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

[Ipissimus]

Now, let me be clear that I respect Gary Gygax enormously for creating the hobby. But he had a lot of very silly ideas. Like auto-death no-save traps with no clue as to what you were walking into. I respect George Lucas for creating Star Wars but look at the prequel trilogy. I respect the guy who created chess, but do you really think he could go up against a modern grandmaster and win? I respect Sir Issac Newton, but would he be of any use to modern physics?

Gygax had his own play style. But not everyone enjoys that play style. In fact, a lot of us think his play style is daft and about as much fun as poking out our eyes with pointy sticks. Does that make us wrong, just because we disagree with him? No. He's not the be-all and end-all, in the 30+ years since roleplaying was created, the games have evolved and will continue to evolve for the better.

Now, Game Mastery. I knew there was a reason I hated M:tG, but that's beside the point. The big problem with game mastery is that, eventually, every character is the same. Forget the dude who plays the same character since middle school, every wizard you ever play, every fighter, every rogue, every character will eventually fall into one of the optimal builds for the class. Every Wizard has magic missile and fireball. They also take Archmage with Mastery of the Elements as soon as possible. No fighter ever uses a 2-handed sword because TWF deals more damage. Everyone plays a human or elf because the racial benefits are optimal.

This turns DnD into a bland experience, everything becomes the same. The new wizard you rolled up is exactly the same as the last wizard that was rolled up by a different player.

BOOOOORING.

We want individuality. We want our choices to matter and still be useable. I WANT to agonize over whether my new fighter should be sword and board or polearm and not just pick sword and board like every other fighter since the dawn of time for the mechanical benefits JUST to remain effective. I want my character's personality to be reflected in my choices and my tactics.

Now, this isn't to say that I don't study the books. I do. I tinkered alot with 3E and character builds. As an optimizer, what I'm looking forward to in 4E is a real challenge and not the laughable, kindergarten school, game mastery that 3E offered. Think about it for a moment: all those choices OF EQUAL MERIT. Think about examining them, cross-referencing them with other options, building characters and NPCs that are completely different to one another but just as effective and rewarding to play in different ways. THAT is what I'm looking forward to.

I'm looking forward to making a fighter, choosing a spear for x/y/z reasons, then selecting race, feats, class features, skills and powers that synergize and make him a brillient member of any advanturing team. Then I want to turn around and make a sword and board fighter that's different just for the nostalgia. Then I want to make a Wizard without Magic Missile that remains completely effective.

But, to put all that in short, I want a system that I can create the character I want to play and I want that character to be a viable member of the party.

If anything, I think that ENHANCES the appeal of going through and reading the books for me.

Oh, and AtomicPope. I've been playing with a friend for the last 20 odd years who always plays the same character. He's still having fun and not one member of our group is sick of him at all. I'm sorry, but there really isn't a 'one true way' of anything, including roleplaying. You can wave Gygax around like a standard all you want but he doesn't really prove anything other than that we have different opinions. In fact, there is no way to prove anything any of us are saying because it's all a belief or opinion there are no facts. Gary Gygax had an opinion, his creating DnD is irrelevant.

 

[phloog]

I guess this is further evidence that I am weird.

For me D&D is cooperative - not only cooperation between the players, but cooperation between players and DM to have a good time. I've played with players who felt like it was a competition for most powerful PC, and I've played with DMs who felt like they 'lost' if the party actually put together a great plan and as a result succeeded easily against the DMs Favorite BBEG. For 'competitive' games, this balance is probably required.

I have played characters that are sub-optimal, despite being ABLE to minmax some insanely powerful character. I am currently playing (ah! a break from constant DMing!) a fifth level rogue who is maxed out in Forgery and Craft: Woodcarver.

While I like that 4e may make it possible for all characters to play a role, I didn't have that problem with 3.x anyway.

So why would I ever take Toughness? Because my character is really tough. And I'm not sure that all the 'useless feats' are useless, if they begin a chain to more powerful feats.

The problem is not the presence or lack of player mastery, but the lack of DM mastery. I think that removing the issue IS probably a good thing for a model where DMs buy off-the-rack premade modules and run players through them, but I never do that.

As DM I always customize any purchased content, and more often just write from scratch. When I work in this way, I make sure that Player X who is the Rokk Godd of Ultimate Combat (insert random umlauts in that title, please) gets to show his stuff, while Player Y who wanted to be a bard has equal opportunities to shine. Even during a combat, there may be opportunities for any character to play a role....tripping levers, sneaking into the treasure vault, upsetting the ritual, etc.

I guess while I like the balancing act they're doing for 4E for its impact on off-the-shelf games, I don't see the need in my own campaign...

and frankly I have a problem with it...

It seems oriented toward BATTLE effectiveness...so while almost all of the dramatic products (books, movies, etc.) I enjoy have weaker and stronger characters in terms of combat, this system seems to build a party of combat equals - - again, that's probably what 99% of people want, just not working for me. I LIKE the idea of the combat-weak character - the hobbit that has to sneak around and accomplish important tasks while others lock up with the monsters.

I understand the design philosophy that makes everyone equal in combat - I just think it's out of line with my own style. I think that a thoughtful DM eliminates the need to have every character exactly as effective in every combat as any other character.

The world needs Short Rounds, too. (at least my world does)

 

[hong]

The world needs Short Rounds, too. (at least my world does)

That's what DMPCs are for.

 

[Wormwood]

From what I've read, Mearls in particular seems to find the idea of having to play and "study" to understand the ruleset enough to make the character you want to play almost offensive.

Damn straight it is.

 

[Cirex]

That's what DMPCs are for.

"How surprising, your DMPC triggered a deadly trap. Again."


I tend to play optimized characters. Not at the level of CO forums, but well, a bit more optimized than the other players' characters. Why? Well, I'm not sure, it's probably my mentality. I barely got the chance to play, it's me always behind the DM screen. I get a bit bored if my player is not good at something, mechanically wise. I always put a nice amount of effort on roleplaying, no matter what character.

Last year, I managed to play three games (with three different characters) of a long campaign (I couldn't play the other days due scheduling problems) and the DM accused me of "ruining" the campaign. Let me explain this:
He's got some problems understanding rules, but puts a lot of effort, but, while DMing, tends to panic a lot if things don't go like planned (yes, rail-roading, etc.) and for some reason, that tends to happen if I'm around. I really try to stick to the plan and stuff, but sometimes it's more than that. I rolled a warlock and he raised an eyebrow at the unlimited Eldritch casts. I tried to explain it was in the rules (...) and it was like someone shooting with a box, with the difference that I could just shoot once per round. Well, he complained about every single thing I could do (spiderwalk and stuff) till the point I wanted to either change character or stop playing with him as DM. In short, the warlock was slain by a single critical hit of ~50 damage (I was level 5, enemy was barbarian orc with great axe).

Since I made that "optimized" warlock, all my characters are super powerful, to the point of almost cheating and etc. According to my DM, of course.
Second game, second character, a half-drow sorcerer with draconic heritage feats (another eye-brow raised). In short, the other PCs died in a battle-gone-wrong and I survived. The campaign was retaken with the other players retaking their old super powered characters and me falling into ostracism. Retired character...

So, third game, several months later. Final game of the campaign. The other PCs, super powered monsters (level 9, wearing wealth three times above the normal recommended by the DMG, like, items of +6 to a stat, etc.) with extra feats and stuff. I got to roll a character, so I go for a wizard. One expert in polymorph. Good, old, [broken] polymorph.

In short, I defeated one of the sub-bosses, supposed to be very hard for a team of 4 PCs and 2 DMPCs by myself, which already made the DM panic and "ruined" the game. He whined about it for months and the other day he was whining about it again.

He understood it like I was playing against him, not cooperative with the other players. I guess this thread is about this, 3.5 rewards people who read more and gets a more optimized character. I think it's fair. The game is still cooperative, players fighting together for a common objetive, friends spending a nice evening all together.


Ok, unnecesary complaint about my DM to explain that I agree that people who spend more time building a character should have a more useful/powerful character. Balance should be kept among classes, not players.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Damn straight it is.

Not too everybody.

 

[phloog]

That's what DMPCs are for.

I guess where our opinions differ is here: some of my players WANT to play characters that are 'combat disadvantaged'...again, I freely admitted that this is what might make my group atypical. I don't think DMPCs should be used to do interesting things if a PC would be interested in playing that character.

Absolutely you sometimes want to play the role of a brave fighter who can take on any challenge, or a mighty wizard that can huck spells about. But sometimes I want to play a craven wizard, or some other character that just stinks in battle. I like it when a DM understands that this is where my head is at - - I don't like it when the DM decides what character I will play, and that to a large extent is true if the DM is focused only on combat - - create a non-com PC, and you'll A) have nothing to do as you move from arena to arena, and B) you won't really be bored because you'll get killed in the first room so you can go do something else.

I'm not a big fan of DMPCs I guess, either....I've rarely seen them done well - DMs either fall in love with them, and stat them in such a way that the party becomes the 'Companions of Mighty DuMPiC', or they become PMDs or ways for a DM to help the party, which removes the players from the game a bit.

Again, it requires more work by the DM to do it right, and since few have lots of free time these days I can see the appeal of a game where all characters are combat savvy, since you can build an encounter that is just a beat-em-up and everyone can participate fully.

 

[phloog]

..and to clarify...I do NOT think that the game should be designed so that players who learn about obscure feat #234 from the Book of Ultimate Broken Feats and Mayhem should have characters that put all other characters to shame. I just see it as a manageable flaw in 3.5 - - not enough to toss out the entire ruleset, though.

I think we have a couple discussions going on, and didn't want people to think I am a minmax fan...quite the opposite....maybe I'm a minmin fan.

This is why as DM I have to approve all feats and things that are taken by my players, and when I goof and allow something that turns out to be broken, I either work with the player to resolve it, or just deal with the imbalance. I just don't think the answer to "PC#4 was able to game the system to build a combat beast" is to make everyone equal in combat.

 

[malraux]

From what I've seen, most of the system mastery in 4e will be the tactical use of powers in play, rather than the strategic building of characters away from the table. But this is good, really good. First, the mastery comes from synergy of players working together. If Bob gets better at mastery of the game, then its not just his fighter that gets awesomer, but it also helps my rogue do awesomer things too. Second, its collaborative. In 3e, if one person studies the books away from the table, then he's the one who benefits. But if the 4e mastery comes through tactics, then it really comes from group play. Everyone gains mastery together. Getting awesomer together is a really good goal.

 

[Torchlyte]

Bottom line though - at some level, whether strategy or tactics, you can't avoid system mastery. What makes games interactive is choices. And for choices to be meaningful, there have to be better and worse ones, at least for accomplishing a given result. And that means someone can master making the better choices - system mastery.

This.

Actually, because of 4e's crit system, you have to remember it's the equivelent of an average of about .55 damage per hit, (assuming an 11 is required to hit) which of course increases to 1.1 at a crit range 19-20. it also makes proportionally more difference as it becomes harder to hit, making it more useful for characters with low attack bonuses, or when fighting tougher creaters.

This still may or may not be worth it.

Calculating with respect to hits is statistically flawed because what you need to hit varies.

Everything outside of the crit instance is sunk.

We roll a 1: the feat does nothing.
We roll a 15: the feat does nothing.
We roll a 20: the feat does something.

1/20 is our starting modifier to represent the probability of the feat activating, equating to .05 as a decimal.

The feat adds 1d10 damage, averaging 5.5 damage when a crit has occurred.

Multiply 5.5 * .05, and you get .275 damage. We took into account the applicable probability when we used the 1/20 fraction, so this .275 damage is per swing.

If we have a crit range of '19-20', we would double the 1/20 to make it 1/10. This leads to a result of .55 damage per swing, if and only if we invested whatever it took to bring our crit range to '19-20' in the first place.

Summary:

If we crit on 20s, we get +.275 damage per swing.
If we crit on 19s, we get +.55 damage per swing.

*****

Now, compare that to to a feat that gives us +2 damage per hit. Unfortunately, this example requires the AC vs Attack assumption we avoided in the previous statements.

If we hit on a 6 or more: we will get +1.5 damage per swing
If we hit on an 11 or more: we will get +1 damage per swing
If we hit on a 16 or more: we will get +.5 damage per swing

Thus, we see that it takes a very high-AC enemy to make the +1d10 feat better, even if we already have a 19-20 crit range.

*****

For a final comparison, let's say we're increasing 2d6 damage to 2d8 damage through the use of the Backstabber feat. Assume we crit on 19-20.

If we hit on a 6 or more: ((13/20)*2) + ((2/20)*4) = 1.3 + .4 = +1.7 damage per swing
If we hit on an 11 or more: ((8/20)*2) + ((2/20)*4) = .8 + .4 = +1.2 damage per swing
If we hit on a 16 or more: ((3/20)*2) + ((2/20)*4) = .3 + .4 = +.7 damage per swing

That's only a .2 improvement over the +2 damage feat and it requires the rogue to maintain combat advantage.

For reference, the stat list for critting on 20s is as follows: +1.6/+1.1/+.6

zZz.