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

[MindWanderer]

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.

Yes, and that makes the feat even more powerful, because there are very few ways of getting a bonus to saves now, and "save ends" effects are extremely common.

 

[Scribble]

I'm of the camp tht says that even if they do strive to make it so that all otpions are good options... eventually as more and more powers come out, there will be plenty of unexpected combinations that are more powerful then others.

 

[Torchlyte]

Wow, not sure where this is coming from. Actually I do, but I'd hate to assume things about you - right now, my assumption would have to be that you assume that D&D is nothing but a combat simulator (which maybe it will be in 4E, don't have the books in front of me).

But there is a huge gulf between wanting to 'suck', to use your words, and wanting to excel at things other than striking people in the head with large objects.

So...

1. I want choices to be relatively balanced.
2. You want to be able to make a character suck at combat.

Therefore:
3. I'm the simulationist?

Your logic is astounding.

Edit:

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.

Same here. I don't think "saving throw" and "reflex defense," I think "reflex save."

 

[hamishspence]

skill system

From what I can tell, skill challenges are aimed to give everyone a chance to contribute. A reasonable idea, though roleplay in aforesaid challenges should be rewarded (maybe by little bonuses, maybe by the DM simply allowing some (not all) skills that aren't usually used, to be used. But this needs to be done without forcing players to be fantastic actors to do most things. Intermediate between just rolling, and just talking, is making both the roll and the speech relevant.

Making some characters fantastic in certain circumstances and others terrible in same circumstances is a bit like Scissors Paper Stone: not a good idea. Characters should be close enough in utility for circumstances, that they contribute. No situations where player feels they have to completely sit situation out.

 

[phloog]

So...
1. I want choices to be relatively balanced.
2. You want to be able to make a character suck at combat.
Therefore:
3. I'm the simulationist?

Your logic is astounding.
Edit:
Same here. I don't think "saving throw" and "reflex defense," I think "reflex save."

Torchlyte - -maybe where I'm having the biggest problem with you personally, which impacts my ability to see your argument, is your insistence on using the word 'suck', which to me is normally associated with more of a nasty argument than a discussion - the problem may entirely be mine, as I'm an old dude and don't tend to use that word in any form of debate. Also, you used ":rollseyes:", which also tends to make this more of an argument than a civil discussion, which is not what I'm trying to do at all. Your statement alone made it clear that you were likely rolling your eyes - the addition seems to be an attempt to ridicule the person (me) instead of just making the point.

I don't think I was saying you are a simulationist - I think my own error was using the word 'simulator' when it appears that 'simulate' is used by gamers to mean some form of accurate representation of real combat (blood loss, organ damage, etc.) - is that what you thought I meant? It was not - again, entirely my fault for choice of words.

If so, then I apologize and would like you to react to my comment as if I had instead said "combat game" instead of "combat simulator".

And I'd rather not have this become you battling me, so let me also state that I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to play a combat-oriented game - this isn't about the people or individual tastes.

The only other thing I would add is that I think people aren't recalling that I have never stated (IIRC) that I wanted players to sit around while the combat happened, but that they would have exciting things to do that were not directly linked to damage dealing (or even healing) while combat raged around them.

 

[Ximenes088]

The only other thing I would add is that I think people aren't recalling that I have never stated (IIRC) that I wanted players to sit around while the combat happened, but that they would have exciting things to do that were not directly linked to damage dealing (or even healing) while combat raged around them.

I'd agree that it's theoretically possible to have every single combat in a campaign provide valuable non-fighting-related activities for those who are combat-incapable. But that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to build that necessity into the rules.

If you allow combat-incompetents into the game, either they gain nothing by giving up their combat skills or they gain a corresponding benefit to their non-combat utility. In the first case, any ruleset can accommodate their wishes- just don't choose to do useful things in combat. In the second case, it becomes impossible to have a diplomatically-focused PC without either crippling your combat utility or being greatly outshone by anyone else who does. 4e has intentionally and purposefully made it impossible to gain significant noncombat utility at the cost of significant combat utility. I think this is a good choice.

Maybe some sublimely talented DM can somehow manage to make every fight interesting even for the combat-incompetents in the group. It's possible. I just think it's a really, really bad idea to set up a game system so that such DMs become necessary.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Before you try and be the forum tough hero, why don't you see what you're championing first. I quote from a credible source precisely what the cocreator of D&D, the entire reason this forum and hobby exists at all, had to say on the subject. Then someone dismisses the credible source without providing even a shred of evidence or substance.

So that's what you want to see is it?

Dissent without content.

You miss the point. He didn't challenge your accuracy in citing Gygax. He challenged the relevance of citing Gygax. As others have since said, Gygax's cocreation of the game indebts all of us to him, but in no way suggests that his views on what makes for a better/worse game constitute fact. They are opinions, just like everyone else's. And this is a matter of gaming preference we are talking about, not gaming know-how, so your rhetorical question came off to some as both snide and misguided.

 

[hong]

And I'd rather not have this become you battling me, so let me also state that I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to play a combat-oriented game - this isn't about the people or individual tastes.

Clearly D&D cannot be a combat-oriented game, because everybody has about equal ability to contribute out of combat.

The only other thing I would add is that I think people aren't recalling that I have never stated (IIRC) that I wanted players to sit around while the combat happened, but that they would have exciting things to do that were not directly linked to damage dealing (or even healing) while combat raged around them.

This is like saying that you want good peanut butter while everyone else is having ice cream.