D&D 4E Will the 4E classes be deliberately unbalanced to get players to read?
- Thread starter joela
- Start date
WhatGravitas
Explorer
I don't think that's incompatible with 4E - in 4E, characters can still get the occasional spotlight:phloog said:
In combat, some characters are just functioning strictly better against a certain type of foe - the same for out-of-combat situations. During a negotiation, the "face" character will still get the spotlight, but the others can still contribute.
If it's against a group of minions, the wizard will still shine. During a negotiation, the "bard" with bluff/diplomacy-combo will still be plain better. But the other characters are not condemned to do nothing - just to be less effective, while still contributing - just contributing less.
I think they just want to get rid of the "I'm useless" situations and "You NEED this skill or you WILL fail" moments.
The specialist still shines and makes the group better - he's just not requirement any longer.
Cheers, LT.
DandD
First Post
Then you really should just apply hong's advice. Don't roll dices, or just purposefully let your character act awkward. Of course, if your group is okay with it, you can even play a plain dumb commoner with NPC-rules alongside their more adventure-oriented player characters.phloog said:
These rules are all for balanced characters, who are viable in combat, and viable outside of combat too.
If you absolutely feel that you need to have a suboptimal combatant in a game system that is designed for fantasy adventures, where monsters like the Eye Tyrant, the Illithid, the Black Dragon in the Swamp, dozens of goblins and orc marauders, dual-wielding dark elves and the Demon Lord of the Undead from the Abyss are considered iconic and fun encounter, you can still do it, but the rules aren't meant for those who want to purposefully be bad at the adventuring stuff.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
I also have it from (a) horses mouth that sub-optimal choices and weird corner cases were demphasized.
But, that doesn't make mastery go away. As others have pointed out, the game has enough moving pieces that there will plenty of scope for it.
It (hopefully) just won't be as easy as saying the toughness and dodge feats suck.
But, that doesn't make mastery go away. As others have pointed out, the game has enough moving pieces that there will plenty of scope for it.
It (hopefully) just won't be as easy as saying the toughness and dodge feats suck.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It boils down to this:
It's not fun to suck.
In moderation, a little bit of suck can be okay, and 4e does give you a little bit of suck -- not everyone will deal with the ice cave or the combat or the magical ward in the same way, and, depending on how it goes, different characters will be at different advantages or disadvantages. A wizard in melee with a rogue is not in a good situation. A heavily armored dwarf on a thin ice bridge is not in a good situation. A rogue who is poisoned by a trap is not in a good situation. However, they will all have aspects of the situation they can excel at. The wizard at range is comfortable. The dwarf is awesome when it comes to hacking through an ice wall. The rogue is going to be amazing when he needs to dodge out of the way of a second dart.
But to have the wizard suck at combat and the fighter suck at exploration and the rogue suck at trapped doors is too much suck concentrated in one basket.
Spread it out a bit.
That's kind of 4e's approach.
Well, I think that most folks here are pretty reasonable - - 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.
But a large part of this is me trying to voice my issues, and with the responses here sort of convince myself that it makes sense to give 4E a try. By going into my concerns and issues, I was sort of hoping to convince myself to uncancel my preorder (cancelled when it looked like the 'poison pill' was in place).
It seems like while 4E seems to fix things that most/all of you have seen as problems with 3.x, to me it seems like just a change, and one that seems to go against our crew's play philosophy unless you do fundamentally (my opinion) goofy things like subtracting ten from your rolls, or having a list of combat abilities that makes you formidable and then ignoring all of your stats. If you really need to do that, why switch to new mechanics.
I think you'll all have a hoot playing 4E, but I guess I'm not as focused on making sure everyone can deliver damage in equal amounts to have fun.
But a large part of this is me trying to voice my issues, and with the responses here sort of convince myself that it makes sense to give 4E a try. By going into my concerns and issues, I was sort of hoping to convince myself to uncancel my preorder (cancelled when it looked like the 'poison pill' was in place).
It seems like while 4E seems to fix things that most/all of you have seen as problems with 3.x, to me it seems like just a change, and one that seems to go against our crew's play philosophy unless you do fundamentally (my opinion) goofy things like subtracting ten from your rolls, or having a list of combat abilities that makes you formidable and then ignoring all of your stats. If you really need to do that, why switch to new mechanics.
I think you'll all have a hoot playing 4E, but I guess I'm not as focused on making sure everyone can deliver damage in equal amounts to have fun.
OchreJelly
First Post
I think it’s great that a design goal is to make sure all characters can fulfill their role. I haven’t read thru all the posts so forgive me if this is an overused example:
Look at chess. Each player has exactly the same pieces and the same moves available. You might say they are perfectly balanced against each other. However a skilled player will still beat an unskilled player every time. Why? Because he sees moves that the unskilled player doesn’t see.
I see this happen in D&D too. Skilled players take readied actions, they watch the battlefield, they delay until their ally does something agreed upon in advance, they setup flanks, they move to hold strategic positions, and they are simply more prepared to deal with what the DM can throw at them. They are good at anticipating moves. More casual players are often more content to not worry about such things. It doesn’t mean that they are bad players, it simply means that the player that desires to get more out of the system, can and will.
I see 4E approaching a level of group mastery where team synergies will really shine. While at the character level, everyone may be able to fulfill their rolls (this is good), at the strategic & tactical level the skilled player will be able to “see the moves” and work on power synergies with his teammates (this is even better). This is where the mastery player can still get his fulfillment. It doesn’t have to suffer the cost of bad choices on another player’s character sheet.
Look at chess. Each player has exactly the same pieces and the same moves available. You might say they are perfectly balanced against each other. However a skilled player will still beat an unskilled player every time. Why? Because he sees moves that the unskilled player doesn’t see.
I see this happen in D&D too. Skilled players take readied actions, they watch the battlefield, they delay until their ally does something agreed upon in advance, they setup flanks, they move to hold strategic positions, and they are simply more prepared to deal with what the DM can throw at them. They are good at anticipating moves. More casual players are often more content to not worry about such things. It doesn’t mean that they are bad players, it simply means that the player that desires to get more out of the system, can and will.
I see 4E approaching a level of group mastery where team synergies will really shine. While at the character level, everyone may be able to fulfill their rolls (this is good), at the strategic & tactical level the skilled player will be able to “see the moves” and work on power synergies with his teammates (this is even better). This is where the mastery player can still get his fulfillment. It doesn’t have to suffer the cost of bad choices on another player’s character sheet.
But does all of this, to take the argument of people I don't necessarily agree with, move it even more to a board/miniatures/card game? (risking flame war here, sorry)
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.
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.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
As all analogies, one has to be careful with over-using it.phloog said:
There are "pieces" that people can't capture - that group of Goblin Minions? Sure, the Cleric or the Fighter could try to take them out. But it would be a lot more effective if the Wizard would throw a ranged area effect at them. That Ogre Warrior? Sure, the Wizard could try hammering it with fireballs. But the truth is, the Fighter is much better suited to deal with, with the Cleric using some buff powers to make life for the Fighter easier (and longer). (And the Wizard certainly should not go into melee with it, either). That's the basic idea in the "role diversification". Everyone has different tasks he is best suited for. There are areas a certain class or role shines in, because it's their primary job to handle them. But since it would be unusual to have exclusively one situations that fit one role (and in fact many encounters contain elements for every role), you avoid most problems.
