|
Also I want to add that I still like to hear about the happenings with 4E. I am interested in where D&D is going, despite me not following. Enough of 4E bothers me that I won't play it but there are some concepts that I like hearing about. I don't believe that 4E is totally crap, I just personally don't want to play it because there is enough that turns me off about the system for me to not want to play it.
Some like apples, some like oranges, I want a pineapple!
;P
|
|
Crosswiredmind:
Your allegory (?) of US sports teams comes across to me as if you think that interest in/playing OGL and 4e games are mutually exclusive for groups.
I do not think that all RPG'ers are 'supporters' of one particular system, but rather that some are open-minded individuals who are capable of enjoying the various experiences offered by a swathe of RPG's.Just because someone plays Pathfinder, it does not seem to me that it would logically imply that they would have no interest in 4E.
I agree.
The analogy I used was purposeful. The most vocal critics of 4e here on this board have chosen a "side" and they still post here even though that "side" is not 4e.
I enjoy talking to folks that have the ability to engage in a civil dialogue. Some of the recent threads here have been far from civil thanks to the contributions of the 4e haters.
I laugh because people like Razz will migrate over eventually... Have fun with "Pathfinder" or whatever the hell you claim you'll be buying instead.Well, I was actually being sarcastic in order to characterize my opinion that the people who are most adamantly against 4th Edition will mostly likely convert...
Go play WoW - or better yet, 3.9 Edition Pathfinder - and leave us to discuss the game with people that are playing, or thinking about playing 4th Edition. Capiche?
I'm not trying to be arrogant, it's just common sense.First off: nice trolling.
Second off: You are being a dick whether your trying to be or not.
Here's the thing, I'm not going to the Pathfinder forums and voicing my opinion that it's redundant and completely and totally unnecessary.
I am just asking the same courtesy of others. If you REALLY have no interest in playing 4th Edition, WHY are you here?
Thank you. Admitting that the possibility, no matter how small, that you're wrong is something that many people on both sides of the fence should really consider.That's fine for your prediction and I respect that analysis of the history of edition switches. My mind tells me that this is a disntuishable fact pattern due to the OGL because for the first time another company can produce for the older edition. My gut tells me there won't be such a large migration that at 5th edition roll out people will say "everyone always switches and never plays the old editions."
Of course I could be wrong.
Bluntness is ok as long as personal attacks are not "covered." I haven't seen you make personal attacks, you just spoke your mind. As for the realism, well we're arguing about realistic expectations for a fantasy game. Now there's irony.
I'm not making personal attacks, and if my tone is a bit uncivil, I apologize. I'm just a bit perturbed by those posters who would come onto a forum for a game they claim to have no interest in playing and try to demerit it simply because they don't like it.
If you have some sensible concerns - as I admittedly do - by all means, voice them. But, the former just implies trolling.
Just because someone plays Pathfinder, it does not seem to me that it would logically imply that they would have no interest in 4E.
I don't think anyone implied this. The discussion was about people who have admitted they are not planning to ever play 4th Edition, have no interest in it and in fact consider it to NOT be a version of D&D at all.
I don't think people should go to the 3e threads to bash 3e. I have little interest in the Pathfinder RPG so I simply stopped posting there. Why should i stay there? Why should i disrupt those that want to help test it and play it?
Exactly. Preach on brother. Preach on.
Just because someone plays Pathfinder, it does not seem to me that it would logically imply that they would have no interest in 4E.I don't think anyone implied this. The discussion was about people who have admitted they are not planning to ever play 4th Edition, have no interest in it and in fact consider it to NOT be a version of D&D at all.P1nback:
You appear to have taken me out of the context of something which I addressed to Croosswiredmind. He understood what I was addressing, has responded, and I am happy with his response.
My apologies Charles Evans 25. I thought you were injecting some of your thoughts into the discussion at hand. I just wanted to make it clear that no one here is saying if you play 3.5 or PRPG, you should or shouldn't have interest in 4th Edition.
They'll play it, and they'll get comfortable with it, and eventually they'll look at 3.x Edition as something of an archaic form of D&D much as OD&D and AD&D do now.
Wow, just saw this one before posting my 4e "leaked materials impressions rant"... That's funny, if by OD&D you mean the 1974+ first three booklets (before the AD&D / D&D split), then I think that 4e has actually quite a bit of "archaic" flavor, as it takes some inspiration from it.
Before flames start, I found this a good thing, actually what made me feel some soft spot for 4e and perhaps giving it a try:1) the "modular" feel. As for the first years of D&D there were just fighters, magic users and clerics, with the others slowly leaking in in supplements and Dragon articles, the 4e PHB, DMG and MM show some "barebones" of the system. Also, the amounts of powers, rituals and paragon / epic paths are ridiculously short... Just as the options in original D&D options were short when compared to its full-fledged form in the late 70s PHB (not counting UA and the 2nd ed "kits", which IMHO were overkill).
2) the polemic "squares"... well, IIRC, AD&D used "inches" as movement and measurement unit for tactical encounters. We have to remember that D&D came straight out of the wargaming hobby. So that's a funny touch for an old-timer / RPG-archaeologist like me. I never made extensive usage of battlemaps or miniatures, but that never game me trouble.
3) Suppression of save rolls... Well, maybe you guys have some feedback on that, but it seems quite easy to come up with a house rule in which instead of adding 10 to bonuses to get your defense, you drop the 10 and roll as usual... Some OGL optional rules suggested doing that with AC for more random and dynamic combat (even a tank can do something clumsy). With that change, combat is pretty much streamlined 3.5. I could have done with a sidebar offering that option for "vets", but I also agree in that too many "optional rules" in an intro handbook can be confusing (I am looking at the 2nd ed core books here).
4) Personalization. I have to say that the big "powers" lists make the game a bit unwieldly for my taste. I remember those days where I could create a character with no books in front of me (like in class), just some tables from the DM screen. It also seems that creating new powers and spells for a personalized campaign can be a bit crazy and harder to assess balance-wise. That, more than other things, seems to indicate an aim for commercially-oriented play (online premade campaigns and published stuff, electronic or otherwise).
5) Some rules seem arbitrary. Why only 2-class multiclassing (via feats)? If a player is willing to sacrifice feats in order to flesh out a given character concept, why forbidding it when mechanics support it? That would seem to encourage power gaming, but, as with rolling saves, no one is going to force me to implement the restriction.
6) My only problem so far: compatibility... Here I do not mean "backwards compatibility", which is clearly (and understandably) not a priority for the game company. I mean "ongoing campaign compatibility". I would not mind converting some of my ongoing campaigns (some commercial, some homebrew) into 4e, but I am aware that the number of tweaks, house rules and new designs I am going to require is huge. And that is the 1st time this has become a big issue with a D&D edition! Basic D&D and AD&D (simultaneous game systems) converted like a sweetie; AD&D 1st ed into 2nd ed was simple... You could just keep using the couple things which did not make their way in (monks and assassins) without altering much... Quite a few people played 1st ed / 2nd ed hybrids for the life of 2nd ed, if only to play some classic masterpieces, like Queen of the Spiders. Then, converting into 3.x was complicated mechanics-wise, but easy in terms of concept and contents: a Wizard/Rogue was a Wizard/Rogue, levels of power were commensurate (though not totally equivalent) and the magic repository in the hands of characters, PCs, but also plot-driving NPCs, was quite equivalent (and spells having the same names in many cases was also a nice touch). Now I wonder how I am going to transfer between editions without having my campaign worlds undergo some cataclysm like the FR! And IIRC there are some settings out there with a bit of a following, like Dragonlance, Ravenloft or Greyhawk. Some of them have top-notch 3.5 supplements... I do not see a mass migration in that department, unless, and I sincerely hope for that, Wizards created some good guidelines for "campaign continuity" (as opposed to enticing apocalypse).
7) All in all, I still play basic D&D for a long-running Mystara campaign; I am doing a Gygax Memorial Temple of Elemental Evil 1st ed; run a 3.5 Dragonlance campaign and a 3.5 Drow War series (from MGP); I also participate in a 3.5 Curse of the Crimson Throne PBP game and run a Rise of the Runelords adapted to PF Alpha 3. I am enticed by the "brave new world" innocence of 4e, with sample home town and starter dungeon, like the red and blue boxes of old... I just want to know if campaigns to come and support for the worlds I make and like is not going to become an issue.
Wow, just saw this one before posting my 4e "leaked materials impressions rant"... That's funny, if by OD&D you mean the 1974+ first three booklets (before the AD&D / D&D split), then I think that 4e has actually quite a bit of "archaic" flavor, as it takes some inspiration from it.
Before flames start, I found this a good thing, actually what made me feel some soft spot for 4e and perhaps giving it a try:
Andreas, once again my post has been taken out of context. When I refer to systems, I mean systems as a whole. I agree with you that some aspects of these old editions are good things. But, as a whole, they are archaic.
For example, using 3rd Edition's system of "big numbers = better" is a good system. I never said every aspect of the old systems were useless. But, as a whole, I think people will find 4th Edition a much more refined system. I apologize for not being clear by what I meant.
To respond to your post:
1) Yup. WotC left plenty of design room for iterative PHBs, DMGs, and MMs. In addition, there's an entire book coming out for Martial Power. I suspect this will be the first of many books containing powers for the different sources.
2) Squares. D&D hails from the tactical battle game: Chainmail. While 2nd Edition veered away from using miniatures, I loved 3rd Edition's return to the mini system. I like having the tactical combat present in the game and I love not arguing with my DM (although I am the DM nowadays) about where I said I was or wasn't. Also, I like using Squares instead of feet, inches, meters. It's easy to calculate and D&D is a global phenomenon - people in foreign countries can use the measurement system without some sort of conversion.
3) I like the "attacker rolls" system. It works for me.
4) I presume with time, you'll be able to make characters without your books.
5) I think WotC designers tried to really put a lot of effort into balancing the new classes. The multiclassing system is a reflection of that.
6) Eberron doesn't have any sort of "apocalypse" in order to convert it. It'll take some work, but I'm sure you and other creative DMs will be able to convert their campaign worlds.
7) Good luck with your memorial run.
Cheers!
Andreas, once again my post has been taken out of context. When I refer to systems, I mean systems as a whole. I agree with you that some aspects of these old editions are good things. But, as a whole, they are archaic.For example, using 3rd Edition's system of "big numbers = better" is a good system.
I never said every aspect of the old systems were useless. But, as a whole, I think people will find 4th Edition a much more refined system.
I apologize for not being clear by what I meant.
You were clear, but I think it is like saying that tennis is archaic because they point games with 0-15-30-40. These decisions are in a big measure arbitrary... One thing about 3.00+ (including 4e) I find "modern" is that you can do away with a lot of tables (like "to hit" and saving throw tables). On the other hand, I can also say that 4e is more "archaic" than 3.x and previous eds because it ties many things to "powers". For instance, characters multiple attacks by round, before 4e an arithmetic progression based on BAB (and the implicit BAB in AD&D), now requires the usage of one or several different "powers", which requires a lot of bookkeeping and page-flipping. I am not saying the power thing cannot be fun to play, it is just not streamlined at all (and seems to make combat slower). I don't want to be polemic, but PF "combat feats", though far from perfect, streamline expanded combat options better IMO. 3.00+ did away with percentile rolls for rogue/thief skills, that is "modern"; but it does not change much from the 2nd ed system where a rogue could personalize his percentiles. 4e skill system is very very streamlined, but it does not allow for a very personalized character (you cannot be a dabbler in several skills, you just train them or remain untrained). In this sense, is a bit like going back to the AD&D system of NWPs, where you rolled under your linked ability and you could get a wee better by devouting one or two extra slots. Streamlined is good, but it does not mean flexible. And I say that without bitterness, I play Cinematic Unisystem, which has 18 skills and all characters are "trained" by default in using them.
I don't get what you mean by "every aspect of the old systems were useless". The point of a game is being fun to play. In a RPG that includes being able to portray a fantasy world with the "realism" that GM and players require for telling their adventures. The 4e core books are cool and streamlined, but can be a bit limiting for players who have long and rich ongoing campaign worlds or rich and unique character concepts to play... Hey, I would like to create a wizard-scholar (sorta Loremaster PrC), and, to my dismay, all paragon path options are combat-oriented! I am not bitter, as I see that the books have been structured as a system in growth... I just hope the growth keeps getting more and more diverse.
I get where you are coming from. The folks that want to talk through their perceptions and emotions are always welcome because they do add to the dialogue.By working through very negative emotions in a place that people are trying to carry on a civil discussion though positive for those with the negative emotions is not always very pleasant for the rest of us.
I appreciate that some may have negative emotions that need to be worked through but they are doing it by making this place their own personal chamber pot.
Your analysis of the negativity here may also be giving some folks too much credit. It may not be the case that the noise here is the result of keyboard therapy - it may be that some of these folks are just trolls.
I agree with you. Regretfully, for anyone posting, negativity or a difference of opinion can be unpleasant experience for another, regardless of what position one has taken in the discussion. As for trolls and personal chamber pots, I think this is a bit more difficult to identify. Certainly some people do not intend on this approach, while I agree that others actively take such a step in order to stir up the pot. I think the best one can do is choose to post with care in order to understand one another and at the same time be expressive in the manner that is healthy and productive. For those taking a more aggressive stance to their posting, I don't have a solution of any kind other than asking for kindness in return. Wish I had more to offer than that.
|
I was very excited about Pathfinder. Then the public playtest seemed to turn into "design by committee" and my interest level dropped. Then I read the 4e core books and rand a feew games and now even reading a 3.5/OGL book brings no joy at all. I will buy Pathfinder but I doubt i will ever run it though i may play it now and again - at cons and such.
It's an ALPHA. That means that the feedback from playtesting will have a huge impact and more weight than during the BETA, presumably. For an alpha, you just kind of throw something out there and see if it sticks. If it does, great. If enough people say that it stinks, then an alternative is found - and since we have such a good community of folks around here, the alternative is often in the form of a suggestion (or a morphing of the suggestion) from one of the members here.
Unless you ignore all feedback then there is going to be an element of "this game includes what people said it should". The very fact that it starts as Alpha should tell you that there is going to be a lot of change based on user input at the beginning. There is no committee (unless you decide that committee is Jason, Erik, Lisa, etc.. .and now Monte Cook as a consultant).
I'm not sure what you expected as an alternative to this kind of active feedback and some changes being made based on that feedback - would you rather have it all a big secret and then BLAMMO here it is, shoved down your throat?
I actually would like to hear what you expected the process to be like if you're disappointed with how it's been going.
Eileen said:
No mistake made. My post was an explanation for why various people would continue to post in any thread topic, regardless of whether they are pro-topic, not pro-topic, on the fence, or share another view. It isn't a right or wrong thing. An emotional investment over such a period of time invokes responses and so long as they remain respectful to others a variety of opinions should be acceptable.
Pinback wrote:
Well, for one, you've mistaken me again. I never said anything about a "right or wrong" thing. I simply said I thought it was hilarious that people would spend time debating and discussing a thing they wanted no part of.
Your correct, you did not say anything about right or wrong, I did. I was speaking about my opinion, I wasn't referring to you. Sorry that wasn't very clear. I don't think that it is right or wrong to have any given opinion. Some ideas may be popular, some not, again, that isn't a right or a wrong, it just is. As for people discussing something they want no part of, I think that they are discussing because they want a part of it. That part may not be to play or buy the new rules but rather goes back to the emotional investment I spoke of. I'm not buying, but I'm still interested in what's going on. I'm still curious what others think or how the rules turned out. I think it is worth discussing because I get something positive out of it which hopefully doesn't bring anything negative to someone else.
Pinback wrote:
I also never said that a variety of opinions was unacceptable. In fact, I said specifically I was all for the debating and discussing of 4th Editions pros and cons. There are some things in 4th Edition that I am still unsure about actually. I never once said people who were interested in discussing 4th Edition shouldn't post.
I'm not sure where this came from, as I can't figure out where anything I wrote implied or said that, but that's ok.
Pinback wrote:
My point is: someone who has no interest in 4th Edition (new Coke) and plans to never invest in it, buy it, play it, drink it, AND has 3.x/Pathfinder (new Coke) forums to discuss their preferred version of the game, really doesn't have anything to contribute to the forums do they?
These people are here to simply troll the boards and find any possible way to demerit the "new Coke".
Well as I mentioned to Crosswiredminded, I think that some people are looking for ways to get more comfortable with the change the game has taken. Whether they choose to purchase the books, play Pathfinder, play 3.5, or anything else is a matter of their comfort zone in the long run. Finding that comfort zone in the meantime can be difficult. It sure was for me. I don't think everyone is here to troll, I certainly hope not. I guess as a reader and poster, we need to find the people we are comfortable posting discussions with and continue with those individuals. It isn't easy to do, but I have come across a few individuals who's posts I intentionally skip because of attacks I felt were placed upon me. Essentially, my feelings get hurt, I get over it, make a decision to pass on those individuals and enjoy those who I can speak with in a manner more to my liking. This works for me, I'm not suggesting it work for everyone, each of us decides for themselves what works and doesn't and how we will deal with that.
Are some people just trying to stir up trouble? Yes I'm sure they are, they are the one's I try and pass on. It's the best I can do for me. I discovered a while back that to continue going in circles with discussion or taking to heart what people said that was hurtful wasn't in my best interest. So I move on. This is the most involved 4th edition discussion I have had in months for this very reason.
What was this thread about again? Oh yeah. Leaking or something. Pick an edition and get on with it. I prefer 2e and Pathfinder. Weird combination, I know, but one of my players is proudly wearing Nick's Crown of the Kobold King and loves it as much as Merlokrep did. >;-)
|
|
I actually would like to hear what you expected the process to be like if you're disappointed with how it's been going.
I work in the field of User Experience Design - mostly software and the web. Much of the work I do is based on solid user research - we test ideas with our end users, we test prototypes with end users, we test and test and test and test.
But the rule I use to design is from Robert Hoekman's book Designing the Obvious - listen to your users then ignore them.
Design (even game design) does require that attention be paid to your audience but also to the guiding principles and proven "best practices" of the discipline. Expert designers need to understand the needs of their audience but they also need to listen to their intuition and rely on their own judgement.
I was very discouraged at the transition from Alpha 1 to 2 to 3 as i saw some cool ideas abandoned (like the skill system) because people on the board started to complain.
I will wait until the Beta is published and then I will give it a look. If they can create a solid iteration of the OGL rules then I may play it. But they will be competing with 4e for my attention. 4e is truly innovative in its overall approach to the game. I feels cleaner, crisper, and more elegant that 3e. That suits my taste. Oh, and you will notice that I did not say that 4e was better that 3e. I do not think that either system is objectively better. I just happen to prefer 4e to 3e.
You were clear, but I think it is like saying that tennis is archaic because they point games with 0-15-30-40. These decisions are in a big measure arbitrary... One thing about 3.00+ (including 4e) I find "modern" is that you can do away with a lot of tables (like "to hit" and saving throw tables). On the other hand, I can also say that 4e is more "archaic" than 3.x and previous eds because it ties many things to "powers". For instance, characters multiple attacks by round, before 4e an arithmetic progression based on BAB (and the implicit BAB in AD&D), now requires the usage of one or several different "powers", which requires a lot of bookkeeping and page-flipping. I am not saying the power thing cannot be fun to play, it is just not streamlined at all (and seems to make combat slower). I don't want to be polemic, but PF "combat feats", though far from perfect, streamline expanded combat options better IMO. 3.00+ did away with percentile rolls for rogue/thief skills, that is "modern"; but it does not change much from the 2nd ed system where a rogue could personalize his percentiles. 4e skill system is very very streamlined, but it does not allow for a very personalized character (you cannot be a dabbler in several skills, you just train them or remain untrained). In this sense, is a bit like going back to the AD&D system of NWPs, where you rolled under your linked ability and you could get a wee better by devouting one or two extra slots. Streamlined is good, but it does not mean...
Perhaps the scoring system in tennis IS archaic and needs an update. Some people feel threatened by change, or like you said, the system change can be arbitrary, so it doesn't really matter.
I think most of the changes in 4th Edition aren't arbitrary though. But, again, I think it is a step forward to make iterative attacks tied to powers - this way it feels special to make multiple attacks and not just extra dice to roll every turn. How does this require more bookkeeping and page flipping? Those powers will be on your sheet and self-explanatory in most situations I'd think.
The skill system is very streamlined - and I like that also. I like that I don't have to spend my points in Spot and Listen separately, now I can just train in Perception if I want to be the party scout. In addition, races like Elves who get a bonus to Perception (which is important to their flavor) stand out more as creatures better at Perception.
I do agree that a "Loremaster" isn't possible at this point. But, you have to understand that 4th Edition just came out. It has one book dedicated to character creation in its entire arsenal.
Anyways, I think you have some good points and I agree that many aspects of the old systems had their merits. But as a whole, I think 4th Edition takes the best of all the old systems and mashes it nicely into one excellent system. Of course, no system is perfect for everyone. 4th Edition just happens to work great for the style of game I play (highly cinematic I might add).
Eileen said:
No mistake made. My post was an explanation for why various people would continue to post in any thread topic, regardless of whether they are pro-topic, not pro-topic, on the fence, or share another view. It isn't a right or wrong thing. An emotional investment over such a period of time invokes responses and so long as they remain respectful to others a variety of opinions should be acceptable.
Sounds good. I slightly disagree though. I think if you really have no intention of playing or any interest, you shouldn't be posting here intentionally trying to demerit a game because you don't like it. Not saying you are, you aren't. Some are.
As for people discussing something they want no part of, I think that they are discussing because they want a part of it. That part may not be to play or buy the new rules but rather goes back to the emotional investment I spoke of. I'm not buying, but I'm still interested in what's going on. I'm still curious what others think or how the rules turned out. I think it is worth discussing because I get something positive out of it which hopefully doesn't bring anything negative to someone else.
Exactly. And, you are not the type of person I am speaking of. You are the exact type of person we need on the boards, even if you are not playing, you are still interested in 4th Edition. These others have stated specifically, they are not interested, never plan to play it, and generally want no part of it. So, I simply ask them, "So why are you here?"
Pinback wrote:
I also never said that a variety of opinions was unacceptable. In fact, I said specifically I was all for the debating and discussing of 4th Editions pros and cons. There are some things in 4th Edition that I am still unsure about actually. I never once said people who were interested in discussing 4th Edition shouldn't post.I'm not sure where this came from, as I can't figure out where anything I wrote implied or said that, but that's ok.
You said this in a prior post: "An emotional investment over such a period of time invokes responses and so long as they remain respectful to others a variety of opinions should be acceptable.
See above.
Are some people just trying to stir up trouble? Yes I'm sure they are, they are the one's I try and pass on. It's the best I can do for me. I discovered a while back that to continue going in circles with discussion or taking to heart what people said that was hurtful wasn't in my best interest. So I move on. This is the most involved 4th edition discussion I have had in months for this very reason.
Indeed. Good advice.
I'm not trying to be a d!~@&ead
Some people are just natural.
Some people are just natural.
I'm not trying to be a d!~@&ead
Amen to that. :)
Just let it be known that I'm not trying... Some people are.
Perhaps the scoring system in tennis IS archaic and needs an update. Some people feel threatened by change, or like you said, the system change can be arbitrary, so it doesn't really matter.
I think most of the changes in 4th Edition aren't arbitrary though. But, again, I think it is a step forward to make iterative attacks tied to powers - this way it feels special to make multiple attacks and not just extra dice to roll every turn. How does this require more bookkeeping and page flipping?...
With the tennis analogy I was clearly meaning that some terminology IS conventional, and that doing it one way or another does not affect gameplay seriously.
About pageflipping... Well, in all previous incarnations of D&D I could, as a DM, run frequent monsters and without lotsa special abilities without referring to any rulebook, MM or PHB, I just needed the abridged stat block which some module publishers included (or make my own monster tables) to keep in mind things like BAB, Init, damage and saves. Now it seems (as in Keep on the Shadowfell) that you have to repeat stat blocks (just reducing adventure page count) or reference the rulebooks more often. Also, that "monster classes" are different from "character classes" (besides the "PC class template").
You kinda contradict yourself when you justify the power system as "it feels special". It is fun, yes, but not "streamlined" at all!! Having common names and descriptions for spells (when Bard, Cleric and Wizard overlapped, for instance) and an arithmetical way of figuring multiattack can be not so colourful, yes, but is definitely more streamlined. Rituals are well streamlined, consolidated list with skill req. favoring some classes over others; regular spells and magical powers are not.
The skill system. You lost my point. I like a simplified skill system (like Cinematic Unisystem, PF and 4e), it feels more "heroic fantasy". What I do not like is that I cannot personalize my character when I create him or her besides the options of "trained" vs. "untrained". People in the PF boards also argue at large about this, so I don't think it's a 4e problem, but I still think that skill points let you instill more life in a character and they do not make the game that complicated. Something in the lines of 1/2 skill choice for "dabbler" (granting 1/2 lvl bonus instead of the whole lvl bonus in the checks) would have been a nice addition, if the whole nine yards of skill point allotment felt too complex.
I am aware the game is growing when I brought up the Loremaster case. It just makes clear that the powers and options included do force you to create combat-oriented characters. That is funny, because the more theory/fluff sections are really good for introducing newbies to the wider concept of RPG: character portrayal, interaction with the campaign and NPCs, etc... I think designers made a couple extreme choices about what to include in the first corebooks. A couple "social skills guy" or "wise guy who knows everything" choices in the power rosters would have underscored what the RPG description pages include.
What I do not like is that I cannot personalize my character when I create him or her besides the options of "trained" vs. "untrained".I guess my counter question is - why does personalization require a rules mechanic?
Because it's meant to be a roleplaying game. It's supposed to support stuff like that. When I played Hero Quest, my Barbarian or Wizard often had personality - but that doesn't make HQ an RPG...
Why personalizing requires a rules mechanic?" Well, if I got the right picture, "personalizing your character", something initiated with 3e feats, has been a priority of 4e with the numerous choices for character powers: no two fighters, clerics or rangers will be "templates", but really individual beings. Well, I am pointing out that this intention of giving players this array of options has not made its way into the skill system and some other non-combat situations. It has actually been a stepback (in individual detail) when compared to 3e.
As in "I want to play a cleric apprentice who was kicked out of temple grounds for lewd behaviour and became a mercenary". OK, some knowledge of Religion, Heal and similar stuff, but not something he's going to dwell upon and get better at every level (as opposed to things like Athletics or Intimidate, for instance).
Or, "I want to play an aristocrat snobby fop swashbuckler who knows a bit of everything, as he is an avid reader of stuff, but not really an expert in anything": Impossible to do with 4e skill rules to date, either you train in the skill (and become quite better with each level) or are untrained and it remains so. You cannot tell apart a "know-it-all fop swashbuckler (rogue)" from a "backalley burglar" one. You can in powers and in all-or-nothing skill choice, but the system lacks finesse.
Again, not flaming 4e, I am just saying that the mechanics modifications produce some loss in concrete areas of gameplay. For a quick and simple, streamlined game it is hard to beat Tunnels and Trolls, but, still, it is quite hard to produce singular, role-play engaged characters in it. I go for systems which combine simplicity (especially of mechanics during actual encounters) with enough detail in terms of character personalization and development. 4e is doing good jobs in one area, but not in all of them.
Why personalizing requires a rules mechanic?" Well, if I got the right picture, "personalizing your character", something initiated with 3e feats, has been a priority of 4e with the numerous choices for character powers: no two fighters, clerics or rangers will be "templates", but really individual beings. Well, I am pointing out that this intention of giving players this array of options has not made its way into the skill system and some other non-combat situations. It has actually been a stepback (in individual detail) when compared to 3e.
I disagree (of course, of course) but let's take a look at your examples. Maybe I can help demonstrate how you could represent these concepts through the rules.
As in "I want to play a cleric apprentice who was kicked out of temple grounds for lewd behaviour and became a mercenary". OK, some knowledge of Religion, Heal and similar stuff, but not something he's going to dwell upon and get better at every level (as opposed to things like Athletics or Intimidate, for instance).
Assuming this character will be classed as a Cleric, the only skill that you will receive automatic training in is Religion. I'd suggest a character with a background as a Cleric would still know more about Religion than your average Joe, even if no longer attached to the church itself. But just like Bob Fighter and Bill Rogue pick up a few things about Religion as they adventure in the world, John ex-Cleric will too .. but from a wider base. The other skills are available for training or focusing, either at start or via a feat if so desired.
Or, "I want to play an aristocrat snobby fop swashbuckler who knows a bit of everything, as he is an avid reader of stuff, but not really an expert in anything": Impossible to do with 4e skill rules to date, either you train in the skill (and become quite better with each level) or are untrained and it remains so. You cannot tell apart a "know-it-all fop swashbuckler (rogue)" from a "backalley burglar" one. You can in powers and in all-or-nothing skill choice, but the system lacks finesse.
Assuming you have the books, I'd point you to the Jack of All Trades feat on pg 198. It gives a bonus to all untrained skills, providing a nice ... well, jack-of-all trades type flavor. Use Skill Focus or Training as needed to represent any particular areas of interest.
Again, not flaming 4e, I am just saying that the mechanics modifications produce some loss in concrete areas of gameplay. For a quick and simple, streamlined game it is hard to beat Tunnels and Trolls, but, still, it is quite hard to produce singular, role-play engaged characters in it. I go for systems which combine simplicity (especially of mechanics during actual encounters) with enough detail in terms of character personalization and development. 4e is doing good jobs in one area, but not in all of them.
I disagree, but do not wish to debate it. I do like imaging character concepts via 4E though, so if you have some more I'd be willing to see if I can find a fit.
Cheers! :)
Your ideas are fine in the sense that it is still *doable*, as nothing has been really taken away from mechanics (whether attributes, skills, feats, special abilities, etc). What I meant is that it is not so flexible as the previous skill point-based system. For instance, having to sacrifice a feat for training extra skill seams a sort of "patch" and could be seen as unfair. Skills kinda take care of a character's education/buildup, so what makes sense is to get some development at the expense of another (like a fighter spending a summer researching demons and getting some points in Arcana at the expense of his athletic pursuits), not at the expense of a feat, which is a sort of exceptional capacity.
I don't get why it is so hard to accept that 4e has expanded some areas of the game (and they do look cool and fun to play) and at the same time reduced others. That makes sense. Take for instance Call of Cthulhu. It has the most detailed rules for studying ancient tomes of forbidden lore with spells and other secret stuff... The mechanic is relevant because a lot of CoC is based on research of lore (and going insane doing it :-)). In D&D there are tomes galore (think spellbooks), but the gameplay and usual fantasy setting does not require such detailed rules (except for special tomes which are an important part of a given adventure, of course). I don't mean ill when I say that 4e seems to have expanded certain mechanics whilst cutting down on others and that may have an effect on the type of gameplay, perhaps not for veteran players or for people who know and play also other systems, but probably for newbies who enter RPGaming through D&D.
Your ideas are fine in the sense that it is still *doable*, as nothing has been really taken away from mechanics (whether attributes, skills, feats, special abilities, etc). What I meant is that it is not so flexible as the previous skill point-based system. For instance, having to sacrifice a feat for training extra skill seams a sort of "patch" and could be seen as unfair. Skills kinda take care of a character's education/buildup, so what makes sense is to get some development at the expense of another (like a fighter spending a summer researching demons and getting some points in Arcana at the expense of his athletic pursuits), not at the expense of a feat, which is a sort of exceptional capacity.
I don't get why it is so hard to accept that 4e has expanded some areas of the game (and they do look cool and fun to play) and at the same time reduced others. That makes sense. Take for instance Call of Cthulhu. It has the most detailed rules for studying ancient tomes of forbidden lore with spells and other secret stuff... The mechanic is relevant because a lot of CoC is based on research of lore (and going insane doing it :-)). In D&D there are tomes galore (think spellbooks), but the gameplay and usual fantasy setting does not require such detailed rules (except for special tomes which are an important part of a given adventure, of course). I don't mean ill when I say that 4e seems to have expanded certain mechanics whilst cutting down on others and that may have an effect on the type of gameplay, perhaps not for veteran players or for people who know and play also other systems, but probably for newbies who enter RPGaming through D&D.
I would say the reason it is hard to accept is because I simply do not agree with you. If you'd rather agree to disagree, as it were, we could walk away, but by reasoning through why I think you're wrong, I hope to make you think of things in a different light.
As for your example, the Fighter does have to make a trade off to learn Arcana, you simply seem to object that the available trades are different in 4E than in 3E. Perhaps it would help to realize that in 4E, you get many more feats than even Fighters got in 3E, so they aren't quite the cherished blocks of character they used to be.
No longer will picking a lousy feat totally bork your character (and since you can retrain one feat a level, just drop the feats you don't like!)
Cheers! :)
I think I need to go design an RPG with mechanic and die rolls for speaking in character since that seems to be what people want.
I dont understand why some people believe that roleplaying is when you are talking, or not fighting, or not rolling dice. It seems to be a form of roleplay elitist attitude. Roleplaying, or more accurately, social roleplaying isnt the end-all perfect and only viable form of roleplay.
A player that shows up to the table who only wants to kill imaginary monsters, and has fun doing it, is roleplaying. He is roleplaying just as well and just as correctly as the other person who speaks in an accent and has 2+ pages devoted to his character history.4th Edition in no way mitigates your ability to roleplay, even if you dont happen to like combat. If your group for some reason doesnt like action, or likes very little action, you can still roleplay in your own particular...idiom. You just dont use the mat and you dont need most of your class powers, but then it was the same in 3rd Edition and plenty of other RPGs out there. People like action in some form, and its not bad that they emphasis that: it doesnt detract from your ability to put none in your games in the first place.
It bugged me when some people complained that the stat blocks got crunched down, as if having them bigger and more convoluted was somehow more conducive to social roleplay: you need rules for combat. If you want your party to fight a stupid unicorn, then the stats are there. If you dont, you dont need to reference the stats at all, in which case you are no worse off.
I got a band of hobgoblins running a toll bridge in my 4E campaign. They arent there to fight, so I didnt bother statting them out at all. I guess they're hobgoblin soldiers, or whatever. Doesnt matter. Their role isnt a combat one, and my group isnt the kind of players who are going to deliberately pick fights with random NPCs and try to slaughter towns or whatever, so I'm not worried about it.
Heck, skills only need rules so that people can be more immersed in their character. A bard trained in Diplomacy is very likely to be way better than the controlling player in negotiations, and rolls help reinforce that fact.
Ah, sorry about that. Thought it was common knowledge - I didn't mean to encourage people - it was mainly a comment on the futility of trying to contain the leak. Will be a bit more careful on the references in the future....with places like [edited] there are safe havens for it.Please don't talk about where to get such things.
It IS common knowledge for a lot of people on the boards, but Paizo is a seller of PDF products and as such its bad form and business prectice for references to places like the 'edited' to be found on their site is all. I recall something similar said when it came up in a different thread.
I dont understand why some people believe that roleplaying is when you are talking, or not fighting, or not rolling dice. It seems to be a form of roleplay elitist attitude.
I don't say that only non-combat is roleplaying. But only combat isn't roleplaying, either.
Of course everyone can argue about what you need rules for and what not, but let's be honest: We're here because we like rules. The no-rules argument goes for combat as well. We could juist have a "combat" skill and then you roll opposed combat checks - the winner wins the battle. That would also allow for any level of complexity for combat situations, if you want to.
It's certainly true that the amount of rules available for a certain aspect of roleplaying will influence how the game is played and perceived - especially for new players.
If they get a rulebook, find hundreds of pages worth of battle mechanics, but only a few pages describing non-combat situations, they'll think that those non-combat situations aren't important, and heavily focus on combat.
A proper RPG, especially one for new players, would be one that shows off and supports all aspects of roleplaying equally.
...with places like [edited] there are safe havens for it.Please don't talk about where to get such things.
Is that not okay? Sorry. I won't mention that if you order the quadro draconi speciale over at Luigi's and wink at the waiter, you'll get something interesting if you're into 4e...
Hmmm. If this is true I wonder what illegal downloads will do to sales?My guess is that it will hurt quite a bit. All of those people who were going to buy 4E because they were curious, but were already leaning away from liking 4E now will be out there downloading to see if its worth it (for them). If they don't like what they see, then that is a lost sale. If they had purchased the books and not liked them, then at least WoTC would have had that initial sale (even if not sales for follow up products).
I must say that they really don't deserve those sales. If you hype something so a lot of people will buy it because they've been brainwashed into thinking it was the next coming of Jesus and don't care that a lot will be disappointed, you reveal your weasely self.
Speaking of Jesus: In 3e, Jesus saves. In 4e, all he can do is defend against his enemies' attacks. So 3e is clearly for all those who are seeking redemption (and 4e users will go to hell). ;-P
I think I need to go design an RPG with mechanic and die rolls for speaking in character since that seems to be what people want.
Now you're being condescending.
If you hype something so a lot of people will buy it because they've been brainwashed into thinking it was the next coming of Jesus and don't care that a lot will be disappointed, you reveal your weasely self.
Well, that's nothing new or infamous. That's common in marketing and advertising. Look at Star Wars I/II/III or Indiana Jones IV :(
Speaking of Jesus: In 3e, Jesus saves. In 4e, all he can do is defend against his enemies' attacks.
Well, Jesus needed a nerf anyway ;)
So 3e is clearly for all those who are seeking redemption (and 4e users will go to hell).
I wouldn't mind, as Hell is the place to meet succubi now :p
A proper RPG, especially one for new players, would be one that shows off and supports all aspects of roleplaying equally.Can you point me to 3.5 or Pathfinder's section on this?
I can point you to an entire chapter in 4th Edition on this exact thing. It's called Skill Challenges. Mechanics and all. And, in addition, it has rules for letting people who DON'T have all the social skills to get involved... Have a good Insight? You can help convince that duke to lend you aid. Have a good History skill? You as well can help. The list goes on and on.
Let's leave the blanket comments for the people who have actually read and played this game.
Thank you.
I would say the reason it is hard to accept is because I simply do not agree with you. If you'd rather agree to disagree, as it were, we could walk away, but by reasoning through why I think you're wrong, I hope to make you think of things in a different light.
As for your example, the Fighter does have to make a trade off to learn Arcana,...
What I object to is the fact that it tradeoffs seem arbitrary, as it seems the option of retraining feats just because you reach a level. Well, I had a Magical Aptitude at 1st level, but I change my mind, my magic aptness becomes average but now I have Lightning Reflexes... 4e has redefined feats and changed their power impact in characters without special abilities in 3.5 (like fighters), but I still how that makes reasonable from an in-character / in-campaign pov that you compensate skill training with feat selection.
What I object to is the fact that it tradeoffs seem arbitrary, as it seems the option of retraining feats just because you reach a level. Well, I had a Magical Aptitude at 1st level, but I change my mind, my magic aptness becomes average but now I have Lightning Reflexes... 4e has redefined feats and changed their power impact in characters without special abilities in 3.5 (like fighters), but I still how that makes reasonable from an in-character / in-campaign pov that you compensate skill training with feat selection.
I would say the reason it is hard to accept is because I simply do not agree with you. If you'd rather agree to disagree, as it were, we could walk away, but by reasoning through why I think you're wrong, I hope to make you think of things in a different light.
As for your example, the Fighter does have to make a trade off to learn Arcana,...
I think retraining is designed to make sure new players aren't so incredibly outmatched by experienced players. New players may not realize that Feat A they took at 1st level totally doesn't qualify them for the Feat B they wanted to take at 8th level, and now their character is messed up.
As a DM, I've had several instances where players took feats/powers/spells for their characters that just didn't do what they thought - either because their inexperience, or the campaign didn't really make use of it or any other reason. Most of the time I've allowed those players to modify their characters (of course within reason).
This is simply a mechanical way of saying "this is a reasonable way to do it."
I think I need to go design an RPG with mechanic and die rolls for speaking in character since that seems to be what people want.
You have a pretty good one which is Cinematic Unisystem. Of course, the player has to do the IC speaking and come up with his ideas for carrying out some plot twist and sidestories, but the mechanics encourage that kind of thing.
I remember when we started playing D&D with the red box and no skill system whatsoever. Rare were the adventure encounters where PCs did go to great lengths into climbing a mountain, engaging in diplomacy or studying an ancient tome. Yep, those things happened, as IC interaction among PCs and with NPCs. But I also remember that when we got our first RuneQuest (first RPG to introduce a detailed skill system), adventures starting having intense encounters without combat as a primary drive: swimming at night through a causeway, deciphering a treasure code, haggling for passage in a boat, in a way we had never done before. After that, we got the idea over to D&D and used (what else) ability rolls. That is exactly the steps the AD&D designers followed when first they introduced the ability roll as a house rule and then added Non-weapon proficiencies to AD&D 1st ed in Oriental Adventures! So the details in a given game mechanics caninspire a certain gameplay, it's not about "speaking in character", it is about using the system as a toy which not only lets you do a bunch of stuff with it, but inspires you to do it. Again, I do like 4e, I have run the damn H1, it has a "back to old D&D " allure to it, but I can acknowledge that some areas have been stripped of detail when compared to previous incarnations of the game.
Again, I do like 4e, I have run the damn H1, it has a "back to old D&D " allure to it, but I can acknowledge that some areas have been stripped of detail when compared to previous incarnations of the game.
Honestly, I find the new skill system for 4E very sleek - and yet it is still robust. It's just different and that may be throwing you off. Like some posters have stated, you get a lot more feats in 4E and they aren't as powerful as they were in 3E.
This means a lot of feats are perfect for enhancing your skill set. Jack of All Trades, Skill Focus, Skill Training, Linguist, etc...
These are the ways to expand your knowledge and skills. Through the use of feats you can probably make any sort of character you want.
A fighter who studies arcane texts before he falls asleep, a rogue who attends church regularly and knows more about Jesus than his pastor, a wizard who joined the circus as a kid, or a warlord who's traveled the world enough he knows every language spoken...
These are all feasible backgrounds in 4th Edition - and they really weren't that easy to attain in 3rd Edition.
The only thing really lacking is the Profession, Perform, and Craft skills... These skills can be done with a simple "background" description. Ah, you were a sailor? Ok, you know basic seamanship. A blacksmith? Ok, you can make shoes for your horse and do basic metalworking. A lounge singer in Sharn? Ok, you've got a small following and you can belt a tune.
This means a lot of feats are perfect for enhancing your skill set. Jack of All Trades, Skill Focus, Skill Training, Linguist, etc...
Yep, but how do I make my character *worse* at something? Why cannot I just sacrifice some of the "official" skills of a character to know a bit of stuff of my area, instead of giving away a feat? As you said, some feats enhance your skill set, but the problem is when if your character concept does not want to maximize skills (or some of them anyway). I like some of the skill simplifications (Athletics, Acrobatics, Thievery, Arcana-Spellcraft), that is a sort of streamlining which makes sense, as it gives you more "usages" of the same skill, while allowing for special bonuses for these usages (with feats or racial abilities, just reflecting natural knacks). I also think that dropping skill point allocation may work and make levelling quite smoother, but I miss an option to declare levels of proficiency based on character background and player choice, not on mechanic levelling (think to choose "dabbler" for + 1/2 character level, with half cost; "trained" for the standard +character level; "specialized" for 1+1/2 character level and double cost in skill choices). The rationale is that with experience experts get better at their tasks, whereas dabblers or amateurs do not improve that fast. If +5 bonus on lvl 1 is the only thing taking apart dabbler from trained (plus a few trained only uses), I cannot see the system being but needless poorer.
I do not why there is so much reluctance at not taking that some areas of the game have been simplified. I just was re-reading the armor section, if that is not going back to basic D&D I don't know what it is... I am fine with it, but I cannot see how it is not less rich than the long selection of armors in other incarnations of the game. Good strategy for simplifying character creation options for newbies, but still less rich.
The only thing really lacking is the Profession, Perform, and Craft skills... These skills can be done with a simple "background" description. Ah, you were a sailor? Ok, you know basic seamanship. A blacksmith? Ok, you can make shoes for your horse and do basic metalworking. A lounge singer in Sharn? Ok, you've got a small following and you can belt a tune.
Well, if in your adventure you need to seduce an opera-lover sorceress or need to fix a mechanical construct against the clock to stop an horde of advancing humanoids who outnumber your party, I don't know how you can just base yourself in "background". Some of these situations are so unique that one can adjudicate with a house rule, but if the base system has enough diversity, house rules are easy to come by... In the present state of the rules, how do you adjudicate how impressive a character's singing is? Just a Charisma roll? How to reflect mechanics craft? Thievery with a penalty?
(think to choose "dabbler" for + 1/2 character level, with half cost; "trained" for the standard +character level; "specialized" for 1+1/2 character level and double cost in skill choices).
You are right, there isn't a way to make a character "worse" at anything. I think the assumption is that the average character has a +0 at each skill and of course are better or worse based on natural talent (ability modifier) as well as experience (1/2 your level).
A "dabbler" is the Jack of all Trades feat. +2 to numerous skills. He dabbles in a bit of everything. The trained character is of course someone with actual training in the proposed skill which gives a +5. And, the "specialized" character is someone with the Skill Focus feat, which gives a +3 to one specific skill.
Simple as that.
Well, if in your adventure you need to seduce an opera-lover sorceress or need to fix a mechanical construct against the clock to stop an horde of advancing humanoids who outnumber your party, I don't know how you can just base yourself in "background". In the present state of the rules, how do you adjudicate how impressive a character's singing is? Just a Charisma roll? How to reflect mechanics craft? Thievery with a penalty?
I would rule both of your examples as skill challenges that could use a variety of skills - Insight, Diplomacy, Bluff, Streetwise, and possibly even Intimidate (you know you want me!) for seduction with a level of complexity based on who you are trying to seduce. And, to fix a mechanical construct I would probably let the character use - Knowledge Dungeoneering, Arcana, or History, Insight, and Thievery.
So, how impressive is the character's singing? First, I would figure out whether the character had some sort of background to reflect singing. Then, if they did, it would really depend on what they were trying to accomplish. I'd probably use a Skill Challenge for that as well.
I would rule both of your examples as skill challenges that could use a variety of skills - Insight, Diplomacy, Bluff, Streetwise, and possibly even Intimidate (you know you want me!) for seduction with a level of complexity based on who you are trying to seduce. And, to fix a mechanical construct I would probably let the character use - Knowledge Dungeoneering, Arcana, or History, Insight, and Thievery.
So, how impressive is the character's singing? First, I would figure out whether the character had some sort of background to reflect singing. Then, if they did, it would really depend on what they were trying to accomplish. I'd probably use a Skill Challenge for that as well.
So, what we're doing is approximating areas of activity to skills which are not so close matches... I wonder if it would not have been better to include a "Wild Card" skill which the player can choose when defining his character's background. You can adjudicate many of the situations like you say, with less-than-perfect skill tests and some bonus or penalty based on background, but experience seems to say that when a player has an option in his character sheet, he tends to try to use it, and that leads to interesting gaming situations. With just one or two "fill in specialty skills" (I would say that Craft-Perform-Profession can be concentrated in one specialized skill at a pinch, as in Profession-Musician, Profession-Carpenter) you can add that little bit of personalized leeway in character design which is quite enjoyable to play and tinker with, both from players' and DM's side.
So, what we're doing is approximating areas of activity to skills which are not so close matches... I wonder if it would not have been better to include a "Wild Card" skill which the player can choose when defining his character's background. You can adjudicate many of the situations like you say, with less-than-perfect skill tests and some bonus or penalty based on background, but experience seems to say that when a player has an option in his character sheet, he tends to try to use it, and that leads to interesting gaming situations. With just one or two "fill in specialty skills" (I would say that Craft-Perform-Profession can be concentrated in one specialized skill at a pinch, as in Profession-Musician, Profession-Carpenter) you can add that little bit of personalized leeway in character design which is quite enjoyable to play and tinker with, both from players' and DM's side.
I'd say the reason WotC chose not to include craft, profession, or perform as "skills" is because for the most part skills are limited by your skill points and/or training.
Skills like craft, profession and perform come into play in such little circumstances, the player is almost cheated by having to use his skill training on such things. (In fact, in 3rd Edition, I'd usually allot players "bonus points" to spend on profession skills to reflect their background).
But you are right. If you did want to create a character with specific training in something like - sailing, ironworking, or lounge singing - it is difficult to define.
But, I disagree that this should be part of the skill selection process. I would instead create a feat called "Professional" or something. This feat would denote training in a particular area of expertise that has nothing to do with adventuring and you gain a +5 to any ability check concerning such a task...
In this way, you could take a feat to denote your background in - Scribing (Int), Bartending (Cha), Sailing (Wis), Ironworking (Str), Professional Dart Thrower (Dex), or anything else...
But, of course you could say - well, then the player is "cheated" because feats are limited too. Maybe just give them a bonus "background" or "profession" feat at character generation.
Skills like craft, profession and perform come into play in such little circumstances, the player is almost cheated by having to use his skill training on such things. (In fact, in 3rd Edition, I'd usually allot players "bonus points" to spend on profession skills to reflect their background).
That would depend on the kind of campaign or adventures that one is running. The idea that a player is "cheated" by creating a character who is a very accomplished performer, or a good blacksmith etc indicates a type of campaign or gameplay where "non-adventuring" activities are assumed in the background. Of course, these activities are not to be as detailed as adventuring episodes, but some players do enjoy to dwell a bit in such things as investing adventuring money in running a craft business or do some "night socializing" in between adventure forays. Actually some of those can become paths or leads into adventures! And then, they do enjoy having some clear game mechanic covering that stuff, like how good they are at managing their inn or smithy or whether their career as seedy tavern minstrels is or isn't a bust. At times it is more fun than just adjudicating by the DM, cuz the player gets some sort of achievement as his character becomes better at something other than tossing fireballs, accumulating gold and swinging blades. Some players like this, others not. Your idea to include professions as a feat seems ok, I still don't know what advantage that would have over having it in the skill system and maybe giving each class an extra skill point per level to cover that up. After all, a profession or craft seems to be analogous to things like knowledge (skills), thievery (skill) and heal (skill). But your idea seems fine, I wish the designers had thought of it. The "just doing away with professional abilities" is what annoyed me more.
BTW, I haven't really checked the DMG that much, but what happened with NPC classes? Are we back to having all non adventures just being "normal man"? The NPC class system was IMO one of the best developments of 3e.
That would depend on the kind of campaign or adventures that one is running. The idea that a player is "cheated" by creating a character who is a very accomplished performer, or a good blacksmith etc indicates a type of campaign or gameplay where "non-adventuring" activities are assumed in the background. Of course, these activities are not to be as detailed as adventuring episodes, but some players do enjoy to dwell a bit in such things as investing adventuring money in running a craft business or do some "night socializing" in between adventure forays. Actually some of those can become paths or leads into adventures! And then, they do enjoy having some clear game mechanic covering that stuff, like how good they are at managing their inn or smithy or whether their career as seedy tavern minstrels is or isn't a bust. At times it is more fun than just adjudicating by the DM, cuz the player gets some sort of achievement as his character becomes better at something other than tossing fireballs, accumulating gold and swinging blades. Some players like this, others not. Your idea to include professions as a feat seems ok, I still don't know what advantage that would have over having it in the skill system and maybe giving each class an extra skill point per level to cover that up. After all, a profession or craft seems to be analogous to things like knowledge (skills), thievery (skill) and heal (skill). But your idea seems fine, I wish the designers had thought of it. The "just doing away with professional abilities" is what annoyed me more.
BTW, I haven't really checked the DMG that much, but what happened with NPC classes? Are we back to having all non adventures just being "normal man"? The NPC class system was IMO one of the best developments of 3e.
The problem with Craft/Profession/Perform was that for the most part, those skills weren't useful from an adventuring PoV. I enjoyed making characters with skills in those areas, but always felt cheated at trading skill in a more adventuring oriented area for them. That's why I always liked variants that gave players a few free points (either at start or per level) that could only be spent on "background" type skills, things that didn't really have much impact out in the field, so to speak. Hopefully, we'll see something like this in 4E eventually, but I don't miss it too much for the initial release.
As for NPC classes, they're gone. Remember that NPCs and PCs work off of intrinsically different rule sets. 4E's design philosophy is only to stat up a NPC if the stats are relevant. If they ARE relevant, you treat them just as a monster (that said, there are rules in the DMG for stating up a NPC with levels in a PC class, but those are mostly for elite NPCs ... ie, heroes in their own right)
Cheers! :)
