesting options that get repeated. Exalted has a ton of this, as do many of the WoD game systems. Most skill based systems, such as GURPS and Deadlands, encourage a character to only use one or two tricks, which can be very flavorful and tactically interesting tricks. Many people play in games using these systems for years with no complaints.
4e would have to do something exceptionally badly to make people get fed up with their game when those same people can play these other games for years.

Now, for that segment of the market that doesn't like to do the same thing twice, I got nothing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Having played a 3E Fighter whose "shtick" was to trip people (sometimes on his own action, sometimes as an opportunity attack), heavily augmented with feats, I'd say even repetitive can work. It just gets a bit boring if the tactic is too effective (trip without counter-trips with lower attacks or opportunity attacks probably is), but it still feels better then just trading blow after blow.

Goblin Picadors will probably get boring after two or three combats with them. Luckily, if the adventure isn't to badly designed, you won't have to fight them exclusively, and very soon, the adventure will be over, you'll gain a new level, and get to fight new foes with new abilities, and also have gained a new ability on your own.

But this isn't a thread on 4E. It's about the mathematical model of d20. Let's focus on that. 4E have has its own forum, no need to invade other threads and forums.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Agreed. Although you could argue that we already have this situation in 3e, if you separate spellcasters from non-spellcasters. In combat, there's not a whole lot of difference between a ranger and a fighter with the appropriate feats. A cleric and a wizard often accomplish very similar things with different special effects (flame strike vs. fireball), or even the exact same special effects (summon monster, hold person, wall of stone).

From what (little) we've seen so far of 4e, it appears the designers may be aware of this issue: for example, we've seen two defenders (fighter and paladin), and the effects of their powers are quite distinctive from each other; even the two martial strikers (ranger and rogue) don't have powers that play the same. But I think if we do start having cases where a lot of different classes' powers are basically the same other than SFX, it may be more noticeable in 4e than what we have in 3e.

This brings me to one of my main concerns about 4e, which goes back to the early playtest reports from DDXP, where several people described a feeling of "button-mashing", getting into the same routine each combat once you were familiarized with your powers. The standard response was that if you think 4e involves button-mashing, what do you think about 3e, where you usually don't even have a choice of powers (at least for mundane combatants)? Perfectly reasonable response... except that some, at least, definitely felt it more in their initial 4e experiences. It instilled some worry in me, too, although it took me a while to figure out why.

Ironically, I think the "wahoo" feel of powers in 4e may be the very thing that makes them seem like old hat after a while. In 3e (and before), there usually isn't much to a non-spellcaster's attack: roll to hit, roll damage. Sure, you might occasionally mix it up with a feat or a bull rush or something, but the typical procedure is almost subconscious. You may not be flipping over tables or pushing opponents around the battlefield, but you don't usually notice that.

The dynamic nature of 4e powers forces you to pay attention to the effects of your action, because you're doing all kinds of cool extraordinary things. But after the 5th Tide of Iron, won't it get to seem a little ho-hum? And will you notice that more because the initial thrill is gone? (A thrill which was, granted, harder to come by at all in 3e.)

I have the same concern about monsters. It's cool interesting that a goblin picador can harpoon you and pull you around the battlefield. But how many goblin picadors can you fight before that just becomes annoying, along with most goblins' ability to shift away when you miss them? Earlier D&D goblins are as boring as they get, being nothing but a weapon and a few hit points in combat, but you never expect the coolness from goblins, so you don't usually miss it.

My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.

Keep it up, occam.