D&D 4E Will the 4E classes be deliberately unbalanced to get players to read?

[OchreJelly]

And I think the problem with the chess analogy is that to really preserve balance, in the combat part of the game everyone is a bishop...you can be the white-square bishop or the black square bishop, but God forbid there is a scenario where you can't capture a piece that someone else could.

I guess I should stress that the chess analogy only extends to illustrate this: all things being equal two players can bring vastly different skill sets to the table.

The concept of "Mastery" can come from the player, it doesn't have to come from the "pieces" (i.e. optimized character sheet). I'm not arguing that DND characters should all be exactly the same, or even approach that. I think we might agree that would be boring. They should (and hopefully are) approaching equal balance at fulfilling their given role.

In fact, and this is probably a concern for a different thread, if I did have one fear is that classes that share the same role may feel too similar mechanically. I hope that's not the case.

Back on point: If two players have the characters with the same role, achieving a close equality, I think skill will still rewarded the skilled and thoughtful player who craves that level of mastery.

I just can't speak of anything concrete beyond what the sample characters can do, although "Keywords" gives me a strong indication that skilled players will be able to exploit (the good 'exploit') combos and team synergies. When we see a full powerset we'll know.

 

[malraux]

I guess perhaps my biggest concern is that the things you're discussing have NEVER been a problem in my 3.x games - no one has been left out, those who stink at combat still have a ball, etc. It's possible as I mentioned that I've just been lucky, and I'll be the first to admit that it adds effort.

So when the rogue is taking point on exploring/dealing with traps/picking locks, how does the fighter not get left out? In most campaigns I've seen, the non-stealthy characters will end up in a different conversation until they finally notice the DM saying "uh guys, you might want to roll initative."

 

[OchreJelly]

Here's the short version of what I'm getting at:
The casual player can still have fun without "sucking".
The skilled player can still create devastating setups, and anticipate contingencies, that may not be obvious to the casual player with a similar power set.

Everyone wins! Well... except for maybe the poor DM

 

[WhatGravitas]

So when the rogue is taking point on exploring/dealing with traps/picking locks, how does the fighter not get left out? In most campaigns I've seen, the non-stealthy characters will end up in a different conversation until they finally notice the DM saying "uh guys, you might want to roll initative."

Or the DM offers alternatives - some of my problems with 4E stemmed from the fact that I learned to cope with 3E's quirks.

An example would be a friend of mine, who previously just DMed a bunch of his friends - his first group, all first time players, i.e. total newbies. They've been running that game for some month, then I find out he plays D&D (odd that you know people and you only get to know that after a year?). Well, I'm playing D&D since the launch of 3.5 (in fact a bit earlier... about half a year before it), so I had a bit more experience under my belt when this happened (winter 06):

He DMed, I was playing a wizard. Can you imagine how baffled he was when a low-level wizard (6th level) started to take off into the air, bombarding people from above with fireballs and a wand of magic missiles?

Because wizards don't do that at low levels in fiction. But they do in 3.5. And we're accepting it, because we learned to cope with it, because we accepted as a D&D-oddity - whether it's a flying wizard or the thumb-twiddling fighter.

4E is sometimes harder on us than other people, because we have so much to "unlearn".

And for system mastery: See my post - since D&D is a cooperative game, a DM with lack of system mastery can be devastating in 3.5. If D&D allows DMs to cope with more experienced players more easily, I'm all for it, because once you've learned to master the system, it's hard to "unmaster" it - this hurts, if you're wanting to play with new or other people.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess I should stress that the chess analogy only extends to illustrate this: all things being equal two players can bring vastly different skill sets to the table.

The concept of "Mastery" can come from the player, it doesn't have to come from the "pieces" (i.e. optimized character sheet). I'm not arguing that DND characters should all be exactly the same, or even approach that. I think we might agree that would be boring. They should (and hopefully are) approaching equal balance at fulfilling their given role.

In fact, and this is probably a concern for a different thread, if I did have one fear is that classes that share the same role may feel too similar mechanically. I hope that's not the case.

Compare what we have seen so far:
- Warlock & Cleric
- Rouge, Ranger and Warlock
- Fighter and Paladdin
Each of them has unique abilities that are different mechanically, and also thematically feel very different.
More concrete Example:
- Fighter gets extra attacks against people that try to escape his wrath
- Paladin deals divine damage to foes that don't focus on him. He uses smites to force people to focus on him.
Both have a common mechanical element - marks - but what they do with them is thematically and mechanically different.

I suspect that the Swordmage will also be notably different, probably teleporting enemies or allies and stuff like that.

 

[Dausuul]

4E is sometimes harder on us than other people, because we have so much to "unlearn".

Very true. For instance, see the human racial feat that gives you +1 to all your saving throws. At first I thought that was a really powerful feat by 4E standards... until I remembered that Fortitude, Reflex, and Will are defenses in 4E, and saving throws are something totally different now.

 

[Dronehound]

There should be some measure of rule mastery and homework involved in the game. What I hate the most are people who do not know the most basic rules and are always asking others what to do. A totally new player is allowed to act like that for 2-3 games, but after that, he should be able to fight by himself, deal with skill challenges and interact with NPCs without other members having to hold his hand, or keep reminding him to add his freaking base attack bonus to his roll. Every round. D&D is a game, and like all games, players are expected to know the rules of the game.

The concept I think I don't understand how people view classes. To me classes in D&D are set things. A fighter is a heavily armored and armed melee character. A rogue is a lightly armed master of many skills. A cleric is a dedicated martial follower of a deity. You can't play a "light armored fighter with a rapier and main-gauche", because it goes against the definition of the class. Lightly armored agile combatant need to be a separate class, i.e. Swashbuckler. Instead of having a power that grants bonus to shield bash, he could have a power that prierce them with his main-gauche. Instead of a STR bonus to attack and damage, he could gain DEX bonus. Same thing with a Cleric that worships dark gods and blast his enemies with curses. That's a Warlock. I want classes to be more definitive of a character's abilities and powers, and a greater quantity and variety of classes.

 

[OchreJelly]

Compare what we have seen so far:
- Warlock & Cleric

snip
.

I think you meant "Warlord & Cleric" but I am definitely erring on the side of optimism here. I have read the thread where paladins and fighters feel very different at the table. It's just difficult to see until I can get my own grubby hands on the system. Only 1 month to go...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think you meant "Warlord & Cleric"

For consistent misspelling, I corrected Rouge and Paladdin.

 

[roguerouge]

Actually, my current character is pretty much exactly that. She's a favored soul 4/sorceror 4/mystic theurge 8*, and she's essentially built to do nothing but support the rest of the party. She heals, buffs the other PCs, debuffs the monsters, and uses battlefield control to reshape the tactical situation to her liking. (She does have a bit of direct offense for emergencies, but it's not what she's built for.)

I hope there will be enough non-attack-based clerical powers in 4E to allow this type of character. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I very much enjoy it. There's nothing quite like taking another PC, turning him into a god of destruction with a couple of well-chosen buffs, and then using Rapid Metamagic Quickened benign transposition to drop him on top of some hapless monster.

*Yeah, I know this is sub-optimal by caster standards. At 16th level, however, "sub-optimal by caster standards" means "a strong contender by any halfway sane standard."

I salute you. You are a good player.