So I was strolling around ENWorld when I fell across this thread discussing the 4E playtest (and including the names of all 4E playtesters, so go check and let us know if you know one of 'em!) when I saw none other than Mike Mearls popped up to say hi. And one of his observations struck me as pretty interesting (it's here if you'd like to see it yourself)
Responding to a question as to why he [Mearls] did not chime in when seeing 4E bashed with what he knew to be untruths ...
Garnfellow, this is pretty much why. Playtesting and a few other topics just turn into mindless, recursive arguments that have no resolution. I can't refer to the rules text and say, "Look, this is what the game does."
In some cases, people *want* to believe the worst for a variety of reasons, and arguing with them on anything is a complete waste of time.
The most eye opening thing about the entire 4e process was how many people are what I call ideologues when it comes to D&D. The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules. The process, be it multiclassing, monster hit dice, or whatever, is more important than the end result of that process.
In other words, they'd rather use THAC0 than base attack bonus, because THAC0 is the right way to do things, even if it is slower, less extensible, and one of several idiosyncratic task resolution systems in the game. THAC0 has inherent value, by virtue of being THAC0, over other ways of doing things.
I've apparently had the same experiences as him with this whole 4E release (I remember the furor going from 2E to 3E, but was not quite to internet oriented, so missed most of the fun).
His example is funny because on these very boards I've seen some wax nostaligic over THAC0. Is it missing something from the past? Fear of something new in the future?
I'm still surprised by the vehemence some have against 4E, without ever trying it (or even waiting for the release). Is it because 4E is currently the unknown, and we naturally fear what we do not know?
Sorry if this post was a little disorganized ... this was just something that made me stop and think, and I thought some of you guys would like think with me. ;)
Cheers! :)
There are more examples than just the THAC0 "issue." There are numerous instances where someone who doesnt like what they hear about 4E continue to vocalize their complaint even in the face of contrary evidence.
I still hear people whining about "no gnomes", despite gnomes being in 4th Edition. People still gripe about the implied setting, despite not having to use it. The same thing with DDI: you dont need it, but thats not going to stop people from continuing to rant about how you need a laptop and the internet to play.
In most cases I think its just an irrational hatred: they dont want to like it, and no amount of proof is going to change their minds.
His example is funny because on these very boards I've seen some wax nostaligic over THAC0. Is it missing something from the past? Fear of something new in the future?
I'd say it's at least 50% fear of something new, or to put less negative spin on it, the attitude "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
His example is funny because on these very boards I've seen some wax nostaligic over THAC0. Is it missing something from the past? Fear of something new in the future?I'd say it's at least 50% fear of something new, or to put less negative spin on it, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Well, I can understand what you're saying but that age old idea just doesn't hold up. Just because a system works, doesn't mean it's the optimal system.
The horse and buggy system wasn't broke. So why did Ford fix it?
And yes, that's a very sarcastic way of putting it, but that's basicly the way those of us who love the BAB system over the THAC0 system feel.
I used the THAC0 system, it was good. It did what it needed to do. It even taught me to subtract negative numbers, but as a mechanical system it had limitations that BAB does not. Not horrible limitations, it's still a good system. Just not as good as the new one.
Oh, I don't want to hear anymore of THAC0. The first thing I liked with 3rd was that everything added up. After 8 years I definitely wouldn't be nostalgic about THAC0.
But then I'm definitely excited about 4ed. Sometimes I feel that however I'm trying I'll never grow.
Well, I can understand what you're saying but that age old idea just doesn't hold up. Just because a system works, doesn't mean it's the optimal system.The horse and buggy system wasn't broke. So why did Ford fix it?
And yes, that's a very sarcastic way of putting it, but that's basicly the way those of us who love the BAB system over the THAC0 system feel.
I didn't say it was a great argument, but that's the argument.
Personally, I'm keeping an open mind towards 4E. Some of the changes I would call "fixing something broken" and some I would call "fixing something not broken", but I'll judge the game on its own merits. My only stalling point is that I like lots of "stuff" (classes, prestige classes, magic systems, whatever); once 4E gets more "stuff", I'll probably join the party (late, as usual).
(warning! mischievous post)
The horse-and-buggy/Ford analogy cited in posts earlier in this thread amuses me, not least because I suspect that many third edition/3.5 supporters could see third edition/3.5 as the Ford, and 4E as the 'unnecessary simplification' going back to the horse-and-buggy; after all, so much of what is being trailed about 4E is about how much simpler and easier to use it will be!
To paraphrase David Marks, Cheers! ;)
Oh, and smurf.
|
I am on the playtest list (real name is in the B's). They finally gave us permission to confirm that fact, although we are not allowed to discuss specifics under the NDA until June. I don't want to be part of the ongoing flame war over 4E, and I don't want WotC coming after me, so all I will say is that I am very happy with the direction of Pathfinder and will not be converting to 4E any time soon.
Oh, I don't want to hear anymore of THAC0. The first thing I liked with 3rd was that everything added up. After 8 years I definitely wouldn't be nostalgic about THAC0.
THAC0 was probably the single worst innovation in D&D's history. Next to Lorraine Williams.
Actually, THAC0 was a great invention.
D&D had a chart with a column for fighters, rogues, etc. and then all the ACs from 10 to -10. (The reason it went from 10 down was because of wargames, where 1 was the best AC, but wargames didn't have magic, so it stopped at 1.) It was impossible to run a game without that chart. I never look at the DM screen now, but you needed to then.
Someone realized that the only consistent thing about that chart was the roll increased by 1 for each new AC. So that condensed that whole chart down to each character/monster has a THAC0.
Don't know who that person was, but they didn't have the authority to invent BAB or make that chart make more sense. What they did was make the chart tolerable and it was brilliant.
I second what Ashkecker said. I was happy to trade BAB for THAC0, but THAC0 was a huge step forward in its time.
And on the topic of what Mearls said: I think his perception is accurate. There are some people (I'm one of them, at least some of the time) for whom the process can be more important than the result. There's been a lot of discussion on various boards about gamism vs. simulationism and where 4E falls between them, and this is just another example. A gamist is more likely to care about the result; a simulationist wants the process to be right, even if you don't get the result you expected. 4E has clearly embraced a more gamist philosophy.
|
I know Mearls thinks he's being cute, but anyone who seriously would choose Thac0 over BAB is probably sticking with 2nd ediiton, and really doesn't care much about 4th edition because they are still playing 2nd edition. I don't think anyone is going to point at one, single thing and say "It can't be D&D if it doesn't have this." It's a number of small things that when added up "make" D&D. It's also a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. For many, 4th edition has taken away enough D&Disms, that it really doesn't seem like it's the same game anymore.
The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules.
The end result - whether the game/setting is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to keeping the status quo. WotC may be moving the cheese to a more comfortable, more accessible location, but they're still moving the cheese.
When you look at things from that perspective, you realize that no amount of debating the pros and cons of either system will convince anyone to change their mind.
|
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.
Thac0, BAB are in many ways much of a muchness. The ability to tell a certain kind of story with ease on the other hand is what I think is important. 4e, rightly or wrongly, IMO breaks with the storytelling tradition that I associate with D&D and tries to introduce a new kind of story that the creators thought would be more fun.
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.
Thac0, BAB are in many ways much of a muchness. The ability to tell a certain kind of story with ease on the other hand is what I think is important. 4e, rightly or wrongly, IMO breaks with the storytelling tradition that I associate with D&D and tries to introduce a new kind of story that the creators thought would be more fun.
I agree with you, but it seems Mearls' comments were specifically targeted at those complaining about mechanical changes. Particularly, mechanical changes that moved the philosophy of the game to the gamist spectrum, such as the new monster design and multiclassing.
The horse and buggy system wasn't broke. So why did Ford fix it?
Ford didn't invent the car, Cugnot did in 18th century.
Ford didn't even invented the chain production of cars, Olds did it before, he merely developped it.
So I was strolling around ENWorld when I fell across this thread discussing the 4E playtest (and including the names of all 4E playtesters, so go check and let us know if you know one of 'em!) when I saw none other than Mike Mearls popped up to say hi. And one of his observations struck me as pretty interesting (it's here if you'd like to see it yourself)
Responding to a question as to why he [Mearls] did not chime in when seeing 4E bashed with what he knew to be untruths ...
Garnfellow, this is pretty much why. Playtesting and a few other topics just turn into mindless, recursive arguments that have no resolution. I can't refer to the rules text and say, "Look, this is what the game does."
In some cases, people *want* to believe the worst for a variety of reasons, and arguing with them on anything is a complete waste of time.
The most eye opening thing about the entire 4e process was how many people are what I call ideologues when it comes to D&D. The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules. The process, be it multiclassing, monster hit dice, or whatever, is more important than the end result of that process.
In other words, they'd rather use THAC0 than base attack bonus, because THAC0 is the right way to do things, even if it is slower, less extensible, and one of several idiosyncratic task resolution systems in the game. THAC0 has inherent value, by virtue of being THAC0, over other ways of doing things.
I've apparently had the same experiences as him with this whole 4E release (I remember the furor going from 2E to 3E, but was not quite to internet oriented, so missed most of the fun).
His example is funny because on these very boards I've seen some wax nostalgic over THAC0. Is it missing something from the past? Fear of...
I think both Mike and the OP have it wrong here. Most of the people I've seen posting here about PF have already tried 4th and decided that they did not like it. There is plenty of 4th ed materials out there if you look for it and there is certainly enough to play through a 1st level adventure, which I and my group have done. We, and yes that was all of the people in my group ranges from ages of 16 to 38, did not like it. None of us thought 4th was particularly fun, although it did have some fun elements.
The fact is that the fun elements that are in 4th could have been included into 3.5 without making the game like a MMORPG, which is what 4th feels like. Those of us here I think feel that PF is, at least, on it's way to finding that balance between the new elements and keeping what worked from 3.5
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.
You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
I would say such things change the entire feel of the game. Seeing is this is a 3rd party board in reality, most of the people here have been around the block when it comes to other games. They have a distinctly different feel to them due to both fluff and mechanics. This is what causes somebody to either like or dislike the system, regardless if the concepts are new or not.
The fact that forgotten realms actually has to be torn apart and redone is a sign that the feel will be rather different I guess. Maybe some will like it more, I'm sure many will like it less.
As for me, the 45% spell mechanic and all the SLA's being stripped from the monsters along with their new rolls really boggles up the way I play and significantly changes the feel and function of both monsters and magic. This also changes the storylines and plots drastically...
This is probably why the guys at Paizo said that 4th Ed wouldn't support the kind of story they wanted very well, which was a big part of their decision to base it on 3.5/3.75 material.
You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
Personally, I wouldn't phrase it like that. I would say that it's not clear how removing certain traditions has anything to do with improving gameplay. For example, I don't know how removing the distinction between demons and devils makes for a better game; it doesn't seem to be a matter of fixing something "broken".
|
|
You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
I thought Mearl's point was about rules.
Nevertheless, I think it is a bait and switch to make apoint about rules (thaco vs. BAB) and then apply it to people who are unhappy with the changes the rules force upon the storytelling aspects of the game (alignment vs. no-alignment).
Nurse!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think both Mike and the OP have it wrong here. Most of the people I've seen posting here about PF have already tried 4th and decided that they did not like it. There is plenty of 4th ed materials out there if you look for it and there is certainly enough to play through a 1st level adventure, which I and my group have done. We, and yes that was all of the people in my group ranges from ages of 16 to 38, did not like it. None of us thought 4th was particularly fun, although it did have some fun elements.
The fact is that the fun elements that are in 4th could have been included into 3.5 without making the game like a MMORPG, which is what 4th feels like. Those of us here I think feel that PF is, at least, on it's way to finding that balance between the new elements and keeping what worked from 3.5.
This is what my playtest group has said from the beginning. No one really enjoyed the game, even if certain aspects were faster and some good ideas were present. It's just too far flung from the various versions of D&D we've all played for the past 30 years. Sure, it's cool to have some of the various abilities and powers and things, but it's not enough to make the game as a whole fun. None of the elements congealed into the desired result.
This whole WotC playtest has been bogus since day one. I have been playtesting since October, and of the six people in my group, only three were actually listed as playtesters. I'm sort of glad my name was left off, though, as WotC's complete disregard for comments, critiques and feedback makes me want no credit for the finished product.
I believe the NDA is still in effect until the game is released.
For example, I don't know how removing the distinction between demons and devils makes for a better game; it doesn't seem to be a matter of fixing something "broken".
Actually, the changes WotC made to demons and devils were specifically implemented to reinforce the distinction between them. The design team felt that 3E demons and devils were so alike that it was difficult to tell them apart sometimes.
I second what Ashkecker said. I was happy to trade BAB for THAC0, but THAC0 was a huge step forward in its time.
Oh yes, I agree. For it's time, THAC0 was an amazing and inovative system. However, twenty years later, it didn't seem that way anymore. It was now the new standard, and WotC saw a way to improve upon that standard.
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.
I thought Mearl's point was about rules.
Nevertheless, I think it is a bait and switch to make apoint about rules (thaco vs. BAB) and then apply it to people who are unhappy with the changes the rules force upon the storytelling aspects of the game (alignment vs. no-alignment).
The problem is, all those things you mentioned as system and game mechanics. Alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons are all game mechanics based things.
Alignment wasn't just a code of ethics. It it had been, then there woudl be no problem. But "Good" means something specific, not just how you act. Certain spells hurt you more if you have the "Good" label. Others won't hurt you at all. Certain weapons harm you more. Alignment is not just a tradition, it's a game mechanice.
All those things are. I'll grant you that Elves being long lived isn't much of a game mechanic, but it is part of the mechanics. Once a person reachs their natural death age, ressurection no longer works. Elves, therefore, have a significant advantage in how long that character can survive in an extreamly long campaign.
Vancian magic is perhaps the biggest traditions of D&D, and the biggest most difficult to handle game mechanic in the whole system. It defines a huge part of the game. Just look at how many prestige classes in 3.5 are based on the system of spellcaster level, spells per day, and similair parts of the magic system.
Almost all the classic traditions of D&D are in fact game mechanics.
I thought Mearl's point was about rules.
Nevertheless, I think it is a bait and switch to make apoint about rules (thaco vs. BAB) and then apply it to people who are unhappy with the changes the rules force upon the storytelling aspects of the game (alignment vs. no-alignment).
Alignment was a rule. It affected a character's ability to qualify for certain classes, it made certain weapons more effective against certain enemies, and it determined the effects of certain spells.
It was also a storytelling tool, but too many players got hung up on the rules aspect and allowed alignment to become a straightjacket. At worst, some players used it as an excuse to behave like jackasses.
Personally, I think alignment would be better as a variant rule in a sidebar. That way, it remains an option for those of us who are mature enough to use it responsibily, but it's removed as an obstacle for those who can't handle it.
As for me, the 45% spell mechanic and all the SLA's being stripped from the monsters along with their new rolls really boggles up the way I play and significantly changes the feel and function of both monsters and magic. This also changes the storylines and plots drastically...
Could you give examples?
|
|
I thought Mearl's point was about rules.
Nevertheless, I think it is a bait and switch to make apoint about rules (thaco vs. BAB) and then apply it to people who are unhappy with the changes the rules force upon the storytelling aspects of the game (alignment vs. no-alignment).
Alignment was a rule. It affected a character's ability to qualify for certain classes, it made certain weapons more effective against certain enemies, and it determined the effects of certain spells.
It was also a storytelling tool, but too many players got hung up on the rules aspect and allowed alignment to become a straightjacket. At worst, some players used it as an excuse to behave like jackasses.
Personally, I think alignment would be better as a variant rule in a sidebar. That way, it remains an option for those of us who are mature enough to use it responsibily, but it's removed as an obstacle for those who can't handle it.
I was not saying that alignment was not a rule. Let me try to be clearer.
I think it is a bait and switch to use an example of a rule that has little effect on the story (Thac0) when people are unhappy with the rules changes (alignment) that do effect the story.
I realize that there are people unhappy with alignment. I am not unhappy with it and for me it is one of a dozen things that defines D&D for what it is and has been.
|
|
I'm sort of glad my name was left off, though, as WotC's complete disregard for comments, critiques and feedback makes me want no credit for the finished product.
Just because the final game does not reflect the input from one playtest group does not mean that it does not reflect the aggregate feedback from all of the playtest groups.
Oh, and as a counter-point ... I strarted running H1 and my group is really enjoying it. But the real test will be to see how the whole market responds and not just your group or my group.
|
|
I realize that there are people unhappy with alignment. I am not unhappy with it and for me it is one of a dozen things that defines D&D for what it is and has been.
Alignment is still a part of the game. It does not seem to be mechanically tied to the game as much as it was in 3.5 but it is still there.
I was not saying that alignment was not a rule. Let me try to be clearer.I think it is a bait and switch to use an example of a rule that has little effect on the story (Thac0) when people are unhappy with the rules changes (alignment) that do effect the story.
I realize that there are people unhappy with alignment. I am not unhappy with it and for me it is one of a dozen things that defines D&D for what it is and has been.
Ah, okay, that is indeed much clearer. THAC0 does indeed have much less of a flavor compnent then alignment or vancian magic do. You are right, they have to be handled differently.
I still think Mearls point holds for these subjects though, because when you change something like that it causes way more uproar because of the layers of flavor and fluff which have been built upon the underlying mechanic.
Especially when the flavor was invented just to explain away how crazy the game mechanic would be if applied in real life.
|
Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
Actually, you just made Mearls' (unintended) point, which is that he (and apparently you) are ideologues who apparently believe that gamist theory trumps all other considerations, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be an idiot or "fanciful theorist or spectator" (which is the actual definition of idealogue, which he either doesn't understand or is even more arrogant than I thought).
You might work on the (lack of) logic in your last sentence, as well. You can obviously improve rules without touching flavor, or you can opt to blow up traditions (as WotC has done) in the name of rules improvements. The two actions are neither mutually exclusive nor bound together. WotC chose to do both. Others are choosing to improve the rules while retaining the classic flavor many of us know and love.
For many, 4th edition has taken away enough D&Disms, that it really doesn't seem like it's the same game anymore.I agree.
3.5 Never Dies! PRPG Forever!
Three cheers for Erik, Jason, Monte & the PAIZO team.
Pax, I get the impression that if Paizo announced they'd be including a shovel-full of manure with every issue of Pathfinder, you be praising the wisdom and foresight of the Paizo staff.
In fact, I get the impression that if Eric Mona broke into your house and stole your t.v., you'd only be dissappointed that James Jacobs and Mike McArtor weren't involved in the plot. :-)
Actually, you just made Mearls' (unintended) point, which is that he (and apparently you) are ideologues who apparently believe that gamist theory trumps all other considerations, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be an idiot or "fanciful theorist or spectator" (which is the actual definition of idealogue, which he either doesn't understand or is even more arrogant than I thought).Then there's those of us who are happy with good rules changes but dislike the wholesale dismissal of traditions such as alignment, vancian magic, long lived elves, good aligned metalic dragons, etc.You just made Mearls' point. You believe those elements have merit and are good for the game, simply because they are traditions. You, like many, believe that removing traditions and improving gameplay are mutually exclusive.
Well, my dictionary defines "ideologue" as:
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
I miss the "one tho thinks that who doesn't agree with him must be an idiot or fanciful theorist or spectator" part. In fact, all posts I've seen from Mearls at both EnWorld and RPGNet were very patient and respectful. Unlike many of the responses that he received for them... how can a game development professional argue with someone that thinks he is a bastard for "accepting money from Wizards to make a new version of the game"?
Mearls is a seriously cool guy, please don't insult him. :(
People have natural change tendencies, wanting to limit change purely for stability sake, or when unhappy to take almost any change offered. Just natural.
I would be very curious what percentage of people supporting pathfinder have actually played 4E. I'd actually doubt most or even a large percentage. There's plenty of reason to support pathfinder without having played, and many of 4E's detractors dislike certain decisions strongly so wouldn't go out of their way to try it.
I would be very curious what percentage of people supporting pathfinder have actually played 4E. I'd actually doubt most or even a large percentage. There's plenty of reason to support pathfinder without having played, and many of 4E's detractors dislike certain decisions strongly so wouldn't go out of their way to try it.
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.Unskilled farmboy with not a lot of ability but much potential.
Out of curiousity, how would you do that in 3E? I don't remember any rules for 0th level characters (although I guess you could make some up using the apprentice rules in the DMG ...)
Cheers! :)
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.Unskilled farmboy with not a lot of ability but much potential.
What about 4th Edition specifically prevents this trope? I've heard people gripe about this before, not that I know of people who tried to make an "unskilled farmboy" in anything but backstory.
I dont think it can truly be done in 3rd Edition unless you picked commoner as your class.|
|
Unskilled farmboy with not a lot of ability but much potential.Out of curiousity, how would you do that in 3E? I don't remember any rules for 0th level characters (although I guess you could make some up using the apprentice rules in the DMG ...)
Cheers! :)
Depending on the level of unskilled I am going for, either rogue (+0 BAB but good reflexes), expert or even commoner. I also like the 0 level multilevel class rules from 3.0, which I have used.
More to the point though, the designers of 4e have said they specifically wanted heroes to start out as heroes. There is just a different feel from 1st level 3e PCs and the 4e 1st level PCs I have seen. YMMV.
The lack of certain classes and races and the inclusion of others into the first release of core rulebooks also changes the feel of the game (and yes I know that gnomes will be in the MM and druids and bards are only a year away but a year is a year and the perception will still be that its not core).
|
|
4e can easily support the unskilled farmboy trope. Start a PC with few if any class powers, fewer HP, fewer skills, etc. Send them up against a few solid critters and a whole bunch of minions.
There is also an idea of a non-heroic character. The priestess in Winterhaven is called a non-heroic cleric. She has skills and knows a couple rituals but no spells/powers.
The PCs should be able to start as "non-heroic". Why not?
Depending on the level of unskilled I am going for, either rogue (+0 BAB but good reflexes), expert or even commoner. I also like the 0 level multilevel class rules from 3.0, which I have used.
If I'm not mistaken, 3.5E DMG mentions very clearly that NPC classes are intended to be used as, well, NPCs. It may be possible that the DM forces the player to start as an NPC class before earning the "right" of being a hero, but this isn't, by any means, part of the proposed 3.5E experience. It's a house rule, just like a 4E DM could house rule that PCs start with half hit points, -1 on all attacks and defenses, and no powers but a single daily.
And a 1st-level rogue, someone with four times more skill points than an ordinary person and that deals +1d6 damage against someone flat-flooted/flanked, certainly is not someone who "lacks ability".
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.
I haven't been following all the 4th edition rules snippets, but I gather that I wouldn't be able to use a red dragon as a player character.
I'm not saying that I would ever want to, and I'm not saying that 3.5 edition's rules for it are any good, but you asked...
:)
|
|
4e can easily support the unskilled farmboy trope. Start a PC with few if any class powers, fewer HP, fewer skills, etc. Send them up against a few solid critters and a whole bunch of minions.
There is also an idea of a non-heroic character. The priestess in Winterhaven is called a non-heroic cleric. She has skills and knows a couple rituals but no spells/powers.
The PCs should be able to start as "non-heroic". Why not?
We'll see. Rules aren't out yet and I may still pick them up in order to try them out.
EDIT: The main issue with me is just the fact that so many 'small' things have been changed so that the whole of it feels different. There was a thread a while back, before details about 4e came out, asking what was D&D to you. So many of the things I wrote (and agreed with) there as being the D&D experience to me have been discarded that it just feels like a whole different game.
Depending on the level of unskilled I am going for, either rogue (+0 BAB but good reflexes), expert or even commoner. I also like the 0 level multilevel class rules from 3.0, which I have used.
A rogue is exceptionally skilled, and not really exemplary of an "unskilled" farmboy. Sure, he is slightly worse off than say, a fighter in melee combat, but otherwise he's actually really useful.
Otherwise, it sounds like your options are to use NPC classes to try and make it work. Again, 3rd Edition didnt really seem to support that trope.
More to the point though, the designers of 4e have said they specifically wanted heroes to start out as heroes. There is just a different feel from 1st level 3e PCs and the 4e 1st level PCs I have seen. YMMV.
They have more hit points, and "mundane" characters have more diverse attack forms, but thats about it. I think that the "unskilled farmboy" trope would work as a backstory than as an actual character, though you could create some kind of "NPC" style class in 4th Edition by reducing hit points, powers, and healing surges (much as you would have done in 3rd Edition by making a 0-level class).
The lack of certain classes and races and the inclusion of others into the first release of core rulebooks also changes the feel of the game (and yes I know that gnomes will be in the MM and druids and bards are only a year away but a year is a year and the perception will still be that its not core).
I wasnt really talking about characters, but more of adventures, since part of the issue is that D&D is so removed from D&D that its a different game. I dont think that there are many adventures that I could run in 3E that I couldnt run in 4E.
Since 4E supports more diverse challenges from the get-go, I think the number of options just went up. A lot.