You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[Nellisir]

If you can make a character in armor who uses a bow from the ranger class why would you need to do it in the fighter class as well?

And I think that makes my point about mechanical elements ascending over thematic ones as well as any of my posts. Why indeed?

I'm retiring from this thread for awhile*. Everyone is talking past one another, sometimes in completely different languages. Suffice to say, not everyone is happy that archer must equal ranger, or that ranger must equal two-weapon fighter or archer, or that a minor change to the theme of a class requires a whole new suite of powers. If you are, that's cool. I look forward to trying out 4e. I suspect it will be fun. But I still feel that they tossed the baby with the bathwater.

Cheers

*I'm not annoyed or anything; I just think the conversation is going in circles.

 

[Mark Chance]

I'd let this stand if we were talking about a single class monk or bard, but we're not. How often were monsters defeated by social skills, anyway?

It happens about every third game session in my current campaign. Recently, my rogue/fighter/invisible blade used his awesome Bluff skills to lead the entire party into enemy territory in order to sit down with a group of evil guards, have lunch, play cards, get information on the general layout of the area, troop strengths, et cetera.

Claiming X is broken because Person A can do this compared to Person B doing this other thing is like claiming that my car is broken because my wife drives too slow whereas I can consistently do at least the speed limit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.

This type of thinking is why its important to play in a group that enjoys a playstlye close to your own. In our group we game to have fun and entertain each other. It doesn't matter if we have three fighters, no one plays a cleric, ect. The contribution to the group is the same for everyone. Have fun playing a character you will enjoy and do your best to entertain everyone else at the table. Worrying about everyone doing thier job and contributing to the group seems more like work and less like fun. Its a type of mentality I see in MMO's where "winning" against the foes is everything and players are berated, insulted, and kicked out of groups because they are not playing up to par. I understand this group dynamic for videogames but I would never bring it to the tabletop.

 

[rounser]

The question for me is only if the results meet the thematic goals of each class, and they do.

I disagree. If your thesis were correct, if the horse was in fact in front of the cart, then the warlord wouldn't exist for starters. It's a bunch of powers with a name attached, and no reason for being in the PHB beyond that.

There's a lot of obvious shoehorning going on, of square pegs being forced into round holes. The hint is when you have to invoke Die Hard or simply can't envision what some power looks like "in real life".

 

[Psion]

Whoa, a bit hostile there, was I supposed to know about your current condition? And is there any reason you expect that I think you should consider me high on your list of priorities? Uh, well, good luck with your moving anyway. Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism.

I think its a mistake to say that roles weren't mechanical before. I think the two major differences are:

1) The mechanical and thematic elements have been separated into layers. The mechanical roles are now roles; the thematic elements are relegated to the classes which fit within those roles. Before they were less distinct (but you could still argue with the class/subclass structure in 1e, they existed as roles, not just classes.)
2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.

I certainly think that the new role structure does create limits on how the thematic "roles" look and act.

 

[Andor]

4e has built into itself protection from anything the designers considered to be badwrongfun. For example in the playtest reports they heard about a rogue weilding a greataxe because nothing prevented him from doing it. So they listed a specific set of weapons the rogue can use his sneak attack with. We are fine up to this point, there are mechanical reasons for wanting to limit rogues to a 'lesser' set of weapons.

So naturally they included a feat to expand the range of useable weapons because it becomes balanced with the feat expenditure, right? Wrong. Because it's not just that a rogue with a greataxe is unbalanced. It'd badwrongfun and didn't fit someones 'vision' of the game. What makes this an even crueler irony is the short shrift given to flavor in just about every other aspect of the game.

4e is so damm unpolished it makes me cringe. Someone on the design team should march into the office of whoever set that development schedule and kick their testicles into low earth orbit.

 

[EATherrian]

Well, it can be kind of selfish to not even consdier the contribution your character will make to the group; the group may simply not need another rogue, for instance, so no matter how hard you try to find a way to fit in, playing one might mean that you don't earn your keep.

If I was called on to fill a role, I would gleefully. I joined late with several groups, they told me what they lacked and I played it. If I play from the beginning, I play what I want and let the game grow organically. I'm pretty easy as far as what class I play goes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I disagree. If your thesis were correct, if the horse was in fact in front of the cart, then the warlord wouldn't exist for starters. It's a bunch of powers with a name attached, and no reason for being in the PHB beyond that.

Sorry, the Warlord feels very thematic to me. Without ever having seen any of the powers, I was intrigued by the idea.

I will not try to convince you otherwise. I just come the conclusion that their is stuff we can't agree on. This is one of them. The Warlord is one of the few archetypes I always wanted to play, but there was just no good rule representation for him. The closest was the Bard, but I didn't want to sing or cast spells due be someone leading a group into combat. I wanted to rely on tactics and martial skills.

But then, I am also a fan of Grand Admiral Thrawn. He might be utterly unrealistic with his ability to predict enemy actions based on the art of their culture, but his tactical and strategic genius felt just interesting. The trilogy around him still are my favorite books in the Star Wars franchise.

Similar, the idea of Battle Meditation from the KotoR was also very interesting for me (though we're back to the "magic" issue with the Bard)

 

[Nellisir]

I think its a mistake to say that roles weren't mechanical before. I think the two major differences are:

1) The mechanical and thematic elements have been separated into layers. The mechanical roles are now roles; the thematic elements are relegated to the classes which fit within those roles. Before they were less distinct (but you could still argue with the class/subclass structure in 1e, they existed as roles, not just classes.)
2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.

I certainly think that the new role structure does create limits on how the thematic "roles" look and act.

Yeah, short retirement.
Psion, I think you nailed it almost exactly. I certainly wouldn't say that roles weren't mechanical, or didn't include mechanics, before 4e - they certainly did. And some classes were more "mechanical" or less iconic than others.

I think your "dungeon exploration" vs combat is extremely true.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2) Implicit in the above, the mechanical elements/roles are now balanced almost exclusively around combat. Before, it seems some consideration was given to out of combat threats. Dating back to 1e, you need a rogue (as a "role") because you needed someone to deal with traps, not because you needed someone to backstab/sneak attack in combat. It was as much or more a dungeon exploration RPG than a combat RPG.

I certainly think that the new role structure does create limits on how the thematic "roles" look and act.

I think I agree on the limits. The problem of games can be that you don't know what the "users" are doing with it - are they running all dungeon exploration? Focus on combat, or on trap-finding? Do they run city-intrigue campaigns? Wilderness Exploration?
So, the problem is always to find a good balance in the classes to create the possible imbalances of the players focus.

3E at least started, and 4E possibly finished creating this balancing by ensuring that everyone has combat abilities that matter, and also ensure that there is something outside of combat. But the focus is still more on combat then anything else. Skill Challenges are an attempt to have an engaging subsystem outside of combat, but it is a very generic framework, unlike the combat rules. I am not sure yet if that is the best approach, or if there are better ones.

This in turn means that 4E has no space for a class that just doesn't fight. It must do something in combat. (And they must do something outside of it.) They don't necessarily have to swing swords or shoot fireballs, but whatever the do, they must contribute in combat. And they must do it just as well as any other class of their type. So, the role getting closed to non-combatant might be a Leader (only buffing, no direct damage) or a Controller (only debuffing, no direct damage). That's still a serious limitation on what a class can encompass.

But that said, I can't really see it any other way. I wouldn't be interested in a non-combat class anyway. But it might be a problem for other people.