I was thinking of bringing this up in another thread here in the 4th edition section seeing as how there've been a few of those in the know about 4e lurking, but felt it would be too much much of a threadjack
I'm going to pose a theory I have about fourth edition, and ask that those who know either confirm or deny the theory. I understand that the response might just be "Can't really answer you one way or another without breaking NDA", and if that's what it ends up being, I'll be fine with that.
Now, I have to be honest, I've tried not to keep up with all the miniscule tidbits of knowledge about 4e, wanting rather to wait until the books are actually out to be able to form an opinion of my own from reading them.
There's been a lot of debate going back and forth about class roles and what X class should or shouldn't be able to do and what Y class is intended for . . . I'm curious if people might be getting too caught up on class names. I think that one of the focuses for 4e is to have players come up with a character concept and then build their character from the class tool-kits to match the concept, instead of start off by saying "I'm going to make a character of such and such class."
What got me thinknig about this is several monthes back when Star Wars Saga came out and there was some discussion between the jedi class, and the Jedi Order. That one does not automatically assume the other. you can have someone with levels of the jedi class, but they may or may not be of the Jedi Order, while you can also have someone in the Jedi Order who has no levels in the jedi class.
I'm thinking that 4e is supposed to be like that. where you can have a character that you consider a Fighter . . well, cause he fights. But the skills and abilities that he has, just happens to come from a mix of ranger and warlord levels . . . for example.
So . . . anyone willing to confirm or deny this . . or advise me it can't be confirmed or denied? Are people getting too caught up on class names?
Hmm . . I see . . Lack of a response is response enough.
|
No need to get miffed because people don't respond to you. Of course, that might just be a wordy "BUMP!" :)
Anyway, your question was somewhat answered a few days ago in the "Mearls..." thread.
You can also roll things back another step and do some crazy stuff with the structure of the classes. Since many of the elements of character progression are unified, you could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats.
At least I think that sort of answers you. It might not. Either way, if you haven't you might want to read through that thread or read the original entry on ENWorld.
I'd say you're certainly on the right track, although I can't give you the authoratative answer you seek.
In another thread here (damned if I can remember the one) a poster asked Rodney if he could make an archery focused Fighter. Rodney said that sounded like a Ranger to him. The poster insisted on pressing the question of could he make a Fighter but I think he was missing the point. The name of the class is meaningless, its what the character does that matters. A character who focuses on ranged bow attacks is best modeled as a Ranger, even if that name is never applied to him in game.
I was thinking of bringing this up in another thread here in the 4th edition section seeing as how there've been a few of those in the know about 4e lurking, but felt it would be too much much of a threadjack
I'm going to pose a theory I have about fourth edition, and ask that those who know either confirm or deny the theory. I understand that the response might just be "Can't really answer you one way or another without breaking NDA", and if that's what it ends up being, I'll be fine with that.
Now, I have to be honest, I've tried not to keep up with all the miniscule tidbits of knowledge about 4e, wanting rather to wait until the books are actually out to be able to form an opinion of my own from reading them.
There's been a lot of debate going back and forth about class roles and what X class should or shouldn't be able to do and what Y class is intended for . . . I'm curious if people might be getting too caught up on class names. I think that one of the focuses for 4e is to have players come up with a character concept and then build their character from the class tool-kits to match the concept, instead of start off by saying "I'm going to make a character of such and such class."
What got me thinknig about this is several monthes back when Star Wars Saga came out and there was some discussion between the jedi class, and the Jedi Order. That one does not automatically assume the other. you can have someone with levels of the jedi class, but they may or may not be of the Jedi Order, while you can also have someone in the Jedi Order who has no levels in the jedi class.
I'm thinking that 4e is supposed to be like that. where you can have a character that you consider a Fighter . . well, cause he fights. But the skills and abilities that he has, just happens to come from a mix of ranger and warlord levels . . . for example.
So . . . anyone willing to confirm or deny this . . or advise me it can't be confirmed or denied? Are people getting too caught up on class names?
Art immitates life. Yes, I agree with you and believe that 4.0 is going in that direction. Unfortunately, the rules will place a tag on everything that is not consistent with its purpose. It's like so many college grads resumes. They want to be a compute programmer, but they majored in communications and by the way, they built a really cool website to show everyone how to grow weed in an aerogarden so now their qualified.
I think that 4.0 will have less role playing and more fantasy. The fantasy will be character builds that are supposed to fit a role, but are either unqualified or incompetant enough to fill it.
Anyway, your question was somewhat answered a few days ago in the "Mearls..." thread.
What?! I may have to give 4e a look after all.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Anyway, your question was somewhat answered a few days ago in the "Mearls..." thread....You could run classless D&D by allowing players to select maneuvers and spells from any class they want, mingling the two together, or start everyone with access to all heroic abilities and grant access to divine and arcane via feats.
If 4e makes 'classless D&D' allowable within the core rules, I may be more interested. ... Frankly, most of what I've heard so far has just turned me off but I've always felt that classes limited my imagination rather than fostered it.
I'm a bit lazy. Anyone know the link for this?
No need to get miffed because people don't respond to you. Of course, that might just be a wordy "BUMP!" :)
Yes, it was a wordy bump . . .
But it looks like the general consensus is that my theory is a good one. So even without offical word, I think I'm happy with the answer. (That's not to say I won't still take offical word if offered.)
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?
Well I would guess they would be some form of Striker. Probably ranged and martial, so simply were-sharkmen rangers with maybe a bonus to hit from the laser sighting.
Back to the OP: I think you hit the nail on the head. I have always found DnD (and lots of players in particular) to hung up on classes and what they are "supposed" to do. This is most clearly seen in the negativity excessive multi classing can evoke.
4e is mixing this up. No longer do you pick your class, first you pick your "role" and then you mix and match classes, feats, and powers to craft the character you want.
So if you want to be a doughty dwarf in full plate, you obviously want to play a defender, and probably a martial one, so you craft a fighter (or maybe a paladin).
Likewise, if you want to play an archer, sounds like you want to play a striker, so you craft yourself a ranger.
The thing I really like is that they seem to be extracting the concept of class even further from the game world, and making almost a purely meta game concept. So no one in the game world will know (or care) that you are a Fighter / Warlord / Ranger / Wizard (or whatever), just that you are a well rounded adventurer. If you want to call yourself a Warlord, or a swordmage, or whatever, as long as you have the in game ability to back it up, they won't care.
I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but it is one of the (admittedly many) things that has me excited about 4th Edition.
|
|
The thing I really like is that they seem to be extracting the concept of class even further from the game world, and making almost a purely meta game concept. So no one in the game world will know (or care) that you are a Fighter / Warlord / Ranger / Wizard (or whatever), just that you are a well rounded adventurer. If you want to call yourself a Warlord, or a swordmage, or whatever, as long as you have the in game ability to back it up, they won't care.
I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but it is one of the (admittedly many) things that has me excited about 4th Edition.
I won't play 4e, but this does sound very cool. It may well be the single best thing I've heard about 4e since it was announced (considering the rest of what I've heard I haven't liked at all, that isn't saying much... or maybe it is :) ). It's definitely something I will read up on when the books come out (at the bookstore or at the Library... no money involved for me).
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?Sharkmen and lasers are not part of the game. You may have some ill-tempered sea bass, though.
Hah! Bet you can't do *that* in Hero. ;)
Were-Sharks are from Dragonlance, and were updated to 3.5 in one of Dragon's Campaign Classics issues, IIRC.
Lasers were introduced ages ago in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and were added/updated by WOTC using D20 Modern rules when they did their Return to the Barrier Peaks.
Like it or not, they are a part of D&D, maybe not 4e though. YET.
|
|
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?
Sharkmen and lasers are not part of the game. You may have some ill-tempered sea bass, though.
Hah! Bet you can't do *that* in Hero. ;)
Were-Sharks are from Dragonlance, and were updated to 3.5 in one of Dragon's Campaign Classics issues, IIRC.
Lasers were introduced ages ago in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and were added/updated by WOTC using D20 Modern rules when they did their Return to the Barrier Peaks.
Like it or not, they are a part of D&D, maybe not 4e though. YET.
What are you, the straight man? I was playing off his Austin Powers reference... :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
What are you, the straight man? I was playing off his Austin Powers reference... :)
I caught the ref on the fly. I'm straight as a bow. Sorry I never call, but I just got this new phone with no 7's. Otherwise I've been too busy looking at my map of the USA where scale is 1' equals 1'.
In HERO? Of course you can. That sea bass would be about 20 points, all told...
Yeah, pretty much standard Sea Bass with the Disadvantage ‘Ill Tempered’.
|
|
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?Well I would guess they would be some form of Striker. Probably ranged and martial, so simply were-sharkmen rangers with maybe a bonus to hit from the laser sighting.
Back to the OP: I think you hit the nail on the head. I have always found DnD (and lots of players in particular) to hung up on classes and what they are "supposed" to do. This is most clearly seen in the negativity excessive multi classing can evoke.
4e is mixing this up. No longer do you pick your class, first you pick your "role" and then you mix and match classes, feats, and powers to craft the character you want.
So if you want to be a doughty dwarf in full plate, you obviously want to play a defender, and probably a martial one, so you craft a fighter (or maybe a paladin).
Likewise, if you want to play an archer, sounds like you want to play a striker, so you craft yourself a ranger.
The thing I really like is that they seem to be extracting the concept of class even further from the game world, and making almost a purely meta game concept. So no one in the game world will know (or care) that you are a Fighter / Warlord / Ranger / Wizard (or whatever), just that you are a well rounded adventurer. If you want to call yourself a Warlord, or a swordmage, or whatever, as long as you have the in game ability to back it up, they won't care.
I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but it is one of the (admittedly many) things that has me excited about 4th Edition.
Sounds alot like the 'Generic Classes' in Unearthed Arcana. I can do this in 3.5, nothing new.
Can I have were-sharkmen with frickin’ lasers attached to their heads? What role is that?Well I would guess they would be some form of Striker. Probably ranged and martial, so simply were-sharkmen rangers with maybe a bonus to hit from the laser sighting.
Back to the OP: I think you hit the nail on the head. I have always found DnD (and lots of players in particular) to hung up on classes and what they are "supposed" to do. This is most clearly seen in the negativity excessive multi classing can evoke.
4e is mixing this up. No longer do you pick your class, first you pick your "role" and then you mix and match classes, feats, and powers to craft the character you want.
So if you want to be a doughty dwarf in full plate, you obviously want to play a defender, and probably a martial one, so you craft a fighter (or maybe a paladin).
Likewise, if you want to play an archer, sounds like you want to play a striker, so you craft yourself a ranger.
The thing I really like is that they seem to be extracting the concept of class even further from the game world, and making almost a purely meta game concept. So no one in the game world will know (or care) that you are a Fighter / Warlord / Ranger / Wizard (or whatever), just that you are a well rounded adventurer. If you want to call yourself a Warlord, or a swordmage, or whatever, as long as you have the in game ability to back it up, they won't care.
I know this isn't to everyone's taste, but it is one of the (admittedly many) things that has me excited about 4th Edition.
Sounds alot like the 'Generic Classes' in Unearthed Arcana. I can do this in 3.5, nothing new.
Agreed. Wasn't there also information on something like this in the DMG, or am I getting my books mixed up? Futhermore, isn't this more of a playing style issue than an edition issue? I've been coming up with concepts for characters AFTER I roll my dice since high school.
|
In another thread here (damned if I can remember the one) a poster asked Rodney if he could make an archery focused Fighter. Rodney said that sounded like a Ranger to him. The poster insisted on pressing the question of could he make a Fighter but I think he was missing the point. The name of the class is meaningless, its what the character does that matters. A character who focuses on ranged bow attacks is best modeled as a Ranger, even if that name is never applied to him in game.
I'm still asking how I can make my lvl 12 bard that hasn't picked up a weapon more deadly then a pint of ale in a bar brawl at level 1, and hasn't cast a single spell in his life, and in fact, detests magic.
(yes this is a real character in a real campaign that will be converting once 4e comes out)
I'm still asking how I can make my lvl 12 bard that hasn't picked up a weapon more deadly then a pint of ale in a bar brawl at level 1, and hasn't cast a single spell in his life, and in fact, detests magic.
(yes this is a real character in a real campaign that will be converting once 4e comes out)
I'd ask how he was modelled in whatever game you're bringing him from. I'm not sure how you'd make a char like that in 3E, much less 4E. The only option (in either system) that I could think of (barring house-rules) would be to simply ignore a characters combat abilities. In which case, I'd guess a Rogue is what you want (although not having the books, its just a guess!)
PS: It occurred to me after I posted but a Warlord might even be a better fit, assuming in combat he generally used Bardic Music to boost his allies. And he doesn't have spells at all! :)
|
|
I'm still asking how I can make my lvl 12 bard that hasn't picked up a weapon more deadly then a pint of ale in a bar brawl at level 1, and hasn't cast a single spell in his life, and in fact, detests magic.
(yes this is a real character in a real campaign that will be converting once 4e comes out)
I'd ask how he was modelled in whatever game you're bringing him from. I'm not sure how you'd make a char like that in 3E, much less 4E. The only option (in either system) that I could think of (barring house-rules) would be to simply ignore a characters combat abilities. In which case, I'd guess a Rogue is what you want (although not having the books, its just a guess!)
PS: It occurred to me after I posted but a Warlord might even be a better fit, assuming in combat he generally used Bardic Music to boost his allies. And he doesn't have spells at all! :)
Yeah. He basically either used music, or equipment to simulate magic that he would be able to do anyway. (a fishing pole + blanket to throw said blanket over opponent's head like mage hand - ect). Maxed diplomacy/bluff to avoid wasting any party equipment at all on some situations. And running in in full defensive - taunting just to give the flanking bonus to the rest of the party. Part of this is DM fiat - as we ruled for him that as long as we still kept track of slots, the equipment acting as spells he had anyway but refused to use would be subconsciously used to ensure the result he was trying to do.
Sounds like a fun character then! Without seeing the rules I'd think a Warlord could pull that off, with a similar bit of DM fiat (change the flavor of your Warlord-y abilities from military leader to musical inspiration and you would probably be close I'd think!)
|
|
Agreed. Wasn't there also information on something like this in the DMG, or am I getting my books mixed up? Furthermore, isn't this more of a playing style issue than an edition issue? I've been coming up with concepts for characters AFTER I roll my dice since high school.
I completely agree with you on this one. I almost always come up with a "theme" for my character, either before or after I create her. And I actually use rules, not just role playing to accomplish this.
90% of the time I fulfill the cleric role, whether it be a cleric, favored soul, healer, evangelist, etc. This is absolutely my favorite role to play. I never feel bored, and I don't feel like my only function is to heal. I use my imagination to take my character beyond band-aid to fun and interesting.
I feel like people just want to smash heads, not use their own heads. What happened to creativity?