What should have been done differently in 4E

[xechnao]

Well, I think 4e is a fine board mini game: by design it could have been a nice sword&sorcery game if it did not fail on some directions it chose to took -and I believe it did so due to legacy reasons.
I guess they should have mixed the defender and leader class and perhaps give some of the defender to the striker class too. So end up with two different but at least reasonable weapon combat classes. One that represents he who knows how to inspire his comrades and analyze combat and one that represents he who delivers and exploits the chaotic fury of combat. IMO the plain defender roles and designed classes just do not make any real sense, yet they seem to be 4e's chosen of the sword in the sword&sorcery genre.

But then they would end up with just three roles. Would that be acceptable? Dunno. But why not?

And in the above context I also believe they should have included rules and mechanics for groups and formations and that PCs can control. Here they could have also made alignments interesting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, they did mix the roles a lot more then you think.

There are powers in all classes that "transcend" role. Some Fighter powers provide "short-range" control features. Some Ranger powers provide Leader-like abilities. Many Warlock-powers have controller-like abilities. Some Paladin powers are Leader-like. Some Fighter powers are very striker-like. Some Warlord powers are defender-like, and some Cleric powers are controller-like.

But the core abilities (At-Will, and class features) all focus on their role. Most of the encounter and daily powers focus on the role, but some also have side-effects.

The Warlord is a Leader. But he is just as much involved in melee combat then the Fighter, and he's not running around as much as some of the Strikers.

Basically all the roles are very fundamental. 3E core assumptions for CR guideline actually was based on them - You had Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard as the standard 4-man party, and if you diverged from it, the CR guidelines worked less well.

There has always been someone that had to be the Fighter. And if it was a swashbuckler like Fighter, focusing on mobility and light or no armor, you usually noticed the lack of someone holding your front-line.
Remove the Cleric, and suddenly, no one can deal with all the damage and negative energy, poison or disease effects thrown at them.

The only thing that is more or less "artifical" is that the Leader is not a pure Healer, but he is also the Buffer. That wouldn't have to be true, in 3E Wizards (Controllers) were also fine buffers. Though, if you look at the spell selection, a lot of the basic and important support/buff powers are still limited to Clerics (Remove Disease, Delay Poison, Remove Paralysis, Death Ward, Bless, Aid, Prayer, Shield of Faith) in 3E.

The distinction between Striker and Defender emerges pretty natural, in my opinion. A lightly armored guy like the Rogue should really not stand in the front-line. Nor should an Archer. It doesn't fit the archetype. But you still need someone that can take the heat and protect his allies. That's why you create Defender and Striker as distinct roles.

---

An entirely different thing regarding to roles is:
What about non-combat roles? The roles are not defined yet, but I think they actually exist.
You have something like
- Sage (Knowledge skills)
- Faceman (Social skills)
- Guide (Survival/Navigate/Tracking/Animal Care)
And maybe there is also something like "Artificer" or "Techie", but I am not sure if it's a distinct role, or should go into Sage...

If I would have created 4E, I would have tried to tackle these roles, too. Though I might have needed another year of design & development to get this right.

With such "out-of-combat" roles, you _might_ be able to convince some people that 4E is not all hack & slash or combat.

A in-game implementation could do one of the following things
- Assign a non-combat role to each class. This narrows them down further. ("What? Why does my Fighter _have_ to be some kind of Faceman?)
- Create a second set of non-combat class donations that you can "gestalt" with the combat orientated classes. So people would play something like Rogue (Artful Dodger) Faceman, or Rogue (Brute) Guide, or Wizard (Staff) Sage or Warlock (Fey) Guide, or Cleric ("Laser") Sage.

 

[nothing to see here]

Actually, they did mix the roles a lot more then you think.

There are powers in all classes that "transcend" role. Some Fighter powers provide "short-range" control features. Some Ranger powers provide Leader-like abilities. Many Warlock-powers have controller-like abilities. Some Paladin powers are Leader-like. Some Fighter powers are very striker-like. Some Warlord powers are defender-like, and some Cleric powers are controller-like.

But the core abilities (At-Will, and class features) all focus on their role. Most of the encounter and daily powers focus on the role, but some also have side-effects.

The Warlord is a Leader. But he is just as much involved in melee combat then the Fighter, and he's not running around as much as some of the Strikers.

Basically all the roles are very fundamental. 3E core assumptions for CR guideline actually was based on them - You had Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard as the standard 4-man party, and if you diverged from it, the CR guidelines worked less well.

There has always been someone that had to be the Fighter. And if it was a swashbuckler like Fighter, focusing on mobility and light or no armor, you usually noticed the lack of someone holding your front-line.
Remove the Cleric, and suddenly, no one can deal with all the damage and negative energy, poison or disease effects thrown at them.

The only thing that is more or less "artifical" is that the Leader is not a pure Healer, but he is also the Buffer. That wouldn't have to be true, in 3E Wizards (Controllers) were also fine buffers. Though, if you look at the spell selection, a lot of the basic and important support/buff powers are still limited to Clerics (Remove Disease, Delay Poison, Remove Paralysis, Death Ward, Bless, Aid, Prayer, Shield of Faith) in 3E.

The distinction between Striker and Defender emerges pretty natural, in my opinion. A lightly armored guy like the Rogue should really not stand in the front-line. Nor should an Archer. It doesn't fit the archetype. But you still need someone that can take the heat and protect his allies. That's why you create Defender and Striker as distinct roles.

---

An entirely different thing regarding to roles is:
What about non-combat roles? The roles are not defined yet, but I think they actually exist.
You have something like
- Sage (Knowledge skills)
- Faceman (Social skills)
- Guide (Survival/Navigate/Tracking/Animal Care)
And maybe there is also something like "Artificer" or "Techie", but I am not sure if it's a distinct role, or should go into Sage...

If I would have created 4E, I would have tried to tackle these roles, too. Though I might have needed another year of design & development to get this right.

With such "out-of-combat" roles, you _might_ be able to convince some people that 4E is not all hack & slash or combat.

A in-game implementation could do one of the following things
- Assign a non-combat role to each class. This narrows them down further. ("What? Why does my Fighter _have_ to be some kind of Faceman?)
- Create a second set of non-combat class donations that you can "gestalt" with the combat orientated classes. So people would play something like Rogue (Artful Dodger) Faceman, or Rogue (Brute) Guide, or Wizard (Staff) Sage or Warlock (Fey) Guide, or Cleric ("Laser") Sage.

That is very well-thought out post. I have no problem with the default game wanting to give everybody a functional real combat role, but outside of the (admittedly very fun) combat encounters, the remainder of the ruleset does feel 'tacked on'. For groups who like to mechanically define their characters in non-combat ways, there is reason to be dissapointed.

I have no idea how you create non-combat roles when three quarters of the hard-wired base class progression involves tacking on explicit "attack" powers. It might require an entirely different class chart. I doubt Wizards would ever do such a thing, but, once the GSL allows for third parties, I think this would be a lucrative niche for a small third party.

 

[xechnao]

Mustrum_Ridcully:

My problem is with the defender role in 4e. It just makes no sense to me fluff wise neither its concept nor its rules. No need to get confused with comparisons with 3e. A 3e fighter or barbarian could have been a brute or a soldier for example MM wise.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum_Ridcully:

My problem is with the defender role in 4e. It just makes no sense to me fluff wise neither its concept nor its rules. No need to get confused with comparisons with 3e. A 3e fighter or barbarian could have been a brute or a soldier for example MM wise.

Fluff wise the Defender makes a lot of sense. He is the guy that takes all the hits and just keeps going. He is the guy that stands between the woman and the monster.

Mind you, I am speaking about the archetype, not the mechanics.

but outside of the (admittedly very fun) combat encounters, the remainder of the ruleset does feel 'tacked on'. For groups who like to mechanically define their characters in non-combat ways, there is reason to be dissapointed.

I am not sure I agree it's "tacked on". I think the skill system is well integrated with the rest. But if you mean to say that it seems inconsistent that one part of the character definition (his combat role) is precisely described in game terms (role names), and the other less so (or rather - not at all), yes, the latter is probably more "tacked on".

What I personally really hope is that
1 There will be a 4E based d20 Modern
2 That they will put some thought into this.

And if they decide not to use it after 2, I want to read the explanations. There might be good reasons for it ...

For example, it's quite possible that there is more than just a vocal minority that would complain to have their non-combat abilities be defined with broad general terms and claim (rightfully or wrongly) that would kill all role-playing. In my ivory tower (read: the comfort of my living room) I wouldn't be able to see it, but the designers with WotC market research in their backs might be.

 

[xechnao]

Fluff wise the Defender makes a lot of sense. He is the guy that takes all the hits and just keeps going. He is the guy that stands between the woman and the monster.

Mind you, I am speaking about the archetype, not the mechanics.

Heh what? No, it does not connect as a role. Do you know anyone that his life philosophy or style constitutes to seek to take as many hits as he can and keep on going? Lol
Yeah, anyone withing his interest could find the courage to face danger and the probability of suffering damage. But this cannot be a generic role archetype. It just really makes no sense.

Then we have the rules. Marks and the like. They make no sense neither. Just one mark at a time? Why?
Nah, they should have made formation rules IMO. Much better and more realistic. Of course it would require more work and playtesting from their part, but hey they want to make the best game out of their game design -or maybe not?

I am not sure I agree it's "tacked on". I think the skill system is well integrated with the rest. But if you mean to say that it seems inconsistent that one part of the character definition (his combat role) is precisely described in game terms (role names), and the other less so (or rather - not at all), yes, the latter is probably more "tacked on".

What I personally really hope is that
1 There will be a 4E based d20 Modern
2 That they will put some thought into this.

And if they decide not to use it after 2, I want to read the explanations. There might be good reasons for it ...

For example, it's quite possible that there is more than just a vocal minority that would complain to have their non-combat abilities be defined with broad general terms and claim (rightfully or wrongly) that would kill all role-playing. In my ivory tower (read: the comfort of my living room) I wouldn't be able to see it, but the designers with WotC market research in their backs might be.

I am not talking about non combat abilities. It is combat abilities that make no sense.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Heh what? No, it does not connect as a role. Do you know anyone that his life philosophy or style constitutes to seek to take as many hits as he can and keep on going? Lol
Yeah, anyone withing his interest could find the courage to face danger and the probability of suffering damage. But this cannot be a generic role archetype. It just really makes no sense.

And blasting a lot of people is a archetype? Or backstabbing someone?

Yes, it is an archetype. The guy that always is there to protect his friends is an archetype. There is a difference between someone operating behind the battle lines and taking out individual enemies, and someone fighting at the front-line. There is a difference between someone standing behind the one in the front-line and barking orders (or making suggestions).

I am afraid I cannot agree with you here.

I am not talking about non combat abilities. It is combat abilities that make no sense.

I wasn't quoting you, but nothing to see here.

 

[xechnao]

And blasting a lot of people is a archetype? Or backstabbing someone?

Unfortunately, yes, considering war or combat, it is. It is the philosophy of militarily winning a war or combat.

Yes, it is an archetype. The guy that always is there to protect his friends is an archetype. There is a difference between someone operating behind the battle lines and taking out individual enemies, and someone fighting at the front-line. There is a difference between someone standing behind the one in the front-line and barking orders (or making suggestions).

I am afraid I cannot agree with you here.

No really no. There exist dramatic situations that can make one man to take and or lead the front and defend something. OTOH militarily we are talking about GROUP formations that make the front. But no one trains as to be a solo damage absorption machine. Perhaps one can train to be a daredevil striker that fears not to face his enemies, but not a damage absorption machine. It is just a wrongly taken concept from video-games to a tabletop rpg. If you wanted to include guys that can stop the advancement of enemies then find a way to give this ability to any martial build, say leaders or strikers within their contest.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I don't think your role in combat has anything to do with your character's internal motivations unless you want it to. The fighter doesn't fill the Defender role because he's a masochist, he does it because if *someone* has to go toe-to-toe with the monsters, he's better equipped and trained to do so and live than the guy in a robe.

If soliders get trained to fight in a fashion that allows them to hold the line and protect their allies -- that's not altruism, it's survival. You don't even have to like your allies for it to make sense to want to keep them alive and able to do their jobs.

Marking is just an abstraction of a fighter's ability to find openings and take advantage of them. There's no supernatural "You must attack me" compulsion, we're talking about a big armored dude with a sword bearing down on you. Turning away from him to hit an easier target gives him an opening. One mark at a time is simply because most of the time it's difficult to present a credible immediate threat to two people at once, and it makes the abstraction a bit simpler. (There are a number of higher-level powers that allow you to apply multiple marks, as well.)

If you wanted to include guys that can stop the advancement of enemies then find a way to give this ability to any martial build, say leaders or strikers within their contest.

They did. Warlords and rogues have some handy abilities to do so. They work pretty well in concert -- with a mixed adventuring party, that's as close as you get to phalanx-style combat, pretty much.

I think your concerns rise from the level of abstraction involved in 4e. There are mechanical benefits for things like holding the line, protecting your vulnerable allies, etc. How they're described in the in-game fiction doesn't have to match up with how the mechanics handle things. The mechanics give you the end effect, it's up to the folks at the table to decide how that translates into what "really happens" in the game world. If you want mechanics that describe in detail how it plays out in the fiction instead of giving the effects and letting you decide how to depict it, 4e doesn't really do that.

And now, having spent all that time arguing with you, I'll proceed to agree with you. I think there's a lot of mileage in a game with solid mechanical rules for military fighting formations. I'd love to do a Greek/Roman themed game with that kind of detail, or maybe something like The Black Company. That'd be pretty sweet. It's just not what 4e was aiming for.

 

[xechnao]

Dp