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

[Torchlyte]

I agree. I just meant to point out for the non-mathematicians that "+.275 per swing" is slightly less crappy than it sounds.

It also, unlike backstabber, works with any weapon/spell/attack and gets proportionally better as you get into more trouble. It also stacks with backstabber. Not as good as backstabber or Dwarven Weapon Training (or whatever it's called), but more Weapon Spec than Toughness IMO.

Of course if it's quite difficult to get a 19-20 crit range or the feat doesn't scale with level, then it seems a waste of page space at this juncture.

Yeah, I just feel like doubling the given number was a misleading simplification. That, and I'm an Economics major.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I want to play is a character that contributes to a 'fight' or an encounter, but can do so in character without being a combat equal to a warrior. This requires a DM willing to build encounters that engage the characters that are present, rather than building a series of fights where the only option is to slug it out.

That's why I suggest trying one of the Leader classes. Yes, the PHB I classes will mean you deal damage basically every round (or at least try to), but you'll be less effective at direct damage dealing than a Striker, Defender or Controller. The powers you grant others is what helps them. It's similar to playing an in-effective Bard or Rogue in 3E, where you used flanking, aid another or some use magic device checks to provide at least some benefit, except that the bonuses you grant are actually worth a full party member.

 

[Torchlyte]

I'm not sure if you didn't understand me, or if you're just having fun...I don't believe I said I wanted a character that doesn't 'contribute in a fight'....I said I wanted to play a character that was no good at combat.

Yes, if 4E makes it so everyone is good at combat, I could opt to not roll the dice, but it's hopelessly artificial...then I'm not playing a character ill-suited to combat, I'm playing a character who is awesome in combat, but chooses not to participate. I've got all these eldritch blasts in my pocket, but I don't feel like using them right now.

What I want to play is a character that contributes to a 'fight' or an encounter, but can do so in character without being a combat equal to a warrior. This requires a DM willing to build encounters that engage the characters that are present, rather than building a series of fights where the only option is to slug it out.

Will there be times when the only option is combat? Absolutely, and maybe during those times the weak wizard IS less of a contributor...but the same is true when you're attempting to break the magical spell trapping the baron. But it can be minimized if you design interesting encounters.

Use point buy to obtain crappy combat stats.

Edit:

Note that even this is harder to do, now that they've fiddled with defense calculation...

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Others have defended my basic idea enough that my original defense would drag this into a EGG thread and frankly, I have more respect for him and his fans that to go there until a few months have passed.

 

[hong]

I'm not sure if you didn't understand me, or if you're just having fun...I don't believe I said I wanted a character that doesn't 'contribute in a fight'....I said I wanted to play a character that was no good at combat.

It is also very easy to play a character who is no good at combat, but still wants to roll the dice. Voluntarily assign a -10 penalty to all his rolls. You'll have the bonus of knowing you're choosing to do this for its own sake, rather than simply because the rules have taken you down this path.

 

[Dausuul]

To clarify: I am not talking about about any of the existing Leader implementations. it is pretty clear that they all use attacks as part of their powers. But you could theoretically create a Leader Class that will never attack anyone, but still grant all the necessary damage, to-hit bonus, movement bonus and extra attacks to his allies that he is equivalent to a full character.

Such a class could exist in 3E, too, by the way. You could have a super-buffer class that did exactly this. Both 4E and 3E will never really have such class, I suppose, since the story/flavor-reasoning for such a class would be hard to create. (Though maybe, something like "Talisman" or "Warmind" - but the latter alone would already be against the spirit of non-combatant)

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."

 

[Torchlyte]

I don't think it makes sense for WotC to cater to the people that want to suck, even when it's not necessary to create a given character combination.

 

[phloog]

I don't think it makes sense for WotC to cater to the people that want to suck, even when it's not necessary to create a given character combination.

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.

My problem is simply with what appears to be in 4E a mechanically dictated combat emphasis in the interest of balance, and the fact that I think that characters can be balanced in total, and viable, without being combat equals.

Again, I might be wrong, but the design philosophy in 4E seems to be "Your character will be different from other characters in terms of HOW they are awesome at combat" - the names of the roles themselves are combat specific.

I'm not saying for one instant that it's an invalid philosophy, or that it won't make a fun game...just that it is perhaps not as friendly to my style of DMing and play as a game system that is willing to have an imbalance in terms of combat, with the assumption that those who are weaker in actual fighting will have their chance to shine.

This part of the discussion seems to have devolved a bit into snarkiness and the need to defend WOTC when I'm not attacking them, so it's probably best I just drop the subject unless I have some new point to add, because me clarifying isn't accomplishing anything.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My problem is simply with what appears to be in 4E a mechanically dictated combat emphasis in the interest of balance, and the fact that I think that characters can be balanced in total, and viable, without being combat equals.

The rules cannot make characters balanced "holistically". Because they can't dictate how much time you spend on combat and how much time you spend on non-combat. You need a DM or a group that has an eye for this. And that's something the rules can never assume.

Therefore, the best approach for rules aiming for balance is to balance each aspect separately.
That also means that you don't have to sacrifice anything for being effective outside of combat. You take your non-combat picks in abilities as it seems suitable for your character concept, and never every worry about how this affects your overall combat effectiveness.

The end result is you could use your character in a dungeon crawl campaign just as well as in a city-politics campaign, or anything between these extremes. Your character will never be constantly overshining other characters, nor constantly feel useless compared to others.

 

[phloog]

The rules cannot make characters balanced "holistically". Because they can't dictate how much time you spend on combat and how much time you spend on non-combat. You need a DM or a group that has an eye for this. And that's something the rules can never assume.

Therefore, the best approach for rules aiming for balance is to balance each aspect separately.
That also means that you don't have to sacrifice anything for being effective outside of combat. You take your non-combat picks in abilities as it seems suitable for your character concept, and never every worry about how this affects your overall combat effectiveness.

The end result is you could use your character in a dungeon crawl campaign just as well as in a city-politics campaign, or anything between these extremes. Your character will never be constantly overshining other characters, nor constantly feel useless compared to others.

Don't disagree with any of this as to intent...just feel that it tends to make things a bit...monochromatic? and less interesting TO ME (shame I have to specify this - isn't all of this just my opinion, and nothing for others to get up in arms about?)...

We're in a cave of pure ice - everyone is equal
We're in a battle - everyone is equal.
We're trying to figure out how to remove a magical ward from a door - equal

I'm not positive that - with all due respect - they could even pull this off, and I'm not sure I'd want them to.

(EDIT) I don't want a scenario where one character outshines all the others, but I'd rather not have this fix where all are equal in all cases.

But I do like the idea of times when a single character takes the spotlight...this apparently makes me incompatible with 4E...no hard feelings.