PDA

View Full Version : Class roles and usefulness (DnD 4e)



veilrap
2008-04-08, 08:47 AM
Hi all, I've been reading over information on the 4th edition of dnd and a lot of what I've been reading sounds pretty interesting. However I'm really worried about this whole "Class roles" thing they're bringing to the spot light. Every class seems to have been designed to fit one of these party roles.
To me that seems terribly limiting, I understand that it doesn't mean you can't customize your character, but it still feels limiting to me, I mean I'm the kind of person who plays a Melee greatsword swinging sorcerer just because it's fun and thats how that character is. I don't feel like a class should determine your party function.
This all leads to my other worry, which is the emphasis on usefulness. It seems to me that the goal of the 'class roles' and some of the other tidbits I've read seem bent upon making sure your character is 'useful' to the party. Maybe I'm missing something but I thought that characters are supposed to be based around a background that makes them a fun/interesting character to play, regardless of how useful (or occasionally useless) the character is to the party.
What do you all think? Am I over thinking this whole thing, or am I the only one who feels this way?

Also where are my Bards :smalleek:

Indon
2008-04-08, 08:59 AM
I think a lot depends on how multiclassing is going to work, though I'm saddened that they decided to get rid of the skill specialist.

Bards will probably have a lot of their jack-of-all-trades skills trimmed away and get turned into an Arcane Leader-type.

Inyssius Tor
2008-04-08, 09:03 AM
Let's see if I understand you:

1. You don't like how spellcasting classes are probably going to be more effective when they focus on casting spells.
2. You dislike how all the combat mechanics are focused on "balance" and "everyone being useful" and "everyone getting their time to shine in combat," instead of... eschewing combat mechanics entirely and focusing on roleplaying?
3. Are bards still in core?

Indon
2008-04-08, 09:11 AM
1. You don't like how spellcasting classes are probably going to be more effective when they focus on casting spells.

I think he's more afraid of classes having more strongly regimented specialties such that making a character outside of that specialty becomes even less viable, or perhaps even impossible.


3. Are bards still in core?

No, but no doubt there'll be a book for them.

veilrap
2008-04-08, 09:12 AM
1. You don't like how spellcasting classes are probably going to be more effective when they focus on casting spells.

No no, not that at all, my sorc sword slinger was just an entertaining example of customization and characters not having to fit in roles.

2. You dislike how all the combat mechanics are focused on "balance" and "everyone being useful" and "everyone getting their time to shine in combat," instead of... eschewing combat mechanics entirely and focusing on roleplaying?

Combat is important but so is non combat. If I wanted to play hack-n-slash fun I'll play nwn campaigns. I just don't want your characters combat/noncombat roles to be based upon the class you choose as opposed to how you play your character.

3. Are bards still in core?
From what I've heard they've removed them from core but they'll be around in a later rule book

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 09:14 AM
*Chuckles*

What a funny bunch of ideas. So, in 3.5, your class doesn't dictate your role? and you're not penalized for focusing on the concept? And sorcerers are effective if they try to use a greatsword, instead of being dead meat?

Indon
2008-04-08, 09:19 AM
So, in 3.5, your class doesn't dictate your role? and you're not penalized for focusing on the concept?
The greater amount of freedom in character building in 3.5 allows you to create a character that's being significantly penalized, while still making a viable character, using sufficient optimization.


And sorcerers are effective if they try to use a greatsword, instead of being dead meat?

There was recently a thread about how to make a Wizard into a better melee combatant than a Fighter... so, actually yes, though it's very difficult to do and you're still a little bit behind.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 09:29 AM
If it's so difficult to do, the system is fighting against you. Which means the idea is not supported. Which means there's zilch difference there between editions, except it'll probably be easier to make a brand new class if I want a character with X abilities. A Swordmage, for example.

hewhosaysfish
2008-04-08, 09:31 AM
Well, I don't recall hearing anything which suggested that a mage will not be able to wield or attack with a greatsword. Didn't at least one of the early editions make it flatly impossible to even use a greatsword, never mind effectively?)

Of course, such a sorcerer will have to accept the fact that he will only be doing basic attacks: his class features ("powers") will do little to affect the greatsword, the greatsword will do nothing to affect his class features.
He will look on as the Fighter Greater Cleaves (or whatever) with his greatsword and turn green with envy. "Why can't I Magic Missile with my greatsword?!" he cries.

Although, I seem to recall that all classes will have the same attack bonus progression... Maybe with the right selection of buff spells, the sorcerer won't do too badly...

Charity
2008-04-08, 09:33 AM
I'm sure the bard will return, there are plenty of folk whom desire it.

The whole class roles thing has always been evident, just now it isn't always the cas that the best person to fill a role is batman/codzilla.
Honestly what else does class do if it doesn't give you an indication of what you will be good at?
If the fighter isn't the best at fighting, for example what good is he?
All the party roles do for you is explain the strengths of a particular class, and demonstrate which classes can be viewed as alternatives to one another.
They are not straight jackets to bind your character into a steriotype.

Balance really is important, and it in no way prevents roleplaying, or playing outside archetypes. I think your worries might have foundations of sand.
There are plenty of folk whom hate the idea of 4e, but I'll put good money on 4e being a dramatic improvement over 3.x. My advice is to try out the rules lite adventure over on Enworld and see for yourownself. If you hate it stick with 3.5.

veilrap
2008-04-08, 09:34 AM
Take a look at the rogue for example: The rogues role is a striker meaning his primary focus is going to be dealing large amounts of damage quickly. To me the reason for playing a rogue is to be a stealth/skill user. Rogues in 3.5e can easily be molded to being an assassin, thief, scout, chef, politician, etc. With the new roles however is seems to simply lean on the backstabbing damager.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 09:41 AM
You see, CLASSES are fixed. However, you have enormous freedom with POWERS. Not to mention rogues have a MUCH bigger amount of skills and skillpoints in comparison to 3.5. In other, less kind words, you're spouting gibberish, man. I'd actually LOOK at the rogue preview.

Charity
2008-04-08, 09:44 AM
^Please use kind words, we all appreciate those more


The greater amount of freedom in character building in 3.5 allows you to create a character that's being significantly penalized, while still making a viable character, using sufficient optimization..

Unfortunately it also allows you to create any one of a number of cheese monsters. It leads to unbalanced parties. It leads to thousands of rules queries many of which open to several conflicting interpretations...


There was recently a thread about how to make a Wizard into a better melee combatant than a Fighter... so, actually yes, though it's very difficult to do and you're still a little bit behind.

Which is why balace is so important, if even a squishy mage can out fight the melee specialists there is something wrong with the game.

Indon
2008-04-08, 10:13 AM
Although, I seem to recall that all classes will have the same attack bonus progression... Maybe with the right selection of buff spells, the sorcerer won't do too badly...

If the Sorceror (if it gets made) turns out to be a Controller class, it seems unlikely to get buffs. Leader classes get buffs. Controller classes probably aren't going to be given Leader powers (that would be unbalanced).


If it's so difficult to do, the system is fighting against you. Which means the idea is not supported.
I don't think you're getting the idea that more freedom in character building allows you more ability to run unsupported character ideas. And we know that 4'th edition will have less freedom in character building based on what Wizards has said in their previews.


You see, CLASSES are fixed. However, you have enormous freedom with POWERS.

Oh?

Strikers get high-damage powers,
Defenders get conditional debuffing powers,
Leaders get buffing and healing powers,
Controllers get debuffing and AoE powers.

How much freedom is that? It seems only the freedom to do what you were intended to do.

So again, things depend on how the multiclassing system works. This system might be able to pull off build versatility with a good multiclassing system.


Which means there's zilch difference there between editions, except it'll probably be easier to make a brand new class if I want a character with X abilities. A Swordmage, for example.

The Swordmage is indeed simple - Arcane Striker. Take the rogue and reflavor it.

Now, what if you want to make a Crusader, a holy warrior focused on offense? Divine Striker, right, you just take the rogue and reflavor it... unless you want healing. However, Strikers don't get healing (It's a Leader power - you don't want to take the Leader niche away, do you?), even if divine powers are associated with it.

So now you need to break the system's balance to get the class versatility you want.

Unfortunately it also allows you to create any one of a number of cheese monsters. It leads to unbalanced parties. It leads to thousands of rules queries many of which open to several conflicting interpretations...
If players could be trusted to not break games by cheesing out, then you could get all the versatility of imbalance with none of the problems.

And rules ambiguity has little to do with system versatility and balance.



Which is why balace is so important, if even a squishy mage can out fight the melee specialists there is something wrong with the game.

I said, 'and you're still a bit behind', so no, the squishy mage can not OUTfight a meleer - they can just fight.

And what's wrong with having that kind of system versatility? If anything, the only problem is that everyone doesn't get it. The solution seems to give everyone more freedom, but the solution provided to us appears to be to take it away from the classes which had it.

Little_Rudo
2008-04-08, 10:23 AM
Take a look at the rogue for example: The rogues role is a striker meaning his primary focus is going to be dealing large amounts of damage quickly. To me the reason for playing a rogue is to be a stealth/skill user. Rogues in 3.5e can easily be molded to being an assassin, thief, scout, chef, politician, etc. With the new roles however is seems to simply lean on the backstabbing damager.

Actually, the Rogue's skill list still contains Bluff, and Gather Information has (most likely) been folded into the Rogue skill Streetwise. Although Diplomacy is strangely absent, it can most likely be gotten with a feat or some other easy one-time method. Mechanically, those skills and a high Cha are the only things that make a character a diplomat.

Remember, 4E's philosophy is that characters should be balanced in-combat, regardless of their out-of-combat usefulness. Regardless of how your group plays, the majority of the rules are for combat encounters, and most D&D games spend at least a good portion of their time fighting. The 4E creators simply feel that there's no reason somebody should have to be useless for one large part of the campaign just to excel in another. So, you can certainly create your diplomat rogue (there's even certain Rogue abilities that use the Cha modifier), you can just do so without sacrificing your ability to be decent in a fight.

Indon
2008-04-08, 10:42 AM
The 4E creators simply feel that there's no reason somebody should have to be useless for one large part of the campaign just to excel in another.

Being a specialist does not necessarily make you useless where your specialty does not apply.

Are the Strikers the only ones that can do damage? No. Do you die in one hit if you aren't a Defender? No. Do you have to be useless in combat if your character is specialized for out of combat situations? No.

Even the Rogue isn't useless in 3'rd edition combat (with exceptions for certain monster types due to the way precision damage works).

Roderick_BR
2008-04-08, 11:45 AM
I understand that it doesn't mean you can't customize your character, but it still feels limiting to me, I mean I'm the kind of person who plays a Melee greatsword swinging sorcerer just because it's fun and thats how that character is.
If you have a warrior/caster type, you can cover a big number of "roles", at expense of specialization. That's normal.

I don't feel like a class should determine your party function.
Uh... it has been like that since 1st edition...

This all leads to my other worry, which is the emphasis on usefulness. It seems to me that the goal of the 'class roles' and some of the other tidbits I've read seem bent upon making sure your character is 'useful' to the party.
It's to keep players from saying that wizard/cleric/druids are overpowered, and monks/fighters are useless.

Also where are my Bards :smalleek:
uh.... I got nothing :smallfrown: Theory is that they'll come in the Player's 2 or something.

Little_Rudo
2008-04-08, 12:17 PM
Being a specialist does not necessarily make you useless where your specialty does not apply.

Are the Strikers the only ones that can do damage? No. Do you die in one hit if you aren't a Defender? No. Do you have to be useless in combat if your character is specialized for out of combat situations? No.

Even the Rogue isn't useless in 3'rd edition combat (with exceptions for certain monster types due to the way precision damage works).

Sorry, I worded that poorly, I was in a rush to get to one of my classes. Basically, 4th Edition's philosophy is that you shouldn't balance a character's in-battle effectiveness with their out-of-battle skills. For the classes to be balanced, you should balance their in-battle effectiveness, so that all PC's can contribute equally (ideally) in a fight. Whether this balance is a good thing or not is probably better off left to another thread. (In fact, I believe there have been numerous threads on the subject already.)

EvilElitest
2008-04-08, 04:41 PM
It is worth noting that wizards are being made into the "blaster" and are no longer the batman. On one hand, this kinda ends the "over powered wizard" (hopefully). On the other hand, it does take away a lot of cool aspects of the wizards

But generally, everything is far more combat focused now, even more than 3E, so yeah. Kinda wargame like actually or a video game:smalltongue: meh, not really but
from
EE

hewhosaysfish
2008-04-08, 04:56 PM
It is worth noting that wizards are being made into the "blaster" and are no longer the batman. On one hand, this kinda ends the "over powered wizard" (hopefully). On the other hand, it does take away a lot of cool aspects of the wizards

I would have expected that the Warlock (being the Arcane Striker) would be more of the blaster, while the Wizard (being the Controller) would have the de-buffs and save-or-sucks that were a large part of Batman's repertoire.
What makes you say the new Wizard is a blaster?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 04:57 PM
That they can always cast mag missile.

They're still batmen, just not b0rkened ones. Sleep is the big spell of level 1.

EvilElitest
2008-04-08, 05:03 PM
I would have expected that the Warlock (being the Arcane Striker) would be more of the blaster, while the Wizard (being the Controller) would have the de-buffs and save-or-sucks that were a large part of Batman's repertoire.
What makes you say the new Wizard is a blaster?

I think the article in races in classes had them work much like a blaster. I'll check again


And sleep is not a sign of batman like mannerism
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-04-08, 05:09 PM
Being a specialist does not necessarily make you useless where your specialty does not apply.

That's cute... explain fighters.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 05:09 PM
'Scooze meh, mah man? Sleep is THE save or lose at low levels. It's basically "I win", and a no-limit HD sleep would be a staple of any batman.

veilrap
2008-04-08, 05:10 PM
You see, CLASSES are fixed. However, you have enormous freedom with POWERS. Not to mention rogues have a MUCH bigger amount of skills and skillpoints in comparison to 3.5. In other, less kind words, you're spouting gibberish, man. I'd actually LOOK at the rogue preview.

I've looked at the preview and it looks very much like there are basicly two rogue paths, damage dealer and sneaky damage dealer. As far as skills go the number of skills in 4e has been reduced/simplified which I'm not in favor of. Sure the rogue's and everyother class have powers, which i think is a cool idea, but really I'll need to see a complete power list, because right now everything I see is dmg, dot, dmg, tumble. Everything in 4e seems to be geared towards pure combat.

The one very promising thing from the previews is the fact that being a rogue doesn't autotrain you in every class skill, which is pretty cool for customization i think.

EvilElitest
2008-04-08, 05:13 PM
That's cute... explain fighters.

badly thought through balance mechanics and overpowered spell casters
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 05:14 PM
I believe it works like in SAGA edition. Every skill can be used proficiently if it's in your list, but to get the big cheese you need to use Skill Focus on the skill.

And really, the classes ARE combat geared. What do you expect, that the designers will be so stupid so as to re-create the Healer or Survivor? Maybe the CW samurai, but not such idiocy. D&D is combat, and 4th is returning to it's tabletop wargame roots. If you don't like it, houserule a useless-at-combat-but-with-nifty-skilly-powers class.

EvilElitest
2008-04-08, 05:24 PM
I believe it works like in SAGA edition. Every skill can be used proficiently if it's in your list, but to get the big cheese you need to use Skill Focus on the skill.

And really, the classes ARE combat geared. What do you expect, that the designers will be so stupid so as to re-create the Healer or Survivor? Maybe the CW samurai, but not such idiocy. D&D is combat, and 4th is returning to it's tabletop wargame roots. If you don't like it, houserule a useless-at-combat-but-with-nifty-skilly-powers class.

Well the thief is rather nice in that he isn't just about combat. Or the batman. Or the artifiactor for that matter
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 05:30 PM
And against a third of the foes you face (Undead and Constructs, which are in great supply, and Plants in a more minor version), they're useless. Never noticed Penetrating Strike replaces Trapsense? It was a good call, noticing being useful out of combat is worth jack in a wargame RP.

Artanis
2008-04-08, 05:31 PM
Hoo boy, here we go again.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-08, 05:34 PM
To tell the truth though, I couldn't care less. I'm very tired of the bard having to munchkin up to hit anything, of the fighter being a one trick pony, and of a goddanged cleric being way better than a FIGHTER at fighting. If 4th E fixes that I'm sold, and I won't care a half atomized turnip about any bitching.

Rutee
2008-04-08, 05:56 PM
I've looked at the preview

Put this in perspective for a minute. You're worried about a lack of options, based on an incomplete view of the full system. I think we can all agree that 4e is going to have more hten the preview, yes? The designers have demonstrated awareness that this could be a problem. I'm not sure if I trust anyone WotC hires to do this /properly/, but I'm sure they're going to try. And really, it's not like 3.5 didn't have this already, they just didn't codify it.

Xefas
2008-04-08, 06:04 PM
I would just like to point out that the classes *do* have out-of-combat effects called Rituals. They've merely segregated combat and non-combat powers to more effectively balance everything.

I also hear tell that even Martial classes will have these, though I can't imagine what they would be.

Still, keep this in mind when debating whether the game has become "all about combat" or if classes are now indistinguishable outside of battle.

Titanium Dragon
2008-04-08, 06:14 PM
Hi all, I've been reading over information on the 4th edition of dnd and a lot of what I've been reading sounds pretty interesting. However I'm really worried about this whole "Class roles" thing they're bringing to the spot light. Every class seems to have been designed to fit one of these party roles.

Have you ever played D&D before? If not, then welcome to class-based games. This is true of all class-based games; indeed, this is the entire point of classes in class-based games. If you have, then you've enjoyed this aspect of such games without noticing it. This has been around for ages; they called it out in 2nd edition, and they're calling it out again in 4th edition. They didn't say it in third edition, but it was certainly present.


To me that seems terribly limiting, I understand that it doesn't mean you can't customize your character, but it still feels limiting to me, I mean I'm the kind of person who plays a Melee greatsword swinging sorcerer just because it's fun and thats how that character is. I don't feel like a class should determine your party function.

The only purpose of classes is to do exactly that.


This all leads to my other worry, which is the emphasis on usefulness. It seems to me that the goal of the 'class roles' and some of the other tidbits I've read seem bent upon making sure your character is 'useful' to the party. Maybe I'm missing something but I thought that characters are supposed to be based around a background that makes them a fun/interesting character to play, regardless of how useful (or occasionally useless) the character is to the party.

Not really. All characters are supposed to be useful all the time, base; it should not be possible to accidentally create a useless or bad character.


Also where are my Bards :smalleek:

In a later PHB; they're not a particularly beloved class, and given they could only fit 8 classes into the PHB, they're going to fit the archetypical classes and the coolest classes in. Bards simply aren't popular enough to win that battle.

EvilElitest
2008-04-08, 06:46 PM
In a later PHB; they're not a particularly beloved class, and given they could only fit 8 classes into the PHB, they're going to fit the archetypical classes and the coolest classes in. Bards simply aren't popular enough to win that battle.
it will be interesting to see what the deem so important to piss off the pro bard people. They should have dropped paladin instead
from
EE

Artanis
2008-04-08, 06:49 PM
Not really. All characters are supposed to be useful all the time, base; it should not be possible to accidentally create a useless or bad character.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Now don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against optimization or somebody being penalized for making a downright stupid choice, but a player who makes reasonable decisions should at least be somewhat effective.

For example:
-Being UTTERLY crippled because you made a Wizard with 4 INT is just fine
-Being UTTERLY crippled because you said "Hey, the Monk looks cool!" is NOT fine

Crowheart
2008-04-08, 07:29 PM
As some have stated above, believing 4e will be like so-and-so because of what you've read about so far is a bad idea.

Those who are posting about how 4e will be like this or like that, don't sound very convincing because I know that unless they are on the inside, they know nothing about how the game will finally roll down.

For example, saying 4e is like a wargame cannot be substantiated because you haven't played the rules in their entirety. Saying that there are only two roles for a rogue, or that the roles will be limiting to non-combat ideas, again cannot be substantiated because you simply do not know.

Can the above be right? Sure, it might very well be so. 4e may very well be a wargame. It may very well throw non-combat play to the wayside. But do we know that for sure? Of course not. And I happen to have a little faith in the people who make my favorite game, that they will not destroy it to the point of un-fun. Will it be different? Looks like it. Be reminded that a lot of the people who played the 4e demo said "It still feels like D&D." This is enough to leave me with a little more than hope.

I'm sorry if I sound a little caustic there, I wasn't lashing out at any one person in particular (I rather enjoy Evil Elitest posts :smalltongue: ), but rather was lashing out at the idea of uninformed opinions.

The bottom line on my feeling is this:
If you dislike 4e because of the flavor and feel of the game, then I have nothing to say against you. If you don't like the feel, then you don't like the feel. I don't like musicals and you do, etc.

If you dislike 4e because of the smattering of incomplete mechanics we have seen so far, then you have nothing valid to argue about. Yet. If, after we see the new edition, you have genuine gripes against how things are developing mechanically, then we can have a real and worthwhile discussion.

It's only 2 more months, people. Please be nice until then.

veilrap
2008-04-08, 09:11 PM
Have you ever played D&D before? If not, then welcome to class-based games. This is true of all class-based games; indeed, this is the entire point of classes in class-based games.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to propose pointless claims like "Have you ever played D&D before?" There's not really a point in discussing anything. Yes, I have played D&D for about 6 years and I've been DMing mostly for the past 2.

Also I must respectfully disagree, to me the point of classes is to give you a well constructed starting point for creating a character to play. It defines your basic ability set which grows and expands with experience/time. We're not playing FF4 where each character's class is rigidly defined.


Not really. All characters are supposed to be useful all the time, base; it should not be possible to accidentally create a useless or bad character.

Again I have to disagree. Although no classes should be worthless, I feel that all characters should NOT be useful all the time. Each character should have times when they are more useful and less useful. To me that adds much more interesting character developments and forces a party to work together to exploit each of their strengths. Of course if you're refering to something like a specific class having no advantages over any other class then I agree with you, sorry for the misinterpretation.



Put this in perspective for a minute. You're worried about a lack of options, based on an incomplete view of the full system. I think we can all agree that 4e is going to have more hten the preview, yes? The designers have demonstrated awareness that this could be a problem. I'm not sure if I trust anyone WotC hires to do this /properly/, but I'm sure they're going to try. And really, it's not like 3.5 didn't have this already, they just didn't codify it.



Good stuff

I agree with most of what you have said, and I really started the thread because I had worries (as stated in opener) that 4e might be shaky in some aspects. The only reason I mentioned the preview was because someone else had mentioned it before. Of course they will expand out greatly from what is shown in the preview, and I expect some/many of my qualms to be alleviated once the full rule books are released.

huttj509
2008-04-08, 10:21 PM
Can a 3.5E Fighter Sneak Attack? Not if they're just a fighter. Their class limits that option. Nor can they cast spells. If they want to gain those abilities they need to take levels in another class to no longer just be a fighter. They are limited in their abilities by what class they have. (similarly, that greatsword wielding sorcerer cannot take the weapon specialization tree without multiclassing, as it is limited to fighters).

Can a 4E Fighter Sneak Attack? Not if they're just a fighter. Their class limits that option. Nor can they cast spells. If they want to gain those abilities they need to multiclass (or take feats to give the abilities, however 4E ends up working it, haven't seen multiclass details yet) to no longer just be a fighter. They are limited in their abilities by what class they have. (similarly, that greatsword wielding sorcerer cannot use the fighter powers without multiclassing, as they are limited to fighters).

Looks to me like here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

Rutee
2008-04-08, 10:31 PM
Also I must respectfully disagree, to me the point of classes is to give you a well constructed starting point for creating a character to play. It defines your basic ability set which grows and expands with experience/time. We're not playing FF4 where each character's class is rigidly defined.
Um, what? FFIV classes are exactly as rigidly defined as the lion's share of DnD classes. Some people get a mulligan, like when they get to choose their class features (Fighter kinda counts, since the whole class feature is to choose a bootload of feats) and the Rogue Special Tricks), but as a rule, class features are very much fixed. A level X Wizard will always have Y + Int Bonuses. Class systems pretty much by default fall into rigid definitions, or you wouldn't use a class system in the first place.


Again I have to disagree. Although no classes should be worthless, I feel that all characters should NOT be useful all the time. Each character should have times when they are more useful and less useful. To me that adds much more interesting character developments and forces a party to work together to exploit each of their strengths. Of course if you're refering to something like a specific class having no advantages over any other class then I agree with you, sorry for the misinterpretation.
Is less useful synonymous with useless?

Eldariel
2008-04-08, 10:48 PM
The point of this system is to keep newbies from building a Fighter/Cleric/Warpriest and promptly getting their asses kicked by straight Fighter and Cleric alike. Basically, the roles are there just to keep people from making crappy characters. That doesn't mean there isn't room to maneuver inside the class or to multiclass efficiently, it simply means that if you want to build a tank, you won't accidentially end up building a brick house (the 'yea, they won't hit me, but nobody cares as I can't do anything'-type that's all too common in 3.5 Fighters).

Nobody is killing your creativity, it's simply there for the people with weapon Optimi-Fu, or people who don't really care about their mechanical character and thus want it to progress on autopilot while they focus all their energy to giving the personality depth. In short, the roles aren't for you and shouldn't really affect you in any meaningful way.

purepolarpanzer
2008-04-08, 11:11 PM
Being a specialist does not necessarily make you useless where your specialty does not apply.

Are the Strikers the only ones that can do damage? No. Do you die in one hit if you aren't a Defender? No. Do you have to be useless in combat if your character is specialized for out of combat situations? No.

Even the Rogue isn't useless in 3'rd edition combat (with exceptions for certain monster types due to the way precision damage works).

If the game was like this, it would be rock paper scissors, not a role playing game.

However.

Specialization, while it doesn't make you useless outside your specialization, always sacrifices some versatility. Prestige classes have lame requirements you don't use, denying you good feats and making you invest skills in specific ways (and the ones that don't make you sacrifice something are usually broken, AKA Initiate of the Seven Fold Cheese Dip). Wizards give up some schools to be better at one. Any fighter that is mechanically effective (Not saying this is all that matters with them. I love fighters, but I admit they are rule screwed) focuses on using one type of weapon really well with a few maneuvers, when he could be taking broad, general feats to use more weapons in a sufficient fashion.

Overall, specialization definately reduces effectiveness in other things. It's how life works. It's how role playing games work. No, it doesn't give you tons and tons of versatility, but it's a fact of life. (However, we do have duskblades, beguilers, rangers, paladins, etc. because some people want a happy medium. Instead of that ineffective half-and-half, how about one of these?)

Really, how much versatility do you get in 3.x? Sure, your sorceror can use a great sword, and go into melee. He will miss, get shanked, and die, but he can. However, if you want to do more than frustrate your party, you have to be a sorceror who uses spells. As well all know, spells are not created equal, so chances are you are using the same spells as half a thousand other sorcerors around the world. Your feats may be different, but chances are they affect your spell casting. And I have no problem with this. Rules based rpg's require a certain amount of focus, or the game really just gets silly. Just like you don't see many sorceror melee mashers, I don't often see heavy weight champion boxers with nuclear physics degrees. Both require too much focus for you to do both at the same time without a. getting your block knocked off or b. causing Chernobyl part II.

Personally, with the tiefling interview and some of the class stuff I've read/heard, I think 4th will help more classes be versatile than limit others. Fighters whose weapons specializations are specific to the weapon and scale well will be far more welcome at my table than the current Use-All-Weapons-And-Still-Suck version. Warlocks can take one of many pacts, wizards can choose different magical focuses, and I'm sure the Rogue is going to be more than a sniper rifle. While the 3.x. system allows alot of versatility and customization, which I'm all for, most of this "versatility" and "customization" is just another word for "inneffective", "cosmetic", or at worst "annoying burden". I see 4th allowing customization along with effectiveness, and it makes me happy.

(P.S. I used the sorceror example, not to pick on anyone, but because it is a readily available source of customization and personal flavor overriding game mechanics and effectiveness. Also, don't mean for anything else I said to offend anyone.)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-08, 11:58 PM
But the thing is, in 3.5, you can make a Sorcerer that is very good in melee. You can also make an assortment of Gishes that are far better at fighting then fighters. It's easy, it works, it's fun. You can also make a Fighter designed around shocktrooping, or gambiting, or spiked chain tripping or Bullrushing. These are all valid strategies.

There's a lot of room to play around with things in 3.5. There doesn't seem to be in 4th. Part of that is because it's going to be limited and without all the splat books, but part of that is that the system seems designed to shoehorn you into a certain role. You are a Leader, no you can't control. (You are a Controller, no you can't control, but that's a different issue altogether. Every time I hear "control with damage" I want to control the WotC design team in the face.)

Rutee
2008-04-09, 12:21 AM
Control with damage happens, dood. Ask anyone who's raided in any MMORPG. "Move here or die" is a legitimate method battlefield control.


But the thing is, in 3.5, you can make a Sorcerer that is very good in melee. You can also make an assortment of Gishes that are far better at fighting then fighters. It's easy, it works, it's fun. You can also make a Fighter designed around shocktrooping, or gambiting, or spiked chain tripping or Bullrushing. These are all valid strategies.
The fighter isn't really that diverse. And you actually hit the nail on the head with your words, though you probably didn't mean to. Those various fighter Strategies are actually strategies. That's how you win fights, every time, when you build in one of hte effective fighter setups. Those should, frankly, at best be tactics (As in, the plan to win one fight). Perhaps oft-used tactics, but not the only real method you have of acting FOR YOUR CHARACTER'S ENTIRE EXISTENCE.

Magi have a measure of in-class versatility, this is true, but this comes more from the fact tha tmagic is allowed to do literally everything rather then DnD classes having any innate versatility.

Build a Fighter in the Leader archetype. Right now. Solid fighter, not Fighter 1/Cleric 19. You either can't, or can only do so with extensive knowledge of the splatbook spam that comprises DnD. The feel I'm getting with 4e is that yes, you won't be able to build every class into every role, but you will be able to find somethign that can capture the FLAVOR of that class and still be in that role. You may not be able to build a Leader Fighter in 4e... but the Warlord should come off as a similar feel on their face (Inspiring sword wielder). I may not be able to make a Cleric who is a melee tank.. but I could make a paladin, mechanically, who has the same feel. Etc. If you can capture the same feel with an easy to find class, how much do I need to be able to job one class around.

tl;dr
Why do I need to make a Fighter into a Leader when I can make a Warlord? Why do I need to make a Cleric who can spontaneously buff allies with their attacks when I can make a Crusader?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 02:16 AM
Control with damage happens, dood. Ask anyone who's raided in any MMORPG. "Move here or die" is a legitimate method battlefield control.

Move here and die is only legitimate battlefield control when you add artificial limitations and vastly overpower your target.

If Fireball could be used to prevent someone from going somewhere because they would die, then it could just as easily be used to kill them. Explain to me how in turn based combat you can "control with damage" that you couldn't have just hit your opponent with in the first place thus killing them.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 02:23 AM
Build a Fighter in the Leader archetype. Right now. Solid fighter, not Fighter 1/Cleric 19.

That is precisely my point. Both of those are 4E concepts. Why is there a "Leader" Role in 3rd? There isn't. Why should you feel compelled to model your concept around forcing yourself to take nothing but levels in one class? You shouldn't.

I like prestige classes, I like splatbook spam. I like that in 3.5 I'm given a host of options and told to do what I want with them instead of being told:

Oh you want to fight and buff? That's a Leader Role, for customization you can pick which "power source" you have, but you are still going to be a Leader.

That's not really making a character, it's picking one of the four roles, and then picking one of the four power sources.

I don't want to choose between Crusader and Fighter. I want to be able to pick a set of abilities that are presented to me and combine them in ways that I find interesting.

Charity
2008-04-09, 04:28 AM
Might I suggest COV that as you see no flaws in 3.5 and you loath the idea of 4e that you stick with 3.5 or check out Pathfinder (http://paizo.com/pathfinder) from Paizo.
Personally 4e can't come quickly enough for me, I have enjoyed 3.x don't get me wrong, but it relys on the flimsy house rules we all employ to make it tick over.
In my opinion in a class based system balance is king.
4e will redress the balance, it looks likely to make my job as DM a great deal easier, It looks likely to prevent my less optimising players from building ruinously pointless characters. 59 days and counting...

Rutee
2008-04-09, 04:44 AM
That is precisely my point. Both of those are 4E concepts. Why is there a "Leader" Role in 3rd? There isn't. Why should you feel compelled to model your concept around forcing yourself to take nothing but levels in one class? You shouldn't.
Uh. Cleric. Bard. Crusader. IIRC, Favored Soul. 3e core had LEaders, dood. They just weren't called that. They were called Buffers, if anything.

Seriously, you're acting like the concept of class roles is completely new. The PHB/DMG segments on spell creation make it clear that Divine spells are supposed to have spells that focus on enhancing allies, killing/hindering the opposite alignment, and in general not do much damage. Rogues have less HP and less AC (In theory at least) then Fighters. Wizards have even less HP, and have a wide variety of debilitating effects int heir arsenal. The only thing that's going to be changed is that the designers are saying the role out loud to the players.



Oh you want to fight and buff? That's a Leader Role, for customization you can pick which "power source" you have, but you are still going to be a Leader.
What's the difference between there and now? And don't forget method. Method is relevant.


If Fireball could be used to prevent someone from going somewhere because they would die, then it could just as easily be used to kill them. Explain to me how in turn based combat you can "control with damage" that you couldn't have just hit your opponent with in the first place thus killing them.
Effectively, timers, or spells that have a charge time and a visible cue of where it will land. If the spell's damage doesn't execute for one or two turns, and it is made clear in-character where the spell will be executed, you have accomplished battlefield control. Either they stay and get slammed, or they move out of the area where you want them to leave. Or they have to pick their poison, as it were (Running into a cloudkill to avoid a Nuke)

Or more simply, "Stay far apart from each other so their wizard doesn't fireball us"


I don't want to choose between Crusader and Fighter. I want to be able to pick a set of abilities that are presented to me and combine them in ways that I find interesting.
Why are you playing a class based system?

Starsinger
2008-04-09, 05:24 AM
Explain to me how in turn based combat you can "control with damage" that you couldn't have just hit your opponent with in the first place thus killing them.

Blade barrier, wall of fire, acid fog, and incendiary cloud all spring to mind of ways you can do that in 3.5.


That is precisely my point. Both of those are 4E concepts. Why is there a "Leader" Role in 3rd? There isn't.

That's being purposely difficult. I'm fairly certain that you know when she said "build me a leader" she meant something that enhances the fighting ability of its allies, which is not unique to 4th edition, even if the term isn't used directly in 3rd edition.


Why should you feel compelled to model your concept around forcing yourself to take nothing but levels in one class? You shouldn't.

Ideally, you shouldn't be "forcing" yourself to take nothing but levels in one class. Prestige classes aside, base classes should be good enough that taking nothing but levels in one should be desirable.

Dhavaer
2008-04-09, 05:51 AM
I don't want to choose between Crusader and Fighter. I want to be able to pick a set of abilities that are presented to me and combine them in ways that I find interesting.

I understand GURPS works like this, perhaps you should check it out? (Or already have.)

Kurald Galain
2008-04-09, 06:15 AM
I don't want to choose between Crusader and Fighter. I want to be able to pick a set of abilities that are presented to me and combine them in ways that I find interesting.

Then perhaps you should look into RPG systems that aren't class-based.

Aside from that, I think we can all agree that "third edition with the fifty-odd sourcebooks available for it" is going to have more options than "fourth edition with just the player's handbook". That's not such a useful comparison; we should either compare 3E phb with 4E phb, or wait until 4E also has fifty-odd sourcebooks available, which it undoubtedly will in a few years.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 07:25 AM
Uh. Cleric. Bard. Crusader. IIRC, Favored Soul. 3e core had LEaders, dood. They just weren't called that. They were called Buffers, if anything.

No they aren't. Clerics, and Favored Souls are better buffing themselves with the occasional group buff, but can be played as damage or as debuffers. Bard can be turned into a singular force, but is more often effective at buffing the team. Crusader is a tank, and the only thing close to a "Leader" thanks to White Raven, which a Warblade can do just as well. Note that both of these are from the book called 4E playtest for martial classes.


Seriously, you're acting like the concept of class roles is completely new. The PHB/DMG segments on spell creation make it clear that Divine spells are supposed to have spells that focus on enhancing allies, killing/hindering the opposite alignment, and in general not do much damage.

To bad "Leaders" can't kill or hinder enemies except through stabbing them. Have you seen the Cleric spell list? If that's "enhancing allies" then I'd be willing to enhance my enemies, since most spells are offensive or personal/touch range (IE spells for yourself/spells not cast in combat.)


Effectively, timers, or spells that have a charge time and a visible cue of where it will land. If the spell's damage doesn't execute for one or two turns, and it is made clear in-character where the spell will be executed, you have accomplished battlefield control. Either they stay and get slammed, or they move out of the area where you want them to leave. Or they have to pick their poison, as it were (Running into a cloudkill to avoid a Nuke)

So in other words, removing standard action spell casting, something 4th edition has made clear it is not doing. Welcome to Wizards not being controllers.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 07:31 AM
Blade barrier, wall of fire, acid fog, and incendiary cloud all spring to mind of ways you can do that in 3.5.

So the second worst wall spell, the worst wall spell, a spell that nobody casts against real opposition with out casting a real control spell to keep them in the AoE (so effectively an AoE dot) and a spell that does minor amounts of damage, and controls using an entirely non-damaging effect.


Ideally, you shouldn't be "forcing" yourself to take nothing but levels in one class. Prestige classes aside, base classes should be good enough that taking nothing but levels in one should be desirable.

Ideally you should be able to mix and match abilities without sucking. Ideally you should be able to decide what you want to do and do that best instead of picking one of 4 possible things to do and then doing only that.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 07:33 AM
Why are you playing a class based system?

Because 3.5 is a class based system that rewards not playing in one class all the way through but actually intelligently picking your abilities.

Rutee
2008-04-09, 07:46 AM
No they aren't. Clerics, and Favored Souls are better buffing themselves with the occasional group buff, but can be played as damage or as debuffers. Bard can be turned into a singular force, but is more often effective at buffing the team. Crusader is a tank, and the only thing close to a "Leader" thanks to White Raven, which a Warblade can do just as well. Note that both of these are from the book called 4E playtest for martial classes.
You don't get it. Clerics are broken, compared to non-casters. Period. You know this. You can not argue that what a cleric should do now is what a cleric should do in a more balanced game. And if you genuinely think that a force multiplier is less useful then any number of single character buffs (I'm aware that DnD as it stands has nothing resembling the former), you are nowhere near the minmaxer you think you are.




To bad "Leaders" can't kill or hinder enemies except through stabbing them. Have you seen the Cleric spell list? If that's "enhancing allies" then I'd be willing to enhance my enemies, since most spells are offensive or personal/touch range (IE spells for yourself/spells not cast in combat.)
Again, what a Cleric /should/ be is far divorced from what a cleric is, because /casters are broken/.



So in other words, removing standard action spell casting, something 4th edition has made clear it is not doing. Welcome to Wizards not being controllers.

"Stay Spread Apart so that we don't get AoEd".
"If you stay in this patch of ground you'll take damage every turn"

Or just Delayed Fireball-like effects where, say, a cloud of smoke hangs prior to the detonation, laying out the general area.

Battlefield Control is far more possible within DnD's framework then you're acknowledging


Because 3.5 is a class based system that rewards not playing in one class all the way through but actually intelligently picking your abilities.
Every word that has come out of your mouth indicates that you would rather play a game where you just straight out pick the abilities. Why do you persist with DnD?


So the second worst wall spell, the worst wall spell, a spell that nobody casts against real opposition with out casting a real control spell to keep them in the AoE (so effectively an AoE dot) and a spell that does minor amounts of damage, and controls using an entirely non-damaging effect.
Think conceptually for a moment. These effects are currently weak, yes. Could these concepts not be buffed mechanically, to be effective examples?


Ideally you should be able to mix and match abilities without sucking. Ideally you should be able to decide what you want to do and do that best instead of picking one of 4 possible things to do and then doing only that.
4 possible end results. As any CoH player can tell you, just because you have only a few roles does not mean that the variety of methods ot reach them isn't varied.

And don't keep using Cleric. It doesn't help your point to hold up a class everyone knows is broken as an example of how many options you should be able to have.

Starsinger
2008-04-09, 07:59 AM
So the second worst wall spell, the worst wall spell, a spell that nobody casts against real opposition with out casting a real control spell to keep them in the AoE (so effectively an AoE dot) and a spell that does minor amounts of damage, and controls using an entirely non-damaging effect.

You asked for examples. Like Rutee said, sure they may not be good choices in 3.5, but they work pretty well in theory and in other games. Not to mention the underlying theme of "If I go there, it will hurt."

Starbuck_II
2008-04-09, 08:17 AM
To add to Wizard controlling:
At will, Ray of Frost: damages + slows (Save end). Gaurented 1 round of slow before they get a save.
Now slow might be best debuff for controlling, but it is pretty nice.

Some enemy wizards that are higher level:
Goblin Warcaster I think
Daze (standard; at-will) ) Psychic
Range 10; +4 vs. Will; 1d6+1 psychic damage and target is dazed (save end)

Dazing is useful (in 3rd it had HD limit so was sucky).

Hobgoblin Warcaster
Force Lance (standard; recharge 4, 5, 6) Force:
Range 5, +6 vs. Fort. 5 force damage, and target slide 3 sq.
Force Pulse (standard; recharge 6) Force:
Close Burst 5, +6 vs. Reflex. 7 force damage, and target pushed 1 sq and prone. Miss ― damage, no prone/push.

Damage + move enemy around. Moving enemy is controlling their movement thus battlefield controll.

Human Mage:
Lightning Burst (standard; encounter) Thunder:
Area burst 1 within 10, +7 versus Fort, 1d8+4 lightning damage and target dazed (save ends).

Also dazes but with save end.

Kobold Arcanist
Force Push (standard; at-will) ) Force
Range 10; +5 vs. Fortitude; 1d6+3 force damage and slide target 2 squares.
Force Cage (standard; recharge 4 5 6) Force
Range 10; +5 vs. Reflex; target is immobilized (save ends).

Sebastian
2008-04-09, 08:34 AM
'Scooze meh, mah man? Sleep is THE save or lose at low levels.

not in 4e.

purepolarpanzer
2008-04-09, 08:45 AM
Because 3.5 is a class based system that rewards not playing in one class all the way through but actually intelligently picking your abilities.

If you are a spell caster, the only prestige classes even WORTH considering give you the same spells you had before, possibly minus one level. Most reliable and effective- one class, straight shot, maybe a prestige that just makes you better at what your class does well already. In 3.5, you do have a wide variety of choices, but they almost all end up you being a better warrior, caster, etc., sometimes with some specialization or fluffy ness. I havn't seen a single thing to hint that 4th will be any different once, say, a few splatbooks hit the shelves. If you don't like being locked in a role, than you can either follow someone else's suggestion and not play this, or simply continue to play as you do.

The only class that doesn't have a defined roll is a high level arcane caster, and that is because they are broken and can do anything. Seriously. If you have a fighter, your dealing melee damage. Cleric- divine leader and offensive caster. Rogue, skill monkey. Your in a role. Because you aren't a commoner. THIS IS HOW THE GAME WORKS. Customization varies you slightly, but usually makes you better at YOUR ROLE.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-09, 09:51 AM
What's so awesome about these "enlightening" and "useful" "discussions" is that they have turned into useful talking points for people to use in real life test games.

I tried to run a test game, unfortunately one player who "didn't really know anything about 4e" bleated out the same memes as I often hear repeated here and on ENWorld. So he quickly soured the whole experience, foralmost everyone. Though most of the group had fun, it destroyed my last remaining bit of hope for D&D.

Having played D&D for 20 years, I used to love it so much. 3/3.5 was good, but just too fundamentally broken. I was really looking forward to 4e. Now I see though that it will never be over. I would have to fight every session, against one or two players crying about how good things were back in 3e, when they could make a wizard or cleric who could do everything.

So now I am just done. I am sick of arguing about it. I am sick of hearing about it. D&D is now just ruined for me. And it wasn't WotC who ruined it.

So, I am going to Call of Cthulhu. (Chaosium)

Also, I am renewing my WoW account. I hope WoW/EQ/Fantasy MMOs drive D&D into the dust.

Charity
2008-04-09, 10:12 AM
Hey Mr F, might I suggest a change of personal?
Seriously though if these guys don't wanna play and are upsetting everyone else just can them for your 4e games, hell if they like it so much get them to run a 3.x game... then you could get everyone to play CoDzilla/batman/bag'o'rats fighters/Diplocheese and get your kicks by pissing on their fireworks and see how they like it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-09, 10:39 AM
Hey Mr F, might I suggest a change of personal?
Seriously though if these guys don't wanna play and are upsetting everyone else just can them for your 4e games, hell if they like it so much get them to run a 3.x game... then you could get everyone to play CoDzilla/batman/bag'o'rats fighters/Diplocheese and get your kicks by pissing on their fireworks and see how they like it.

Nah; I'm just done.

I have been wanting to get back into CoC for years. Now is my chance.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 10:54 AM
You don't get it. Clerics are broken, compared to non-casters. Period. You know this. You can not argue that what a cleric should do now is what a cleric should do in a more balanced game. And if you genuinely think that a force multiplier is less useful then any number of single character buffs (I'm aware that DnD as it stands has nothing resembling the former), you are nowhere near the minmaxer you think you are.

1) There won't be any Force multipliers in 4th either, because Force Multipliers are too good and would make any such class essential for playing, or overpowering.

2) I can argue that Clerics are the perfect example of the kinds of options that every class should have, because they are. Should they not be as good at fighting, thus leaving more room for the Fighter? Yes. Should they not be as good at debuffing, leaving more room for the Wizard? Maybe. Should they be better at group buffing since most D&D group buffs suck? Yes. Should they still have the options of melee, archery, debuffing, buffing, and healing? Yes.


"Stay Spread Apart so that we don't get AoEd".
"If you stay in this patch of ground you'll take damage every turn"

Right, and if avoiding the damage is more important to the enemies then staying together or being in that spot, then you are better off just doing the damage and not controlling anything. Any time you give the enemy a choice of whether or not to be controlled, you are being less useful then you would have just doing the damage.


Or just Delayed Fireball-like effects where, say, a cloud of smoke hangs prior to the detonation, laying out the general area.

So in other words removing standard action casting by forcing a delay on every spell. Because if you don't forcibly add a delay, then it would be stupid to accept one except in the rarest of circumstances. And if you do force a delay then you remove the casters ability to affect the battlefield on his turn like everyone else can.


Battlefield Control is far more possible within DnD's framework then you're acknowledging

I acknowledge that D&D is very good at modeling battlefield control. I also acknowledge that it is good at it precisely because it doesn't try to do it using damage. That's why D&D is better at it then most other games.


Every word that has come out of your mouth indicates that you would rather play a game where you just straight out pick the abilities. Why do you persist with DnD?

You mean besides that D&D is the only game I can possibly find anyone to play? Because that's not my only concern. And when balancing all factors, 3.5 D&D is a better game for modeling what I want then any other game I have come across.


Think conceptually for a moment. These effects are currently weak, yes. Could these concepts not be buffed mechanically, to be effective examples?

If any damage dealing effect has enough damage potential to "control" the opposition, then you are better off using actual control mechanics to keep them in the area of the damage.


And don't keep using Cleric. It doesn't help your point to hold up a class everyone knows is broken as an example of how many options you should be able to have.

You were the one that used the "Leader" role first. Anything I've said about Clerics could also be applied to Favored Souls, they would just be more specialized towards their focus.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 11:17 AM
To add to Wizard controlling:
At will, Ray of Frost: damages + slows (Save end). Gaurented 1 round of slow before they get a save.
Now slow might be best debuff for controlling, but it is pretty nice.

Some enemy wizards that are higher level:
Goblin Warcaster I think
Daze (standard; at-will) ) Psychic
Range 10; +4 vs. Will; 1d6+1 psychic damage and target is dazed (save end)

Dazing is useful (in 3rd it had HD limit so was sucky).

Hobgoblin Warcaster
Force Lance (standard; recharge 4, 5, 6) Force:
Range 5, +6 vs. Fort. 5 force damage, and target slide 3 sq.
Force Pulse (standard; recharge 6) Force:
Close Burst 5, +6 vs. Reflex. 7 force damage, and target pushed 1 sq and prone. Miss ― damage, no prone/push.

Damage + move enemy around. Moving enemy is controlling their movement thus battlefield controll.

Human Mage:
Lightning Burst (standard; encounter) Thunder:
Area burst 1 within 10, +7 versus Fort, 1d8+4 lightning damage and target dazed (save ends).

Also dazes but with save end.

Kobold Arcanist
Force Push (standard; at-will) ) Force
Range 10; +5 vs. Fortitude; 1d6+3 force damage and slide target 2 squares.
Force Cage (standard; recharge 4 5 6) Force
Range 10; +5 vs. Reflex; target is immobilized (save ends).

Thank you for all the examples of how to control (or debuff) without damage. What does that have to do with controlling with damage?

SpikeFightwicky
2008-04-09, 11:44 AM
I'll try to say something meaningful without rehashing what's already been said (keep in mind this is all IMO):


Hi all, I've been reading over information on the 4th edition of dnd and a lot of what I've been reading sounds pretty interesting. However I'm really worried about this whole "Class roles" thing they're bringing to the spot light. Every class seems to have been designed to fit one of these party roles.

- 3.5 has the same system (in theory), it just isn't mentioned. Traditionally, if someone played a cleric, he'd heal and buff and such, someone who played a rogue was situationally good in combat and has skills to improve out of combat playing, etc... (note that system balance has skewed this to the effect that a 'balanced' party can be 4 clerics or 4 mages, though 4 fighters will fail). Nowadays, someone playing a cleric can, without much trouble or optimizing, upstage melee classes in melee. 4th ed. hopes to fix this by toning down the magic classes/powering up the melee classes (or at least making them less bland than either: charge/hit/kill or charge/miss/die). That way, a cleric or wizard won't usurp all party roles just for being himself.


To me that seems terribly limiting, I understand that it doesn't mean you can't customize your character, but it still feels limiting to me, I mean I'm the kind of person who plays a Melee greatsword swinging sorcerer just because it's fun and thats how that character is. I don't feel like a class should determine your party function.

- I'm going to go out on a limb and make an assumption: 4th ed. will allow multiclassing to some extent in some way/shape/form (I haven't read anywhere that it will be dissalowed, and Saga Edition encouraged it). Assuming some kind of multiclassing exists, why couldn't you make a wizard/fighter type character that becomes a hybrid role filler? (keep in mind that in 3.5, a sword wielding sorceror doesn't fully fill in the role of melee specialist or arcane specialist due to his diluting abilities with multiple classes)


This all leads to my other worry, which is the emphasis on usefulness. It seems to me that the goal of the 'class roles' and some of the other tidbits I've read seem bent upon making sure your character is 'useful' to the party. Maybe I'm missing something but I thought that characters are supposed to be based around a background that makes them a fun/interesting character to play, regardless of how useful (or occasionally useless) the character is to the party.
What do you all think? Am I over thinking this whole thing, or am I the only one who feels this way?

Character background/fluff has nothing at all to do with the ruleset. Taking the sorceror fighter idea you had, his abilities in combat should not stop you from creating a fun background for him, unless you get a weird case of writer's block whenever your character isn't utterly useless.


Also where are my Bards :smalleek:

Good question... I've read some interviews that say that they will be released some time soon after 4th gets realeased. I hope it's very soon after!

Also, as for the wizard 'controlling with damage'... I'm sure they can do more than fling 9 different varieties of fireball... otherwise they'd be 'strikers' and not 'controllers'.

Artanis
2008-04-09, 11:58 AM
Chose_of_Vecna, you are quite obviously IGNORING the fact that they've said that multiclassing will be easier in 4e. Want to snag a couple of Rogue abilities for your Fighter? Just do so. Want to snag a couple of Wizard abilities for your Warlock? Just do so. Unlike 3e, you'll be able to do that without crippling your character.

So 4e will be better at giving you what you want than 3e. Yet...you want to stay with 3e because it will be worse at giving you what you want. Do you have any idea how utterly insane that sounds?


2) I can argue that Clerics are the perfect example of the kinds of options that every class should have, because they are. Should they not be as good at fighting, thus leaving more room for the Fighter? Yes. Should they not be as good at debuffing, leaving more room for the Wizard? Maybe. Should they be better at group buffing since most D&D group buffs suck? Yes. Should they still have the options of melee, archery, debuffing, buffing, and healing? Yes.
You are quite obviously TOTALLY IGNORING everything that's been said about 4e.

Clerics can fight, just not quite as well as Fighters. Just like you want
Wizards will be better at debuffing than Clerics. Just like you want.
Clerics will have options of melee, archery, buffing, and healing...in fact, they will be among the BEST of the latter two. Just like you want.

Debuffing is the only thing that nobody knows much about one way or another. For all we know, the Cleric may be a decent debuffer...just like you want.

So everything you say you want, 4E WILL HAVE. And yet...you say that because it has everything you say you want, it will somehow not have everything you say you want? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


Right, and if avoiding the damage is more important to the enemies then staying together or being in that spot, then you are better off just doing the damage and not controlling anything. Any time you give the enemy a choice of whether or not to be controlled, you are being less useful then you would have just doing the damage.
The Fighter in 4e uses control via damage. He hurts enemies. He hurts enemies a LOT. In fact, he hurts enemies almost as much as a dedicated "striker". And know what happens when somebody goes where he doesn't want them to go? He hurts them EVEN MORE.

As a little illustration of how they've described the 4e Fighter:

Goblin #1: Man, this guy is beating the hell out of us, and he's wearing plate. Screw this, I'm going after the Elf in a dress.
Goblin #2: Good idea.
Fighter: Seriously, you guys don't want to do that.
Goblin #1: Feh. *goes after the Wizard.*
Fighter: *insta-gibs Goblin #1*
Goblin #2: Suddenly, staying next to the guy with the plate and the greataxe doesn't seem so bad.

See? Control via damage.


So in other words removing standard action casting by forcing a delay on every spell. Because if you don't forcibly add a delay, then it would be stupid to accept one except in the rarest of circumstances. And if you do force a delay then you remove the casters ability to affect the battlefield on his turn like everyone else can.
Hardly. What part of "throwing Fireballs around forces the enemy to spread out" is so hard to understand? It's not like the Fireball has a delay or something. The simple fact that spreading out - to where the party can handle them more easily - is the best way for the enemy to deal with a target that can incinerate a given area. That's control via damage.


I acknowledge that D&D is very good at modeling battlefield control. I also acknowledge that it is good at it precisely because it doesn't try to do it using damage. That's why D&D is better at it then most other games.
See the above.


You mean besides that D&D is the only game I can possibly find anyone to play? Because that's not my only concern. And when balancing all factors, 3.5 D&D is a better game for modeling what I want then any other game I have come across.
If a game that's been based on a relatively rigid class system for THIRTY YEARS is the best way to find what a classless system would give, then maybe you don't really want to pick and choose as much as you want? Seriously, how do all the systems completely and fundamentally based on letting you pick and choose your abilities do a worse job than a game that originally had four rigid, almost mutually exclusive roles?

And if finding players is the problem, guess what? You won't have any shortage of people wanting to play 4e while it gives you exactly what you say you want.


If any damage dealing effect has enough damage potential to "control" the opposition, then you are better off using actual control mechanics to keep them in the area of the damage.
See the above about Fighters and Fireballs


You were the one that used the "Leader" role first. Anything I've said about Clerics could also be applied to Favored Souls, they would just be more specialized towards their focus.
"Leader" just means "buffer who beats the hell out of things". Want a Fighter who buffs his party? That's what a 4e Marshal IS! A 4e Marshal smacks something so hard that all his buddies become a lot better at hitting it! Want a Fighter who heals? That's what a 4e Cleric IS! A 4e Cleric heals his buddies BY SMACKING THE ENEMY.



I don't get it, Chosen of Vecna. Every single thing you've said you want in a game, 4e is giving to you.

Every.

Single.

Thing.

And yet, you refuse to accept that 4e might be a good change for you because it...gives you what you want?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 12:57 PM
Chose_of_Vecna, you are quite obviously IGNORING the fact that they've said that multiclassing will be easier in 4e. Want to snag a couple of Rogue abilities for your Fighter? Just do so. Want to snag a couple of Wizard abilities for your Warlock? Just do so. Unlike 3e, you'll be able to do that without crippling your character.

And those abilities will be crappy. Not to mention I've seen some of the "multi-classing" mechanics, and it consists of giving up your feats to get those abilities, no thanks. I'm not going to set my feats on fire just to get an ability that I should have already had.


So 4e will be better at giving you what you want than 3e. Yet...you want to stay with 3e because it will be worse at giving you what you want. Do you have any idea how utterly insane that sounds?

Just to be clear, once is enough. You posted the above sentiment at least 5 times in your post. I don't need the filler or reiteration. Clearly I disagree with you on this point, and I think that I can realistically claim that I know more about what I want then you do.


The Fighter in 4e uses control via damage. He hurts enemies. He hurts enemies a LOT. In fact, he hurts enemies almost as much as a dedicated "striker". And know what happens when somebody goes where he doesn't want them to go? He hurts them EVEN MORE.

I'm sorry, do you know the mechanics of 4e? Do you know all the fighter's abilities? Do you know if that extra damage he does because they aren't attacking him will even really matter?

Yes a mechanic called "If you don't attack me I do more damage to you" could be "control by damage." But:

1) I have never seen such a mechanic done well in a turn based game, I doubt 4e will manage.
2) That doesn't explain how Wizards will "control with damage."


Hardly. What part of "throwing Fireballs around forces the enemy to spread out" is so hard to understand? It's not like the Fireball has a delay or something. The simple fact that spreading out - to where the party can handle them more easily - is the best way for the enemy to deal with a target that can incinerate a given area. That's control via damage.

Actually, the best way to deal with someone who can incinerate an area is to close with your enemies and flank them, not spread out, and that is why Fireball doesn't cause spreading out in 3.5, it causes enemies to flank the fighter and Wizard.


If a game that's been based on a relatively rigid class system for THIRTY YEARS is the best way to find what a classless system would give, then maybe you don't really want to pick and choose as much as you want? Seriously, how do all the systems completely and fundamentally based on letting you pick and choose your abilities do a worse job than a game that originally had four rigid, almost mutually exclusive roles?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that picking your abilities isn't the totality of the game, there is also the part where using the abilities to do something is important and what exactly those abilities are is also important. D&D has long excelled at the former, though in my mind they have gotten much better in 3.5, and in 3.5 has made great strives in the latter. 4th might be just as good at allowing you to use your abilities, it might also be worse. I won't know until I see the action mechanics. But from all the examples I have seen, 4th is significantly worse then 3.5 in terms of what it allows you to do.


"Leader" just means "buffer who beats the hell out of things". Want a Fighter who buffs his party? That's what a 4e Marshal IS! A 4e Marshal smacks something so hard that all his buddies become a lot better at hitting it! Want a Fighter who heals? That's what a 4e Cleric IS! A 4e Cleric heals his buddies BY SMACKING THE ENEMY.

And this is precisely my point. In 4E the only action allowed, much less encouraged seems to be hitting things with damage. That's all every character is capable of. Other things are secondary. I don't like that. I play Clerics to buff and debuff, and I play Wizards to Battlefield control and debuff. I don't play anyone to just beat on things. Sometimes, I even play Spiked Chain Fighters with Stand Still and 40-60ft Reaches so that I can Battlefield Control. But I don't ever want to feel like punching something in the face is my only option.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-09, 02:45 PM
Chose_of_Vecna, you are quite obviously IGNORING the fact that they've said that multiclassing will be easier in 4e. Want to snag a couple of Rogue abilities for your Fighter? Just do so.
Interestingly, WOTC claimed the exact same thing about 3E, and we all know how that turned out.



Clerics can fight, just not quite as well as Fighters.
Interestingly, WOTC claimed the exact same thing about 3E, and we all know how that turned out.



So everything you say you want, 4E WILL HAVE.
Interestingly, WOTC claimed the exact same thing yadda yadda yadda. According to marketing, yes, the new game will cure cancer, remove world pollution, and put an end to global war. Perhaps you should wait with such bold claims until the game is actually released :smallbiggrin:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-09, 02:59 PM
Chosen, I remember Lussmanj's experiences with 4th ed., and unless he was grossly lying, it DOES work as Artanis described. For example, if you move out of the range of the fighter, one of the abilities is to follow after you AND smack you hard. Is that not true control through damage?

On the subject of multiclassing. Well, you either have a choice of that somewhat ineffective (But not as much as you think because you get a hyperbaton of feats, no matter who you are) way of multiclassing...or the 3.5 way in which you can get to be a suckaton, today!

On the subject of the fireball idea: Word Of God says the Fireball will be more effective the closer you are to the center. Thus, spreading out IS a good idea.

Finally, you should know, WIZARDS shall not control through damage, that's FIGHTERS. They will control with what is known in gamer speak as "Status effects".

Artanis
2008-04-09, 03:36 PM
And those abilities will be crappy.
Prove it.


Not to mention I've seen some of the "multi-classing" mechanics, and it consists of giving up your feats to get those abilities, no thanks. I'm not going to set my feats on fire just to get an ability that I should have already had.
If you're so knowledgeable about 4e, you'd know that you get a hell of a lot more feats than in 3e.


Just to be clear, once is enough. You posted the above sentiment at least 5 times in your post. I don't need the filler or reiteration. Clearly I disagree with you on this point, and I think that I can realistically claim that I know more about what I want then you do.
Once is obviously not enough, because you obviously still haven't gotten it :smallwink:

As to claiming what you know? That's a strawman, I never talked about what you want. I talked about what you SAID you want. And everything you said you want is done better in 4e than in 3e.

God knows I phrase things poorly all too often, so if that's just the case here, I honestly wouldn't mind - in fact, I'd appreciate - you clearing up any misconceptions.


I'm sorry, do you know the mechanics of 4e? Do you know all the fighter's abilities? Do you know if that extra damage he does because they aren't attacking him will even really matter?
I know a few of the abilities, namely those shown at DnDXP. I also know that the Fighter abilities shown at DnDXP sure as hell mattered. So we know for a fact that, at least at one point, said abilities DO matter.


Yes a mechanic called "If you don't attack me I do more damage to you" could be "control by damage." But:

1) I have never seen such a mechanic done well in a turn based game, I doubt 4e will manage.
2) That doesn't explain how Wizards will "control with damage."
1) By all accounts, it worked pretty damned well for the Fighter at DnDXP
2) Fireball. You stand together, you all get fried. You stand apart, only one of you gets fried.


Actually, the best way to deal with someone who can incinerate an area is to close with your enemies and flank them, not spread out, and that is why Fireball doesn't cause spreading out in 3.5, it causes enemies to flank the fighter and Wizard.
And what do you do while you're charging in close? Charge in with an AoE-bait Phalanx or something?


Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that picking your abilities isn't the totality of the game, there is also the part where using the abilities to do something is important and what exactly those abilities are is also important. D&D has long excelled at the former, though in my mind they have gotten much better in 3.5, and in 3.5 has made great strives in the latter. 4th might be just as good at allowing you to use your abilities, it might also be worse. I won't know until I see the action mechanics. But from all the examples I have seen, 4th is significantly worse then 3.5 in terms of what it allows you to do.
This is the first time you've admitted that there might maybe possibly somehow be even a slight chance of 4e being better than utter ****. Until now, all you've done is spout 4E R TEH SUX!


And this is precisely my point. In 4E the only action allowed, much less encouraged seems to be hitting things with damage. That's all every character is capable of. Other things are secondary. I don't like that. I play Clerics to buff and debuff, and I play Wizards to Battlefield control and debuff. I don't play anyone to just beat on things. Sometimes, I even play Spiked Chain Fighters with Stand Still and 40-60ft Reaches so that I can Battlefield Control. But I don't ever want to feel like punching something in the face is my only option.
You want battlefield control without damage? You want not-hurting-things stuff?

Let's take the DnDXP Warlock. Merely 1st level, and a Striker. That means it's as purebred a "hurting things" class as they get, and it would have the least possible options (due to not having gotten any from leveling up more, of course). The Warlock has:

Group Diplomacy: Your buddies get +1 on Diplo checks
Shadow Walk: Move 3 squares, gain concealment
Curse of the Dark Dream: Move an enemy a square on a MISS. (A hit moves 'em more while dealing damage, but it's still technically battlefield control without hurting anything).

So out of 10 power/spells/whatever and abilities, three can have useful effects without inflicting a single point of damage. That's 30% of the Warlock's arsenal that do non-damage buffing/control/whatever. 30% of a STRIKER's arsenal. In 3e terms, that's like being able to use a Warmage as a mini-Batman.


The Cleric has an even higher ratio. Of its nine abilities, three cause absolutely no damage whatsoever: Cause Fear, Channel Divinity: Divine Fortune, and Healing Word. Cause Fear is non-damage Control, sending an enemy fleeing from you faster than it can normally run; Channel Divinity: Divine Fortune is a self-buff, giving you +1 on your next attack or save (and remember, +1 attack is pretty big, especially at 1st level, and with the new way the word "Save" works, +1 is HUGE at ANY level). Healing Word is...well...a heal.

So that's 33% of a Cleric's in-combat abilities being things that do not deal damage. One ability adds 1d10 to one of your hits (which, remember, is BIG at 1st level). Literally every single other in-combat power both deals damage AND either buffs your buddies or debuffs the enemy. So you've got 3 pure buff/debuff, 5 damage-with-buff/debuff, and 1 pure damage.

Sounds pretty versatile to me.




Edit: A couple typos and whatnot

Roderick_BR
2008-04-09, 05:20 PM
But the thing is, in 3.5, you can make a Sorcerer that is very good in melee. You can also make an assortment of Gishes that are far better at fighting then fighters. It's easy, it works, it's fun. You can also make a Fighter designed around shocktrooping, or gambiting, or spiked chain tripping or Bullrushing. These are all valid strategies.

There's a lot of room to play around with things in 3.5. There doesn't seem to be in 4th. Part of that is because it's going to be limited and without all the splat books, but part of that is that the system seems designed to shoehorn you into a certain role. You are a Leader, no you can't control. (You are a Controller, no you can't control, but that's a different issue altogether. Every time I hear "control with damage" I want to control the WotC design team in the face.)
Funny, the impression I had is that it's the complete opposite. If you get a class whose main role is controller (assuming wizard, for example) it means that you can be a damn good controller. If you try to be a damage dealer, you can be a reasonable damage dealer, except that Warlocks and Rogues will be better at that, since it's their main role. Fighters and Paladins can defend better than everyone else, and can try to be controllers, but won't be as good as wizards, since that's the wizard's main role. A Rogue, being a striker, can deal a good deal of damage. If he wishes so, there may have abilities to allow him to defend well, but he can't defend better than a fighter.
While in 3.0-3.5, if you are not a fullcaster, you are nothing. 4e wants to give good options to ALL classes, and allows you to specialize in a given area, while allowing you to dip into others options, so we don't have sorcerers that fight better than fighters, since it's simply ridiculous that a class completely designed to a specific area doesn't do so well on it.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 06:07 PM
Funny, the impression I had is that it's the complete opposite. If you get a class whose main role is controller (assuming wizard, for example) it means that you can be a damn good controller. If you try to be a damage dealer, you can be a reasonable damage dealer, except that Warlocks and Rogues will be better at that, since it's their main role. Fighters and Paladins can defend better than everyone else, and can try to be controllers, but won't be as good as wizards, since that's the wizard's main role. A Rogue, being a striker, can deal a good deal of damage. If he wishes so, there may have abilities to allow him to defend well, but he can't defend better than a fighter.

That's exactly what I said. Every class can be good at only one thing. Fighters can only "Defend" (whatever the hell that actually ends up meaning) and can't control. Clerics can only "Lead" not control. Every class does only one thing well no matter what you focus it towards, whereas in 3.5 you could focus a class towards many different directions, and whichever direction you focus you would be good at.

This is epitomized by Control based fighters and tanking/damage based Clerics, both of which show classes performing very well in roles different from the default for the class.


While in 3.0-3.5, if you are not a fullcaster, you are nothing. 4e wants to give good options to ALL classes, and allows you to specialize in a given area, while allowing you to dip into others options, so we don't have sorcerers that fight better than fighters, since it's simply ridiculous that a class completely designed to a specific area doesn't do so well on it.

Actually, it makes perfect sense that a Sorcerer who picks all his feats and spells around being a melee monster is going to be either as good or better then a fighter (depending on your interpretation of magic>mundane or game balance>reality). If you gear your character towards a certain concept, it should be good at it.

But this is commonly lost because many people, you included have made some strange assumption that a magic user cannot gear themselves toward melee except when the game is "broken."

Thinker
2008-04-09, 06:12 PM
That's exactly what I said. Every class can be good at only one thing. Fighters can only "Defend" (whatever the hell that actually ends up meaning) and can't control. Clerics can only "Lead" not control. Every class does only one thing well no matter what you focus it towards, whereas in 3.5 you could focus a class towards many different directions, and whichever direction you focus you would be good at.

This is epitomized by Control based fighters and tanking/damage based Clerics, both of which show classes performing very well in roles different from the default for the class.
So why not just play a class that's designed from the ground up to do something? If every class can do everything well, why have more than one?

Rutee
2008-04-09, 06:23 PM
That's exactly what I said. Every class can be good at only one thing. Fighters can only "Defend" (whatever the hell that actually ends up meaning) and can't control. Clerics can only "Lead" not control. Every class does only one thing well no matter what you focus it towards, whereas in 3.5 you could focus a class towards many different directions, and whichever direction you focus you would be good at.

This is epitomized by Control based fighters and tanking/damage based Clerics, both of which show classes performing very well in roles different from the default for the class.
That isn't what you said at all. He said "You can be superlative at your class' main role, or you can be pretty darn good at someone else's" There's something of a gulf between "Not superlative' and "Incapable".




Actually, it makes perfect sense that a Sorcerer who picks all his feats and spells around being a melee monster is going to be either as good or better then a fighter (depending on your interpretation of magic>mundane or game balance>reality). If you gear your character towards a certain concept, it should be good at it.

But this is commonly lost because many people, you included have made some strange assumption that a magic user cannot gear themselves toward melee except when the game is "broken."
An optimized sorceror should never be better then an equally optimized fighter in melee. Except they will be.

veilrap
2008-04-09, 06:53 PM
An optimized sorceror should never be better then an equally optimized fighter in melee. Except they will be.

I disagree on this point, it should all depend on the individual characters. If Sir Fighter is optimized at fighting off hordes of monsters in melee, while Mr. Sorc is optimized for picking of unsuspecting fighters in melee, the sorc SHOULD win in a balanced system.

If both characters are optimized for 1 on 1 melee fighting I think the fight should be a pretty close battle and in a "perfectly" balanced system I'd expect the battle to end in a draw.

Note these two examples aren't meant to be specific to 3.5e or 4e specifically, rather a theoretically "perfectly balanced" system.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-09, 06:55 PM
But a Sorc's a guy who chooses to focus on developing the powers inherent to his blood, NOT fighting. Expecting that he should fight better than a fighter under ANY situation is stupid. The whole shtick of the fighter is that he trains to be excellent at wielding pointy metal sticks, and if a schmuck can just pick up a pointy metal stick and do it better with spells, it destroys the point of playing a fighter.

veilrap
2008-04-09, 06:59 PM
But a Sorc's a guy who chooses to focus on developing the powers inherent to his blood, NOT fighting. Expecting that he should fight better than a fighter under ANY situation is stupid. The whole shtick of the fighter is that he trains to be excellent at wielding pointy metal sticks, and if a schmuck can just pick up a pointy metal stick and do it better with spells, it destroys the point of playing a fighter.

But a fighter is a very generic term, as I see it the fighter should have as many choices in customization as a sorc. As such if the fighter specs himself so that he is a master of a specific kind of combat: as I said facing hordes of monsters in this case, A sorc who has dedicated his life to fighting 1 on 1 in melee, should be able to use his fighting ability and importantly his magical augmentations to his own fighting ability to win.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-09, 07:13 PM
You're mistaking it, then. A Sorc is not a guy who devotes a SECOND of time to combat. That'd be an Arcane Whatever. A Sorc is the guy who forsakes everything else in the pursuit of the powers inherent to his blood. That a SORC can be better than a fighter at ANY style, even a style a fighter is not specialized in, is wrong. That an arcane Whatever can do it is okay. They train with swords and other implements o' killing too.

Rutee
2008-04-09, 07:20 PM
I disagree on this point, it should all depend on the individual characters. If Sir Fighter is optimized at fighting off hordes of monsters in melee, while Mr. Sorc is optimized for picking of unsuspecting fighters in melee, the sorc SHOULD win in a balanced system.

If both characters are optimized for 1 on 1 melee fighting I think the fight should be a pretty close battle and in a "perfectly" balanced system I'd expect the battle to end in a draw.

Note these two examples aren't meant to be specific to 3.5e or 4e specifically, rather a theoretically "perfectly balanced" system.
In a perfectly balanced system, the Sorcerer would be legitimately worse in just about any melee situation, unless he must give up all versatility in the Sorcerer Class. If choosing to be a Melee Monster completely kills off all other functions, he should be about equal with the meleer. If he retains his wide versatility, he should be worse, and that level of worseness should in theory be directly in proportion to the versatility he retains. Because he has options a Fighter can not legitimately take.

tl;dr, if the Sorc is more versatile then the fighter when doing the fighter's job, he should be worse at the Fighter's job.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 08:56 PM
You're mistaking it, then. A Sorc is not a guy who devotes a SECOND of time to combat. That'd be an Arcane Whatever. A Sorc is the guy who forsakes everything else in the pursuit of the powers inherent to his blood.

No you are mistaking it. A sorcerer is someone who devotes himself to harnessing the power of his blood for whatever he wants to do. If he wants to make every single spell known and every single feat choice and every single spell per day, and dedicate all of that towards combat, then he should be as good as someone who dedicates themselves towards combat in a different way.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 08:58 PM
In a perfectly balanced system, the Sorcerer would be legitimately worse in just about any melee situation, unless he must give up all versatility in the Sorcerer Class. If choosing to be a Melee Monster completely kills off all other functions, he should be about equal with the meleer. If he retains his wide versatility, he should be worse, and that level of worseness should in theory be directly in proportion to the versatility he retains. Because he has options a Fighter can not legitimately take.

tl;dr, if the Sorc is more versatile then the fighter when doing the fighter's job, he should be worse at the Fighter's job.

Dedicate all of himself on what basis? A daily basis? A per level basis? If all of his spells known are a set of combat buffs, then next level he could pick new spells, but for right now, he's 100% dedicated to fighting.

If all of his spell slots for the day go for the same purpose, then the same statement could be applied.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 09:03 PM
That isn't what you said at all. He said "You can be superlative at your class' main role, or you can be pretty darn good at someone else's" There's something of a gulf between "Not superlative' and "Incapable".

I think there is a fundamental gap in how we (he and I) consider "reasonable" to work. A reasonable power level at the thing you have dedicated your character to isn't good enough when everyone else is damn good at it.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 09:07 PM
So why not just play a class that's designed from the ground up to do something? If every class can do everything well, why have more than one?

Because they do it in different ways. Also because in 3.5 classes can be very good at one thing, and decent at another, and by combining the different combinations of those you get very different characters. Where as if a class is only good at one thing, and meh at everything else, it greatly limits options.

Note that I never claimed everything was equally good at everything, only that every class was good at multiple options.

The best controllers are Wizards or Druids, then Fighters. But a Wizard Controller/debuffer is very different from a Druid Controller/buffer or a fighter Controller/damage dealer.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 09:12 PM
If you're so knowledgeable about 4e, you'd know that you get a hell of a lot more feats than in 3e.

I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about 4E, only presented a single opinion based on my limited knowledge of one specific mechanic. You on the other hand have claimed a great deal of knowledge about it.


As to claiming what you know? That's a strawman, I never talked about what you want. I talked about what you SAID you want. And everything you said you want is done better in 4e than in 3e.

Well then take this into account next time you find yourself needing to belabor a point, when I say that I need water to live, I am not claiming that water is the only thing I require. So if I say that one specific thing is something I want from my game, the fact that some game may meat that one criteria, does not mean it is some perfect system which I am an imbecile for not loving. Doubly so for a game that we know little about the mechanics of.


I know a few of the abilities, namely those shown at DnDXP. I also know that the Fighter abilities shown at DnDXP sure as hell mattered. So we know for a fact that, at least at one point, said abilities DO matter.

Maybe they appeared to matter, but can you be sure they will when measured holistically against the entire system? Keep in mind, that it was a specific set up designed to show specific things in the light that WotC was thinking of them. The last time WotC thought things would work a certain way, they thought Fireball was going to be the be all end all of Wizards.


1) By all accounts, it worked pretty damned well for the Fighter at DnDXP

Why, what does it actually do? What if that extra damage the Fighter does is less then the Wizard's total damage for the round and the enemy could kill the Wizard? Any time you give the enemies a choice, you aren't controlling them, you are incentivizing them. Any time you give them a choice, they will choose whatever is worse for you.


2) Fireball. You stand together, you all get fried. You stand apart, only one of you gets fried.

No. Fireball, you stand 5ft apart with the Wizard or one of his teammates in between you. And then the Wizard doesn't fireball.


And what do you do while you're charging in close? Charge in with an AoE-bait Phalanx or something?

You:
1) Use Stealth of any of a hundred forms
2) Attack from a forest instead of charging a hundred miles across an open plain or use any of the other terrain features that are far more common then infinite sight
3) Don't start a fight from 400ft away, but instead get closer, have a talk and then decide to fight
4) Live inside any kind of building at all
5) Round a corner in the Dungeon because this is Dungeons and Dragons
6) Star 40ft apart when you charge across that open plain, and as soon as you get close to any of your enemies, close on them.

Notice how under no circumstances where you keep the enemy "spread out" is it actually beneficial for you, because you can't focus your abilities on one any better when they are "spread out" far away, then when they are close together far away, and once they get close, fireball doesn't actually keep them apart, just close to you.


This is the first time you've admitted that there might maybe possibly somehow be even a slight chance of 4e being better than utter ****. Until now, all you've done is spout 4E R TEH SUX!

Actually, I have never once claimed that 4E sucks, or that that it is utter anything. I have only commented on specific mechanics that I have heard about, and extrapolations based off of the comments of the design team. Unlike you, I have no 4th edition axe to grind. I am in fact sad that my group will choose to never play it. Which is why I will play it here on the forums instead (or using their software, but finding the game through these forums).

That doesn't stop me from having opinions about what I have heard and seen so far.


You want battlefield control without damage? You want not-hurting-things stuff?

Let's take the DnDXP Warlock. Merely 1st level, and a Striker. That means it's as purebred a "hurting things" class as they get, and it would have the least possible options (due to not having gotten any from leveling up more, of course). The Warlock has:...
*List of things*

That's all very nice, but since I never claimed that 4th Edition would be without controlling, only that controlling through damage isn't really controlling, and that (to make a specific example of my earlier generalization) I'd take Color Spray over all those abilities (though Cause Fear is right up there with, well, Cause Fear in my book.)

Roland St. Jude
2008-04-09, 10:03 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't quintuple post. :smallsigh:

Rutee
2008-04-09, 10:07 PM
Dedicate all of himself on what basis? A daily basis? A per level basis? If all of his spells known are a set of combat buffs, then next level he could pick new spells, but for right now, he's 100% dedicated to fighting.

If all of his spell slots for the day go for the same purpose, then the same statement could be applied.

He has retoolability the Fighter does not, unfortunately. How that ability to retool yourself manifests factors into balance depends on how that ability to retool yourself works. Sorcerers, barring consumables for a moment (That's a different thing) possess very limited ability to respec. On level up, it can change one spell, and add spells as appropriate. A Fighter can only add feats as appropriate. However, given the relative infrequency of the Sorcerer's ability to respec (Once a level), this shouldn't be a major factor. If you put a gun to my head, 2% capability, tops, preferably none (Though I'd prefer the Fighter get the same level of retoolability, since it's not frequent in the first place)

The preparing casters face significantly higher levels of retoolability. In theory, this is made up for by having fewer Spells per Day, I think we all know how that turned out in practice. I have no idea how much effectiveness should be lost for /exercising/ this versatility, but it should be noteworthy, given how much it kicks in.

Wands and Scrolls and the like make everything significantly fuzzier, since technically speaking, you almost never lose a particular capability if you pay X Gold for it, and your buying a wand or situational scroll is probably a pretty good use of cash, too. And unless that gold is a legitimately worse use, compared to permanent gear, well...


I think there is a fundamental gap in how we (he and I) consider "reasonable" to work. A reasonable power level at the thing you have dedicated your character to isn't good enough when everyone else is damn good at it.
Is 95% Effectiveness in your specialization reasonable if you can still perform at 75% in someone else's /simultaneously/? Is 90? 85? You can not reasonably claim that I should have 100% effectiveness in my job if I can also do a pretty darn good job at /your/ job, simultaneously, unless you too can do a pretty darn good job at my or someone else's.

Starsinger
2008-04-09, 10:19 PM
You can not reasonably claim that I should have 100% effectiveness in my job if I can also do a pretty darn good job at /your/ job, simultaneously, unless you too can do a pretty darn good job at my or someone else's.

There's a word for that.. being able to do someone else's job at the same time as your own and doing ~90% with both of them.. oh what was that word? Oh yeah, that's Gestalt. Now in Gestalt it's acceptable, but it's not acceptable when it's a single base class, which is the problem with 3.5.

Sure, there are classes with tons of options to cover tons of roles. And then there are shoe-horned classes. Warmage will never not be a striker. Beguiler will never not be a controller. The Cleric can be a Leader, and a Striker, and a Controller at the same time. The Wizard can be a Leader (with buffs like haste, mass wombat's strength, etc.) a Controller, a Striker at the same time. Only the knight in 3.5 can effectively be a Defender (Oh yeah.. and that ToB stance which allows it).

So if 4e shoehorns people into only being able to do their well 100% and maybe getting 50% efficiency if they choose to off spec, well then, atleast everyone is on equal footing.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 10:42 PM
Is 95% Effectiveness in your specialization reasonable if you can still perform at 75% in someone else's /simultaneously/? Is 90? 85? You can not reasonably claim that I should have 100% effectiveness in my job if I can also do a pretty darn good job at /your/ job, simultaneously, unless you too can do a pretty darn good job at my or someone else's.

This isn't about the Sorcerer and the Fighter. This is about 4E. In 4E from what I have gathered, a character can either:

1) Fill a role that it's class was designed for: 100%, everything else 50%
2) Attempt to fill a role that the class wasn't designed for: 75%, everything else 50%

Even a 3.5 Fighter is more versatile then that in terms of potential, because it could be a 80-90% Controller if you dedicated you character towards it.

To say nothing of the fact that you could be a 85% Controller, 75% damage dealer. The ability to only perform one single role well, and only the one your class was designed for puts me off. Why can't each class be designed for a combination.

Why can't there be a Controller/Debuffer, called the Wizard and a Buffer/Debuffer called the Cleric, and a Controller/Damage Dealer called the X.

But instead 4E, because it wanted direct damage to be important again, made everyone's secondary ability damage, so you have:

Controller/Damage Dealer-Controller classes
Buffer/Damage Dealer-Leader classes
Tank/Damage Dealer/"Controller"-Defenders
Damage Dealer/ (Debuffs?)-Striker classes

So other then debuffs, which no one apparently knows for sure (but are probably going to be the Wizards method of controlling in place of things like Solid Fog and Black Tentacles) there are four combinations, when you could have easily another 3 class "roles" from just that list.

You may say that these will be added in splatbooks, and you may be right, but:
1) I can only comment on what they are presenting so far, and that doesn't include anyone who has a secondary role other then damage.
2) Those classes are either going to have the same problem that 3.5 has, except it actually will be splat vs core like some people think. Either the new classes that get to focus on two areas besides damage are going to be significantly better then the old classes (3.5 Wizards) or because WotC is afraid of that, they will be significantly weaker.

Either way, the fact that everything has to focus on damage, and that the entire game will be balanced around the concept that you will be able to do one non-damaging thing well is a put off.

Rutee
2008-04-09, 10:53 PM
This isn't about the Sorcerer and the Fighter. This is about 4E. In 4E from what I have gathered, a character can either:

1) Fill a role that it's class was designed for: 100%, everything else 50%
2) Attempt to fill a role that the class wasn't designed for: 75%, everything else 50%

I have no idea where you gathered the idea that you'll be that badly off if you specialize outside type. All we know is that you can specialize outside type to a certain level of proficiency beneath the main class. If you could get 90% efficiency outside type in 4e, just as you can in 3e, is that still fine?

Another question, and I touched on this earlier. If you retain identical flavor with two easily accessible classes (Fighters and Warlords, for instance) do you need to have both classes capable of attaining all relevant roles?

Deepblue706
2008-04-09, 10:55 PM
Howabout let's all stop this silly argument and agree that classes are just a bad idea, in general. We should all play a classless system like GURPS. :smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2008-04-09, 10:57 PM
This isn't about the Sorcerer and the Fighter. This is about 4E. In 4E from what I have gathered, a character can either:

1) Fill a role that it's class was designed for: 100%, everything else 50%
2) Attempt to fill a role that the class wasn't designed for: 75%, everything else 50%
You gather wrong. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

A character can fill a role it's designed for at max effectiveness.
A character can fill somebody else's role at high (say...85%ish?), but not full, effectiveness.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 11:22 PM
I have no idea where you gathered the idea that you'll be that badly off if you specialize outside type. All we know is that you can specialize outside type to a certain level of proficiency beneath the main class. If you could get 90% efficiency outside type in 4e, just as you can in 3e, is that still fine?

You would still be incapable of combining two roles in a synergistic fashion as you can in 3.5.


Another question, and I touched on this earlier. If you retain identical flavor with two easily accessible classes (Fighters and Warlords, for instance) do you need to have both classes capable of attaining all relevant roles?

I don't think I understand the question. Instead of posting a possibly long and involved answer to a question you didn't ask, I'm going to ask you to repeat the question in another form.


You gather wrong. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

A character can fill a role it's designed for at max effectiveness.
A character can fill somebody else's role at high (say...85%ish?), but not full, effectiveness.

So then replace the 75% with 85% in my last post. Even though we have no good idea of the exact numbers. My point still stands.

Artanis
2008-04-09, 11:33 PM
So then replace the 75% with 85% in my last post. Even though we have no good idea of the exact numbers. My point still stands.
How the hell does it still stand? Your point was that a character could do what his class wasn't "supposed" to (such as a Fighter acting as a Controller) in 3e but not 4e. I've pointed out over and over and over that a character can not only do what his class wasn't "supposed" to in 4e, but he can go outside his "role" more easily and more effectively than he would in 3e.



Screw this, I'm done talking to a brick wall. /ignore

Rutee
2008-04-09, 11:40 PM
You would still be incapable of combining two roles in a synergistic fashion as you can in 3.5.
You mean the myth that because Casters can do everything, everyone can? That doesn't exist in 3.5 for nearly enough classes to be an accurate statement of 3.5's treatment of class roles.




I don't think I understand the question. Instead of posting a possibly long and involved answer to a question you didn't ask, I'm going to ask you to repeat the question in another form.
You know how the Warblade is the exact same as a fighter? One argument I've heard, which only has one problem in its legitimacy, is why should I bother with all the work in making an effective Fighter.. if I can just roll a Warblade?

The Warblade's problem is primarily inaccessibility (since it's in one book, albeit not an obscure one). What if that problem of inaccessibility were removed? Why job a fighter into effectiveness if I can get my flavor package with the Warblade?



So then replace the 75% with 85% in my last post. Even though we have no good idea of the exact numbers. My point still stands.

How does your point still stand? You openly stated that the "80-90%" of a Fighter-Controller was acceptable. If 80-90% is acceptable, how is 85% unacceptable?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-09, 11:41 PM
How the hell does it still stand? Your point was that a character could do what his class wasn't "supposed" to (such as a Fighter acting as a Controller) in 3e but not 4e. I've pointed out over and over and over that a character can not only do what his class wasn't "supposed" to in 4e, but he can go outside his "role" more easily and more effectively than he would in 3e.

My points would be that:

1) A fighter/ect. can focus on a different role and do it better then a Fighter trying to focus on an unsupported role in 4E. Just because you state otherwise doesn't make it true. From everything that has been presented, and from the constant talk of roles it seems to be that going outside of your role is not going to be as easy.

2) Even if a character could do another role, it wouldn't change the fact that in 3.5 one can be very good at one thing, and fairly good at another. Whereas in 4E, one can only be good at one "role" no matter what, because classes are designed to fit roles, instead of roles coming to exist around classes.


You mean the myth that because Casters can do everything, everyone can? That doesn't exist in 3.5 for nearly enough classes to be an accurate statement of 3.5's treatment of class roles.

Just because Casters can do it better doesn't mean nobody else can do it. If you took away caster superiority most classes (all the ones I would consider playing) can still do exactly what I described.

A short list of classes that can combine roles:
1) Rogue
2) Factotum
3) Psychic Warrior
4) Psion
5) Sorcerer
6) Wizard
7) Cleric
8) Favored Soul
9) Druid
10) Ranger
11) Fighter
12) Warlock
13) A bunch of others I can't think of right now

Add in the fact that most classes are casters, and 3.5 becomes even more versatile.


You know how the Warblade is the exact same as a fighter? One argument I've heard, which only has one problem in its legitimacy, is why should I bother with all the work in making an effective Fighter.. if I can just roll a Warblade?

The Warblade's problem is primarily inaccessibility (since it's in one book, albeit not an obscure one). What if that problem of inaccessibility were removed? Why job a fighter into effectiveness if I can get my flavor package with the Warblade?

I can't really comment on that argument, because I don't see the Fighter and Warblade as the same thing. They are both the same in fluff, but in crunch they are very different, and can do very different things. Warblades can do things Fighters can't, but Fighters can also do things Warblades can't.


How does your point still stand? You openly stated that the "80-90%" of a Fighter-Controller was acceptable. If 80-90% is acceptable, how is 85% unacceptable?

Because part of my point is that a classes in 3.5 can do one role at 80-90% and another at 75-80% at the same time if built for that, whereas in 4E, it seems designed to allow you to fill one role well, and such at every other role.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 12:38 AM
A short list of classes that can combine roles:
1) Rogue
2) Factotum
3) Psychic Warrior
4) Psion
5) Sorcerer
6) Wizard
7) Cleric
8) Favored Soul
9) Druid
10) Ranger
11) Fighter
12) Warlock
13) A bunch of others I can't think of right now
1: Mage mimic via consumables
2: Mage
3: What? No, they use self-buffs to enhance them in their own role.
4: Mage
5: Mage
6: Mage
7: Mage
8: Mage
9: Mage
10: When? How?
11: With book diving and vast jobbing, maybe. Edit: Wait, what am I saying? Even if you could get all the feats you're too limitted by WBL to serve as two roles, even if you do get the feats.
12: Mage




I can't really comment on that argument, because I don't see the Fighter and Warblade as the same thing. They are both the same in fluff, but in crunch they are very different, and can do very different things. Warblades can do things Fighters can't, but Fighters can also do things Warblades can't.
Well, the crunch isn't important except in how it fills out the fluff, really.



Because part of my point is that a classes in 3.5 can do one role at 80-90% and another at 75-80% at the same time if built for that, whereas in 4E, it seems designed to allow you to fill one role well, and such at every other role.

What? Who said they wouldn't still have capability at their old role. I just thought all you cared about was their effectiveness at the new one. No, everything we've seen indicates that you still have some effectiveness in the old role.

Orzel
2008-04-10, 01:38 AM
I'm confused.

I thought all 4E classes would have powers in each of the 4 roles but the each class would have far more powers in their preferred role. If a class wanted to dive into a role it wasn't completely designed for (such as a fighter becoming a striker), he could just take the fighter's striker powers instead of the defender powers. He just won't have as many powers to chose from as a striker class like rogues or rangers.

Sludge-o-matic
2008-04-10, 01:52 AM
first of all:

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e


so, as said there, probably rogues will be more than a mere sniper rifle and should succeed against constructs and stuff like that. sneak attack will be "easier" but there are not much significant changes.

Bards get sacked, gnomes too. Pretty bad, those guys gave FLAVOR to the game. I donīt like the idea of tieflings as core stars. too horny and shocking to me.

Iīm pretty against Optimi-Fu , but powergamers should be happy with this new edition. They tried specially to make the fighter cooler, but my instinct (uses wis as mod) says "mmm...still they donīt cut it" . I simply believe that they canīt level with wizards yet. Because wizards are still a powerhouse to me. Sure, theyīve lost a lot of save or suck (probably a reason for bards to pack their stuff) spells, but they still got "the classics" . As previously said, Sleep for low levels is a nice win button.

Warlord seem like a nice variant to bard. However, "William Wallace" characters like that seem less inspiring for non combat situations. People played bards because of risk and flavor factor (I donīt recall who said : "no lvl 18 wizard is gonna tell you how he conquered a small town solo, but a bard or rogue will be very proud telling you that they finished a terrible monster with a borrowed weapon while bleeding themselves to death ) , and the control of social situations. Being a "warlord" makes you like a big bully instead of a charming minstrel.

Warlocks are in core. Wow. this one is very surprising to me. I cannot imagine them in a "striker " role. Not yet.

Too bad that druids couldnīt make it into PH. Fun class. Could be nice leaders or controllers.

Glad that psionics didnīt cut it. Too much confusing to me. (and no class role for you, guys)

And Iīm really , really concerned about RANGER. I fail to see the point why theyīve made it to 4.0 without any significant improvement. I mean, theyīll probably suck more than ever. Hardly will succeed with a specific role if they simply cannot do it well.

offtopic:

Paladin being able to pick alignment? damn. That totally ruins the flavor of the class. I mean, what can I do for fun? My non existant bard wonīt be able to prestidigate "poo" into my fellow paladin any longer without getting his ass kicked.

and finally. I hope changes to grapple and AOO will be for good. Iīd love to see more grappling action (in moderate to high levels grappling is rarely seen. Specially if grappled wizard has still spell and silent spell). But I fail to see if any "class role" will excel in being a good grappler.

I still donīt get some things, like : same progression to everybody (the starting bonus to some classes depending on their "usefulness" seems not good enough) , less skill points.

and specially : thank you, wizards of the coast, no more metamagic feats.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 02:07 AM
First off, almost none of your complaints is on topic..

Second..
"
Warlord seem like a nice variant to bard. However, "William Wallace" characters like that seem less inspiring for non combat situations. People played bards because of risk and flavor factor (I donīt recall who said : "no lvl 18 wizard is gonna tell you how he conquered a small town solo, but a bard or rogue will be very proud telling you that they finished a terrible monster with a borrowed weapon while bleeding themselves to death ) , and the control of social situations. Being a "warlord" makes you like a big bully instead of a charming minstrel."
Orly? You MIGHT want to tell that to the Warlord I have in mind, who is every bit the charming, inspiring leader. Remarkably, perhaps, multiple concept archetypes can fit into the same class, sometimes!

Sludge-o-matic
2008-04-10, 02:51 AM
Point taken. Yes, some of my "complaints" might be off topic. I havenīt read the trhead in careful way, iīll admit (If a mod erases the post I wouldnīt oppose) . However, some of them are really about class roles. I mean, I canīt imagine a ranger being good as a striker without a serious improvement. As a matter of fact, I think that strikers would be the most "fun" role to play, but they īll end up being crappy and underpowered . I hope not.

About the warlord. Iīll guess that I havenīt expressed properly . What I tried to point out actually is that "bard" sounds nicer than "warlord". Merely "name" flavor. Nothing about capabilities . However , the class itself (Warlord) seems like CoDzilla to me. The "Leaders" may be the ones who carry the party. however, the whole discussion depends on the way multiclassing is gonna work.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 05:28 AM
1: Mage mimic via consumables
2: Mage
3: What? No, they use self-buffs to enhance them in their own role.
4: Mage
5: Mage
6: Mage
7: Mage
8: Mage
9: Mage
10: When? How?
11: With book diving and vast jobbing, maybe. Edit: Wait, what am I saying? Even if you could get all the feats you're too limitted by WBL to serve as two roles, even if you do get the feats.
12: Mage

Yes we know that you hate spellcasters. You've made that abundantly clear. But:

1) Most classes in 3.5 are spellcasters. This is doubly true according to you, since you apparently count and class with UMD on it's skill list as a Mage, not to mention a class that can cast 9 spells a day at level 20.

2) You are not even pretending to talk about what I am saying, you just want to complain about how "broken" spellcasters are (even though Warlocks are generally considered pretty low on the power list, even though you immediately dismiss the value of any class that might be able to cast spells as automatically not worth considering because it is a "Mage" even though that makes up about 3/4ths of the D&D classes).

I have explained that I am talking about the ability to perform multiple roles well with the same build, in the same day, at the same time. This is something all fighters end up doing when they take a series of feats based around battlefield control. This is something Rogues do even if they never put a single point in UMD. This is the very definition of what the Factotum exists to do.

Yes Wizards and Druids can do it too. That doesn't mean that the Spellthief, Psychic Warrior, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, and Factotum can't do the same thing.

We know you hate casters. We know you hate 3.5, but just pretend to talk about the actual subject at hand instead of how much you hate casters.


Well, the crunch isn't important except in how it fills out the fluff, really.

No, No, No, a thousand times no. When talking about classes, crunch is the only thing that matters. Fluff can be changed, can be made up, and has nothing to do with classes.

If you have two classes that do different things mechanically, they are two different classes. That's all. If you want to play a Fighter and not a Warblade, you do so.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 06:15 AM
Actually, I don't mind spellcasters in the least (And I know you've seen me defend casters in other threads) However, you don't prove any form of versatility using them; As a rule, (DnD) magic is allowed to do pretty much every effect under the sun, while non-magi are typically forced into one set of tricks, but for mimicking of casters. Hence, how Batman and CoDzilla became terms. More recent spellcasting classes (Like the Beguiler and Warmage) seem to indicate that WotC recognizes this screw up, and is working to fix it.

You have not provided a convincing argument on why a class should be able to have both efficacy and versatility, at the same time. You have not even provided a convincing argument as to why one who has the ability to change one's toolset within one rest period should be equally effective as someone who can only do partial changes to one's toolset at each levelup. We can quibble all day about how 3.5 works; This, however, is the foundation the rest of the argument actually rests on. I'd prefer we address that.

And by all means, sell me on this. What cost comes with that more versatile toolbox? Preferably something besides time spent by the player, as that still doesn't fix the class' innate potential. Any cost, conceptually, can be valid, so establish your case for why.


No, No, No, a thousand times no. When talking about classes, crunch is the only thing that matters. Fluff can be changed, can be made up, and has nothing to do with classes.
This is generally true. However, it's not applicable in this case; I specifically called into question the motive behind playing the class in the first place, if you'll recall. Why play a Fighter when Warblade is the same thing, thematically, and /doesn't/ require massive jobbing on the part of the player to make effective? Bear in mind that the answer doesn't have to 'sound good' or anything. Even "I like jobbing Fighters" is an acceptable answer.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-10, 07:41 AM
Bards get sacked, gnomes too. Pretty bad, those guys gave FLAVOR to the game. I donīt like the idea of tieflings as core stars. too horny and shocking to me.

Bards will retutrn later. Read your Monster Manual: Gnomes are in there. As long as you have a nice DM: he will let you play one.
When did Tieflings become horny? I though that was humans (seriously, humans are sluts in 3.5 with all the 1/2 races).


Warlocks are in core. Wow. this one is very surprising to me. I cannot imagine them in a "striker " role. Not yet.

Now most of their invocations enhance their eldritch blast (instead of few like 3.5). They also can curse as minor action so a target gets extra damage.
They really do rather nicely.



Too bad that druids couldnīt make it into PH. Fun class. Could be nice leaders or controllers.

They will come later. Druids had too many roles they covered for 1st Core books.


Glad that psionics didnīt cut it. Too much confusing to me. (and no class role for you, guys)

They will come later.


And Iīm really , really concerned about RANGER. I fail to see the point why theyīve made it to 4.0 without any significant improvement. I mean, theyīll probably suck more than ever. Hardly will succeed with a specific role if they simply cannot do it well.

Rangers deal more damage.
Compare a 3.5 to 4.0: the 4.0 deals more damage = better striker.
Now we only saw the archery style: I am wondering how TWFing powers will differ if they exist.


I still donīt get some things, like : same progression to everybody (the starting bonus to some classes depending on their "usefulness" seems not good enough) , less skill points.

and specially : thank you, wizards of the coast, no more metamagic feats.
Now feats that were metamagic are applied to every spell with same discriptor: Like Burning Blizzard/Emerald Frost (whatever it called) that lets you shape the area just like Shaping Metamagic feat except no spell slot increase.

Instead of skill points: You have trained points.
If Saga is any similar: yout skill points for
trained: 5 +1/2 level + modifier +5 skill focus.
Untrained: 0 +1/2 level + modifier +5 skill focus.

Certain skills have functions that can only be done while trained in Saga so also possible to be similar.

Reinboom
2008-04-10, 08:32 AM
Through reading all of this, I am wondering...
Why does Vecna want to be a fighting sorcerer again? Why not just be a fighter?
Or even if you want a fighter with arcane in the blood... why not a multiclassed fighter//sorcerer? BAB is the same no matter the class.


Try to think of it more in this term... D&D has 1 class. 1. That's it.
Here's a bunch of optional ability branches. 'Fighting Branch', 'Casting Branch', 'Skill Branch', etc.
(Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue...)

At each level, you can emphasize a single branch once more.


There, a "class" system, that is exactly the same as D&D 3.0 and higher mechanics (without the XP multiclassing limit, so I guess almost the same), in every aspect but name. It fixes most of the problems here as well.

You're not playing a sorcerer, you're increasing your spellcasting branch, you're not playing a fighter, you're increasing your defender branch.

Why would you increase your spellcasting branch if you want to be a better defender? :smallconfused:

Unless you want branches that are subtle mixes without emphasis, like, say the Beguiler branch of 3.5.
Well, then, something that is being missed:
If we are talking about 4e core, we should be talking about 3.5 core.
4e isn't finished even when it's released.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-10, 08:50 AM
Try to think of it more in this term... D&D has 1 class. 1. That's it.
Here's a bunch of optional ability branches. 'Fighting Branch', 'Casting Branch', 'Skill Branch', etc.
(Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue...)


Wow, that completely and utterly missed the point.

veilrap
2008-04-10, 09:23 AM
Through reading all of this, I am wondering...
Why does Vecna want to be a fighting sorcerer again? Why not just be a fighter?
Or even if you want a fighter with arcane in the blood... why not a multiclassed fighter//sorcerer? BAB is the same no matter the class.


Many reasons, flavor is a big one. If your character was born and raised a sorcerer but decided he wants to learn to fight, but realizes that he really just isn't strong enough to be a fighter. Therefore he dedicates his life and study to developing the magical skills to augment his fighting techniques in order to put him self on par with a fighter.

hewhosaysfish
2008-04-10, 10:04 AM
Wow, that completely and utterly missed the point.

I seem to have missed it, too.

All I see are people holding screwdrivers, complaining that they can't loosen a nut with it, while other people jump up and down shouting "There's a spanner in your toolbox! Look!" only to be told "But I don't want to use a spanner: I want to use a screwdriver."

Starbuck_II
2008-04-10, 10:14 AM
Wait, what is a spanner?

Sweet Rein:


Why does Vecna want to be a fighting sorcerer again? Why not just be a fighter?
Or even if you want a fighter with arcane in the blood... why not a multiclassed fighter//sorcerer? BAB is the same no matter the class.

My opinion:
a. He is stubborn (not always a bad trait, but); it has to be his way. That is the Cynical side of me saying this. It isn't his fault, he just can't picture it another way.
b. He has no issue with multiclassing and is just making up reasons to dislike 4Edition. This is my skeptical side saying this.
c. He never thought of that before: this is my optimistic side.

Mr. Friendly
2008-04-10, 10:21 AM
Wait, what is a spanner?

A spanner is what those miserable gits across the pond call a wrench.

:smallbiggrin:

hewhosaysfish
2008-04-10, 10:22 AM
Wait, what is a spanner?

The Fighter. Or possibly the Swordmage. Or a multiclass Fighter/Sorcerer. Or Swordmage/Sorcerer. Or Fighter/Swordmage/Sorcerer.

But not a single-class Sorcerer; that's a screwdriver.

EDIT: Whoops, misunderstood the nature of the confusion there. Silly me, thinking that just because you're from an English-speaking country, you speak anything like the English :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2008-04-10, 11:01 AM
That's exactly what I said. Every class can be good at only one thing. Fighters can only "Defend" (whatever the hell that actually ends up meaning) and can't control. Clerics can only "Lead" not control. Every class does only one thing well no matter what you focus it towards, whereas in 3.5 you could focus a class towards many different directions, and whichever direction you focus you would be good at.

This is epitomized by Control based fighters and tanking/damage based Clerics, both of which show classes performing very well in roles different from the default for the class.

Uh... no, that's not what I said. I didn't say a fighter can*only* defend. I said it is what he does best. In 3.5, the fighter can defend, attack, etc. That's what he is good at. With some feats, skills, and magic item selection, he can attempt to be a skillmonkey or a caster (even if he needs to buy wands and scrolls often), but it's not his main role, so he won't be as good as a real wizard or real rogue.
In 4e, it's the same thing, only with more clear rules. Your fighter can either be a defender, or forsake his defender role and go the striker route. It's just not his expertise area, so a rogue might be better. But the fighter can put some effort to keep up, even if he can't surpass a rogue completely dedicated to striking.


Actually, it makes perfect sense that a Sorcerer who picks all his feats and spells around being a melee monster is going to be either as good or better then a fighter (depending on your interpretation of magic>mundane or game balance>reality). If you gear your character towards a certain concept, it should be good at it.

But this is commonly lost because many people, you included have made some strange assumption that a magic user cannot gear themselves toward melee except when the game is "broken."
Maybe that's just me, but when a class designed to be THE best in an area, and during actual game play is not.... something is wrong.
I didn't say that a sorcerer can't play the melee role, it's just that he shouldn't be better than a fighter completely dedicated to that. That's besides "broken" games, reality comparisons, or how magic works. It's common sense.
Next we'll have rogues that can cast spells better than wizards, bards that can rage better than barbarians, and wizards that are better skillmonkeys than rogue... wait...

And I still don't see how roles can easily be used in 3e as you claim so much. Only full casters have the luxury to choose roles. Non-casters need to over-specialize, becoming useless in most situations.

Artanis
2008-04-10, 11:17 AM
I'm confused.

I thought all 4E classes would have powers in each of the 4 roles but the each class would have far more powers in their preferred role. If a class wanted to dive into a role it wasn't completely designed for (such as a fighter becoming a striker), he could just take the fighter's striker powers instead of the defender powers. He just won't have as many powers to chose from as a striker class like rogues or rangers.
Long version:

You've pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Just take a look at the 4th Edition Character Sheets (http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets) used at DnD XP: every single class has the capacity to act in at least two different roles, sometimes the capacity for three or four...and that's with each character having just a few abilities selected specifically for showing off - and NOT necessarily effectiveness at different roles, mind you - at merely first level.

And that's not even counting the fact that multiclassing will be MUCH easier*, so if a Fighter - a Defender - wants to be a better Controller, he can just take a dip in a Controller class and pick some up powers, and if a Marshal - a Leader - wants to hit things harder, he can just take a dip in a Striker class and pick up some powers there.


*In theory, at any rate. However, making multiclassing better than 3e wouldn't be much of an accomplishment, so I'd say the default assumption should be that 4e multiclassing will be at least a little easier than in 3e.


Short version:

Bingo, that's exactly right

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 12:12 PM
You have not provided a convincing argument on why a class should be able to have both efficacy and versatility, at the same time. You have not even provided a convincing argument as to why one who has the ability to change one's toolset within one rest period should be equally effective as someone who can only do partial changes to one's toolset at each levelup. We can quibble all day about how 3.5 works; This, however, is the foundation the rest of the argument actually rests on. I'd prefer we address that.

I don't need to present a convincing argument about why someone who can change their toolset in a few hours should be equal to someone who cannot. I don't need to because I have never stated that they should be. This is you arguing against spellcasting again, and ignoring my point that in 3.5, one thing I like, is that you can build a character to perfrom well at multiple different things at the same time. This has nothing to do with spellcasters, since my primary example the entire time has been Fighters being able to dedicate themselves towards different roles.


This is generally true. However, it's not applicable in this case; I specifically called into question the motive behind playing the class in the first place, if you'll recall. Why play a Fighter when Warblade is the same thing, thematically, and /doesn't/ require massive jobbing on the part of the player to make effective? Bear in mind that the answer doesn't have to 'sound good' or anything. Even "I like jobbing Fighters" is an acceptable answer.

Because Fighters can do things Warblades can't. I already said this. If you have a choice between 1d2+2 Oranges or 1d4 Strawberries is there any reason for the strawberry option? I mean, you are going to get more or equal by choosing the Oranges.

YES. There is a reason, because some people like Strawberries. The fighter is a different class than the Warblade, he does different things. He is a better controller then a Warblade. And so there is a very compelling reason to have him.


Through reading all of this, I am wondering...
Why does Vecna want to be a fighting sorcerer again? Why not just be a fighter?
Or even if you want a fighter with arcane in the blood... why not a multiclassed fighter//sorcerer? BAB is the same no matter the class.

1) BAB isn't the same for every class. That's why they have little progressions.
2) Why do I want to be someone who has harnessed the power of his blood to turn himself from a frail old man into an unstoppable killing machine with a glowing sword?*

Because there are different ways of doing things, and if you want to be a frail old man who uses magic to make himself as strong as the fighter, and as talented as the fighter, there is nothing wrong with that.

Note that this doesn't even work with a multiclassed sorcerer/fighter, because the whole point is that he uses magic to give himself exactly what the fighter has. This can in fact only be modeled by a using a series of buff spells, including Heroics and Tenser's Transformation.

* Who in a perfectly balanced system would be just as strong as a straight Fighter.

EDIT: Want to address everyone else, life calls. Be back in 3 hours, please slow down the posting so that I can actually get to all of you.

Like, wait till I comment on your part instead of jumping into my conversation with Rutee or something. Unless you have something you really want to say I guess. It's just hard to keep up with four people.

Cainen
2008-04-10, 12:19 PM
1) Most classes in 3.5 are spellcasters. This is doubly true according to you, since you apparently count and class with UMD on it's skill list as a Mage, not to mention a class that can cast 9 spells a day at level 20.

And this is due to the part where it's far easier to make a mechanically powerful - or solid - variation on a spellcaster than it is to make an equally mechanically powerful or solid variation on a non-caster.


2) You are not even pretending to talk about what I am saying, you just want to complain about how "broken" spellcasters are

Not quite. She quite easily understands what you're saying, and is responding to it in kind. And as for broken? Wizard. The rest of your points on that are irrelevant, as that class alone shows that spellcasters can be ridiculously broken compared to anything but the most ill-designed class.


I have explained that I am talking about the ability to perform multiple roles well with the same build, in the same day, at the same time.

Okay. Look at the Cleric; if you tailor it right, it outperforms even a properly-tailored melee class at their own job while still remaining as a viable healbot and caster.


This is something all fighters end up doing when they take a series of feats based around battlefield control.

And? Want to see what happens when a Cleric build tries the same thing?


This is something Rogues do even if they never put a single point in UMD. This is the very definition of what the Factotum exists to do.

Rogues - no. Factotums - yes.


Yes Wizards and Druids can do it too. That doesn't mean that the Spellthief, Psychic Warrior, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, and Factotum can't do the same thing.

Not quite. The Wizard and the Druid can outdo all but two of those classes at their own game, and that's only because neither of them have the ability to assume skill-monkey status by default.


We know you hate casters. We know you hate 3.5, but just pretend to talk about the actual subject at hand instead of how much you hate casters.

She is.


No, No, No, a thousand times no. When talking about classes, crunch is the only thing that matters. Fluff can be changed, can be made up, and has nothing to do with classes.

This is not true, and if it was the same thing could be said of mechanics. Not all GMs allow you to flavor your classes the way you want to, and even then it's a lot harder to flavor, say, a Monk as a barroom brawler class. It's not plausible to flavor or change a class in every way you want to.


If you have two classes that do different things mechanically, they are two different classes. That's all. If you want to play a Fighter and not a Warblade, you do so.

Correct, but only as far as mechanics are concerned.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 12:37 PM
Not quite. She quite easily understands what you're saying, and is responding to it in kind. And as for broken? Wizard. The rest of your points on that are irrelevant, as that class alone shows that spellcasters can be ridiculously broken compared to anything but the most ill-designed class.

And that doesn't affect anything I've said. Anywhere. For any reason. I'm not claiming that everything is super awesome balanced. I'm saying that I like to be able to perform different roles. This has nothing to do with balance.


Okay. Look at the Cleric; if you tailor it right, it outperforms even a properly-tailored melee class at their own job while still remaining as a viable healbot and caster.

Right. Yes. And being able to do different things is evil. Why can't the melee classes just be better? Or be able to do something the Cleric can't do? Why is performing multiple roles bad?


And? Want to see what happens when a Cleric build tries the same thing?

He does it about as well, maybe less well. And he retains other abilities. Yes. I know that. It still doesn't change the fact that being able to build a class to perform multiple roles is a good thing.


Rogues - no. Factotums - yes.

Rogues can perform different roles. They can skill monkey, they can scout, they can deal damage. You can build your Rogue to focus on any of those things and still be decent-good at others.


Not quite. The Wizard and the Druid can outdo all but two of those classes at their own game, and that's only because neither of them have the ability to assume skill-monkey status by default.

And what the Wizard and Druid can do doesn't make all the other classes incapable of doing what they can do. But you missed my point: that a Wizard can outdo a Psychic Warrior on damage (his "game") doesn't affect anything. Because the thing that I've been saying I like about 3.5 for this whole time is that A Psychic Warrior can also be a Controller.


This is not true, and if it was the same thing could be said of mechanics. Not all GMs allow you to flavor your classes the way you want to, and even then it's a lot harder to flavor, say, a Monk as a barroom brawler class. It's not plausible to flavor or change a class in every way you want to.

Actually, it's really easy. There are only three parts of the class that aren't more suited to a barroom brawler then a Monk: Abundant Step, Tongues of the Sun and Moon, Perfect Self. None of that even comes up to level 12, and you can just ignore it, or take levels in another class.

What else do you have? A guy who runs fast, hits hard, has quick reactions, and shrugs of magic. All make a great deal of sense for a brawler type. Sounds like Conan.


Correct, but only as far as mechanics are concerned.

So? What's you point? You have two different classes that do two different things. So we should get rid of them? What part of that is supposed to make sense?


Many reasons, flavor is a big one. If your character was born and raised a sorcerer but decided he wants to learn to fight, but realizes that he really just isn't strong enough to be a fighter. Therefore he dedicates his life and study to developing the magical skills to augment his fighting techniques in order to put him self on par with a fighter.

Except that if something works, you aren't an idiot for using it. It's more like:

Person 1: I'm going to use this Sword to kill the enemy.
Person 2: But there's a mace right there.
Person 1: But I want to use a Sword.

If there are multiple effective ways of accomplishing a goal, why does everyone have to use just one?

Rutee
2008-04-10, 03:12 PM
I don't need to present a convincing argument about why someone who can change their toolset in a few hours should be equal to someone who cannot. I don't need to because I have never stated that they should be. This is you arguing against spellcasting again, and ignoring my point that in 3.5, one thing I like, is that you can build a character to perfrom well at multiple different things at the same time. This has nothing to do with spellcasters, since my primary example the entire time has been Fighters being able to dedicate themselves towards different roles.
No, it isn't. You /directly stated/ that as long as I completely specialize myself to something, I should be awesome at it. You /also/ directly stated that it didn't matter if that specialization only was, well, specialized for the day, so long as I was specialized in that very moment. You have not presented an argument for this. Why should versatility come without a cost in any form? (Unless everyone gets that same level of versatility anyway)




Because Fighters can do things Warblades can't. I already said this. If you have a choice between 1d2+2 Oranges or 1d4 Strawberries is there any reason for the strawberry option? I mean, you are going to get more or equal by choosing the Oranges.

YES. There is a reason, because some people like Strawberries. The fighter is a different class than the Warblade, he does different things. He is a better controller then a Warblade. And so there is a very compelling reason to have him.
If they're different things, then why does an Orange have to be capable of tasting like a Strawberry? Or, in a more apt comparison, if a Fighter is an Orange, and a Warblade is.. oh I don't know, Grapefruit, both are fruits (The same basic 'flavor' of the class, or overall feel of the class in character), why does the Orange have to be able to taste 'bitter' like the Grapefruit (Why does it have to be able to do the same thing?)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 03:27 PM
You /also/ directly stated that it didn't matter if that specialization only was, well, specialized for the day, so long as I was specialized in that very moment.

Please tell me where I said this.


If they're different things, then why does an Orange have to be capable of tasting like a Strawberry? Or, in a more apt comparison, if a Fighter is an Orange, and a Warblade is.. oh I don't know, Grapefruit, both are fruits (The same basic 'flavor' of the class, or overall feel of the class in character), why does the Orange have to be able to taste 'bitter' like the Grapefruit (Why does it have to be able to do the same thing?)

Oranges are Warblades, Strawberries are Fighters. Because I like Strawberries and Fighters better.

Here you are completely ignoring what I am saying again. They don't do the same thing. They do entirely different things. Neither is capable of duplicating the other (Except that a Warblade can duplicate a poorly built Fighter, but that's just solved by not building a poorly built fighter.)

hamishspence
2008-04-10, 03:28 PM
the only thing fighter has more of than warblade does is feats, and speed of getting them (warblade has delay in getting fighter feats with specific level)

As of 3.5, what controlling powers can a fighter have that a warblade can't get?

Which may be why the 4th ed fighter gets the stuff warblades used to get, special strikes and stances.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 03:35 PM
a. He is stubborn (not always a bad trait, but); it has to be his way. That is the Cynical side of me saying this. It isn't his fault, he just can't picture it another way.

I presented my reason. It's not because I'm stubborn, it's because I want to play many different types of characters. One is a Fighter who fights. One is a magic user who uses magic to simulate the training of a fighter.

Those are two of a hundred characters I like to play. I can play all 100 in 3.5, I doubt that will be initially true in 4E, and may never be. Therefore, I will continue to point out that this versatility of play is not a bad thing.


b. He has no issue with multiclassing and is just making up reasons to dislike 4Edition. This is my skeptical side saying this.

I have no issue with multiclassing. But a Sorcerer who uses his magic to be a fighter is different from a less powerful sorcerer that uses his magic to mimic some of the training of a dedicated fighter, but also trains somewhat himself.

Also in case you missed it, the Sorcerer example was 3.5, and while Wizard's make better Gishes, there is something to be said for a straight Sorcerer 20 that can fight as well as a Fighter by dedicating all his feats and spells known in the correct fashion.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 03:36 PM
Please tell me where I said this.
Happily.


Dedicate all of himself on what basis? A daily basis? A per level basis? If all of his spells known are a set of combat buffs, then next level he could pick new spells, but for right now, he's 100% dedicated to fighting.

If all of his spell slots for the day go for the same purpose, then the same statement could be applied.



Oranges are Warblades, Strawberries are Fighters. Because I like Strawberries and Fighters better.

Here you are completely ignoring what I am saying again. They don't do the same thing. They do entirely different things. Neither is capable of duplicating the other (Except that a Warblade can duplicate a poorly built Fighter, but that's just solved by not building a poorly built fighter.)
Oh. They do different things. Then why are you intent on throwing them into the same role? Because you like Fighters? Well, say I like Fighters, but I want to play one as a magus. Should I be anywhere near as good a Magus as an actual wizard, without actually taking levels in, say, Wizard, and going Eldritch Knight?

Cainen
2008-04-10, 03:38 PM
And that doesn't affect anything I've said. Anywhere. For any reason. I'm not claiming that everything is super awesome balanced. I'm saying that I like to be able to perform different roles. This has nothing to do with balance.

And there is nothing stopping you from doing just this in 4E, as they're even trying to make it better for players who want to do this. THAT is her point.


Right. Yes. And being able to do different things is evil. Why can't the melee classes just be better? Or be able to do something the Cleric can't do? Why is performing multiple roles bad?

This is why I'm talking about 4E. Now, I personally am not going to be fond of 4E, and I'm not sure WotC will be able to deliver on their promises. But it does look like it's going to be better at what it's doing than 3.X.


Rogues can perform different roles. They can skill monkey, they can scout, they can deal damage. You can build your Rogue to focus on any of those things and still be decent-good at others.

Right. I don't know what I was trying to say when I posted what I did.


And what the Wizard and Druid can do doesn't make all the other classes incapable of doing what they can do. But you missed my point: that a Wizard can outdo a Psychic Warrior on damage (his "game") doesn't affect anything. Because the thing that I've been saying I like about 3.5 for this whole time is that A Psychic Warrior can also be a Controller.

And that same Psychic Warrior will be able to be a controller in 4E. So far, your argument is that multiple roles are good, which is sound. The problem is that a lot of 3E's issues stem from imbalances, and poorly thought-out role crossovers(hello, Transformation after long-lasting buffs!) make this problem worse by a landslide.


Actually, it's really easy. There are only three parts of the class that aren't more suited to a barroom brawler then a Monk: Abundant Step, Tongues of the Sun and Moon, Perfect Self. None of that even comes up to level 12, and you can just ignore it, or take levels in another class.

What else do you have? A guy who runs fast, hits hard, has quick reactions, and shrugs of magic. All make a great deal of sense for a brawler type. Sounds like Conan.

Fast Movement(seriously, brawlers get this and fighters can't?), Stunning Fist, Quivering Palm. None of those are very class ability-suiting, especially for a brawler. 3/4 BAB. All good saves.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 03:40 PM
the only thing fighter has more of than warblade does is feats, and speed of getting them (warblade has delay in getting fighter feats with specific level)

As of 3.5, what controlling powers can a fighter have that a warblade can't get?

Which may be why the 4th ed fighter gets the stuff warblades used to get, special strikes and stances.

By taking the right feats in the right chains, a Fighter can be a better controller at every level, because he is always using all his feats, whereas a spiked chain tripper Warblade isn't actually using any of his strikes. A massive Damage Charger isn't using strikes, because he can't, and a bullrushing Warblade isn't using his strikes, because he can't.

The fact that a Fighter can be a charging bullrush tripper at the same level that a Warblade can do maybe two of those also helps.

This is to say nothing of the Dungeon Crasher and Overpowering Assault fighter substitutions.

Thinker
2008-04-10, 03:50 PM
Howabout let's all stop this silly argument and agree that classes are just a bad idea, in general. We should all play a classless system like GURPS. :smallbiggrin:

I find your arguments to be both shallow and pedantic. This argument is probably the most important one since at least last Thursday. Classless systems just don't have enough pizzazz.

hamishspence
2008-04-10, 04:02 PM
Lots of Feats do not always compare well to Lots of Manuevers. it is true that some things the warblade does very badly compared to fighter (ranged combat- lack of proficiency)

Plus Power attack, at least, can be used with maneuvers accoding to FAQ.

Spiked Chain Trip has a nasty reputation as unbalanced with a lot of players, but then, so does the warblade. First time i've seen it argued that warblades are worse than fighters though.

i'm not sure how these tactics will change in 4th ed: tripping is more specialist in Saga Edition, but D&D is more melee, so it may not require too much specialisation.

Is a "batman" fighter rather than wizard, on who has a tactic for most situations, actually a good build? Is that what you are looking for in 4th ed?

If so, may have to wait and see. the At will/per encounter/per day system may tone down some things, but maybe it should. Should a fight devolve into trip/rise/trip every time? per encounter may prevent spamming trip attacks.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 04:09 PM
Happily.

So in other words, when I asked you a question, you took that as me directly stating something about how powerful a X should be?

Well at least that explains why you never answer my questions. These ????????????? are invisible to you.


Oh. They do different things. Then why are you intent on throwing them into the same role? Because you like Fighters? Well, say I like Fighters, but I want to play one as a magus. Should I be anywhere near as good a Magus as an actual wizard, without actually taking levels in, say, Wizard, and going Eldritch Knight?

What does this even mean? I am so confused by this paragraph.

I'm not intent on throwing them in the same role, that was you. I have said nothing but that they are different character types that do very different things. Only you claimed that they were the same character.

And what is this about Magus and fighter?

Here are some character ideas:

1) I have trained my whole life to be good at hitting things: Fighter
2) I have trained my whole life to throw around Fireballs: Wizard
3) I have trained my whole life to use the latent blood within me to turn myself into guy #1: Sorcerer using Heroics/Tensor's.
4) I have perfected the art of my body that I can summon forth magical effects (Time dilation/floating/invisibility/fire/what have you) from sheer whatever it is: Warblade/Swordsage

Hey look, 3.5 has all of those. Does 4E? I know it has 1 and 2. It might have something that is sort of like 3, but not exactly like it. It might also have a 4.

Who knows.


First time i've seen it argued that warblades are worse than fighters though.

I did not argue that Warblades are worse then Fighters. Merely different.

Fighters are better at controlling, and better at dealing massive damage on a charge all on their lonesome.

Warblades have an assortment of ways to do comparable amounts of damage, that are usually easier to execute thanks to move attack not being as limited as Charge.

Warblades also have White Raven, something that has a profound effect on how useful you are as a character.

In addition, Warblades are far more durable then Fighters, and can in fact do more damage while maintaining that durability. They have more HP, more skills, and save replacing maneuvers that also help keep them up in combat.

The point being, they are different types of characters geared towards different things.


Lots of Feats do not always compare well to Lots of Manuevers. it is true that some things the warblade does very badly compared to fighter (ranged combat- lack of proficiency)

Lots of feats work better then lots of maneuvers for some things because they can all be used together in combination at the same time. I can charge, do my charge damage, then because of Knockback, bullrush him into a wall doing even more damage. Then when he tries to close I can use My AoO to trip him and get another attack and bullrush.

A Warblade can: move and strike. That's all. maybe he can trip on an AoO too.

I'm combing Combat Brute, Shocktrooper, Improved Bullrush, Knockback, Power attack, Leap Attack, Battle Charger and probably some other things I forgot.

He's combining Emerald Razor with Power attack at best.


Uh... no, that's not what I said. I didn't say a fighter can*only* defend. I said it is what he does best. In 3.5, the fighter can defend, attack, etc. That's what he is good at. With some feats, skills, and magic item selection, he can attempt to be a skillmonkey or a caster (even if he needs to buy wands and scrolls often), but it's not his main role, so he won't be as good as a real wizard or real rogue.

And I've said that is not how it is in 3.5. There is no "main role" of a class, because most classes can choose to be good at any of several roles. The fighter can be a controller. He can be as good a controller as he could be tank.

Not so in 4E where if you want to be an X you have to play a class that does X well.


Maybe that's just me, but when a class designed to be THE best in an area, and during actual game play is not.... something is wrong.
I didn't say that a sorcerer can't play the melee role, it's just that he shouldn't be better than a fighter completely dedicated to that. That's besides "broken" games, reality comparisons, or how magic works. It's common sense.

And this is my point. Fighters are not designed to be the best melee combatants. In 3.5 classes aren't designed to be the best X. They are given abilities which they can use. That's a different design philosophy then building the best Defender and calling it a class.

Sorcerers and Clerics and anyone else who dedicate their character concept to melee combat should be just as good as a fighter that did it through another means. Just as good does not mean better, that's a flaw of 3.5 design. But luckily, it's one that is easily overcome.


And I still don't see how roles can easily be used in 3e as you claim so much. Only full casters have the luxury to choose roles. Non-casters need to over-specialize, becoming useless in most situations.

No, non-casters need to dedicate themselves to a role. Casters, can be good at several because they where made to powerful. But a fighter choosing to specialize in one of three roles is going to be very good at it and relatively good at the other two. A Wizard picking one goal is going to be awesome at it and fairly good at the other two.

Relatively they are each just as versatile in build, but the Wizard is more powerful.

EDIT: Caught up to this page. Will address caein's (sp) second post later. Need a break.

Reinboom
2008-04-10, 07:28 PM
I seem to have missed it, too.

All I see are people holding screwdrivers, complaining that they can't loosen a nut with it, while other people jump up and down shouting "There's a spanner in your toolbox! Look!" only to be told "But I don't want to use a spanner: I want to use a screwdriver."

This was exactly the point of my last post on this thread. :smallsmile:

Just because something is called something else, or even works slightly differently - does not mean you have to use it for that.


1) BAB isn't the same for every class. That's why they have little progressions.


From Wizards Presents: Races & Classes: Unified progression of defense, BAB and saves. A 10th level character will have +5 of those (thus +0.5 / level). Even at 1st level classes can significantly alter the base value. Class abilities modify them further.


2) Why do I want to be someone who has harnessed the power of his blood to turn himself from a frail old man into an unstoppable killing machine with a glowing sword?*

Because there are different ways of doing things, and if you want to be a frail old man who uses magic to make himself as strong as the fighter, and as talented as the fighter, there is nothing wrong with that.
Sure, I can do that. I would choose a bunch of class combos with self buffs, and something with basic fighting capabilities. I might end up as a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Warlock in the end, if I used 4e. I don't know, haven't seen the available powers each.
Really, that is only based on multiclassing.

My point, is that, I can be a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Warlock/Pedestrian/Ostrich-Licker, and still just call myself "Hey, I'm an old person, and with innate magical powers I can take this sword and carve my name in to the interior of your stomach without ever breaking the outside of your flesh."



Note that this doesn't even work with a multiclassed sorcerer/fighter, because the whole point is that he uses magic to give himself exactly what the fighter has. This can in fact only be modeled by a using a series of buff spells, including Heroics and Tenser's Transformation.
Why can't you just call your abilities to use the sword an innate magical buff?
Just a rename. Not that hard.


* Who in a perfectly balanced system would be just as strong as a straight Fighter.

Nearly impossible to do. Reason is because you are doing different things to get an end result, the capabilities of the route is what matters. In one case, you just have more options - the sorcerer's case that is.
It's not a, can the sorcerer be as capable as a fighter. It's a, the sorcerer can be as capable as a fighter... but then it gets -X- in addition that's the current issue. And vice versa.
It's an encasing and union thing.
Sorcerer has the following:
{A,B,C,D,E,F,G}
Fighter has the following:
{F,G,H,I,J,K,L}

They both can do F and G, but the sorcerer can't do H,I,J,K and L while the fighter can't do A,B,C,D and E.
Now, lets say you want to let the sorcerer be able to be exactly as strong as a fighter in the fighter's role, you would need to give the sorcerer H,I,J,K and L.
This would change things in to:
{A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L} for the sorcerer
and
{F,G,H,I,J,K,L} for the fighter

... now what's the point playing a fighter?

This is the idea of not blurring. Or, if you do blur, you get something like, only part of the capabilities of the other class - so the other class has SOMETHING for itself.
Something worthwhile, that is.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 08:08 PM
So in other words, when I asked you a question, you took that as me directly stating something about how powerful a X should be?
As you have continued to act on this question as an argument (See: Sorcerer as a melee combatant argument), I don't think you can take this as a defense.


I'm not intent on throwing them in the same role, that was you. I have said nothing but that they are different character types that do very different things. Only you claimed that they were the same character.
You are indeed showing that you are confused. But I can try and handle this with the second question. Though I will note, the only one who cared about putting people outside their class role was you. My exact words were "Why should I care whether the Fighter can handle the buffer or controller roles? A Warlord has the same flavor, and if a Warlord can handle buffer or controller, why do I care whether or not Fighter can?"


And what is this about Magus and fighter?
You have claimed that I should be able to use the same mechanics I use for a different class to take a function not inherent to the class (Your primary examples have been fighter as battlefield control, and Sorcerer as Melee). When asked why Class A's mechanics have to be usable to do what's frankly Class B's job (And don't try and debate this; Everything about the sorcerer class screams "Caster" not "Melee combatant"), you said it's because you like Class A's mechanics better. Very well. I want to use Fighter mechanics to mimic a caster. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? I like Fighter mechanics better; Why can't I use them to remain in the back, casting spells?

veilrap
2008-04-10, 08:36 PM
You have claimed that I should be able to use the same mechanics I use for a different class to take a function not inherent to the class (Your primary examples have been fighter as battlefield control, and Sorcerer as Melee). When asked why Class A's mechanics have to be usable to do what's frankly Class B's job (And don't try and debate this; Everything about the sorcerer class screams "Caster" not "Melee combatant"), you said it's because you like Class A's mechanics better. Very well. I want to use Fighter mechanics to mimic a caster. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? I like Fighter mechanics better; Why can't I use them to remain in the back, casting spells?

I think you SHOULD be allowed to remain in the back as a fighter casting "spells". A fighter's "spells" in this case would be different from a wizard's spells but have similar outcomes. For example: Where a wizard would generate a fireball that burns an AoE, the fighter might pick up a large boulder and launch it so that it shatters into pieces and hits an AoE as shrapnel. This is one area I think 4e has potential to do good with it's powers system.

For a sorc/fighter example we keep using the situation is similar, the sorc focuses his magical energies into his weapon/person in such a way to improve his armor, enchant his blade, such that he can try to match the physical/martial strength of the fighter.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 08:40 PM
I think you SHOULD be allowed to remain in the back as a fighter casting "spells". A fighter's "spells" in this case would be different from a wizard's spells but have similar outcomes. For example: Where a wizard would generate a fireball that burns an AoE, the fighter might pick up a large boulder and launch it so that it shatters into pieces and hits an AoE as shrapnel. This is one area I think 4e has potential to do good with it's powers system.
You should look into effects based systems. They're pretty much /made/ to do this. Seriously, what you seem to seek is completely counter to the point of a class-based system.

(Also I happen to prefer Effects-based, so this isn't some sort of "Keep my DnD pure" thing)

veilrap
2008-04-10, 09:37 PM
You should look into effects based systems. They're pretty much /made/ to do this. Seriously, what you seem to seek is completely counter to the point of a class-based system.

(Also I happen to prefer Effects-based, so this isn't some sort of "Keep my DnD pure" thing)

Can't say I've really heard of an effects-based system, could you give me an example of one?

Really though I do like playing class based DnD I just find it fun to push the limits on customization within a class. Classes are appealing because they are easy to work with and come with some interesting built-in flavor.

I think that robust multi-classing functionality could provide much of the mechanics that I'm intrested in, albit differently than in 3e. This is not really found in 3.5e, although multi-classing is still fun, it's too situational. 4e COULD do very well in the multiclassing aspect, but I'll have to wait for the corebooks to decide on that.

Starsinger
2008-04-10, 09:39 PM
Can't say I've really heard of an effects-based system, could you give me an example of one?

Mutants and Masterminds. BESM. (BESM d20 has the strange distinction of being both class-based and effects-based, it didn't go that well..)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-10, 09:43 PM
*Some 4E stuff that doesn't matter*

That would be great if I hadn't been specifically talking about a 3.5 example that won't be possible in 4E. The Sorcerer that fights was an example of something you can't do in 4E, but can in 3.5. Which was my point all along.


Sure, I can do that. I would choose a bunch of class combos with self buffs, and something with basic fighting capabilities. I might end up as a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Warlock in the end, if I used 4e. I don't know, haven't seen the available powers each.
Really, that is only based on multiclassing.

I don't know what you mean by it being only based on multiclassing. I do know that in 3.5, I can make a Fighter, a Gish, and a Sorcerer that fights. In 4E I would be presented with 1, maybe two of those options. Not three. Building a pure caster that uses his arcane power to fight isn't going to be an option. Only stealing fighter powers.


My point, is that, I can be a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Warlock/Pedestrian/Ostrich-Licker, and still just call myself "Hey, I'm an old person, and with innate magical powers I can take this sword and carve my name in to the interior of your stomach without ever breaking the outside of your flesh."

But you wouldn't be. You'd be a strong, tough person that casts spells on yourself. Those stats matter. Those obviously fighter powers reflect on your fighter training. You wouldn't be a pure mage who does X through arcane power.


Why can't you just call your abilities to use the sword an innate magical buff?
Just a rename. Not that hard.

Because then you would somehow have Arcane magic that involved never casting spells, working in an AMF, and otherwise not being magic.


Nearly impossible to do. Reason is because you are doing different things to get an end result, the capabilities of the route is what matters. In one case, you just have more options - the sorcerer's case that is.
It's not a, can the sorcerer be as capable as a fighter. It's a, the sorcerer can be as capable as a fighter... but then it gets -X- in addition that's the current issue. And vice versa.
It's an encasing and union thing.
Sorcerer has the following:
{A,B,C,D,E,F,G}
Fighter has the following:
{F,G,H,I,J,K,L}

They both can do F and G, but the sorcerer can't do H,I,J,K and L while the fighter can't do A,B,C,D and E.
Now, lets say you want to let the sorcerer be able to be exactly as strong as a fighter in the fighter's role, you would need to give the sorcerer H,I,J,K and L.
This would change things in to:
{A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L} for the sorcerer
and
{F,G,H,I,J,K,L} for the fighter

... now what's the point playing a fighter?

This is the idea of not blurring. Or, if you do blur, you get something like, only part of the capabilities of the other class - so the other class has SOMETHING for itself.
Something worthwhile, that is.

Or those Fighter exclusive things could be:

1) Fighting in an AMF
2) Ignoring dispel magics
3) Being able to start fighting at level 1

And other abilities. Not to mention that a Sorcerer built to Fight has to give up most of the other sorcerer abilities.


As you have continued to act on this question as an argument (See: Sorcerer as a melee combatant argument), I don't think you can take this as a defense.

I'm sorry, can Sorcerers change all their spells known and feats the next day? I was unaware of this.


You are indeed showing that you are confused. But I can try and handle this with the second question. Though I will note, the only one who cared about putting people outside their class role was you. My exact words were "Why should I care whether the Fighter can handle the buffer or controller roles? A Warlord has the same flavor, and if a Warlord can handle buffer or controller, why do I care whether or not Fighter can?"

1) Since when has anyone been talking about the Warlord?

2) Because the Fighter isn't the only character. And the fact that there are now roles that cannot be performed in 4E means, well that there are roles that can no longer be performed by a given class type.


You have claimed that I should be able to use the same mechanics I use for a different class to take a function not inherent to the class

I have actually claimed that one of the key advantages of 3.5 is that functions don't belong to specific classes, but are instead picked up by whomever has the ability to do them.


When asked why Class A's mechanics have to be usable to do what's frankly Class B's job, you said it's because you like Class A's mechanics better.

Since both Fighters and Sorcerers are on the list of classes I enjoy playing, that attempted speaking for me rings false. I did not claim anything about who's mechanics I like better, I said that having both someone who uses magic to transform themselves into a fighter, and someone who uses excessive training, is better then having only one option.


(And don't try and debate this; Everything about the sorcerer class screams "Caster" not "Melee combatant")

"Caster" is not a description of what someone does, just a description of how. Therefore a Caster melee combatant is not odd, but expected in any system with both. I have been debating that the ability of every class to perform multiple functions is a benefit, not a horrible travesty. Only you think that a character not being a slave to a specific role is bad thing.


Very well. I want to use Fighter mechanics to mimic a caster. Why shouldn't I be allowed to? I like Fighter mechanics better; Why can't I use them to remain in the back, casting spells?

1) I never claimed that you should use whomever's mechanics you want to do what ever you want, only that you should be able to perform different functions.

2) What do you mean by Caster? That's a way of doing things, not something to do. Do you want to be able to control the battlefield? Play a spiked chain tripper with knockback and stand still that is enlarged and takes a series of reach lengthening feats.

Do you want to do damage? Charger.

Do you want to do ranged damage? Archer.

Do you want to debuff? Take the lightning mace + aptitude kukiri method and find a way to apply a status condition when you hit with you weapons.

Do you want to buff? Can't think of anything there, but covering four out of five "caster" roles (to you) should be good enough.

tyckspoon
2008-04-10, 09:43 PM
Can't say I've really heard of an effects-based system, could you give me an example of one?


BESM or GURPS- it means a system where instead of acquiring a specific ability that has a specific effect (I cast Fireball. Fireball does xd6 damage in a 20-foot radius), you get an effect and then decide how you want that effect to be represented in game (I have the ability to do xd6 damage in a 20-foot radius. I'm playing a mage-type character, so I call this ability a Fireball.) Most of the ones I've seen are points-based and classless, so you can mix and match effects to create the character you want instead of trying to force predefined abilities and classes to fit your desire.

Tren
2008-04-10, 10:04 PM
"Caster" is not a description of what someone does, just a description of how. Therefore a Caster melee combatant is not odd, but expected in any system with both. I have been debating that the ability of every class to perform multiple functions is a benefit, not a horrible travesty. Only you think that a character not being a slave to a specific role is bad thing.

I think this is the biggest point of contention. Yes, an arcane class should be able to focus their magic on improving their fighting skills. But that class is not the sorcerer, that class is called Swordmage and will be in the 4E Forgotten Realms campaign setting.

Rutee
2008-04-10, 10:59 PM
Really though I do like playing class based DnD I just find it fun to push the limits on customization within a class. Classes are appealing because they are easy to work with and come with some interesting built-in flavor.
Tyckspoon and Starsinger listed what I would, so I'll simply say that your delivery made it seem as though you didn't actually care for what classes did, so effects based may just be what you want.


But you wouldn't be. You'd be a strong, tough person that casts spells on yourself. Those stats matter. Those obviously fighter powers reflect on your fighter training. You wouldn't be a pure mage who does X through arcane power.

I thought you said Fluff was completely mutable. Even the game doesn't make a strong distinction between Divine and Arcane Magic (Hence why both are subject to exactly equal Spell Resistance values).


I'm sorry, can Sorcerers change all their spells known and feats the next day? I was unaware of this.
No, but they can change more often then a Fighter can (Which is never). And as I stated, which you ignored, that should, if anything, yield an (extremely) small hit to effectiveness. And that assumes that versatility within the build dies a complete death.


I have actually claimed that one of the key advantages of 3.5 is that functions don't belong to specific classes, but are instead picked up by whomever has the ability to do them.
Your claim is wrong. I apologize, but there's very clear intent in the rules that fighters behave as tanks, smacking mobs from melee and keeping them off the squishies, the rogues smack stuff from the other side of the fighter, etc. You claim that the ability to alter a role means a role isn't present. It is, and it's extremely obvious.


1) Since when has anyone been talking about the Warlord?

2) Because the Fighter isn't the only character. And the fact that there are now roles that cannot be performed in 4E means, well that there are roles that can no longer be performed by a given class type.
1. Oi vey. I did. Pay attention.

2. What role died in 4e? Aside from Skill Monkey, which I wholeheartedly support the death of. And sure, Fighters aren't the only characters.. but you sidestepped the issue. Why should I care that a class can't perform a particular role, when a class with a different name, but similar flavor feel, manages to do it? I don't think Clerics are crippled in melee.. but even if they were, why should I care? I can just say the Paladin's a priest of God X who has a martial leaning. Either way, their power in melee is going to be derived from their god.


Since both Fighters and Sorcerers are on the list of classes I enjoy playing, that attempted speaking for me rings false. I did not claim anything about who's mechanics I like better, I said that having both someone who uses magic to transform themselves into a fighter, and someone who uses excessive training, is better then having only one option.

Oh FFS. I'm not speaking for you. I don't care about your tastes at /all/. Don't try and redirect things. Your argument boiled down to, "If I prefer Class A's mechanics over Class B's, why shouldn't I be able to substitute Class A in for Class B?" To this new, specific exception? Why does that person who uses magic to transform themselves into a fighter have to be a Sorcerer? Why not Eldritch Knight, or Wizard?


"Caster" is not a description of what someone does, just a description of how. Therefore a Caster melee combatant is not odd, but expected in any system with both. I have been debating that the ability of every class to perform multiple functions is a benefit, not a horrible travesty. Only you think that a character not being a slave to a specific role is bad thing.
I feel that's being overly obtuse. "Caster", by itself, is generally taken to mean lightly/not armored spellcaster who remains in the back.

And I never once claimed that every class should only have one role. I'm pointing out that DnD ALWAYS designed classes with a given role in mind. What I said was that it didn't matter if Class A can't handle Role X, if Class B has the exact same flavor feel as Class A, and /can/ handle Role X.


List of Points
1. Then why have you insisted on a melee Sorcerer? Wouldn't a gish class make far more sense, since they, you know, actually start with proficiency with melee weapons, casting ability, and have better BAB? You claimed that it's because you like Sorcerer mechanics. Okay. I like Fighter mechanics. I want to stand in the back and cast spells. As a Fighter.

2. Explained above.

And what the hell are you talking about with this debuff stuff? PRetend not everyone has the time to read a million books and has encyclopedic knowledge of a ludicrously bloated system for a moment. Jesus Christ. It genuinely doesn't count in a general discussion on the system if you needed to go through several books. (Yes, this does indeed apply to my point on "Why does Class X need to do role Y if Class Z has similar flavor and can do it?" If Class Z is from an obscure book, then no, it similarly doesn't count.)