PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on some major 4e areas...



Sir Biscuit
2008-06-03, 12:27 AM
Well, I've been looking through 4th edition for a few days now, and, excited, I came here to see what other people thought... so I suppose I should post a few thoughts of my own. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about the rules changes in 4e, because anyone who really wants to know that badly can just torrent the files. I'd rather talk about how the game has changed overall, and talk abotu some major concerns I first had when checking out 4e.

I've been playing (mostly GMing) every system I can get my hands on for as long as I can remember, and I think 4e is a step in a positive direction. The at-will, encounter, and daily powers streamline the system and allow players to concentrate more on combat instead of rules... my major gripe with third edition.


I've noticed some players saying that they refuse to adapt to the new edition... and that's fine. 4e is, admittedly, a different game. To use a video game analogy, it's the difference between Baulder's Gate and Diablo 2. They're both the same kind of game, but entirely different beasts. 4e is much more fast paced, and has more combat crammed in at the cost of a more complex system.


That's not to say that 4e is simple, or "dumbed down", it is, once again, a different game. I, for one, like it better. There was a lot of rules/abilities/skills/etc that made 3.5 deep, but weren't really necessary. I admit, I never got diplomacy checks (ROLEPLAY IT DAMMIT), and the innuendo skill baffles me. And there were some things that were just... useless.

4e clears up a lot of the clutter. I can honestly see why I would take any given power. I've seen a lot of people griping that a lot of abilities are similar, to which I say, yes, yes they are.

There's a reason for this. 4e plays less like a traditional RPG, and more like a very complex board game. All movement and effects are done in squares, and I honestly don't see how your going to get by without SOME grid representation of the battlefield. (I, for one, will be using HeroQuest.) 4e combat is ALL about positioning and proximity. And there's a hell of a lot of powers who's primary effect is to move people around. And once you get these abilities on a battle map, and start combo-ing them with your teammates abilities, they become very different in a number of important ways. The actual power of abilities are almost never the primary hit, (which is almost always just a damage roll) but in its secondary effects. Moving, slowing, DOT, healing... all of these can be done through similar abilities. Of course, there's no battle map when there's no combat, that would just be silly.

Also, BAB is gone. So that's nice. Everyone can hit things now.


The one thing I don't see happening very well in 4e, (and honestly, I had a hard time with it in 3.5) is out-of-combat roleplaying. Most every D&D player I've met are either A.) Hack and Slashers, who care for little more than rolling the next die. or B.) Twinkers, who only care about building the biggest, most undefeatable thing as quickly as possible by screwing with the rules. Both are way more concerned with mechanics than roleplaying. I know that there are D&D players out there who aren't in one of these two groups, but I've not had the privilege of knowing one.

That being said... I don't think 4e will inhibit your ability to roleplay any more than 3rd edition. If your interactions in town exist solely as a streetwise check, you can certainly go that route. Or, you can play it out. It doesn't need to be "battlemap-hack'nslash-no dialog-dungeon crawl". It's a surprisingly open system, so I wouldn't worry about losing the roleplay elements. (Unless you think Diplomacy checks are a vital part of conversing with NPC's.)


That being said, I'm not sure if 4e will appeal to the majority of the RPG crowd. WoTC is really pressing hard to try and get us to buy their miniatures, and I don't want my RPG's to become more like a board game... but I do think it's better than 3.5, overall. For now, I'll stick with Dark Heresy and Beyond the Supernatural for roleplaying, Scion, Exalted and Rifts to be OP, and 4e to get my Dungeon Crawling/Fantasy Hack fix. At least until they release more books.

Suzuro
2008-06-03, 12:34 AM
I agree with many of your points and, I must admit, when playing in person, I fall into your first category, and that makes 4e extremely useful for me. While playing on these boards, however, I RP a little, and i don't see anything inhibiting that.


-Suzuro

Kizara
2008-06-03, 01:05 AM
One thing I'll say is that having a clean and simple rule system doesn't stop you from roleplaying. Quite the opposite.

However, having characters that lack versitility and a lack of options to be able to represent abilities/themes I might want to RP does. I'm sorry, but having my wizard be able to do a 3d6 Firebolt instead of your fighter's 3d6 Hard Slash signifigantly takes away from me RPing my character's 'unique' abilities.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 01:09 AM
One thing I'll say is that having a clean and simple rule system doesn't stop you from roleplaying. Quite the opposite.

Agreed.


However, having characters that lack versitility and a lack of options to be able to represent abilities/themes I might want to RP does. I'm sorry, but having my wizard be able to do a 3d6 Firebolt instead of your fighter's 3d6 Hard Slash signifigantly takes away from me RPing my character's 'unique' abilities.

Have you actually played 4e yet?

That's what I thought before I sat down and tried it. The classes definitely all have a very different play-feel to them which isn't readily apparent just from reading the rules.

Sir Biscuit
2008-06-03, 01:27 AM
One thing I'll say is that having a clean and simple rule system doesn't stop you from roleplaying. Quite the opposite.

However, having characters that lack versitility and a lack of options to be able to represent abilities/themes I might want to RP does. I'm sorry, but having my wizard be able to do a 3d6 Firebolt instead of your fighter's 3d6 Hard Slash signifigantly takes away from me RPing my character's 'unique' abilities.

I didn't mean that simple rules inhibit roleplaying... rather, it is the D&D environment itself which seems to attract a large number of non-roleplayers.

It seems to me that characters are more versatile than ever before, as they can access every skill from the beginning of the game. (Some are just better at certain skills than others.) Since there is less focus on stacking powers, and more on taking various powers to fit different situations, I would say that you actually have MORE versatility in 4e... you are rewarded for building a well rounded character.

I may not have been to clear on this, but each class does indeed have a unique feel, as was stated above. Specific character RP builds, on the other hand, are no where near as deep as in 3.5, at least right now. However, you can still build your class to fit a lot of different flavors just by picking different powers... there's a lot to choose from, and you don't nearly get them all. Hopefully we'll have a lot more options in the future.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 01:31 AM
Specific character RP builds, on the other hand, are no where near as deep as in 3.5, at least right now. However, you can still build your class to fit a lot of different flavors just by picking different powers... there's a lot to choose from, and you don't nearly get them all. Hopefully we'll have a lot more options in the future.

4e: zero splatbooks
3e: 50-100 splatbooks

There's the difference. I think that 4e's core has plenty of options. At least as many, if not more, than core 3e.

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 03:55 AM
4e: zero splatbooks
3e: 50-100 splatbooks

There's the difference. I think that 4e's core has plenty of options. At least as many, if not more, than core 3e.

3.5 core vs 4e core = 3.5 still have more versatility and more options for RP builds while 4e win where some combat builds are concerned, the fighters, for example, with the wizards and warlocks I think it still lose, or at best ties.

and about splatbooks, I honestly don't know, if you look at it there is only so much you can do with powers. Do damage, move people around, inflict conditions, etc, as things are now there are a lot of powers which are essentially improved versions of lower level powers, the fighter, for example have at least a half dozen powers which are essentially strength vs AC, inflict damage to one creature, (that the damamge is [1w] o [7w] is not really enough for me to make them count as different powers), there is only so many combinations you can use to create new powers, unless you add new status and conditions, but that is always shacky ground where game balance is concerned .

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 04:09 AM
"RP builds"? What are these classes and feats you take that magicall make you better at RPing?

leperkhaun
2008-06-03, 04:43 AM
I think they are refering to non combat options...bluff/diplomacy...etc.

Dhavaer
2008-06-03, 04:51 AM
I think they are refering to non combat options...bluff/diplomacy...etc.

That still doesn't make any sense.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-03, 04:54 AM
I think they are refering to non combat options...bluff/diplomacy...etc.

Those would be builds that have high scores in bluff, diplomacy, etc, which has everything to do with mechanics, not with RP.

Kizara
2008-06-03, 05:00 AM
"RP builds"? What are these classes and feats you take that magicall make you better at RPing?

Haven't you heard? It's when you make your character ineffectual so he's more 'interesting'. It's also when you use the crappiest stats you can manage, and bonus points if you are elitist about doing so.

Then, you tell others your build is 'for flavor' or some other such nonesense.


Seriously, Stormwind Fallacy to the rescue. :)

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 05:00 AM
RP Builds refers to characters that take class/feat options that no sane person would ever take except for fluff reasons. Stuff like Monkey Grip, Skill Focus (Forgery) or (Profession), Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and classes like Rage Mage, Samurai, and Dread Pirate. May also come with a liberal sprinkling of templates and non-core races, such as a Celestial/Half-Fey/Half-Dragon Sunshine Elf (+11 LA).

Nebo_
2008-06-03, 05:21 AM
RP Builds refers to characters that take class/feat options that no sane person would ever take except for fluff reasons. Stuff like Monkey Grip, Skill Focus (Forgery) or (Profession), Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and classes like Rage Mage, Samurai, and Dread Pirate. May also come with a liberal sprinkling of templates and non-core races, such as a Celestial/Half-Fey/Half-Dragon Sunshine Elf (+11 LA).

Nope, that's just a poorly built character. Nothing about that makes it inherently better for roleplaying than any other build.

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 05:28 AM
Nope, that's just a poorly built character. Nothing about that makes it inherently better for roleplaying than any other build.

But then there are some characters who you really WANT to play, which can become troublesome because the system gimps the concept. Rage Mage and all that...

I want my silly RPG character to be an effective character while still being delightfully quirky and unique as a snowflake!

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 05:30 AM
Those would be builds that have high scores in bluff, diplomacy, etc, which has everything to do with mechanics, not with RP.

As leperkaun said (and as you know perfectly well) with RP build I mean character concept that are not build around combat, some example could be.

A scholar, wizard focused on knowledge, divination, maybe crafting, for which magic is a tool for knowledge, not something to be used to blast people. He adventure to recover lost knowledges and artifacts, and while he know a copuple of attack spells to not be totaly useless in a fight, the large part of his spells have non combat applications.

A merchant, adventure for money, he know how to swing a sword or dagger, but he is not a uber fighter/ninja, but have a silver tongue he can trade the pants away from a pit fiend (or so he says)

The farmboy, he left his house with some gold coins and his grandfather sword (he was a famous aadventurer,you know?) He is out to see the world and to have some adventure. He is going to save a pretty princess from a dragon or somethings like that.

just three examples on the top of my head.

Note that all these concepts were perfectly doable, playable, and even fun, in previous editions of D&D, I'm not even sure they are mechanically possible in this edition without a lot of handwawing, because of course this is 4e, If you are not playing Conan on steroids/Gandalf the Whiter-than-white then you are not having fun.

A little note, when I say build I mean build, I want some way to mechanically differentiate even my non combat abilities to some degree, 2ND had proficiencies, 3e had craft/profession skills and some feats, for someone could be enough to write on his sheet "X is the best blacksmith in the country" but I want for it to mean something outside of GM fiat (or should I say benevolence?). And I believe I'm not alone in this.

Skyserpent
2008-06-03, 06:01 AM
As leperkaun said (and as you know perfectly well) with RP build I mean character concept that are not build around combat, some example could be.

A scholar, wizard focused on knowledge, divination, maybe crafting, for which magic is a tool for knowledge, not something to be used to blast people. He adventure to recover lost knowledges and artifacts, and while he know a copuple of attack spells to not be totaly useless in a fight, the large part of his spells have non combat applications.

A merchant, adventure for money, he know how to swing a sword or dagger, but he is not a uber fighter/ninja, but have a silver tongue he can trade the pants away from a pit fiend (or so he says)

The farmboy, he left his house with some gold coins and his grandfather sword (he was a famous aadventurer,you know?) He is out to see the world and to have some adventure. He is going to save a pretty princess from a dragon or somethings like that.

just three examples on the top of my head.

Note that all these concepts were perfectly doable, playable, and even fun, in previous editions of D&D, I'm not even sure they are mechanically possible in this edition without a lot of handwawing, because of course this is 4e, If you are not playing Conan on steroids/Gandalf the Whiter-than-white then you are not having fun.

A little note, when I say build I mean build, I want some way to mechanically differentiate even my non combat abilities to some degree, 2ND had proficiencies, 3e had craft/profession skills and some feats, for someone could be enough to write on his sheet "X is the best blacksmith in the country" but I want for it to mean something outside of GM fiat (or should I say benevolence?). And I believe I'm not alone in this.

To be honest I've had this problem in 3.5 too...

The Scholar is the only one I could reasonably try and play with a Core Class, using a Wizard who chooses among the GIGANTIC plethora of spells a few that do their odd little things, The Merchant is difficult unless I go for the NPC Classes, because ALL rogues get Sneak Attack and ALL Bards get crazy other spellcasting and musical talents. The Farmboy is the second easiest to go with, but still, even a really basic Fighter or would still have the odd assortment of equipment proficiencies. The difference between the low level power scales is such that in 4e we've got characters who start off as Heroes. They are Adventurers, with skills and abilities beyond the normal populace. This places them above most "regulars" and thus bypasses what some people view as a "Boring" stretch of gameplay. This is not always necessarily true, but most people who play D&D want to be able to be Adventurers, skilled and powerful.

The issue I suppose, becomes "How do I make my character ineffective in combat" because I don't WANT to be an almighty killing machine. Well, this is difficult now because the system has gone to such lengths to make it so that any build can be viable in combat, that pretty much ANY build is completely viable in combat, and the few that AREN"T viable in combat are just irritating and obviously poorly built. I don't think it's impossible to make a character who isn't good at combat... I haven't looked through the DMG but I think there are NPC classes...? If so, then there is a perfect zone to begin your game before becoming the powerful war-heroes you are at level 1.

GlordFunkelhand
2008-06-03, 06:02 AM
Sorry, but this discussion is pointless.

If you play a character that is not focused on combat in a combat heavy adventure, you won't have that much fun. If you play a character with no social capabilities in an adventure focusing on diplomacy, you won't have much fun.

It's up to the GM what part of the rules he's using, when he asks for a check, when he makes them roll initiative. GM > rules used.

I had a session where we hardly used any dice at all, sometimes it's a combat heavy slugfest. It always depends on what the group wants to do. If you have a group consisting of roleplayers and munchkins (and roleplaying munchkins) you need to provide an adventure that's fun for both. And nothing in the rules should stop you.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 04:16 PM
As leperkaun said (and as you know perfectly well) with RP build I mean character concept that are not build around combat, some example could be.

And those concepts will be totally fine, unless you want the roleplaying concept "totally sucks at combat" and can't stand having a character that's not inherently bad at combat. Even "doesn't want to hurt others in combat" is doable by carefully selecting powers/classes, and finding descriptions for your actions that don't necessarily mean "I inflicted physical damage on another being."


A scholar, wizard focused on knowledge, divination, maybe crafting, for which magic is a tool for knowledge, not something to be used to blast people. He adventure to recover lost knowledges and artifacts, and while he know a copuple of attack spells to not be totaly useless in a fight, the large part of his spells have non combat applications.

I'd pick a wizard, maybe multiclass warlord, using his mastery of lore and history to provide insight to his allies in combat, using ordinary spells in unusual ways to reduce his opponent's ability to fight (P.S. No one said I was casting the same spell when I use a power, even if it turns out similarly), and acquiring as many rituals as possible.


A merchant, adventure for money, he know how to swing a sword or dagger, but he is not a uber fighter/ninja, but have a silver tongue he can trade the pants away from a pit fiend (or so he says)

Rogue, Warlord, Ranger, Fighter. Just stick with Martial classes, start with one that gets Diplomacy, and multiclass based on how you want to move about in combat. Don't deliberately pretend you're screaming "Flaming Mongoose Strike!" in combat and you should be fine.


The farmboy, he left his house with some gold coins and his grandfather sword (he was a famous aadventurer,you know?) He is out to see the world and to have some adventure. He is going to save a pretty princess from a dragon or somethings like that.

Is there really any reason Fighter isn't working for you here? Heck, is there any reason Fighter didn't work in 3e? I'm honestly confused; is this the idea (alive and kicking despite several assassination attempts post-ToB) that if the player activates a mechanical power, that the character must be activating some superpower of their own?


Note that all these concepts were perfectly doable, playable, and even fun, in previous editions of D&D, I'm not even sure they are mechanically possible in this edition without a lot of handwawing, because of course this is 4e, If you are not playing Conan on steroids/Gandalf the Whiter-than-white then you are not having fun.

I'm starting to suspect most of the wounds 4e has caused the player base are self-inflicted. This last sentence of yours is sarcasm, right? In what way is 4e taking control of your hand and scribbling "ROFLAWESUM" on your character sheet in purple crayon?!


A little note, when I say build I mean build, I want some way to mechanically differentiate even my non combat abilities to some degree, 2ND had proficiencies, 3e had craft/profession skills and some feats, for someone could be enough to write on his sheet "X is the best blacksmith in the country" but I want for it to mean something outside of GM fiat (or should I say benevolence?). And I believe I'm not alone in this.

If I understand this correctly, you wish to trade away effectiveness in combat, specifically to put those mechanical benefits in other things whose mechanics have virtually no influence on gameplay. (The ability to be a good blacksmith can be of utmost import in roleplay with or without mechanics. However, it seems you're uncomfortable just saying saying "I'm a good blacksmith" the way you already just say "I have brown hair," "I'm a skilled fighter," or "I can use magic.") Can you understand why others would like to discourage a system that hints that it's perfectly equitable to trade away your ability to survive, in exchange for the ability for beam with pride because you somehow mechanically earned it when the DM says "you made a very pretty sword"?

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 04:53 PM
To be honest I've had this problem in 3.5 too...

The Scholar is the only one I could reasonably try and play with a Core Class, using a Wizard who chooses among the GIGANTIC plethora of spells a few that do their odd little things, The Merchant is difficult unless I go for the NPC Classes, because ALL rogues get Sneak Attack and ALL Bards get crazy other spellcasting and musical talents. The Farmboy is the second easiest to go with, but still, even a really basic Fighter or would still have the odd assortment of equipment proficiencies.
You could always use the option to "customize class" i.e the farmboy could give some of those equipment feats in exchange for something else, like the feat to gain an animal companion (can't remember the name) for free (his trusted dog come to the adventure with him) or the "familiy heirloom" feat (the grandfather's sword is actually magical) or something like it. The same can be done for the merchant.

The scholar, yeah, 3e spells are pretty unimmaginative, blast this, blast that yawn, unless I remember it wrong 2ed had lot more variety in that field.



The difference between the low level power scales is such that in 4e we've got characters who start off as Heroes. They are Adventurers, with skills and abilities beyond the normal populace. This places them above most "regulars" and thus bypasses what some people view as a "Boring" stretch of gameplay. This is not always necessarily true, but most people who play D&D want to be able to be Adventurers, skilled and powerful.

To be honest, I dislike this. they hammer too much on that point it is like for them to be an hero is an innate trait, something that you are born to and no matter if you act on hit. I always liked it better if you earn the title, you are a hero because you act like one, not because you have some indefinite "heroitude", that is why I like 2e, at low levels you are almost as weak as the 0-level NPCs. What take you aside from them is your attitude, that is what make of your PC an hero, not the 20 extra hp and super powers.

But, yeah, personal tastes


The issue I suppose, becomes "How do I make my character ineffective in combat" because I don't WANT to be an almighty killing machine. Well, this is difficult now because the system has gone to such lengths to make it so that any build can be viable in combat, that pretty much ANY build is completely viable in combat, and the few that AREN"T viable in combat are just irritating and obviously poorly built. I don't think it's impossible to make a character who isn't good at combat... I haven't looked through the DMG but I think there are NPC classes...? If so, then there is a perfect zone to begin your game before becoming the powerful war-heroes you are at level 1.

no NPC classes, there are classes template to "simulate" NPC with PC classes, but the DMG says to give stats to NPCs only if they are going to be adventuring allies or enemies of the PCs, else just give them a name, a short background/description, a couple skills and -maybe- a ritual. Essentialy, just give them only what you need for them to interact with the PCs, which while simple is kinda ... meh.

Brawls
2008-06-03, 04:55 PM
One of my frustrations with 3e & 3.5e was the ability to craft a character's backstory that was adequately reflected in their skill and feat choices without gimping them in combat. For me, the character's backstory provides the rational for his alignment, perclivities, tactics, etc. and will often play an active role in how the character responds to new situations. I have not seen 4e, as yet, but I'm hoping that I can build a backstory that is matched with a robust skill/power set reflecting that background, that won't gimp the character down the line.

As an example, 3.5e bugged me that a smart fighter would never get many skill ranks compared with a normal rogue. Say my fighter started life working as a stone mason before moving into soldiering. I would have to take Profession: Stone Mason with at least 1 rank, and their is little chance that this rank would be valuable except in very limited circumstances. And let's face it, 1 rank of anything indicates you now something about a skill but are not particularly good at it (such as in the case of making a livelihood). One would have to balance whether to use a skill point on backstory skills or use that point on Swim, Riding, Knowledge: X, etc. which might have much more tactical use because of mechanics.

Since 4e starts 1st level characters as fairly competent, I'm hoping that much of a character's backstory is actually reflected in skills that have in-game value. If anyone can speak to this, i'd appreciate it.

brawls

Sebastian
2008-06-03, 05:13 PM
If I understand this correctly, you wish to trade away effectiveness in combat, specifically to put those mechanical benefits in other things whose mechanics have virtually no influence on gameplay. (The ability to be a good blacksmith can be of utmost import in roleplay with or without mechanics. However, it seems you're uncomfortable just saying saying "I'm a good blacksmith" the way you already just say "I have brown hair," "I'm a skilled fighter," or "I can use magic.") Can you understand why others would like to discourage a system that hints that it's perfectly equitable to trade away your ability to survive, in exchange for the ability for beam with pride because you somehow mechanically earned it when the DM says "you made a very pretty sword"?

The only reason I can think of is because for these "others" combat is the only important part of the game, and non combat is a trascurable (and trascurated) detail.

And can you understand why I prefer to have some even minimal mechanical support for these non combat activities rather then leave it to the DM whim, even if this whim would be in my favor? Try to apply the same reasoning to combat, would you have the same satisfaction from a combat vs powerful monsters if the DM didn't used rules for it but just said "congratulation, you defeatead them"? I think not. Well, It is the same to me, I'd like a campaign where non combat activity could be as much as important as combat activities, or at least the options to create such a campaign, and for that I need mechanics for them. 4e don't give me such options.

Yes, I want to be able to say "I'm a good blacksmith" as I say "I'm a skilled fighter" and "I can use magic" which, if I can make you notice this, *need* mechanical support to be effective. Else I'd write "i'm the greatest fighter of the multiverse" in my sheet and then go killing Orcus at first level because Hey, I'm the greatest fighter in the multiverse, who need mechanics for it?

Sir Biscuit
2008-06-03, 05:19 PM
To my understanding, you basically start with all skills, and can roll for any of them as a d20+half your level+appropriate stat bonus. If you actually take a skill, (Which I believe you can only do at the beginning from a list dictated by your class,) then you get an additional +5 to it. You can take skill training as a feat to get another skill, (I think any skill, I am away from the book) and I think this is the only way to get more. I seem to remember some option to increase a skill further, but I could be confusing it with another system I'm learning.

So... everyone gets to be at least decent at everything, with a few areas where you excel. Honestly, back story has very little to do with it.

If you want an RPG where there's a lot of back story that actually affects the game play in dramatic ways (in fact, character creation requires a lot of back story) try Dark Heresy. Even if you don't have any interest in it, the character creation, home worlds, and optional "pasts" you can take at character creation are worth checking out. Browse it in your local game store.

Although back story does have little to do with it, stats now have a lot more impact on skills. So yes, even though a smart fighter won't be trained in any INT skills, he'll get his INT bonus to them when he rolls them. And yes, the skills are spread out to cover all the stats. That, at least, is nice. Also, there are much fewer skills that combine many previous skills... climbing, swimming, and jumping are all the same skill now, for instance.

The most notable absence seems to be craft... I remember reading that the rules are somewhere in there, but I haven't glimpsed them yet. I'll let you know later tonight or sometime tomorrow, whenever I get back to my sweet, sweet books.

Kizara
2008-06-03, 05:25 PM
One of my frustrations with 3e & 3.5e was the ability to craft a character's backstory that was adequately reflected in their skill and feat choices without gimping them in combat. For me, the character's backstory provides the rational for his alignment, perclivities, tactics, etc. and will often play an active role in how the character responds to new situations. I have not seen 4e, as yet, but I'm hoping that I can build a backstory that is matched with a robust skill/power set reflecting that background, that won't gimp the character down the line.

As an example, 3.5e bugged me that a smart fighter would never get many skill ranks compared with a normal rogue. Say my fighter started life working as a stone mason before moving into soldiering. I would have to take Profession: Stone Mason with at least 1 rank, and their is little chance that this rank would be valuable except in very limited circumstances. And let's face it, 1 rank of anything indicates you now something about a skill but are not particularly good at it (such as in the case of making a livelihood). One would have to balance whether to use a skill point on backstory skills or use that point on Swim, Riding, Knowledge: X, etc. which might have much more tactical use because of mechanics.

Since 4e starts 1st level characters as fairly competent, I'm hoping that much of a character's backstory is actually reflected in skills that have in-game value. If anyone can speak to this, i'd appreciate it.

brawls

1) I hear your intitial complaint. I sometimes run into that as well. Personally, I've always given characters 1 free rank at level 1 dependant on their backstory. Sure, you can use it to just get more Move Silently or something, but its one rank...

2) Honestly, do you really feel that having a basic knowledge of Stoneworking is going to somehow help you in combat, or in adventuring in general? It's like taking craft (basketweaving), you can't actually expect it to come up much, as adventuring isn't about basket weaving. That all being said, taking those skills don't really hurt you in combat. I mean, really, other than Spot/Listen there aren't too many skills non-rogues/bards really need anyways.

3) In 4ed, from what I understand, skills such as these simply do not exist. Skills are in a few overarching catagories, such as Preception (Sense Motive, Spot, Listen). I actually agree with this, but what I do make sets such as this available while still allow individual skills to be taken. The details are in my sig. It makes a bit of a mess, but that's what you get when you make a reversely-compatible system.

BloodyAngel
2008-06-03, 05:34 PM
Well, given that there are no craft skills... I'd say it's just a matter of asking the DM "Hey, my character was a stonemason... can I mason some stone in my spare time?". Unless the DM thinks stonemasonry is an incredibly game-breaking skill... I'm sure that will be fine.

As a fighter, you get three skills of your choice. Athletics (climb/jump/swim), Endurance (You WERE a laborer of sorts) and say... Intimidate ("No one messes with the stonemason's guild! Rocko, break his legs.")

A rogue, the "skill class" gets 6 skills... two of which are chosen for him. Not a huge difference. What's more, anyone can spend a feat to gain skill training with a new skill NOT on their class list. Since feats are more numerous and far less potent than in 3.5... not only is this worthwhile, but a darned good idea for some! I can't imagine a character who doesn't spend a feat to get training in Perception eventually... and it makes a lot of odd builds more viable. Want a canny, stealthy fighter? Skill Training Stealth, high dex, light armor, light shield. Your AC is good, you have NO check penalty, and you have a skill that no fighter in 3.5 could pull off without having the AC of a few shades above festering crap.

Instead of seeing the skills in the game as all the skills there are... I prefer to think of the skills in the game as all the skills that need rules for them. Let's face it... the crafting rules were needlessly complicated and annoying... not to mention not needed. And they REALLY reduced background ideas, as was mentioned above. If I want to be a kid who's dad was a blacksmith... and I trained as a blacksmith from age 12 to 24, when my forge was trashed by orcs and I took up my father's blades to be an adventurer... 3.5 greatly limited my ability to do that. With my meager skill points, I don't have the points to max my blacksmithing skill (as anyone doing it for 12 years probably should)... and everyone knows that Skill Focus: Blacksmithing is a waste of a feat. Not to mention that as a fighter, I can't really afford to slap a good score into my Int unless I have a LOT of good scores kicking around. That means, in all likelyhood, my character will be a pretty miserable blacksmith even if I do max out the skill at the expense of ones that might actually matter in the game. Not to mention that even if I do max out the skill, gimp my str for good Int, AND put a feat into skill focus... The high leveled character who just put points into the skill because he had a throw-away skill or two will always be better than me. Because level equals skill apparently... meaning those mastercraftsmen of the world all better be between 10th and 20th level in their NPC classes, or they can't get their skill past the lowly PC's who do them as hobbies... and the PC's will wonder why they need craft-guy when they're just as good.

So my poor blacksmith character can not be represented in the game without intentionally hanicapping myself. Given that my companions are relying on me to save their scrawny butts in the fray (until the wizard becomes god on a stick), that's not fair to me OR them. I like the new skill system. If you don't... that's fair too... I'd like a game where level does not factor into it as much as training and experience in a skill, but since the new skill list is MOSTLY skills that are broad and overall, I find it a vast improvement over the 1st level half orc fighter with 20 strength who can't jump well, because his int was too low for him to have any skill points. Meanwhile the 8th level gnome rogue with 5 strength can jump as far as him, or farther, because he had a billion skill points. I like that in 4th ed, I can play a fighter with 10 int, and actually still be able to do something other than smash people in their naughty bits with a sword!

I don't poo those who prefer 3.5. Enjoy yourselves with it. But I'm tired of the hate going back and forth. Let's just stop the arguements and agree to seperate... you can have the house, I'll take the kids... and if we run into each other in the grocery store, we'll do our best to avoid eye contact.

/rant end

Brawls
2008-06-03, 06:09 PM
So 4e has no crafting or knowledge (profession/trade) skills? Hmmm. Not sure how to parse that idea. I like crafting or otehr knowledge/profession skills as it provides a lot of RP hooks. So does 4e propose any crafting/profession framework? I know there are knowledge skills, which I also like to use a lot.

In 3e, I would work with a player on their character's history and just assign skills to reflect their background. I tried to keep the balance between players, so no one felt screwed. If someone wanted to play the teen sorcerer without any relevant focused training or skills, I would consider raising an attribute by a point or so, or look into an additional feat.

Sir Biscuit
2008-06-03, 06:17 PM
Again, I'm pretty sure that there are rules for crafting items... but I haven't seen them yet. I'll give a shout out here once I have my books at hand and I can say for sure.

I know there's a Religious Knowledge skill for the godly types... other than that, I don't think there's any specific profession/trade skills.

BloodyAngel nicely summed up why I like 4e skills better. Thanks for that. :smallsmile:

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 06:50 PM
The only reason I can think of is because for these "others" combat is the only important part of the game, and non combat is a trascurable (and trascurated) detail.

That might be pigeonholing the viewpoint a little. Combat is an important part of D&D (not the most important part, but it is and always has been a significant percentage of the mechanics). The ability to survive danger is an important part of adventuring. The problem is not with granting or disallowing the ability to sacrifice survivability (through removal of combat capabilities) in order to grant minor mechanical benefits to roleplay of character talents. The problem comes when the system in insinuates that this trade-off is in any way fair or equitable, the way that one's selection of classes, feats, or skills are intended to be roughly equitable. The books need to be written for the first-time player who wants to become a hero, and has no idea that the Sage class is for people who deliberately want to Epic Fail at combat.


And can you understand why I prefer to have some even minimal mechanical support for these non combat activities rather then leave it to the DM whim, even if this whim would be in my favor? Try to apply the same reasoning to combat, would you have the same satisfaction from a combat vs powerful monsters if the DM didn't used rules for it but just said "congratulation, you defeatead them"? I think not. Well, It is the same to me, I'd like a campaign where non combat activity could be as much as important as combat activities, or at least the options to create such a campaign, and for that I need mechanics for them. 4e don't give me such options.

Here's a suggestion, then: select a talent (or more than one if your DM prefers) that would traditionally be chosen under Profession or Craft, but don't significantly impact the rest of the game. Choose the most relevant ability score for said profession or craft. When you wish to use your ability, your DM can use the table on DMG page 42 to determine a DC for your craft, based on whether the task is easy/medium/hard for your current level of skill. Roll an ability check (with half your character level) and grant +2 for your training. Complex tasks can be handled as skill challenges, using the appropriate skills (including social ones to find/acquire materials, etc.). Your DM can even award experience for these skill challenges based on the rules in the DMG.


Yes, I want to be able to say "I'm a good blacksmith" as I say "I'm a skilled fighter" and "I can use magic" which, if I can make you notice this, *need* mechanical support to be effective. Else I'd write "i'm the greatest fighter of the multiverse" in my sheet and then go killing Orcus at first level because Hey, I'm the greatest fighter in the multiverse, who need mechanics for it?

I'm a broken record at this point, but the off-the-cuff guidelines on DMG page 42 are pretty useful to handle most everything roleplay-related that needs a quick mechanic.

My core point, again, was that it's disingenuous for the ruleset to suggest that trading combat potential for roleplay perks is fair and equitable. That falls into the old fallacy that mechanically optimized characters are automatically roleplayed poorly, and mechanically fragile characters are automatically roleplayed better.

Fourth Edition dispels 3e's notion that non-combat abilities balance combat abilities. All those "skill" and "utility" characters are now also capable combatants, because picking a class only to discover It's A Trap is not fun. This does not hamper roleplay: mechanics and roleplay only intersect when the player asks "did I succeed" and it's agreed that DM resolution is not appropriate. Fourth Edition has a nice system to resolve these checks (with the ever-present DM's Helper rounding out all the edge cases).

In summary, roleplay is important. Nice little perks are useful. However, tricking players into dropping their combat survivability below what the game expects, in order to gain small mechanical bonuses to roleplay skills, is a Very Bad Idea.

Sebastian
2008-06-04, 04:15 AM
That might be pigeonholing the viewpoint a little. Combat is an important part of D&D (not the most important part, but it is and always has been a significant percentage of the mechanics). The ability to survive danger is an important part of adventuring.
The problem is not with granting or disallowing the ability to sacrifice survivability (through removal of combat capabilities) in order to grant minor mechanical benefits to roleplay of character talents. The problem comes when the system in insinuates that this trade-off is in any way fair or equitable, the way that one's selection of classes, feats, or skills are intended to be roughly equitable. The books need to be written for the first-time player who wants to become a hero, and has no idea that the Sage class is for people who deliberately want to Epic Fail at combat.


But this assume that combat is always the main part (if not the only) of adventuring and that removing from combat to put somewhere else is "always" a net loss, which is not true. What is important in an adventure/campaign should be decided by the players, you could have adventures with little or even no combat at all, but in 4e you'd still have 3/4 of your character sheets filled with combat stuff


Here's a suggestion, then: select a talent (or more than one if your DM prefers) that would traditionally be chosen under Profession or Craft, but don't significantly impact the rest of the game. Choose the most relevant ability score for said profession or craft. When you wish to use your ability, your DM can use the table on DMG page 42 to determine a DC for your craft, based on whether the task is easy/medium/hard for your current level of skill. Roll an ability check (with half your character level) and grant +2 for your training. Complex tasks can be handled as skill challenges, using the appropriate skills (including social ones to find/acquire materials, etc.). Your DM can even award experience for these skill challenges based on the rules in the DMG.
It is a good suggestion, and it is probably the only way to do such a thing in 4e, but it is a little too near to "dm whim" maybe for my tastes. And again why do you assume that not-combat stuff is/should be automatically not relevant for the adventure?


My core point, again, was that it's disingenuous for the ruleset to suggest that trading combat potential for roleplay perks is fair and equitable. That falls into the old fallacy that mechanically optimized characters are automatically roleplayed poorly, and mechanically fragile characters are automatically roleplayed better.
it is a false fallacy, imho, think about it in this way, you have two possible courses of action, one for which you have clear and precise rules (and for which the 75% of your character is made for, stat speaking) and one for which yopu have at best vague guidelines, which you are more probablle to pick?
You can roleplay both with and without mechanics, true, but it is (imho) easier to roleplay (i.e. act like your character would) if you have some mechanic to support it.

It would be fun to play combat like you would play non-combat, just ask the DM "hey, can I defeat the dragon?" the DM think about it a little, maybe roll a dice, and go "yeah, sure, you win" or "no, sorry. You are dead" that would be fun, right?

Ok, maybe the problem is that combat need detailed rules because when PCs enter in to it they risk their life, and is not fun dying without having a word in it, while i.e. blacksmithing (usually) is not so critical.

But, as I probably repeated an half dozen times by now, if you have rules for combat and for little else you'd be naturally inclined to focus on combat rather than anything else, both as a master, while creating adventures and as a PC while playing it, which is IMHO bad and remove many possible sources of fun.
Take Ars Magica , as an example (no, really, take it, is really good and you can download the 4th edition for free) while it have rules for combat it have rules for a lot of other things, too, like magical research or managing a covenant, and players pass a lot of time doing these unfun (by 4ed standards) things and having a lot of fun with them.

Sebastian
2008-06-04, 04:40 AM
The way I see it, is all about options. IMHO RPGS are always about freedom, what really make RPG different from other games is the freedom they give to the player. in other games you have a limited (if large) number of options, in RPGs as a rule of thumb if you can imagine it, you can (try to) do it. This include character creation, a good RPG should give me the option to create any character I can think of, and let to me and to my group to decide if is a good/fun idea or not. when a game tell me "you can't create such a character because it is not fun" it cut down on my options and hence on my fun.
4E (and 3e before, if to a minor extent) cutting down on possible character concepts, cut down on possible campaigns/adventures and hence cut down on the possible fun. Of course what is fun shoudl be decided by the whole group but is true for any RPG, if I play a gurps delta force campaign and I want to play a school teacher with no combat abilities then I'm just being an ******* to the other players.