How to make 4e DnD more diverse like 3.5?

[NMBLNG]

Have we come to a conclusion as to what the OP meant by 'diversity'?

[Vknight]

No we did not.

I believe they were talking about the greater variety of classes and maybe multiclassing.

Which can be done in 4e but works differntly.

Or maybe weapon enchantments but its different not less diverse.

If its the inability to choose some monstrous races that makes sense your heros in 4e not villians or monstrosities.

[Fox Box Socks]

...now I want a bloaster.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, I look at 3.5/PF (and to a much lesser extent AD&D) as a Swiss army knife, and 4e as a steak knife.

The Swiss army knife can do all sorts of neat stuff; it has a compass and a saw blade and a corkscrew and scissors. However, if you're eating a steak, you'll want the steak knife. Why? Because the saw blade and the compass and the corkscrew and the scissors don't improve your ability to eat steak. The steak knife is better for that. Conversely, while I can think of any number of things you can do with a steak knife (like, say, killing a man, or using the blunt end of it to open a jar of strawberry jam, or whatever), the Swiss army knife is always going to have more legitimate uses, if only because of the sheer number attachments it has. This isn't to say that you can't use your steak knife to do the things you can with your Swiss army knife, it's just that your steak knife is designed for other things.

Which one is more diverse? This depends entirely on how much steak you eat. If you eat a lot of steak, you're going to get more use practical use out of the steak knife. If you don't like steak very much, the Swiss army knife is your best bet.

[The New Bruceski]

If you want to play a "broad" system, don't play 4e. I love it to death, but it's not meant for simulation, or low combat investigation, or low-magic gritty campaigns. Making 4e broader is kind of not the point.

Now I'm imagining this being played for laughs. Some larger than life heroic characters trying to investigate a mystery in a mansion. They're followed around by a very exasperated servant, "no no no! Absolutely no burning of the tapestries! Why is that wolf in here?"

[Leolo]

...

Which one is more diverse? This depends entirely on how much steak you eat. If you eat a lot of steak, you're going to get more use practical use out of the steak knife. If you don't like steak very much, the Swiss army knife is your best bet.

Now i am so hungry.

I think your description fits very good, but i want to broaden it a little bit more.

There is another problem with the swiss army knife. You do not use all of it's 200 options. In fact, most of the time you will end up using 3-4 of them, because they are the best for the tasks that you have to accomplish.

To bring this on a role playing game level: I have played nearly 10 or 12 bards in 3.5 because i love playing bards. But if i would look on them without the flavour or the role playing background and ethics they all look very similar. They do have similar spells, they do use similar tactics. To the point that they do have the same feats taken at the same levels.

Because they should be effective, at least to a moderate degree. And bards are already a class with some inherit diversion, as you have to choose a playstyle for them and focus on it. A melee bard, a buffer bard and a ranged bard are already different themes. Nevertheless they look and feel very similar in game.

Looking at the characters in my groups over the years they all look even more similar. The difference between two fighters was not much more than weapon and race choice. And most times both are limited to some few options, just because the other options are considered not good enough.

Diversity is not just about having options, it is about having equal options. Balance and diversity have to complement each other.

[Eldan]

In most cases, diversity in D&D does not come from base classes, true. There's very few base classes (Tier 1&2 casters, if you allow homebrew styles, the ToB classes) that allow much diversity within the class beyond maybe one to three different basic build styles.

The diversity really more comes from prestige classes, multiclassing and the greater variety of races.


While two Bards 20 are very similar, a Warchanter, Seeker of the Song and Virtuoso are very different.

[Leolo]

Sure, but this is not much more than to say bard and cleric are different, or bard and fighter.

They are - to some degree.

But they are different classes, too. In fact this is something 4E might does better. If you choose a paragon path, you are still a bard and still get additional bard levels. You just add something.

[tcrudisi]

If you want to play a "broad" system, don't play 4e. I love it to death, but it's not meant for simulation, or low combat investigation, or low-magic gritty campaigns. Making 4e broader is kind of not the point.

Simulation? Certainly not. But neither is any D&D predecessor. The only game that I've personally played which does simulation even remotely well is Gurps.

Low combat investigation? I'd argue it does it better. 4e has fewer skills, but I think that works out better. If you are doing a low combat investigation in 3.5, the poor Fighter isn't going to be doing much. With the condensed skills, he has a much better chance of being able to participate. Tack on skill challenges and suddenly his Athletics can become useful.

Low-magic gritty campaigns? Of course it's great at it. Use the low/no magic rules that were printed and you've got a low-magic campaign world. In fact, it's laughably easy. And 4e can easily do gritty, that's mostly a matter of DM style.

[Mando Knight]

Low-magic gritty campaigns? Of course it's great at it. Use the low/no magic rules that were printed and you've got a low-magic campaign world. In fact, it's laughably easy. And 4e can easily do gritty, that's mostly a matter of DM style.

Hint: get the DMG II. That's where those rules are printed.

[Darth Stabber]

Good Investigatory Systems - Call of Cthulu, Hero Systems (Like Gurps only good), and strangely SWSE (ignore soldiers and you have it going on, and Jedi domination is mitigated in an investigatory story).

[Lord Raziere]

Hint: get the DMG II. That's where those rules are printed.

and if you want to really be gritty, combine those with Dark Sun's lessened magic item tables or whatever you call them.

[Kurald Galain]

This is a classic "hammer" problem: if your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

That is, while technically any RPG system can be used for every possible setting you can imagine, it is clear that certain systems are better or much more suitable for certain settings. For example, you can, at least technically, run an investigative horror game using Amber DRP, or run an epic fantasy with Paranoia rules.

So asking "can system X be used for setting Y" is a red herring. The proper question is, "is system X a good choice for setting Y". Frequently people will say "yes" because X is the only system they're familiar with, but that doesn't make it so.

[Leolo]

Of course, and thats what arguments are for.

I could simple say: "4E is a good system for low combat games with much investigation" - and this might be enough for some people who simple trust someone they do not know and who is saying something on the internet.

Or i could explain why i do think that it is a good system for such campaigns.
That still leaves the decision to trust this words up to the fellow reader.

But it makes it easier to judge, if someone claims a different opinion without such arguments.

Why is 4E not only useable for such campaigns, but good for it? Because it has explicite rules for them, tools for the players and the dm to create and solve such tasks. Skillchallenges, Skills, Rituals, Non Combat Powers, but also things to hide the evil guys so that an investigation does make sense. The DM tips for such situations teaches the DM that not only some people in the group should have fun with such encounters but all. And they are bind into the system regarding rewards and experience. Both points help to use this tasks more often as a DM, without boring half of the group or slowing down the game.

And because the options are balanced enough to solve such problems using different approaches, those can be choosen by the player characters. This balancing is a very important point. Options to solve a problem have to be of similar effectivness (even if this means they have different pro's and con's) or they aren't options at all. If the best solution to a task is always: "Ask the mage to solve it" you will not see many creative ideas.

[true_shinken]

Why is 4E not only useable for such campaigns, but good for it? Because it has explicite rules for them, tools for the players and the dm to create and solve such tasks. Skillchallenges, Skills, Rituals, Non Combat Powers

You were doing pretty well up until the bolded part.
I do agree with you, though. I think the skill challenge system is wonky at best, but it's a good idea.

[Leolo]

Although i wouldn't say that 4E has many usefull out of combat powers most characters do have them.

Can an assassin sneak by using special powers? Yes - he can. Can a wizard teleport himself up to the window in the tower? Yes. Can a Bard make the group look as if it where a couple of orcs? Sure. Or use his magic to increase his diplomancy? Of course.

Most of those things are less useable than in former editions, to avoid the problem mentioned above: If spells do everything easier than mundane actions those are lost as options for the game. And many former similar tricks are now rituals.

But nevertheless i wanted to mention those things, because they are part of the game, and part of the topic "non combat tasks and what does the system provide to solve them"

[Kurald Galain]

You were doing pretty well up until the bolded part.
I do agree with you, though. I think the skill challenge system is wonky at best, but it's a good idea.

"Game X is good at Y because it has rules for Y" is, of course, fallacious. After all, FATAL also has rules for non-combat investigation.

[true_shinken]

"Game X is good at Y because it has rules for Y" is, of course, fallacious. After all, FATAL also has rules for non-combat investigation.

It's impossible to argue once you put FATAL on the opposing end of your point.

[Kurald Galain]

It's impossible to argue once you put FATAL on the opposing end of your point.

Yeah, Godwin's Law and all that

Still, my point is that if you consider 4E's out-of-combat system to be above average for an RPG, then I'm curious as to how many different RPG systems you're actually familiar with.

[true_shinken]

Still, my point is that if you consider 4E's out-of-combat system to be above average for an RPG, then I'm curious as to how many different RPG systems you're actually familiar with.

Touché.
The same can be said about any edition of D&D, though. I think Leolo was for some reason restricting his comments on versions of D&D.

[Tyndmyr]

At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a flaw if it's intended in the design.

A blender isn't a bad blender just because it isn't also a toaster.

This is true. A blender is a really poor toaster, but most people will just look at you and ask why you're trying to toast bread in a freaking blender.

4e isn't flexible, and yeah, it wasn't supposed to be. If you enjoy the type of games 4e was designed for, you will almost certainly like 4e. It was very good at achieving it's design goals.

Sure, you *can*, with significant work, refit a blender to toast bread. However, if you do that, I can pretty much guarantee that it won't be a good blender anymore. If you do it poorly, it may suck as a blender AND as a toaster. The same is true for 4e. You hack it to be a lot more like 3.5, and you'll likely lose the things that make it good at what it currently does. There is no such thing as a perfect roleplaying system for everything.

Although i wouldn't say that 4E has many usefull out of combat powers most characters do have them.

...

Most of those things are less useable than in former editions, to avoid the problem mentioned above: If spells do everything easier than mundane actions those are lost as options for the game. And many former similar tricks are now rituals.

Not true. Consider the classic out of combat role of searching for things. Yes, spells like "detect secret doors" exist, and are excellent within their limited scope, but do not come close to the utility of having a properly paranoid rogue(or similar) with lots of ranks in search. Spells are limited. Skills are not. The skillmonkey is a classic role, and non-combat options have historically been of significant importance in D&D. Heck, in the earliest versions, avoiding combat altogether was generally the smart move if available.

Also, in 3.5, skill tricks are underrated.

[Grogmir]

I agree with Leolo, I have no probs running 4th on a low magic, investigation type style of campaign.

The majority of the action is outside combat (and Skill challenges), just me (the DM) and the rest of the guys Role Playing. There are a list of skills that anyone can use; and all PCs have a decent score in some; If you need them to roll a dice.
Some of the PCs have utility powers, or other powers with Effects that they have used to create unknown ways of solving things and the party has a few rituals to cover other situations.
It rare for me to have a situation where the players fell like there have no options. While also they don't do the same things over and over again.

With regards to the OP, 4th can seem a little restrictive at character builder stage, I can houseruled 'In' the floating stat rule with minimums for each class / race. that really opened up the options.

I certainly felt more options than when playing 3.5 where it was, Okay Cleric, Druid or Wizard (Thats simplified of course but you get the idea i'm pointing at)

overall though -without getting into a ed war. I don't agree with a lot of the statements on this thread. 4th has been a revelation in our group. Finally we can just turn up and play, I forget the last time we had a PHB or DMs guide open at the table of play - its been months at least.

its just pure RPing, with the occasional roll thrown in, and were lovin it.

Which is the main point - play whatever you find fun. If the majority are against 4th then you're better off taking a back seat - statting up a Wizbang and having some fun.

happy Rollin
Grog

[Kurald Galain]

The same can be said about any edition of D&D, though.

Yes, although there are some fundamental differences. Whether these are good things or bad things is, of course, subject to opinion. This assumes the non-weapon proficiency rules for 2E.

• In 2E, the biggest factor for success is whether you have a skill trained; in 3E, it's how many points you've invested; in 4E, it's which attribute it's based on.
• 2E has more skills than 3E, which in turn has more than 4E.
• In 2E and 3E, you learn more skills as you level up; in 4E, you don't.
• In 2E and 3E, learning out-of-class skills has a price in terms of class skills; in 4E, it has a price in terms of combat efficiency.
• In 2E and 3E, you get more skills if you have a higher intelligence; in 4E, you don't.
• In 3E, you become better at existing skills as you level up; in 2E and 4E, you don't (in 4E, both your skill bonus and the target DC go up at roughly the same rate, so your chance for success doesn't actually increase).
• In 3E, your class is a big factor in determining how many skills you get; in 2E and 4E, it is a small factor.
• 3E has skill points, 2E and 4E don't.
• 4E has skill challenges, 2E and 3E don't.
• 3E and 4E have skill powers, 2E doesn't.

Of course, the resolution mechanic is the same in each.

[true_shinken]

I certainly felt more options than when playing 3.5 where it was, Okay Cleric, Druid or Wizard (Thats simplified of course but you get the idea i'm pointing at)

No I don't get the idea you're pointing at. Are you saying you can only have fun in a game if your character is powerful enough to break the game?

[Kurald Galain]

its just pure RPing, with the occasional roll thrown in, and were lovin it.

So in terms of blender/toaster metaphors: you actually want to eat a piece of fruit which you're not going to blend or toast anyway, and you're buying a toaster to put in the corner of the table because you think it's prettier than the blender.

You're certainly entitled to own a toaster when you're not toasting anything; but this really doesn't say anything about the toaster.

[Grogmir]

No I don't get the idea you're pointing at. Are you saying you can only have fun in a game if your character is powerful enough to break the game?

No i'm saying there's no fun playing Robin. or one trick ponies. (melee classes)
As another have said - it doesn't matter if you have a million options. if only one of them is the only decent option.

So in terms of blender/toaster metaphors: you actually want to eat a piece of fruit which you're not going to blend or toast anyway, and you're buying a toaster to put in the corner of the table because you think it's prettier than the blender.

You're certainly entitled to own a toaster when you're not toasting anything; but this really doesn't say anything about the toaster.

Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.

[true_shinken]

No i'm saying there's no fun playing Robin. or one trick ponies. (melee classes)
As another have said - it doesn't matter if you have a million options. if only one of them is the only decent option.

You're wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin.
First, while you may not enjoy playing a sidekick, many people do. We even have works of fiction where the sidekick's name is on the cover (like Green Hornet or Pokémon).
Second, not being a spellcaster does not make you a sidekick in 3rd edition unless you're playing a hyper optimized game with a bad DM. Once or another a spellcaster might overshadow you, but that's not being a sidekick. It's being the Red Tornado in the Justice League and being pissed off about the Flash being faster than you.
Third, more options always matters, even if they are not the 'best' possivle choices. I'm old school, sorry. My RPGs are not about winning, losing or having the best DPS.

Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.

That's true for every system ever and Kurald has gone on lenght explaining why. Maybe you should read his posts.

[DeltaEmil]

Edition-fighting is not the point of this thread. It's how to add more options to 4th edition D&D so that it feels more like 3.5 edition D&D.

[Kurald Galain]

Nope... What I'm saying is that while 4th has a Rep as a blender - its actually a toaster or a blender, or a airplane. Its a simple system and you make of it what you want. Thats the beauty of it.

Any system with hundreds of pages of rules is absolutely not a simple system. You're talking about one of the most rules-heavy RPGs on the market, here.

Edition-fighting is not the point of this thread. It's how to add more options to 4th edition D&D so that it feels more like 3.5 edition D&D.

For that, we first need a definition of what the OP means by that. So far, we're only turning up that "4E is already like 3E because in both cases you can ignore the entire system to do freestyle playacting". While technically correctg, that's not a very helpful statement.

[Grogmir]

Indeed mateio. Moving On….

How to increase options:

1) Take the essentials guidelines as per floating stats and implement that – really opens up Class/ Race combo’s.
2) Allow more skills to be ‘trainable’ by each class.
3) Grant a free feat for either skill training or multi-classing
4) Allow home brewed powers
5) ReRead page 42 and explain the power of it to your group. It may be ‘fudging’ but boy does the fudge taste good!

Good Luck and Happy Rollin’
Grog

[Kurald Galain]

It's funny how people keep pointing out Page Forty-Two as a specific virtue of 4E, considering how this principle is present in literally every single RPG in the world. Yes, in an RPG you can do creative things and have the DM decide the outcome. That's the whole point of RPGs. 4E is apparently the only RPG where the players tend to forget this and have to be reminded regularly.