In this post on rpg.net elaborates on how they're attempting to design classes in regards to combat and noncombat abilities.
Apparently 4e is being designed with a "combat role" and a "non combat role" for every class in mind. Or at least that's what EnWorld told me when I asked about it in a thread.
Yup, that's how the classes came together. The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight.
Hopefully, the end result is that you can build whatever sort of PC you want to roleplay, making choices with an eye toward character concept and personality, without losing out on your character's basic ability to fight. We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game.
That doesn't mean that your character's non-combat stuff is diminished. If anything, it means we have more room for idiosyncratic or personality-driven options, since you can take those without hurting your character's baseline, expected combat ability.
As an example, you can play a fighter but spend all your feats to take and improve social skills, but in a fight you are still an effective defender. You aren't saddled with a lower than expected AC, attack bonus, or whatever because you built a fighter who was also a diplomat.
The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will (obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers.
Meanwhile, the wizard, cleric, and rogue are just as happy with Lord Harran, dashing envoy of the Iron Throne, as they would be with Killmore Headbuster, swordmaster. Both those guys are effective, frontline fighters. Harran's player didn't have to sacrifice his "fightery-ness" to become the best Diplomacy user in the party.
That sounds like a pretty thoughtful design decision and it makes me want to know more.
I could do the exact same thing in third edition. What's the point? It's like the other crap they spew about how "now" we can have the orcs in the next room hear the combat and get involved, or how "now" we can use two bulette's in one combat to attack a party. Pathetic.
|
Hopefully, the end result is that you can build whatever sort of PC you want to roleplay, making choices with an eye toward character concept and personality, without losing out on your character's basic ability to fight. We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game.
This is good news. My hope meter just went from cautiously optimistic to just plain optimistic.
"The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight."
"We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game."
So, they designed the characters based on how they contribute to the fight. And how is removing interesting PCs or effective PCs a good thing?
|
|
"The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight."
"We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game."
So, they designed the characters based on how they contribute to the fight. And how is removing interesting PCs or effective PCs a good thing?
The point he is making is the PC can be both interesting and combat effective.
And we couldn't do this before WHY?????? You are saying you never made an interesting, yet combat effective PC in any other game or edition?? Even you can't agree with this -
|
Hopefully, the end result is that you can build whatever sort of PC you want to roleplay, making choices with an eye toward character concept and personality, without losing out on your character's basic ability to fight. We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game.This is good news. My hope meter just went from cautiously optimistic to just plain optimistic.
I think you may need to fix that meter. Its been flat out optimistic for awhile now. :)
As to the meat of the topic, you can already do this in 3ed. But it is nice to see that they plan to maintain this option in the new edition. Their talk of clearly defined roles earlier suggested that this may not be the case.
some of the best characters i have ever seen played were "outside the box".
I think the meat of what Mearls is getting at here is the difference between combat specialist builds and non-specialist builds. The designers of 4e are trying to narrow that difference considerably.
Regardless of the meat - it's still something we've been doing for years now. He isn't saying anything useful. The character "roles" [edit - seem to be] all combat oriented - check their titles; and we've already been told how boring we are for using non-combat skills. It just gets tiresome to have these people tell us how we've been playing wrong all this time, and how they know how we're supposed to play.
|
|
And we couldn't do this before WHY?????? You are saying you never made an interesting, yet combat effective PC in any other game or edition?? Even you can't agree with this -
Because there are times (especially with lower level characters) that there are no real options. A low level Wizard has few spells - especially combat spells and when they are gone it does not make sense to attack physically.
I have often seen characters opt out of combat because they did not feel they had any good options at that moment. Either they had exhausted all their spells or some other issue that they felt they either did not have any options or no good ones.
But that's not what I'm saying. What I said, and you quoted, was a question stating that you never made an interesting, yet combat-effective character? Of course there are situations where a character will either be: not interesting (at that moment), or not combat effective (at that moment) but that it is entirely possible to make a character that can do both. You can do that in every edition from Basic to 3.5 - For some reason, 4th wants you to think you couldn't do this before, which is ridiculous.
|
|
And we couldn't do this before WHY?????? You are saying you never made an interesting, yet combat effective PC in any other game or edition?? Even you can't agree with this -
Other games? Sure. 3E not always. The limited skill points for fighters and clerics made it tough. In addition with 4E many feats have been folded into the class progression and feats are freed up to add flavor. If they can give characters more non-combat crunch as well as keep them combat effective then I like where this is heading.
|
|
Regardless of the meat - it's still something we've been doing for years now. He isn't saying anything useful. The character "roles" [edit - seem to be] all combat oriented - check their titles; and we've already been told how boring we are for using non-combat skills. It just gets tiresome to have these people tell us how we've been playing wrong all this time, and how they know how we're supposed to play.
Its not about playing wrong. Under 3E certain classes became one dimensional. Multiclassing helped, but at higher levels sub-optimal characters built for role playing were the first ones eaten by big nasty bad guys.
The good part of this is, it would seem, that we no longer have to decide to take ranks in critical class skills or flavor skills, or to take effective feats or flavor feats. If 4E will allow us to build solid contributors in and out of combat then that would be a very good thing.
Again - you're saying that you couldn't make an interesting, yet combat effective character even once before in your life? You actually will admit that? That's all I'm saying. Like half the other "improvements" mentioned on the DnD site - it's all stuff we've been able to do all along. Of course not everything works in every situation, but you're a fool if you think every problem is going to be solved with the coming of 4th edition. How can you sit there and let Wizards tell you how you're supposed to play the game. How wrong you've played it in the past. How boring your games were because someone used profession? I mean, unless you just started playing a couple months ago.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
As an example, you can play a fighter but spend all your feats to take and improve social skills, but in a fight you are still an effective defender. You aren't saddled with a lower than expected AC, attack bonus, or whatever because you built a fighter who was also a diplomat.
The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will (obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers.
Meanwhile, the wizard, cleric, and rogue are just as happy with Lord Harran, dashing envoy of the Iron Throne, as they would be with Killmore Headbuster, swordmaster. Both those guys are effective, frontline fighters. Harran's player didn't have to sacrifice his "fightery-ness" to become the best Diplomacy user in the party.
And here i, while i really would like things to play out as he described, my jaded oldtimerness is holding up a huge sign with a word that the board would likely censor.
Sadly, while maybe the "original design" might consider the baseline the "no-feat fighter", most any group in the world will consider the baseline to be the "focussed-feated" fighter. You'll be as lambasted for "screwing up your build" then as you are now if you pick up character-driven options over the ones which most maximize your designated task.
|
|
Because there are times (especially with lower level characters) that there are no real options. A low level Wizard has few spells - especially combat spells and when they are gone it does not make sense to attack physically.
I have often seen characters opt out of combat because they did not feel they had any good options at that moment. Either they had exhausted all their spells or some other issue that they felt they either did not have any options or no good ones.
Yep.
The phrase "yay team" has been uttered by many an arcane caster at our table once the spells run out.
If you took some varied skills and feats, you wouldn't end up one dimensional in 3rd - of course that means Role-Playing. Since DnD "is all about killing and looting" it seems they already created a one-dimensional game.
And the fact the caster can run out of spells and not fight very well in melee is the very reason they can wield such tremendous magic, and the fighter can fight. They aren't both supposed to do each other's jobs - hence the classes are different. They try to alleviate that with the broad range of weapons the casters can use in 3rd, in addition to cheap and easily accessible magic items and non-magical alchemical items. If you can't do anything but cheer, you're not trying - or the party's really in trouble - which is exciting too.
|
|
Again - you're saying that you couldn't make an interesting, yet combat effective character even once before in your life? You actually will admit that? That's all I'm saying. Like half the other "improvements" mentioned on the DnD site - it's all stuff we've been able to do all along. Of course not everything works in every situation, but you're a fool if you think every problem is going to be solved with the coming of 4th edition. How can you sit there and let Wizards tell you how you're supposed to play the game. How wrong you've played it in the past. How boring your games were because someone used profession? I mean, unless you just started playing a couple months ago.
Uh, no. I have a couple very interesting and effective characters in 3E. But they tend to be from classes that have decent skill points and abilities. Getting the right combination of classes helps too. I have an elven emissary with near max ranks in bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive and a fighter's BAB and does 1d8+32 on a normal hit to anything that can take a crit.
My friends similarly leveled straight fighter can only really contribute in combat - and for comic relief. Oh, and to find traps.
The point is this - if my friend's fighter could also have non-combat crunch then he could contribute to both combat and non-combat situations.
I hope 4E can pull this one off. It would make all PCs a bit deeper.
|
|
If you took some varied skills and feats, you wouldn't end up one dimensional in 3rd - of course that means Role-Playing. Since DnD "is all about killing and looting" it seems they already created a one-dimensional game.
D&D mechanics have always been about killing and looting. That is the very heart of the game. In the original version you needed Chainmail miniatures rules in order to play.
The question then becomes how easy is it to extend the game from a combat oriented game to a broad role playing game. It can be done. It has been done. It just seems to me that 4E is going to allow for both world to coexist.
How is that a bad thing?
It was the heart of Chainmail - and then they made Basic and they added role-playing wayyy back then. Of course the characters were supposed to right wrongs and kill evil nasties and all that - however it has also been a part of DnD that combat isn't everything, especially when we were all encouraged to play good characters and do good deeds. The very fact that they tell us they're removing elements of the non-combat campaigns (and mocking people who use profession, look for fairy rings, etc) and trying to make combats quicker so they can fit more into a session only points towards an increase in combat and decrease in non-combat roleplaying. It's all about increasing every character's combat ability. Heal yourself, cast more, fight longer, kill quicker, move on to the next one. Make sure we can fit as many minis into a room - and they want the average room to be 2000 square feet - not because it makes sense, but they want as many characters and monsters in the action at one time.
I think what they're saying is that they are making combat the end-all-be-all, but for us "boring and misguided" players out there, we can still spend 2 hours happily role-playing key campaign elements without initiative if we really want to.
|
The question then becomes how easy is it to extend the game from a combat oriented game to a broad role playing game. It can be done. It has been done. It just seems to me that 4E is going to allow for both world to coexist.
How is that a bad thing?
The notion sounds interesting, I'll wait to see the implementation.
Quite a few online games have the notion of 'adventurer level' and 'tradeskill level' that are different systems, and neither one interferes with the other. This sounds a lot like what Mearls is describing. 13 levels Fighter on the adventurer side / 12 levels of Diplomat and a level of Tailor on the 'crafter' side.
I'm not sure I'm completely sold on the concept, since we've likely all played the converse to the 'well-rounded character,' the Barbarian or Fighter who doesn't have the slightest interest in learning how to brew his own mead or embroider his own tabard or style and decorate his manly braids, and concentrates 100% of his focus into killin' stuff. Under a split system, this sort of extremely tightly focused character doesn't sound like he's going to be any more effective at the killin' stuff as the dude who spent a lot of points in role-playing / crafting / non-combat stuff.
I'm not a big fan of min-max, but there are times that min-max *is* role-playing, if the role you wish to play is, 'that slightly deranged Half-Orc who was raised in a pit and forced to fight dogs and knows nothing but killing and is over there drooling and fingering his axe.' It's gonna seem odd if a two-tiered system makes the 'dog warrior' no more effective a combatant than the well-educated noble's kid who knows which of fourteen dinner implements are to be used for the sorbet and which of the twelve courtly dances one does *not* dance with the King's daughter, on pain of death...
"The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will (obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers."
In theory, it sounds good and I would be in support of this change.
I'm just skeptical that they can achieve this relative balance (or, a closing of the gap so-to-speak), especially in the face of monthly splat-books.
|
|
"The fighter who goes all out on combat feats and stuff will (obviously) be more effective in melee than you, but the distance between you is measured in, say, meters instead of kilometers."
So the choices you make in building your character have very little effect on how the character actually performs? Which means characters of a class are all basically the same. And yet this is supposed to make role-playing better? I don't get it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Its not about playing wrong. Under 3E certain classes became one-dimensional. Multiclassing helped, but at higher levels sub-optimal characters built for role-playing were the first ones eaten by big nasty bad guys.
Hello, CWM. Good to see you.
If at some point, in your 3rd Edition campaigns, the DM was throwing encounters at your party that killed off the fun characters, the "sub-optimal characters built for role-playing", then that has nothing to do with the game system. That's simply a bad DM, and neither 4th Edition nor any other game system will solve that problem.
Look: in any game, the DM can kill off the party. There's no challenge there; in D&D, he has the entire Monster Manual to throw at you guys.
If he says "Oops on you. You should have made straight, 'optimal' choices. Since you didn't, I'll send monsters that are too tough for the characters you did create," then there's nothing you can do but roll up new characters. For someone else's campaign.
It would be like a Champions GM saying "Well, you didn't pick a character with flying, so I'll throw you into an adventure where you'll need flight to survive. You should have come up with an 'optimal' choice."
Now, for superheroes, it might make sense that, yes, it helps to be able to fly. This announcement from 4th Edition D&D seems to be saying that every character is going to get 'optimal' skills and feats, and a few more points to spend as she likes. Well, (1) That sounds like "All superheroes are going to get 'optimal' powers, whether they want to or not, and (2) The DM is still going to be able to kill off anybody he wants.
Forcing all builds to be 'optimal' is the wrong solution to the problem. Having a DM tailor his campaign's encounteers to the appropriate power levels of the party is the answer.
|
|
Forcing all builds to be 'optimal' is the wrong solution to the problem.
True, but it seems to be a common occurance in 3e so it is not exactly fair to point the finger at 4e in this regards.
I recall a thread on these board recently where a player was speaking about his group being particular about their clerics and requiring them to have the Healing domain.
In the past, on the Necromancer Games boards, I recall several 3e threads and debates over character optimization. The whole "Rapier Wielding Pussy" threads spring readily to mind. If I recall correctly, Clark also talked about feeling that characters should be optimized so that they don't hurt their party.
In the d20 era min/maxing became common enough that people didn't want to feel bad about it and developed the term we fling around so freely now, "optimized". They aren't munchkins, they are optimal character builds.
If 4e looks to be reducing that, cool. Maybe then non-optimizers in a group with optimizers can actually pick a feat that they WANT to pick without the optimizers groaning abut it. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
Forcing all builds to be 'optimal' is the wrong solution to the problem. Having a DM tailor his campaign's encounteers to the appropriate power levels of the party is the answer.
I agree, but in some of my experiences, the tools that help DM's tailor encounters simply don't work as planned. CR is one of them, IMO. It seems that CR is based off of how "optimal" a party is supposed to be. This is further propagated by the fact that magic items are included in CR. If 4E makes certain things easier for the DM, everyone is happy.
As for "we can have interesting characters that fight well already." I say, "Good for you!" As for the rest of us that are absolute horrible at finding perfect feats, multiclasses, and what-not, I'd like some help in this area. I will admit that having sub-optimal characters with a lot of pizazz is fun, but it's not fun when a fight comes up and your party tells you to go get the pizza because you'll just die.
I have played all the adventure paths and as far as I can tell if you don´t create optimal characters then you do not survive long. Now, if the DM is supposed all the time to change the encounters in order for his players to survive, then what is the point?
If what Mike Mearls says is true then I like it. I am not blinded to suppose that 4th edition will solve all the problems of 3rd edition, but I suppose it will be an improvement.
This sounds like a very good thing, and I am looking forward to it.
Barrow Wight can you please just settle down a bit. Mike Mearls is not saying that you can't build both an effective and interesting character in 3.5, simply that for some, classes it is difficult. The 3.5 classes weren't designed with this in mind. In 4th they are specifically focusing on making it possible.
It looks like basically they are making it almost impossible to accidentally build a "sub optimal" character (when measured in terms of combat effectiveness).
For an example of this sort of design, check out the Tome of Battle. All three classes are very hard to stuff up. Provided you pay some attention to what maneuvers you pick, (so you can qualify for the higher level maneuvers) as long as you are picking the highest level maneuver you can at each level, you will be up to scratch.
Combine that with enough skill points to max out your "required" skills (like Jump for Tiger Claw etc), with enough left over for other skills to flesh out your character background, and you have strong, robust classes that are very hard to stuff up. Even if you spend all your feats on skill focus (basket weaving) your Warblade (or Crusdader or Swordsage) will still be able to keep up, and actually significantly contribute.
And that to me sounds like a good thing. No more building characters that get squashed flat because you took "roleplaying" options instead of number crunching options. What is the problem with that?
"Yup, that's how the classes came together. The idea is to make sure everyone can contribute in a meaningful way in a fight."
"We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game."
----------
""No more building characters that get squashed flat because you took "roleplaying" options instead of number crunching options. What is the problem with that?"
Because it's a role-playing game. Just because you took role-playing options shouldn't mean you can't survive at high levels. I mean, I never heard a player say - man, I could have beaten that Balor if I had only taken weapon focus instead of deceitful! All they care about is making sure you're "optimal in combat". Maybe I should be playing Battletech again.
It's wrong how condescending and ignorant they come across to the gamers out there - quotes have been tossed around the boards on many threads. Telling someone to calm down because they're angry they've been insulted and mocked by a game they've loved and supported for over 2 dozen years and then asked to spend several hundred dollars for a game that isn't necessary is a little out of line. The only thing wrong with 3rd is the fact it's not making enough money anymore. But if it's good for you, you can buy it. But don't try to convince me that combat roles and optimal characters for combat and killing and looting and no more skills like profession is an improvement.
The only thing that is right as I see it, is playing the type of character you want to play and accepting a game system that will allow you to do that. Roleplaying games have a large assortment of players and game master types, D&D being just one of those. The best game systems are those which allow the flexibility in mechanics and fluff to play the type of character you want to play; to allow you to run the type of game you want to play.
Skill in playing comes into the equation from both the player and DM. Skill resulting from the players ability to act and react with their character according to the challenges faced before them. This could mean putting up a tactical fight, having a head to head brawl, diplomacy, hiding, running, and any other type of action/reaction you can think of. Those who desire to place emphasis on roleplaying need to be properly skilled to achieve the effect they desire. The expectations of the individual and their skill need to be in sync with one another, and when they are, a certain amount of gratification is acquired. Players come with all sorts of skill. There are beginners and those who have played most of their lives. So long as the players expections are in line with their skill fun, will be had.
The gamemaster must be skilled in their ability to provide suitable challenges for the characters in his or her campaign. If it is a campaign which is fight after fight, then a skilled DM will be able to appropraitely challenge the characters. If the players are into roleplaying then a successful DM (for those players) will be able to provide the types of challenges they seek in plots, encounters, and character development. If the players are new, the DM must gamemaster at a level which is both entertaining and thought provoking for the players level of skill. When these factors come together, a successful campaign will be had by all. It doesn't matter whether the PCs are 20+ level fighting demon lords, 1st level characters fight goblins. It doesn't matter if the players are roleplayers, or like a bit of both.
The nature of the rules for any game should be able to meet the desired players needs, whether they are fighters or roleplayers. A good game has the mechanics to support both types of players and a wise game designer understands that the game may appeal to a varying audience. As a result, the wise game designer will create mechanics and fluff which provide the tools necessary to create and play a greatly diversified characters. A game designer who chooses to ignore the inclusion of a type of gamer is limited in their skill as a creator and thus creates a less than supportive system. If the designer did their homework they realize this and create a rewarding game for both player types.
The players need to pick the right game for their game style. If WOTC limits 4th edition to one type of play style as a result of the types of skills, character abilities, emphasis on combat, lack of roleplaying etc. then they have done a diservice to multiple audience types. If WOTC has created a game which accomidates both types of players as a result of good game mechanics, then they have provided a service to all. If WOTC throws out 30+ years of gaming history in order to strictly include a specific audience, they have failed. If WOTC does not recognize the needs of the newer players, they have failed.
Choose the game system based on your style of play. If WOTC did a crack up job like they claim...these things will fall into place. If they chose to ignore a certain player type, those who cherish old style play, those looking for something new, those who play a specific world, those who homebrew....if WOTC chooses to let any of these audiences go....they have done less than they could have. If they do all of these things...their efforts will be rewarded in sales by the many different players which frequent or will be considering their product.
They can't put everything in the core three books. But if they don't want to miss out on any player types, 4th edition will provide interesting challenges for all to be had. There is enough room for everyone...there is enough room for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, homebrew, etc. If the company knows what they are doing...and need to pool their resources together (such as seeking outside companies to lend a hand through the OGL), then they will, and none of us will be left in the dark. If they choose to leave an audience type in the dark...then it is really WOTC who are the ones in the dark.
|
|
This is the... mmmhhh... second piece of news regarding 4E that I don't dislike. A player can develop his character with something not purely cookie-cutter designed, that's nice, thank you.
The only thing that is right as I see it, is playing the type of character you want to play and accepting a game system that will allow you to do that. Roleplaying games have a large assortment of players and game master types, D&D being just one of those. The best game systems are those which allow the flexibility in mechanics and fluff to play the type of character you want to play; to allow you to run the type of game you want to play.
Skill in playing comes into the equation from both the player and DM. Skill resulting from the players ability to act and react with their character according to the challenges faced before them. This could mean putting up a tactical fight, having a head to head brawl, diplomacy, hiding, running, and any other type of action/reaction you can think of. Those who desire to place emphasis on roleplaying need to be properly skilled to achieve the effect they desire. The expectations of the individual and their skill need to be in sync with one another, and when they are, a certain amount of gratification is acquired. Players come with all sorts of skill. There are beginners and those who have played most of their lives. So long as the players expections are in line with their skill fun, will be had.
The gamemaster must be skilled in their ability to provide suitable challenges for the characters in his or her campaign. If it is a campaign which is fight after fight, then a skilled DM will be able to appropraitely challenge the characters. If the players are into roleplaying then a successful DM (for those players) will be able to provide the types of challenges they seek in plots, encounters, and character development. If the players are new, the DM must gamemaster at a level which is both entertaining and thought provoking for the players level of skill. When these factors come together, a successful campaign will be had by all. It doesn't matter whether the PCs are 20+ level fighting demon lords, 1st level characters fight goblins. It doesn't matter if the players are roleplayers, or like a bit of both.
The nature of the rules for any game should be able to meet the desired players needs, whether they are fighters or roleplayers. A good game has the mechanics to support both types of players and a wise game designer understands that the game may appeal to a varying audience. As a result, the wise game designer will create mechanics and fluff which provide the tools necessary to create and play a greatly diversified characters. A game designer who chooses to ignore the inclusion of a type of gamer is limited in their skill as a creator and thus creates a less than supportive system. If the designer did their homework they realize this and create a rewarding game for both player types.
The players need to pick the right game for their game style. If WOTC limits 4th edition to one type of play style as a result of the types of skills, character abilities, emphasis on combat, lack of roleplaying etc. then they have done a diservice to multiple audience types. If WOTC has created a game which accomidates both types of players as a result of good game mechanics, then they have provided a service to all. If WOTC throws out 30+ years of gaming history in order to strictly include a specific audience, they have failed. If WOTC does not recognize the needs of the newer players, they have failed.
Choose the game system based on your style of play. If WOTC did a crack up job like they claim...these things will fall into place. If they chose to ignore a certain player type, those who cherish old style play, those looking for something new, those who play a specific world, those who homebrew....if WOTC chooses to let any of these audiences go....they have done less than they could have. If they do all of these things...their efforts will be rewarded in sales by the many different players which frequent or will be considering their product.
They can't put everything in the core three books. But if they don't want to miss out on any player types, 4th edition will provide interesting challenges for all to be had. There is enough room for everyone...there is enough room for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, homebrew, etc. If the company knows what they are doing...and need to pool their resources together (such as seeking outside companies to lend a hand through the OGL), then they will, and none of us will be left in the dark. If they choose to leave an audience type in the dark...then it is really WOTC who are the ones in the dark.
Awesomely said.
I may be reasonably new to the party (having just bought my $2 trial copy of World of Warcraft a week ago) but it seems like some of this is not such a bad idea.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm as worried about 4E as a lot of people (especially considering the financial investment), but some of this (and may Heironeous smite me down if I lie) doesn't seem so bad.
So Conan spent a few of his feats on "Commanding Presence" and "Quick Draw", which means what? Women will drop their pants when he slaps their behinds (it's in the books, I'm not making this up!) and that people don't get a surprise round against him and he's good on passive-Perception checks... so? If RE Howard had just hit him with a few "optimized-build" fighters of the same level, he'd go down screaming for "wasting" his feats in 3.5. Maybe now it's a worthwhile option.
It fits the idea a whole lot better than a good ol' 3E or 3.5 barbarian... Players Handbook 2 fixed a few of these (the Combat Focus feats are cool, there's a social tactical feat which gives you a few tricks to do... but it's still not perfect).
I like the idea that my (to make up an idea on the spot) Ftr2/Pal2 could be slightly useful in combat and in the courtroom, rather than just being not hard-hitting enough to compare to a fighter and not as smitey and buff-y as a paladin. I tend to like roleplaying campaigns, and if 4E means you don't get 'penalized' for a roleplaying build, then great.
But that's up to the DM, you say?
Yeah. In my 15-odd year career gaming, I think I've seen NPCs or monsters about twice who have spent their skill points on stuff they're not going to need. For example: 3E dragons, the skills section read something like "dragons get 8 + Int mod skill points/HD, x4 for 1st HD. Spend these to maximum ranks on Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Spellcraft, Jump, and Climb, then use the rest on Knowledge skills." Right. So a dragon 1200 years old has spent its entire life learning to intimidate people? Why? The fact that it's 80 feet long gives it a massive bonus, why would it bother to put skill points into it?
The same goes for NPCs. How come in high-level games, you never run into a battered old 15th-level fighter whose strength is now so low he can't use Power Attack? It sort of turns into an Anime-style game where everyone is a 16-year kid with world-shattering power and the emotional maturity of a mosquito.
I LIKE 3.5, let's not get that wrong. There are things about it I don't like, and things about it I've house-ruled, ignored, or just plain not bothered reading.
Sorry for the long post. I'm tired... it's past my bedtime here in Oz.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm cautiously optimistic there will be something to steal for my 3.x games, we'll see how the mechanics work out.
I am concerned though. How easy will it be to take these 'role playing side' parts and use them to make a bigger brute? If it's remotely possible, then all they've done is kicked the problem down the road.
I agree that we can already “build whatever sort of PC you want to roleplay” using the 3.5 system. I also agree that D&D can be improved with regard to this aspect of the game. However, I disagree that throwing out the 3.5 system and replacing it with 4E is the best way to improve this (or any other) aspect of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have played all the adventure paths and as far as I can tell if you don´t create optimal characters then you do not survive long. Now, if the DM is supposed all the time to change the encounters in order for his players to survive, then what is the point?
Howdy, Mormegil.
I think you're absolutely right: the adventure path campaigns (particularly Age of Worms) are deadlier than typical pre-written adventures. To read some of the comments by the designers, that wasn't by accident. They thought that people really remember fondly those old modules where there was real danger, and they didn't shy away from writing in some tough fights.
But to my way of thinking, the DM doesn't get to pass the buck to the adventure writers and say, "This module, as written, will kill this party. What, am I supposed to change the encounters?"
My answer: yes. If the 3.5 Challenge Rating system is designed for 'optimized' characters, or you've bought a particularly deadly adventure, and your players designed characters with emphasis in non-combat feats and skills, then it looks like you can ...
- Tell them to set those characters aside and build combat-focus characters, because that's the kind of campaign you want to run.
- Run a slightly larger party (say, six characters) of the kind of characters they have fun playing.
- Start them off with an introductory adventure, and keep them a level or so ahead of the intended level of the adventure (so, send them to Blackwall Keep at 6th level, rather than 5th).
- Put that module aside and run an appropriate adventure.
The one thing you can't do is just run them from one TPK to the next, shrug, and say that that's just how the adventure was written.
(The analogy I use is the party that, for whatever reason, doesn't include a wizard or sorcerer. If you've bought an adventure that requires an arcane caster, you should not blithely throw your party into it and watch them die.)
I like the basic idea of this and if they can pull it off that would be great. The only problem I see is that just like 3E, once the splat books and supplements start rolling off the printer from WoTC all of the balance will go to hell. I hope they stop publishing a book a month.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I like the basic idea of this and if they can pull it off that would be great. The only problem I see is that just like 3E, once the splat books and supplements start rolling off the printer from WoTC all of the balance will go to hell. I hope they stop publishing a book a month.
Wishful thinking is so cute! ;-)
The problem to me seems to be that 'complete diplomat' books don't sell. Look at Powers of Faerun. People were expecting Powerz of Faerun (to resort to that pathetic mangling of English) Not "Economic, trade, and political powers of Faerun."
While I'm hopeful that the system will work, I fear it's just going to be tacked on and neglected.
I like the basic idea of this and if they can pull it off that would be great. The only problem I see is that just like 3E, once the splat books and supplements start rolling off the printer from WoTC all of the balance will go to hell. I hope they stop publishing a book a month.Wishful thinking is so cute! ;-)
The problem to me seems to be that 'complete diplomat' books don't sell. Look at Powers of Faerun. People were expecting Powerz of Faerun (to resort to that pathetic mangling of English) Not "Economic, trade, and political powers of Faerun."
While I'm hopeful that the system will work, I fear it's just going to be tacked on and neglected.
Hey, we all need our delusions.
Like most RPGs the power creep from book to book is usually what kills the system, not the initial offering. If you look at just the basic core three of 3.5 the system is fairly balanced and works well. It's when the power creep plays in that things start to go to hell.
|
|
Forcing all builds to be 'optimal' is the wrong solution to the problem.True, but it seems to be a common occurance in 3e so it is not exactly fair to point the finger at 4e in this regards.
Hello folks,
That is a reproach you can make at the adventure designer, not the whole 3e.
I have seen a lot of this, especially in RPGA LGH modules, where you had to have three fights of a certain CR written in every module round, even if that brought nothing interesting to the storyline, or even was just plain absurd.
In a home campaign, you don't have that problem, if the DM is doing his job.