PDA

View Full Version : Have a little Class (yes...4e)



OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-13, 04:48 AM
So we have a lot of general stuff going on, and one thread specifically talking about class balance. I wanted to get into class diversity. So I am gonna make some lists, and then talk about them. I will say upfront that I have switched to 4e, and I like its revision of the class roles. Onward!

3e's classes

Core: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror, Wizard
CW: Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler
CAr: Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen
CD: Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman
CAd: Ninja, Scout, Spellthief
PHB2: Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
ToB: Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade

Other bonuses: Multiclassing, and a near infinite of PrCs, specialty mages, cleric domains, infinite spells, and other classes I missed from random splatbooks.
4e's classes

Core: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard

Other bonuses: 3-4 paragon paths per class, multiclass feats.
As can be seen indisputably, 4e has less choices for individual classes all around. I will first start by saying that I think the majority of things done making new base classes could have been very believably done with just core 3.x material. A Scout, for example, is nothing more than a Ranger/Rogue. A Beguiler could be a Sorceror who picks a certain type of spells. A Ninja is a Rogue/Wizard. A Wu Jen is, literally, a Wizard.

What I like, and will miss, about PrCs is that they would add emphasis to certain multiclass choices which otherwise would have inhibited each other: The Spellsword is a good example of that, getting rid of your casting penalty for wearing armor. But, the main point I am tryng to make is the following:

(I will now take for granted that you have played the game and realize the classes function in very different ways) Two common complaints about 4e are: 1) The classes are not comprehensive enough. 2) Class roles are too specific, and 'railroad' the class into being a certain way.

I would argue that the first argument, at present, is true, but the second is under the assumption that 3e forms: that customizing your character is barely based on your initial class choice at all, and will usually be fully realized around level 6 when you pick up your PrC. But, PrC's don't exist in 4e. So, if they want to introduce an archetype or new class in 4e, they will make a new class for it, as they are doing with the Swordmage and Artificer.

I will further emphasize this by showing that most of the primary 3.x classes can already be made:

3.x: Barbarian, Fighter, Samurai, Knight, Warblade
4e: Fighter

3.x: Cleric, Paladin, Dragon Shaman, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Crusader
4e: Cleric or Paladin

3.x: Ranger, Scout, Swordsage
4e: Ranger (though only some of the swordsage builds would fit)

3.x: Rogue, Swashbuckler, Ninja
4e: Rogue

3.x: Sorceror, Wizard, Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen, Shugenja
4e: Warlock or Wizard

3.x: Hexblade
4e: fighter/warlock

This leaves for 3.x Bards, Druids, Monks, and Duskblade. And 4e stands with the Warlord. The Swordage, Bard, Druid, and Monk are being released as classes. So all the base stuff is pretty much covered.
I know many people will disagree with me, that, for example, the 4e Fighter covers so many classes, but I do believe that with but a few minor cosmetic changes, most of these things can be represented quite easily in 4e. They aren't necessary, but a few minor rules changes can add to the flavor.

Comparing core, it must be admitted that the Monk and Druid are lacking and are difficult to represent with the current classes in 4e. This minorly hurts my final stance, as I know it would be too controversial to say that I feel I can make more character concepts with 4e core than with 3.x. But I will leave it lie for right now.

My final stance is this though: 4e's basis for defining your character will be his initial classes, and an expanding number of class, each with 3 or 4 paths for realizing their various roles will have an equally diverse character choice base to 3.x, and it will be more resistant to individual character cheese (which will invariably be replaced with group cheese, but that's okay, because the whole group gets to have fun!).

Tengu_temp
2008-08-13, 04:59 AM
Two common complaints about 4e are: 1) The classes are not comprehensive enough. 2) Class roles are too specific, and 'railroad' the class into being a certain way.


And there's also 3) That all classes are homogenous and barely differ in anything now. Compare this to 2) and facepalm. But then, consistency is not among the strongest point of rabid 4e complainers.

Anyway, good analysis.

Saph
2008-08-13, 05:17 AM
My final stance is this though: 4e's basis for defining your character will be his initial classes, and an expanding number of class, each with 3 or 4 paths for realizing their various roles will have an equally diverse character choice base to 3.x.

When 4e starts including classes that don't have at-will and encounter powers, don't require you to do HP damage, and have even half the versatility of the better 3.5 classes, I'll agree with you.

Until then, sorry. I like 4e in some ways, but diverse it is not.

- Saph

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 05:24 AM
When 4e starts including classes that don't have at-will and encounter powers, don't require you to do HP damage, and have even half the versatility of the better 3.5 classes, I'll agree with you.

Until then, sorry. I like 4e in some ways, but diverse it is not.

- Saph

Depriving classes of at-will and encounter powers would just bring back 3E's crappy "X encounters per day required for balance" shtick. They were specifically avoiding that.

And no class should have the versatility of the better 3.5 classes.

Charity
2008-08-13, 05:29 AM
Yeah I want classes with no HP's and whom roll % dice for hit locations because thats what diversity is... c'mon Saph.

Ow I just trod in some Bees...

Saph
2008-08-13, 05:35 AM
Yeah I want classes with no HP's and whom roll % dice for hit locations because thats what diversity is... c'mon Saph.

Different mechanics for classes. 3.5 has lots of different mechanics for classes - Vancian casting, spell point casting, invocations, maneuvers. 4e has basically one. Hence, 3.5's characters are more mechanically diverse than 4e's.

This isn't something especially controversial I'm saying here.

- Saph

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 05:41 AM
Different mechanics for classes. 3.5 has lots of different mechanics for classes - Vancian casting, spell point casting, invocations, maneuvers. 4e has basically one. Hence, 3.5's characters are more mechanically diverse than 4e's.

This isn't something especially controversial I'm saying here.

- Saph

And here I thought you were talking about the original post, which is about the kinds of characters you can make, not whether they all use different subsystems (which is good, uh, how, again?).

tarbrush
2008-08-13, 05:43 AM
Yes, but I think the point is that classes in 4e are based on a very uniform architecture (You get X encounter power, Y dailies, most do HP damage). Regardless of whether you play a wizard or a fighter or purple spotted platypus, you'll have a certain number of things you can do at will and a few 1 shots that regenerate at various rates.

Whereas is 3.5e, you could play something with Vancian casting, something with Spell list casting, something with 4e style power (ToB), something based on skill checks (truenamers, and to a lesser extent rogues) power point based stuff, and all the wierdness of Incarnum, binders etc. Thus the experience of playing a Swordsage was very different from playing a binder or a wizard, whilst still being fun.

This is not to deny that the massive proliferation of ways of doing things was hamstrung by the fact that some options were capable of being vastly more effective that others. Or that 4e has made some very positive contributions to D&D, by, for instance, removing Save or Die, and by neutering some of the classes.

But in the end I wish they hadn't done the universal class architecture thing. I know that the classes are all different and do different thing, but ultimately, they all feel the same.

Morty
2008-08-13, 05:44 AM
(Which is good, uh, how, again?).

Well, some people like the classes to differ from each other in the way they work, not only in what they do. Now, obviously you aren't one of those people. But have it ever dawned on you that some people's priorites might be vastly different from yours?

Saph
2008-08-13, 05:45 AM
And here I thought you were talking about the original post, which is about the kinds of characters you can make, not whether they all use different subsystems.

Quoting for a second time:


My final stance is this though: 4e's basis for defining your character will be his initial classes, and an expanding number of class, each with 3 or 4 paths for realizing their various roles will have an equally diverse character choice base to 3.x...

Less mechanical variety = less diverse character choice base, at least in terms of how the character works in the game.

- Saph

Charity
2008-08-13, 05:49 AM
I know you are not being controversial Saph, but I am trying in my own inimitable way to suggest mechanical diversity is not all it's cracked up to be.
AD&D had loads of mechanical diversity and was pilloried for just that.

4e is built on a basis of unified mechanics, removing that gives you 3.x in a funny hat, now I know a lot of folk want 3.5 wearing a fake nose, (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) but plenty of folk would rather have something shiny and new, built on its own foundations.

Good lord stumbled through bees, tar and feathered .... I really ought to formulate my posts a bit quicker...er.

Saph
2008-08-13, 05:57 AM
I know you are not being controversial Saph, but I am trying in my own inimitable way to suggest mechanical diversity is not all it's cracked up to be.
AD&D had loads of mechanical diversity and was pilloried for just that.

4e is built on a basis of unified mechanics, removing that gives you 3.x in a funny hat...

Yes, and the more unified mechanics make it less diverse, at least in terms of how characters work. And that's what I was disagreeing with the OP about.

- Saph

Charity
2008-08-13, 06:00 AM
Isn't that a tautology Saph old man?

Sorry I might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere down the line..

Saph
2008-08-13, 06:02 AM
Isn't that a tautology Saph old man?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

So you can imagine my surprise when Bees jumped in and started arguing with me for saying it - well, actually, arguing with something I hadn't really said, but that's nothing new. :smallwink:

- Saph

fractic
2008-08-13, 06:03 AM
Who said WOTC won't come up with varied mechanics within the at-will/encounter/daily system? I could imagine psionics something like this: Psions get a power point pool per encounter and powers could be augmented.

Boom new mechanic within the general system.

Saph
2008-08-13, 06:06 AM
Who said WOTC won't come up with varied mechanics within the at-will/encounter/daily system?

They might; they might not. The new classes we've seen so far (e.g. the Swordmage) are new combinations of the same stuff. WotC might break the mold for later books, but that's just guessing.

- Saph

Charity
2008-08-13, 06:08 AM
I don't think thats very likely fractic nor particularly desirable.

Bees can get a bit excitable... they do make sweet stuff though.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-13, 06:35 AM
Different mechanics for classes. 3.5 has lots of different mechanics for classes - Vancian casting, spell point casting, invocations, maneuvers. 4e has basically one. Hence, 3.5's characters are more mechanically diverse than 4e's.

This isn't something especially controversial I'm saying here.

- Saph

You call that a good thing? Most RPGs that are not DND (in other words, games that went away with useless relics of the past) have unified mechanics for everything. I'd rather have a game where all characters use the same mechanics, but the results of their actions are very different, than one where character A rolls dice, character B spends mana and character C draws tarot cards, but the results of their actions are practically the same.

Morty
2008-08-13, 06:38 AM
You call that a good thing? Most RPGs that are not DND (in other words, games that went away with useless relics of the past) have unified mechanics for everything. I'd rather have a game where all characters use the same mechanics, but the results of their actions are very different, than one where character A rolls dice, character B spends mana and character C draws tarot cards, but the results of their actions are practically the same.

How about, you know, both? I don't know what stops the game from using different mechanics to produce different effects. 3ed does that already.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-13, 06:42 AM
Because thinking up new mechanics for each new class introduced, and making sure those mechanics are balanced with those that are already in game, takes effort. Effort that could be put to making the results more diverse, instead.

Having diverse mechanics is not a bad thing, if you don't cross the line. But 3.x did. It was still a step forward when compared to AD&D's "use completely different mechanics for every action", though.

Morty
2008-08-13, 06:48 AM
Because thinking up new mechanics for each new class introduced, and making sure those mechanics are balanced with those that are already in game, takes effort. Effort that could be put to making the results more diverse, instead.

How much diverse results can you have? After a while, you start to repeat itself, just as 3ed did after first dozen of splatbooks. Also, I don't think anyone is talking about different mechanics for every class here. For me, ToBesque manuevers for warriors, Vancian and spontaneous casting and maybe power points for casters and something else entirely for skill users would be enough.


Having diverse mechanics is not a bad thing, if you don't cross the line. But 3.x did. It was still a step forward when compared to AD&D's "use completely different mechanics for every action", though.

Maybe 3ed crossed the line, I wouldn't know. But 4ed won't have any lines to cross with totally unified mechanics.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-13, 06:50 AM
Yes, and the more unified mechanics make it less diverse, at least in terms of how characters work. And that's what I was disagreeing with the OP about.

- Saph

I actually don't think it can be denied that Saph is right on this point. Characters are mechanically less diverse in 4e than in 3.x. It is a matter of opinion whether or not this equates to a lack of diversity in general. I can see where someone might prefer different mechanics to represent different abilities.

On my part, I prefer the unified mechanics, because I have noticed my mind just automatically expanding more quickly into character (and, as a DM, monster) design, background, and flavor, rather than abilities. This is why, in my opinion, the Fighter can be a Barbarian.

He does not have the Rage mechanic. But you can use any of your abilites and just say he is doing it. Brute Strike could be a sudden flash of blinding rage, as well as it could be an extremely well placed sword blow. If one really needs rules, it would be a simple thing to introduce a stance at a certain level which did something like +4 Dam/-2 AC for the encounter or something.

As far as spellcasting goes, one has to pick a system, and they happened to not pick a Vancian one (kind of). I think the wizard class' versatility has gone down, but no other class suffered from versatility loss in their concept, save for the Cleric as a Necromancer, which will invariably come out in a splat book. Rather, to the contrary, most classes have had their concept choices expanded upon. The key is to not make the associations you made before. If, before, you made your swashbucklers from the Fighter class, then just make it from the Rogue or Ranger now. It will be much more effective than a Dex Fighter was in 3.x, and more interesting to play.

Whoops, gotta go for now!

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-13, 08:02 AM
I would have preferred a system mechanic with more choices which 4E could easily have been:

You start off with X amount of Points and gain X amount of points advancing each level. Certain default packages (Races, Classes and PRCs) provide a discount to cost over a la cart shopping. Default race would have been human.

Races would be weighted because some are better than others mechanically.

BAB would be weighted.

HD would be weighted.

Saves would be weighted.

Feats would be weighted. (Some feats are extremely good others are less so)

Each level of spellcasting would be weighted.

Other cool specials and super powers would be weighted.

Tormsskull
2008-08-13, 08:07 AM
I would have preferred a system mechanic with more choices:


I homebrewed a system like this once a few years back. It was based off of the old DIKU and ROM MUDS from the mid-90s. Basically, you start with 40 creation points. Each ability (Additional attacks, sneak attack, barbarian rage, etc) costs a certain # of points, and had minimum level requirements (you could spend the points and get the ability, but you couldn't use it until you were the minimum level).

There were also packages of abilities, like the spell groups, which would allow you to get several related spells for a reduced creation point cost as opposed to buying each of those spells individually.

It was a lot of fun in the short term, but it was also difficult to balance because a player could make their characters very unplayable with poor choices.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-13, 08:32 AM
How much diverse results can you have? After a while, you start to repeat itself, just as 3ed did after first dozen of splatbooks. Also, I don't think anyone is talking about different mechanics for every class here. For me, ToBesque manuevers for warriors, Vancian and spontaneous casting and maybe power points for casters and something else entirely for skill users would be enough.

I'd personally be fine with different mechanics for spells and other stuff - for example, mana (I loathe Vancian casting, and spontaneous casting is the redheaded child of Vancian casting and mana/power points system) or some sort of checks (but better executer than the truenamer) for casting, and ToB maneuvers for physical powers. Or like in Exalted - both use Essence, which you can recover both by rest and by doing really cool stuff. However, the situation where every different caster class brings a new casting mechanics with itself is pretty much absurd to me.


Maybe 3ed crossed the line, I wouldn't know. But 4ed won't have any lines to cross with totally unified mechanics.

Not a bad thing.


I would have preferred a system mechanic with more choices which 4E could easily have been:

You start off with X amount of Points and gain X amount of points advancing each level. Certain default packages (Races, Classes and PRCs) provide a discount to cost over a la cart shopping. Default race would have been human.

Races would be weighted because some are better than others mechanically.

BAB would be weighted.

HD would be weighted.

Saves would be weighted.

Feats would be weighted. (Some feats are extremely good others are less so)

Each level of spellcasting would be weighted.

Other cool specials and super powers would be weighted.

You're practically describing Mutants & Masterminds here. As well as GURPS and Big Eyes, Small Mouth, but they don't use D20 mechanics (BESM D20? What's that? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisContinuity)).

Aron Times
2008-08-13, 09:08 AM
HP represents more than physical damage in 4E. A better way to describe HP would be "fighting ability".

Most attack powers deal damage in 4E because it did away with most of the status conditions in 3E. Many attack powers, especially wizard spells, deal damage in addition to inflicting a status condition. You can think of the status condition as the main effect of the spell and the damage as a bonus that helps whittle down the enemy's HP.

The perfect example of this type of power is Legion's Hold, a level 29 wizard daily spell. On a hit, it deals 2d10+int damage and stuns the targets until they make their save. On a miss, it deals half damage and dazes them until they save.

Although the damage is listed first, the status conditions are really the main benefit to casting this spell. At level 29, 2d10+int damage is only useful against minions, but the stunning and dazing are good against everyone.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-13, 09:08 AM
I dislike the unified system. It was nice having entirely different viewpoints between our rogue, our psychic warrior, our sorcerer and our artificer.

ImperiousLeader
2008-08-13, 09:13 AM
Right now, I'm liking the universal class mechanics. The powers are still diverse enough that each class plays differently at the table, despite the similar structure.

And I have to admit, deciding whether or not (and how) to monkey with the current class design is a headache. I've been working on homebrewed updates to the Incarnum classes and the Binder from Tome of Magic, and it's been a struggle fitting their mechanics into 4e.

Prophaniti
2008-08-13, 09:13 AM
Thing is, even in 3.5 there were unified mechanics... skills worked the same for everybody, if you wanted to hit something with a stick or throw a rock at it, it worked the same. Varied mechanics only came into play when using a class's more unique features, such as spellcasting. I don't recall seeing another system with spellcasting (or psychic powers or whatever) where it was resolved as a regular attack, unless the spell or power specifically stated so. Of course I also don't recall seeing another system where 99% of spells and abilities dealt combat damage and had no powers that did things like finding out stuff, turning invisible, scaring someone, etc. So I guess if all your spells may as well be attacks then there's no reason to use a different mechanic for them, since the only difference between the spellcaster and the martial character is how many people they can hit at once and at what ranges.

But, hey, that's just my perception. I'm sure there's a veritable cornicopia of spells and abilities in 4e that can be used in combat but don't directly deal damage... I probably just missed them in my hate-filled skimming of the books, while I was looking for things to take out of context and rant about, right?

LordOkubo
2008-08-13, 09:42 AM
On my part, I prefer the unified mechanics, because I have noticed my mind just automatically expanding more quickly into character (and, as a DM, monster) design, background, and flavor, rather than abilities. This is why, in my opinion, the Fighter can be a Barbarian.

He does not have the Rage mechanic. But you can use any of your abilites and just say he is doing it. Brute Strike could be a sudden flash of blinding rage, as well as it could be an extremely well placed sword blow.

Might I recommend Freeform? It sounds like that would suit you better.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-13, 09:42 AM
But, hey, that's just my perception. I'm sure there's a veritable cornicopia of spells and abilities in 4e that can be used in combat but don't directly deal damage... I probably just missed them in my hate-filled skimming of the books, while I was looking for things to take out of context and rant about, right?

That would appear to be the case.

They're called Utility Powers, and each class has something like 20-30 of them.

Wizards, for instance, get invisibility, disguise self, levitate, wall of fog, blur and fly. I personally love the Rogue utility powers - stuff like tumble, close quarters, shadow stride, hide in plain sight and leaping dodge.

Then there's Rituals.

Charity
2008-08-13, 09:46 AM
Don't gurps and harnmaster use the same system for magic as for other skills/attacks?
I'm pretty sure Rolemaster didn't make a special case for them, and as it goes how is spellcasting in any way a unique ability for a class?
PHB Classes:
Fighter - nope
Ranger - yup
Barbarian - nope
Paladin - yup
Rogue - nope
Wizard - yup
Sorcerer - yup
Druid - yup
Cleric - yup
Bard - yup
yeah really unique, no need to unify those three non spellcasting classes into the we get to do the good stuff ner ner ne ner club.

Morty
2008-08-13, 09:47 AM
However, the situation where every different caster class brings a new casting mechanics with itself is pretty much absurd to me.

Those caster classes appeared in splatbooks much later. As long as core makes sense, some splatbooks being bizzare are fine, noone's forcing anyone to use them. I also still don't understand the hate for Vancian spellcasting, but I guess I'm just weird.


Not a bad thing.


I'm personally glad to sacrifice some balance for diverse and interesting mechanics, but to each his own.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-13, 10:00 AM
Mort - guess we can only agree to disagree.


Might I recommend Freeform? It sounds like that would suit you better.

If you told that to me, I'd take it as an offense. (Yup, I don't like freeform RP very much.) Just because you like to tweak the fluff around doesn't mean you don't like games with dice and mechanics.

Prophaniti
2008-08-13, 10:21 AM
That would appear to be the case.

They're called Utility Powers, and each class has something like 20-30 of them.

Wizards, for instance, get invisibility, disguise self, levitate, wall of fog, blur and fly. I personally love the Rogue utility powers - stuff like tumble, close quarters, shadow stride, hide in plain sight and leaping dodge.

Then there's Rituals.
Oh, good shot. Had my guard down there. That'll teach me to try being snarky first thing in the morning. Ok, I forgot about some of those utility powers. Keep in mind that I've played only three levels, and ran a fighter. Also, I don't own the books, so I don't have a chance (or desire, really) to look through them very often.

Rituals I dismiss for two reasons; They can't be used in situations where the party is in danger; and ANYONE can learn them. That really bothers me on some basic level.

As for the utility powers, ok they do cover some of the bases I was referring to, though not all. I still don't understand the desire to eliminate serious status effects, such as Fear, or to have the powers that cause status effects also deal damage, or to reduce status durations to one round. Save-or-Suck effects, even save-or-die ones, remain a fun and interesting part of every system I play, not just D&D, and I don't get where the attitude that they ruin gameplay comes from. Maybe from people who's character died and they couldn't cope?

Anyway, thanks for tearing me a new one. I just wasn't paying attention there.

Yakk
2008-08-13, 10:54 AM
Rituals I dismiss for two reasons; They can't be used in situations where the party is in danger; and ANYONE can learn them. That really bothers me on some basic level.

ANYONE who burns 2-3 feats (one or two for the skill(s) they are probably missing, and another to gain access to casting Rituals).

The ability for non-Clerics/Wizards/Warlocks to cast Rituals exists in order to prevent the "you must have a Cleric/Wizard/Warlock" character in your party syndrome. If you want to play an Elven Ranger who knows some magic, it is as simple as burning a few feats (Wizard Multiclass (which gets you Arcane skill), then Ritual magic feat), and you have access to non-combat Wizard magic. Burn yet another feat on Religion, and you have access to even more Ritual magic. Burn more feats, and you have access to some combat spells.

But if that isn't part of your character concept, usually you have better things to do with Feats (even if it is only + a few points of damage per attack, +bonus to your skills, +a few HP, +a healing surge, a new type of armor, etc etc -- you aren't running out of "good" feat choices in the Heroic to Paragon tier (Epic suffers a shortage of feats, I'll admit) -- so only if your party lacks a Ritual caster or it fits your character concept is it a great idea.)

AKA_Bait
2008-08-13, 11:02 AM
Rituals I dismiss for two reasons; They can't be used in situations where the party is in danger; and ANYONE can learn them. That really bothers me on some basic level.

Well, that's their design. They aren't supposed to be able to be used expediently in combat. That the wizard could teleport like a mofo in the middle of combat was one of the things that made the class unbalanced.

As for anyone can learn it... I'm not sure why that bothers you. It seems no more strange to me than in 3.x a player taking a PRC for a specific magic type ability when they aren't a spell casting class. Or even closer, taking ranks in UMD to use scrolls as, say, a rogue.


I still don't understand the desire to eliminate serious status effects, such as Fear, or to have the powers that cause status effects also deal damage, or to reduce status durations to one round.

Well, they are only one round if the player/monster makes their saves. Some are also persist-able.


Save-or-Suck effects, even save-or-die ones, remain a fun and interesting part of every system I play, not just D&D, and I don't get where the attitude that they ruin gameplay comes from. Maybe from people who's character died and they couldn't cope?

It came from their poor implementation in 3.x. Save or Die/Suck overpowered doing damage in 3.x to a degree that, at least according to TLN, it was silly for a mage to be casting spells that do damage. That's too much. Save or sucks still exist in 4e, as do save or dies. They are just watered down a bit and spread out over the entire party.

Check out a few of the comments on the making challenging encounter threads, folks have used the 'make the bad guy take minuses' effects of various members of the party to great effect, without making damage useless. Players can still stack debuffs on bad guys and render them practically unable to harm the party.

Save or Dies still exist too, although I think they are currently only in the hands of monsters (I could be wrong, I haven't read all the high level powers closley enough or recently enough to be sure). A medusa can still turn you to stone, it just takes several failed saves in a row rather than one. Each failed save stacks some additional penalties on you until you croak. Personally, I find that a lot better, and more exciting, than one die roll decides it all.

Kletian999
2008-08-13, 11:21 AM
Oh, good shot. Had my guard down there. That'll teach me to try being snarky first thing in the morning. Ok, I forgot about some of those utility powers. Keep in mind that I've played only three levels, and ran a fighter. Also, I don't own the books, so I don't have a chance (or desire, really) to look through them very often.

Rituals I dismiss for two reasons; They can't be used in situations where the party is in danger; and ANYONE can learn them. That really bothers me on some basic level.

As for the utility powers, ok they do cover some of the bases I was referring to, though not all. I still don't understand the desire to eliminate serious status effects, such as Fear, or to have the powers that cause status effects also deal damage, or to reduce status durations to one round. Save-or-Suck effects, even save-or-die ones, remain a fun and interesting part of every system I play, not just D&D, and I don't get where the attitude that they ruin gameplay comes from. Maybe from people who's character died and they couldn't cope?

Anyway, thanks for tearing me a new one. I just wasn't paying attention there.


The reason every attack does at least some HP damage is to encourage group synergy. Take this example: party members A, B, and C can only cause HP damage, party member D has an instant death spell with a low chance of success but enough usages that it'll work before he run out. The party is fighting monsters that takes multiple rounds to kill. If however A,B,C, and D all attack the same monster, certain outcomes will happen:

1. The instant death spell works: any HP damage done to the focus monster was "wasted" and was better spent on another target if there was one (or the monster was so close to HP death that another target would have been better choice for the death spell).

2. The HP damage kills it first, all the attempts at using the instant death spell did nothing- monster would have died faster if D had used HP attacks instead.

Death is an extreme example- but the same principle holds that a status effect is best applied on a fresh monster instead of one that's close to dead from HP.

Now 4e says "You can still try to do your devasting save against move, but you'll still be helping bring down the mob even if the effect keeps getting resisted". I don't know what 3e fear did, 4e fear is used to explain some "pushback" powers. Status effects can and do last past 1 round (save ends, until X happens, or until end of encounter), it's just restricted to daily powers.

The "ruins gameplay" is part "only X classes get these effects, and these effects are infinately better than normal damage- removing any purpose others may have brought to the fight" and part "things are no longer exiciting challenges unless the DM jumps through hoops to make all of said effects not work"

Lyndworm
2008-08-13, 12:19 PM
In response to the OP, the Player's Handbook states that the Barbarian class will be released in a future publication.

A very well written post. Not very informative to me personally, but still enjoyable and obviously well thought-out.

Zack

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-13, 11:05 PM
Importantly, I'm not talking about class balance here. I'm talking about the number of characters one can create and how WotC will work on expanding that number. I'm also talking about how I think 3.5 mentality (which automatically includes the idea that your character won't reach full potential until at least 6th level, probably not until 10th), has somewhat tainted how people feel about the "rigid class roles" assigned in 4e.

4e wanted every class to be viable and fun to play, mechanically, from level 1 to level 20. And I find it does a good job of this. Expounding on that idea:

@Prophaniti: The fact that all powers are damage dealing powers is due to two things. The first is that they have redefined the rules, so that almost ANYTHING you use ruleswise will be used IN encounter. This excludes Rituals and a few random skill checks. Everything else out of encounter is now up to the DM and players. The second is something I already know you disagree with, which is the further abstraction of Hit Points. So now a fear spell makes you run away a little bit, but mostly does more damage to your overall fatigue/sanity/will to live/etc.

Still, with battlefield control being what it is, having people run away for even one round can significantly change the flow of a battle, saving a friend or multiple friends from being overwhelmed.

I would add from a personal level that I ended up changing my Fighter's build in one game because he was hit with so many will saves, which almost always equated to "Save or Leave the battle for its duration." At worst, it was "save, or kill one of your teammates while dominated." That ended up being very little fun for anyone. Realistic or not.

@Rituals: I just want to add that anyone's being able to access these makes creating certain character concepts much easier! The wizard is still the king of magic, and if, as a non-caster, you don't want to blow the two feats to get them, then you won't. If they are so useful that many characters will want them, then that means that they must still be highly effective, even for overcoming emergency situations.

@LordOkubo: Yeah, I actually like the idea of freeform and started my roleplaying career 14 years ago with a simple game called Redbull. Redbull was 2 or 3 players, with one person storytelling. You had to kill the redbull before he accomplished some task. No dice or character sheets were involved. You had to find a weapon and kill him. Then I made my own similar games for Spaceman Spiff and Megaman. Then I found DnD! And I could actually get my friends to play that one, so here we are :-). Plus, I love heroic fantasy.

Vortling
2008-08-13, 11:51 PM
You forgot the Factotum, the Binder, the Shadowcaster, and the Truenamer :smallwink: . OneFamiliarFace, I think your list isn't complete/indepth enough to support your point. For classes like the fighter, ranger, rogue (ie core classes) you don't need a detailed write up. I doubt anyone would argue that concepts don't carry over from those classes. However simply assigning a listing for classes like the Beguiler, the Dragon Shaman, the ToB classes, and the classes on the "not made yet list" isn't enough. Could you detail how you reconcile all those class concepts down to the 4e classes you've assigned them?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 12:42 AM
Ok, I forgot about some of those utility powers. Keep in mind that I've played only three levels, and ran a fighter.

So... you're complaining that your Fighter didn't have enough utility spells?

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-14, 01:05 AM
Could you detail how you reconcile all those class concepts down to the 4e classes you've assigned them?

*Pulls up his sleeves* Oh, before I start here, I should mention that if we are still stuck on the mechanics discussion, then I will have a problem. I accept as base that different mechanics don't always allow for different concepts, and, more importantly, having the same mechanics does not necessitate having the same concepts. As a result, anyone who casts magic in different ways than a wizard, under my OPINIONS, is just a simple matter of explanation.

For example (and I don't know anything about them), the various classes from ToM would be wizards or clerics with slightly different explanations as to where they get their powers. Anyway... *Pulls up his sleeves higher*

The easy ones are the martial classes:

Samurai, Knight, Fighter, and Barbarian are not really so much different classes as they are different explanations for the same, or very similar, abilities. There are numerous Fighter powers which exemplify brute strength (Barbarian), martial mastery through stances and Kensei path (Samurai), and forcing the battle to break and revolve around you (Knight). The Warblade is a slightly different case, but again is, in concept, a martial arts adept, and any of their in-game abilities can be represented by certain exploits or paragon paths. Even White Raven can be as simple as taking a few multiclass feats into Paladin, Cleric, or Warlord.

Likewise, Ninjas, Swashbucklers, Scouts, Rangers, and Rogues are basically the same combat concept expressed in slightly different ways. That concept is a skirmisher. All, aside from Ninjas, have no magic abilities, and so the 4e Rogue and Ranger class can easily represent them. The Swashbuckler is an Artful Dodger. The Scout is a Ranger focusing on mobility. For the Ninja, one might want to Rogue with some multiclass Wizard feats for invisibility and should pick up some rituals, but a flat Rogue could be a ninja just by saying he is an assassin employed by a Daimyo.

So the hardest classes are from one of the best books: ToB. I find it difficult to see how a Fighter cannot easily be a Warblade, since they function in almost exactly the same way. The Crusader had access to defensive and leadership abilities of a holy nature, and the Cleric and Paladin have access to the same abilities. The Crusader's thing about saving damage was a complicated and, frankly, uninteresting mechanic. If you want things that are similar, look at multiclassing into Fighter to pick up some self-healing stuff I guess. The Swordsage is, admittedly difficult to emulate. Perhaps the upcoming Monk class will do a better job. Still, if one had a swordsage before that was anything other than Desert Wind or Shadow Hand, then there are still a plentitude of 4e options for representing the other schools, especially found among Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue. Desert Wind would require a small rules change in which your abilities did fire damage. But other than that and the cool flying fire charge abilities, what would be lacking?
Next up, and slightly harder are the Divine and Leader classes:

The Cleric, Paladin, Favored Soul, and Crusader are a series of classes with incredibly similar abilities, usually only being derived in a different fashion or watered down to a different degree. Essentially though, all of these can be represented by the current Cleric and Paladin. The original classes' roles were one of the following: healer, holy smiter of justice, and/or buffer. A leader role takes on the healer and buffer part. A Paladin or Battle Cleric is perfect for holy smiter of justice. If you tell me that being able to specifically cast "Bull's Strength" or use "Thunderous Mountain Strike," were crucial to your character concept (which is what I am talking about here), then I think we will propbably never see eye to eye on this.

The Spirit Shaman is a divine being who deals with spirits. Okay. Numerous cleric abilities summon spirits to aid the party. Your healing? Benevolent spirits. Damaging enemies? Angry spirits. Take the Divine Oracle paragon path and say your spirits are telling you things from their combined knowledge. You don't have all the same abilities, but you arefunctioning in the same way: healer, summoning helpful spirits, being spiritual.

The Dragon Shaman is a slightly different case, in that its Aura mechanic is not truly present in the current game for players, and there is no way to gain permanent wings. Still, the Auras are perfectly represented by any of the leader classes. You just say they are devoted to a dragon, instead of a god. For slight rules changes, consider the following: 1) Changing your radiant damage to the type of a dragon. 2) Starting as a human, and asking the DM to allow you to become dragonborn at a certain level, changing your race, losing and gaining abilities as appropriate. But, importantly, you don't NEED those changes. You could, for example, multiclass wizard and pick up some energy spells of your dragon's type. As a cleric or paladin, you will still be able to hold your own in combat (just like the DS). So you are functioning in the same way: bolster allies, have good defense, worship dragons.

(sidenote: I have always loved Clerics, but actually had trouble defining mine in 3e, when any cleric could pick any spell, no matter who their god or what he would want. So I prefer that Necromancers will be portrayed by a different class than a Cleric. Especially since True Necromancer or whatever that thing was in Tome of Horrors did it far better and more brokenly anyway.)
And now, onto the hardest, Casters!:

I would argue that the Sorceror, Wizard, Warmage, and Wu Jen were the exact same class. If anyone tells me that they function differently (which is reasonable), then I hope I never hear them say that all 4e classes are exactly the same. In effect though, all of these classes almost always functioned as blasters. Sure, your Sorceror may have been a charmer, but then why not play a Beguiler? Either way, your spell list allowed you to do a few things: deal damage, change the battlefield, summon creatures, avoid combat with charm and illusion spells, defend from magic, and emulate other classes' abilities (Specialist wizards and Batman wizards will be saved for later). The reason the last two were available was because magic was too powerful (I will explain my reasoning on this later, and it is not balance issues), so I'm going to chop them off for now. The 4e wizard CAN deal damage, and he CAN change the battlefield. Which means that Sorceror, Warmage, and Wu Jen are already covered by the Wizard class.

The Warlock is the 4e Warlock. *Shrugs* I guess it's only fair to note that I cannot recreate my favorite gnome warlock's abilities in 4e. But that was never what I was discussing. I can still recreate his concept. Before, he could dimension door at will, leaving images of himself behind, and he could teleport to walls or ceilings because of his permanent spider climb. A Fey Pact build will get me the flavor, but not all the coolness. Still, the concept is there, which is my original point. (Sidenote: It bothers me a bit that said warlock could do all of that and more by 7th level, where my fighter character was just coming into his own at 12th.)

Summoning, illusions, and charms I have already admitted are not yet part of the 4e system, but I forsee a Summoner, an Illusionist, and a Beguiler in the future. Keep in mind that their abilities will be for use in combat only, but they will probably come equipped with Rituals for things like permanent summoned guardians or permanent images. Permanent charm spells are right out, but if you can find an entire gaming group who can actually agree on how the Charm spell works (without compromising), then invite me to play with you!

I don't know much about Truenamers and Binders and the like, so can someone tell me if they can't just be Wizards with different reasons for having their magic?
Lastly, there are Batman Wizards:

I will avoid talking about the glaring balance issues, as I understand that is not a problem for some people (as it is not for me). Your wizard may have been Batman, which is nigh impossible to emulate in the 4e system, but that isn't a character concept, it's a Deus Ex Machina. Don't believe me? Think of any fantasy story with a wizard who is all powerful. Gandalf has been used as an example. His magics only ever come into play to save the party from an otherwise impossible situation. Gandalf IS Deus Ex Machina. Even Marty Stu characters like Rand in Wheel of Time or Richard Rahl in Sword of Truth often have to resort to the blade sometimes. Why? Because their most powerful magics take time to cast. And their companions are still necessary, because Rand has not the luck of Mat Cauthon, nor the brute strength of that wolf guy. And Richard can't charm people, because that is a dark magic.

But to get away from high fantasy and balance, which I know Prophaniti does not like :smalltongue:, I will argue that because, after all is said and done, DnD is a game, one which has always been designed for a team, rather than an individual, the Batman wizard simply cannot be available as a class, because he plays no role, and in fact assumes the roles of others, making the "team" concept ineffectual and pointless. In short, Batman wizard is not and should not be an available class, precisely because the notion of a class automatically denotes some form of specialty.

Whew, so that still leaves illusions, charms, and summoning as not available in 4e yet. Though, I don't see an illusionist class or summoner class as being too problematic for the future. I would also argue though that there are many new options available through the Warlord class, which few 20-lvl classes in 3.x (other than maybe the Dragon Shaman) can emulate.

Finally, I would like to note again that this is not about class balance. It is about character concepts. I feel that 4e will be able to express more character concepts, in a simpler and more concise manner, than 3.x could with all of its base classes, PrCs, and sometimes convoluted multiclassing. (Again note: I like 3.x, and usually had fun playing it, depending on the group, but I will not miss wizardly Encounter Bypass buttons which started as low as Sleep.)

Helgraf
2008-08-14, 01:16 AM
So... you're complaining that your Fighter didn't have enough utility spells?

Whoa Bees. Normally I agree with you, but this remark is just going to end up with pie in your hive, considering every class gets the same number of utility powers, regardless of whether you call them exploits, spells, or prayers.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 01:19 AM
Whoa Bees. Normally I agree with you, but this remark is just going to end up with pie in your hive, considering every class gets the same number of utility powers, regardless of whether you call them exploits, spells, or prayers.

Sure, but give the Fighter the same breadth of utility the wizard has and Prophaniti will be complaining that a Fighter can do all these things and isn't just a mundane swordsman. Don't give him utilities that can do those things and... well, we just saw what happens.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-14, 01:27 AM
*Gets out his fire extinguisher* Now don't make me use this boys. It...well... it shoots sharp words and harsh reprimands. Let's all just have a smoothie and calm things down.

On a sidenote, could someone send me a smoothie? That would be really nice right now.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-14, 01:47 AM
*Gets out his fire extinguisher* Now don't make me use this boys. It...well... it shoots sharp words and harsh reprimands. Let's all just have a smoothie and calm things down.

On a sidenote, could someone send me a smoothie? That would be really nice right now.

man, now I want a smoothie, and it's midnight.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-14, 01:54 AM
man, now I want a smoothie, and it's midnight.

You think THAT's bad? I won't be able to have a smoothie until the next time I go to Bangkok. I could hop on the next available bus and guarantee you would have a smoothie in your hand before I even saw the city!