PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4th Edition: Essentially Neutral



SofS
2008-02-24, 01:24 AM
D&D 4th Edition is a pretty popular topic right now. Looking at this board right now reveals something like 5 totally seperate threads on the subject. These threads seem to be largely argued between supporters and detractors, people who are already firmly looking forward to or vaguely disgusted by this new edition/system.

Personally, I find that I am not particularly convinced either way. It seems to draw heavily from the Tome of Battle and the new Star Wars edition, neither of which am I particularly experienced with or interested in (before you ask, I've read the balance of the ToB and briefly seen it in play and it still holds little appeal). People say that those are fun, and who am I to gainsay them?

On the other hand, this new edition already seems almost quaint in a strange way. It sort of looks like something I already see as a bit odd and will consider a bit of a detour later on. 3.0 and 3.5 were quite modular in comparison to the previous edition, which was itself quite modular compared to its predecessor, and modularity is very desirable in my opinion. Early indications, such as the preview of the rogue class, suggest a moderate move away from modularity in my view.

As an example, let us look at the new sneak attack mechanic. If I understand it correctly, it allows one to sneak attack when one has "combat advantage" (a phrase which is not yet publicly defined, I believe) against a given target and happen to be wielding a weapon from a short list that seems to encompass the whole of the rogue's starting weapon proficiencies. This new restriction on applicable sneak attack weapons is not really new at all, if memory serves, as I believe that similar restrictions applied to backstab in AD&D. This might have been decided upon for mechanical reasons, leaving weapons that deal more damage to other classes, or for verisimilitude, applying the reasoning that it is somewhat difficult to quickly stab someone in the left kidney with a ten-foot spear. I point it out merely because I believe it is a move away from the modularity of the current edition, where this class ability can be applied with the use of any weapon and is thus inherently more portable from concept to concept than a version which requires one to be using one of five or so weapons.

I would like to invite responses on these and related topics. Do you think that I have no idea what I'm talking about here and that modularity will be enhanced with 4th edition? Do you also feel fairly neutral about the whole thing? I mainly just want to see discussion that focuses on clear analysis of the new edition we'll all be hearing so much about in the near future without recourse to partisan infighting. That last sentence looks sort of like a grey-haired talking head should be saying in on the news. In any case, what are your thoughts?

Rutee
2008-02-24, 01:36 AM
Oh, your title mislead me.. thought it'd be on alignment. I seem to be having some difficulty understanding your meaning, regardless; Could you perhaps define what you mean as modularity?

SofS
2008-02-24, 01:45 AM
The title is sort of a dumb pun. Pay it no mind.

By "modularity", I refer to parts of the game having the properties of modules, things that can be used in more than one context, so to speak. For example, I consider 3.x to be more modular in many ways than AD&D because 3.x explicitly allows the use of any class by any race, which was not present until later in the earlier editions. The "class" part of the game has more modular properties in this case because it is supposed to be equally usable with any race, rather than relying on the specific context of character race to determine what it could be. Did that explain anything better?

Farmer42
2008-02-24, 02:02 AM
I must, respectfully, disagree with you on the point of modularity. While some abilities are more clearly defined, such as sneak attack, the actual classes themselves seem much more open to being tweaked. I understand where you're coming from, and it does seem like the abilities themselves are seeing more definition, for the system to be truly modular, we must see a bloat of different, specific abilities.

SofS
2008-02-24, 02:37 AM
The classes do seem to have some flexibility in terms of build, if the rogue preview is anything to go by. Having a choice between at least two options on most aspects of the class is a good omen. On the other hand, there seems to be a seperation here between class abilities, which can be active or passive, and feats, which seem to be mostly passive. I recall feats being mentioned in an earlier article, and I believe that all of the ones there (Toughness and something like Golden Wyvern Adept, which improves an existing power) were passive. None of them granted new active abilities. I don't know if that will hold true, of course, but it could mean bad things for character tweakability if the only way to gain active abilities is through specific classes.

Also, there is the tier system, which has not really been totally explained as of yet. By having different abilities available at ascending level plateaus, it could be even harder to customize, as one might end up having to very carefully ration out one's selectable abilities per tier. On the other hand, it might also turn out to be a character-building dream, with opportunities to trade higher-level slots for numbers of lower-level slots. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that I think the tier feature will have a big effect on how characters are built and played, but it's currently unknown to me what that effect might be.

A quick note on modularity that is not related to classes: what has been said about monsters sounds like they are moving away from this design philosophy. Instead of monsters having feats and so forth, they instead have more-or-less unique abilities that are listed in their entry. If this is the case, what does that mean for advancing monsters? What does that mean for monsters as PCs?

averagejoe
2008-02-24, 04:12 AM
A quick note on modularity that is not related to classes: what has been said about monsters sounds like they are moving away from this design philosophy. Instead of monsters having feats and so forth, they instead have more-or-less unique abilities that are listed in their entry. If this is the case, what does that mean for advancing monsters? What does that mean for monsters as PCs?

This is actually one sore point in the 4e previews for me, where I have otherwise been neutral or hopeful for the most part. As a DM the 3.5 monster manuel was an excellent tool, and the essential modularity and transperancy of the overall class/monster design made doing anything I want both possible and easy. For me, it's a headache to build a monster from scratch, and the way I see it is that building from scratch is an option that's present anyways, no matter how the monster system is set up. A move away from this wouldn't be enough for me to outright hate 4e, but it would be somewhat dissapointing.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-24, 05:50 AM
I must, respectfully, disagree with you on the point of modularity. While some abilities are more clearly defined, such as sneak attack, the actual classes themselves seem much more open to being tweaked.

While we've only seen one class yet, the 4e rogue is not particularly more (or, for that matter, less) tweakable than its 3e counterpart, and less tweakable than a 2e rogue with the kit system.

The character options boil down to (a) ability scores, (b) race; (c) one of two "tactics", (d) some powers and feats, (e) four of eight skills, and (f) weapon choice. In the 3e counterpart, (a) and (b) are the same, (c) is missing, (d) has less customization, but (e) and (f) have more customization. The net effect is about the same.

Muyten
2008-02-24, 06:18 AM
A quick note on modularity that is not related to classes: what has been said about monsters sounds like they are moving away from this design philosophy. Instead of monsters having feats and so forth, they instead have more-or-less unique abilities that are listed in their entry. If this is the case, what does that mean for advancing monsters? What does that mean for monsters as PCs?

They have stated that the 'monsters' such as the gnome can be played as a player-race directly out of the MM although I'm pretty sure that such characters will have less options than the races in the PHB.
Also they have adopted a philosophy of making monsters and NPCs more tweakable and should provide guidelines for this in the DMG so I think in fact advancing monsters will be fairly modular in 4E.

Zincorium
2008-02-24, 06:43 AM
less tweakable than a 2e rogue with the kit system.

While I have to agree as far as the versatility (with the 2nd ed kit system, a rogue could be the same as a wizard or fighter) I hope that any versatility comes with some kind of drawback. The brokenness of the kit system lay in the fact that the designers seemed to ignore the trade off between abilities that 3rd has at least acknowledged if not used. Unearthed Arcana showcases how variants should be done, with powerful abilities swapped out for those of similar power.

Generally, I've seen three different systems of versatility that work without breaking the system:

1. UA style substitutions.
2. PrCs which sacrifice progression in some core aspect or similar progression in something normally not accessible.
3. D20 modern/Saga ed talent trees.

Frankly, the talent trees are easiest to implement into a brand new system, and reward both multiclassing between two classes and staying the same base class. I like that.

hewhosaysfish
2008-02-24, 07:21 AM
The Alignment section of the PHB says of both the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axis, that some Neutrals are merely uncommited, ambivalent or sitting on the fecnce but the there was a type of Neutral which views both Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) as dangerous extremes and strives to maintain a balance...

Thus, I would place myself as Neutral on the on the Pro-/Anti- 4e axis, with Pro-4e leanings. And to that I would add the clarfication that I started out as the first type of Neutral (uncommitted) but after reaidng to many discussion threads on these boards, have shifted to the second type (balance) and cannot read any more such threads without feeling the urge to stab both sides in the face.



On the subject of modularity - which I take to mean "which mechanics are inextricably tied to other mechanics and which ones can float around freely" - I think that the variation we see between edition is partly due to confusion as to the purpose and nature of the class system.
That is to say, is your class what you are or what you do?
Under the first approach (as seen in earlier editions, for exmaple) it makes no sense for the "Thief" to be able to backstab with a spear. He suppose to sneak around wearing black and stab people with a dagger; why is he even using a spear anyway?
Under the second (as seen in D20 Modern, for example) it makes no sense for a character not to be able to sneak attack with a spear. He's good a stabbing people in vulnerable spots; why should he be better at it with one weapon than he is with another?

From what I've seen of 4e, they started of with the second approach (so: "guy that can stand there and take getting stabbed" -> Martial Defender, "guy that runs in, stabs people and runs away again" -> Martial Striker) but then tried to squeeze the results of that thought-process into the roles defined by previous editions, which used the first approach. (so: Martial Defender -> Fighter, Martial Striker -> Rogue or Ranger.)
Which, renders void the whole idea of defining classes by what they do... Shame. I liked that idea.

SofS
2008-02-24, 06:27 PM
They've said that monsters will be "tweakable", but I don't think they've explained what exactly they mean by that. It's impossible to fully discuss what has only been partially revealed, of course, but I wonder what the relationship between those sample monster information cards they previewed and the book rules will be. Are the abilities explain only on the card/listing and nowhere else, or will there be a section detailing what all of these abilities do? The latter option might indicate a familiar degree of customizability, as it could ending acting as a really handy aid to creature-building. It's not like one can't and won't just make things up anyway, but it'd be nice if they treated homebrewing as desirable and made things easy for the monster designer.

hewhosaysfish makes an excellent point regarding the confusing role of classes. Defining classes by what they do allows for more flexibility in many ways, it would seem, but there's a distinct possibility that it limits thinking and strategy at higher levels (of planning. Roleplaying needs more synonyms).

Consider what we've known for some time about 4th edition classes. It has been stated at nearly every point of the previews that classes would be defined by their roles in an encounter: there are strikers, leaders, defenders, controllers, probably one or two that I can't remember right now. They've made sure to mention how this adds flexibility, as it means that you don't actually really need any magic-using or martial or whatever characters in the party so long as the basic roles are filled.

I'd like to suggest that this thinking, while allowing more flexibility within a system, makes the system itself more constraining and inflexible in the long run. What about people who simply don't use strategies based on this way of thinking? It's only been comparatively recently that people in my group have pushed for party composition to fall into roles such as these, and it failed horribly in our case. The design won't really stop anyone, of course (I look forward to convincing everyone to play through an adventure as 5 members of the same class for the hell of it), but if they push this in every aspect, it might make supplemental material essentially useless. If they start releasing splatbooks like "Complete Striker" or something and giving options only in regard to class roles, irritation will likely set in soon.

Talya
2008-02-24, 07:25 PM
4th edition might be good for a new setting. I don't like it for existing settings.