Why does 4th Edition have classes anyway?

[MartinHarper]

At the end of the day, everyone needs attacks that allow them to cover all the tactical bases.

Perhaps, but they can do this very differently. In an army vs army tactical situation, some characters can alter the battle with AoE attacks that clear out swathes of mooks. Other characters can alter the battle with morale effects that boost friendly mooks and make them more powerful. Other characters can alter the battle by conjuring winds to disrupt the enemy archers, or throwing up walls of stone to protect friendly archers. You don't have to give every character an AoE attack to have them all be useful in that situation.

On a side note, being caught alone is a tactical situation, but I don't think all characters need to be equally powerful when they're caught alone.

[MartinHarper]

You'd give each of them a primary, secondary, and tertiary shtick, and try to keep to it.

• Elemental Blasting primary, Control secondary, Mobility tertiary.
• Natural Control primary, Healing secondary, Mobility tertiary.
• Planar Healing primary, Summoning secondary, Cursing tertiary.
• Psychic Mobility primary, Cursing secondary, Blasting tertiary
• Shadow Summoning primary, Mobility secondary, Control tertiary.

I understand that we don't want an Elemental/Natural PC that has primary blasting powers and primary control powers and is therefore flat out better than an Elemental PC that has primary blasting powers and only secondary control powers.

Could we allow an Elemental/(natural) PC that has primary blasting powers and secondary healing powers and no control powers? If you dabble in the Natural power source, you gain secondary healing, but only characters who focus on the Natural power source gain primary control. Similarly you could make a Psychic/Psychic/Shadow character that has mobility primary, cursing secondary, and control tertiary, but no blasting.

[Username17]

Could we allow...

The answer to such a question is almost always "yes." The question is merely whether such an allowance would destroy more variety than it would create.

an Elemental/(natural) PC that has primary blasting powers and secondary healing powers and no control powers? If you dabble in the Natural power source, you gain secondary healing, but only characters who focus on the Natural power source gain primary control.

Aside from questions of whether we want people to have Mobility/Mobility/Mobility or something stupid, remember that your list won't actually give you such simple arrangements - it will give you lists of powers that are informed by the knds of things the power source is supposed to do. So for example: a Psychic ability might be a Telefrag that teleports you to an opponent's location and tosses them over for some damage and disorientation. That's a Mobility/Cursing/Blasting power in one, and it's not easily divisible out into something you'd replace part of the Shadow shtick for.

What could be done is to introduce something along the lines of a Final Fantasy subjob. Where you could spend a certain number of points off of another list. But frankly I think that hurts the theme of characters more than the character versatility is worth. If you see someone throw down a briar wall maneuver, you don't really want to spend the rest of the combat having the dude psychic blast you because it turns out that he only dabbles in Nature magic and actually he's pretty much a hard-core brain eating Psychic. It cheapens both psychics and druids to have that happen.

The kinds of flexibility that people want should, I think, be handled exclusively with the universal lists. That is, the things reminiscent of Elemental Magic that are easy enough for other people to learn should just be known as being learnable by anyone, full stop. Possibly the humble Firebolt is nominally Elemental in nature, but is on the universal list because literally anyone can use it. So when you see someone throw a Firebolt it doesn't disappoint you when the same character spends most of his time unraveling your effects and healing his demons because there's no expectation that Firebolt usage entails any Elementalist nature on the user's part.

-Username17

[K]

If a player wants to be the only person who gets area attacks, then he doesn't get to play at my table. I seriously am tired of people continuously saying "but I'm not just a Mage, I'm an Evoker who is better and anyone who wants to use fire magic stepping on my toes." That person actually wants situations where other people are useless and they are the only possible hero.

No. The idea is that once you've made your game system, the number of power sources actually is not extensible. You throw in other power sources, and you're irrevocably changing the game into a different one. And while that can sometimes be done without upsetting the entire apple cart, mostly those apples get tossed.

A lot of people want there to be a guy whose primary contribution to the tactical capability of the team is that he has more and bigger explosions than the other characters. Call hm the nuker, the artillery, or the magic user, but it's a role that people are familiar with and a lot of people have affection for. That doesn't mean that you have to include it, but it does mean that you don't have the fucking right to get indignant about some people suggesting that they want it to exist.

At some point you have to bite the bullet and make a decision about what the exact limits of your magic system actually are. And having different character paths that excel at different tactical facets is a pretty decent start. On the five directional "duplicate D&D settings" idea, you'd give each of them a primary, secondary, and tertiary shtick, and try to keep to it.

Specialization is different from people wanting to be the only one with a certain tactical niche. The first is allowable, and the second is not.

There is no workable system where some people get some tactical roles and not have the other. It leads to un-writable adventures and unhappy players

Second, you don't have to fix sources. Ever. As long as the underlying tactical roles are covered, you can indefinitely extend it. While a novelist may only have ten hours of text to engage you in a world, a game literally has years to get you into it. DnD 3e has proven that you can put out a supplement every week and have get powers for any damned reason at all.

In a game, it really is fine to have a one-off guy who does blood magic or a guy who uses a form of magic his family invented. Rifts is as popular as it ever was and never revised itself into even a 1990s system simply because it understands that lots of players really only care that they fight fun things every week. China Melville even writes very popular novels based on the concept that the world can be full of strange magics despite there being a few popular versions.

Really, it is only children's fiction where the universe has to be orderly. Avatar can only handle four kinds of magic because it is expected to make sense to small children.

For a game system role, the only thing that needs to be protected is the tactical things that people are expected to do. For example, if anyone can fight an army then everyone is expected to be able to do it, otherwise you are just an NPC during that adventure and you can go play Smash Bros. If ypu can't make meaningful army-fighting choices in that army-fighting battle, then you reslly can just auto-pilot through that part of the adventure. So yes, saying "but I can use Wind magic to protect the archers" is the same as saying "I'm going to go get pizza, and my character does wind magic to protect the archers. See you in a few hours when this is all over."

PS. That's kind of crazy talk about the Wheel of Time stuff. The fact that people can be cut off from the Dark is no different from being cut off from the Source,, so using as proof that it is just an effect and not a source is crazy. You have people double dipping in sources and no one cares. Heck, you have characters like Moridin who only have Dark and they use it like the Source and you have other weird thing like Gray Men who might as well have some other source, and you have Ogrier who have some natural magic, Mat has some luck magic....the list goes on. If the author had lived, I expect his world would have filled up with magics even though he themed it about Male and Female.

[Manxome]

Ok, here is the simple version:

1. Every class gets unique things.*

But some things are more unique than others?

Acid Stream isn't a good substitute for Fireball.

And yet, it's still a better substitute for Fireball than it is for Faerie Fire...

Am I successfully communicating this point to anyone?

[MartinHarper]

So we have Telefrag that is a protected Psychic power only available to Psychic characters, and we have Deafening Scream that is a Psychic themed power available to all characters. If you want to play a Natural/psychic character, you pick powers off the protected Natural list, plus some powers off the general Psychic list.

That seems to allow the idea of a Natural/elemental/planar/psychic/shadow character. Indeed, that's likely to be optimal, because it provides more opportunities for synergy compared to a Natural/elemental character. Is that ok? Does that dilute variety?

An alternative would be to allow characters to pick protected powers from one power source, and non-protected powers from that power source and from one other.

Saying "but I can use Wind magic to protect the archers" is the same as saying "I'm going to go get pizza, and my character does wind magic to protect the archers. See you in a few hours when this is all over."

I don't see how that is any different to saying "I'm going to get pizza, and my character blows up orcs with fireballs. See you in a few hours when this is all over".

[K]

Saying "but I can use Wind magic to protect the archers" is the same as saying "I'm going to go get pizza, and my character does wind magic to protect the archers. See you in a few hours when this is all over."

I don't see how that is any different to saying "I'm going to get pizza, and my character blows up orcs with fireballs. See you in a few hours when this is all over".

It's not, so let me quote myself: "If anyone can fight an army then everyone is expected to be able to do it."

So, if one character is expected to fight an army, we have to assume that to make it an interesting fight he needs a number of interesting tactical options to do that fight, right?

3e Wizards can fight armies. That's cool, and there are a number of stories you can tell because of that fact.

3e Fighters can't. Ever. They don't have tactical options other than maybe being able to kill fools three or four at a time and armies don't even operate on that scale.

Ergo, if you want a system where Wizards can fight armies, then you have to build into that system that Fighters of the same level can also fight armies.

[CatharzGodfoot]

On the five directional "duplicate D&D settings" idea, you'd give each of them a primary, secondary, and tertiary shtick, and try to keep to it.

How do you actually create the distinction? Do you have 'control slots', 'summon slots', 'mobility slots', and so forth? That would force character not to specialize too little or too much, and would strongly enforce the roles you've described. Psychic characters would just never have a chance to select summoning powers. It would also requires a fairly large pool of abilities to choose from unless you want every "nature" character to have almost exactly the same abilities. This method would also allow for a universal list (lists, actually) without messing with the roles.

As long as you're using that sort of a technique to enforce tactical roles, it seems as though there's no reason not to create a list for every power source/tactic combination that makes sense. Then you allow the player to choose whether her character is going to be primarily a shapechanger, animal summoner, or plant controller.

If you allow dual-classing, you just make the player select her primary, secondary, and tertiary powers from two lists. I think that would work a bit better that summoning only plants & animals and controlling only fire & electricity (which you could do if you really wanted).

---

The other option seems like actually making powers unbalanced, and then giving the more powerful powers to 'primary' characters and the really weak ones to 'secondary' characters. I think that's a bad idea, but it seems like fairly common game design.

[Bigode]

Ok, here is the simple version:

1. Every class gets unique things.*

But some things are more unique than others?

Acid Stream isn't a good substitute for Fireball.

And yet, it's still a better substitute for Fireball than it is for Faerie Fire...

Am I successfully communicating this point to anyone?

Yes, you are. But I, between RL stuff, am trying to figure if I can help solve this fvcking mess ...

[K]

Ok, here is the simple version:

1. Every class gets unique things.*

But some things are more unique than others?

Acid Stream isn't a good substitute for Fireball.

And yet, it's still a better substitute for Fireball than it is for Faerie Fire...

Am I successfully communicating this point to anyone?

If your point is: "there will be synergies", then the answer is "yes, there will."

If your point is: "multiclassers can cover more tactical ground", then the answer is "no, not if you build the classes right with the idea that each covers the same ground, just in a slightly different way."

If it's some other point, then "no, you haven't communicated your point."

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The kinds of flexibility that people want should, I think, be handled exclusively with the universal lists. That is, the things reminiscent of Elemental Magic that are easy enough for other people to learn should just be known as being learnable by anyone, full stop. Possibly the humble Firebolt is nominally Elemental in nature, but is on the universal list because literally anyone can use it. So when you see someone throw a Firebolt it doesn't disappoint you when the same character spends most of his time unraveling your effects and healing his demons because there's no expectation that Firebolt usage entails any Elementalist nature on the user's part.

This sounds close to the best approach.

With regard to the classes signature abilities, it would be best if there were choices within the classes themselves. I don't think we want all people of class X to be specced awesome ranged, meh melee, and bad AoE.

Each class should have signature abilities which are chosen off of lists, and you can choose your area of strength/weakness.

For example, if there were 3 primary combat niches (ex: AoE, ranged, melee), you would choose 1 weak, 1 moderate, and 1 strong. So for example, a Psychic might choose:

(Each has 3 abilities: Strong, moderate, weak.)
Strong AoE: Mind Blast
Moderate Melee: single target conditional Daze effect plus default damage.
Weak Ranged: single target conditional fatigue effect plus default damage.

Now, the biggest drawback I see is that we would need many abilities for each class. This may or may not be insurmountable. Signature strong abilities could function in a relatively complicated way, while moderate and weak abilities could be less complex.

The challenge is to make the Strong AoE (or whatever) of each class distinct and effective. I think that is possible. K has been advocating this in one form or another (I think).

So, what of all this?

[Username17]

How do you actually create the distinction?

Availability, strength, variety, and multi-disciplinary maneuvers.

I genuinely think that you should be able to make a Shadow character who doesn't do any summoning at all, even though summoning is the Shadow primary. Simply take all your Shadow ability slots and take things that don't summon anything.

With regard to the classes signature abilities, it would be best if there were choices within the classes themselves. I don't think we want all people of class X to be specced awesome ranged, meh melee, and bad AoE.

Absolutely. A class should give out themed and exclusive abilities, but it should have enough options in it that different characters in that class can look differently.

If your point is: "multiclassers can cover more tactical ground", then the answer is "no, not if you build the classes right with the idea that each covers the same ground, just in a slightly different way."

You keep making this claim, and it is objectively false. It just doesn't make any sense. It can't make any sense. Even if you have the same amount of ability selections on a single and multiclass character, even if you force every character to have the same number of selections from every tactical ability type (itself a stultifying and unsatisfying notion), then a multiclass character still by definition has more options and depth as you've defined things. If you want I will take a bunch of pictures of cards, I've got a Beer Money deck in this country, I can demonstrate this feature of set theory with real physical objects if you need me to - but seriously it is a feature of set theory. Taking half your selections from List A and half from List B is assured to be better than taking all from List A unless you specifically and deliberately make List B inferior to list A. If you make List B even vaguely balanced with list A a halvsies model is substantially superior to a monochromatic model.

There are ways to make halvsies setups not clearly superior. You can make resource management systems that favor using the same type of ability over and over again. You can let abilities in a single theme stack up to super moves otherwise unobtainable. Bt you can't just let people pick between 10 picks from Black magic or 5 from Black and 5 from White - because in a very real mathematical fashion the second choice is hugely substantially and demonstrably superior.

We aren't talking guesses at this point, we're talking mathematical certainty.

-Username17

[K]

This is how I think things should be broken up tactically:

3e Spell levels = Order. You rise an Order every two levels. You get one combat power per level (and one non-combat, but that is a different discussion), so 1 1st at level 1 and at level 6 you have two of each Order.

Attack=Strong attack and weak effect
Defense=No attack and very strong +defense
Counter= weak +defense and weak attack
Control= weak attack and strong effect

1st Order:
single target/Better than normal actions level/minor magic items.
Attack, Attack, Control, Defense

2nd:
Good circumstances level, AKA cover like a building or fog
Counter, Counter, Defense, Defense

3rd:
Area attacks level
Attack, Counter, Control, Control

4th:
Terrain changers level
Attack, Control, Defense, Counter

And so on with a general bias toward attacks...

Classes are typed for Single Target, Area, and Control where certain classes get flavor balanced according to that philosophy: this means that while all classes get an Area Attack at 3rd order, Mages get the one that is the largest area an most indiscriminate while a Fighter's 3rd Order area covers less area but is more discriminate.

As you might note, people can avoid Control if they like. However, they can't avoid having either Defenses or Counters, and they will have single target and area effects.

[MartinHarper]

If your point is: "there will be synergies", then the answer is "yes, there will."

I think the point is that dual-classed characters will have more possible synergies they can use and therefore will be stronger than single-classed characters if built correctly.

Additionally they will have a wider selection of powers, and therefore can be better tailored to precisely the campaign that the DM is running. A Necromancer/Magical Girl can take all the anti-giant spells on the Necromancer list and all the anti-giant spells on the Magical Girl list, and do better in a giant themed campaign than a regularNecromancer or a Magical Girl.

Essentially, more options + brains = more power. This can be solved with anti-synergies, or you can just give multiclass characters -1 on all dice rolls, or whatever.

[Bigode]

3e Spell levels = Order. You rise an Order every two levels.

BTW, why not cut the crap and make order = level? Or rather, WTH do you want even levels to give that people actually care about (instead of, well, gaining them because ... they're there anyway)?

[K]

3e Spell levels = Order. You rise an Order every two levels.

BTW, why not cut the crap and make order = level? Or rather, WTH do you want even levels to give that people actually care about (instead of, well, gaining them because ... they're there anyway)?

Look at the chart I put up. It forces you to get a certain variety of abilities if you have to pick twice off of each sublist.

I mean, I could have gone the 4e route of just telling people exactly what they got at each level, but that's not very organic and doesn't give the illusion of choice.

[baduin]

...
Ergo, if you want a system where Wizards can fight armies, then you have to build into that system that Fighters of the same level can also fight armies.

Of course, but they fight them in an entirely diffferent way from Wizards.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T301035/text021.html

"Then the royal hero took up his weapons of battle and contest and strife. Of these weapons of battle were these: he took his ivory-hilted, bright-faced sword with his eight little swords; he took his five-pronged spear with his eight little spears; he took his javelin with his eight little javelins; he took his deil chliss with his eight little darts. He took his eight shields with his curved, dark-red shield into the boss of which a show-boar could fit, with its very sharp, razor-like, keen rim all around it which would cut a hair against the stream, so sharp and razor-like and keen it was. When the warrior did the "edge-feat" with it, he would cut alike with his shield or his spear or his sword. Then he put on his head his crested war- helmet of battle and strife and conflict, from which was uttered the shout of a hundred warriors with a long-drawn-out cry from every corner and angle of it. For there used to cry from it alike goblins and sprites, spirits of the glen and demons of the air, before him and above him and around him, wherever he went, prophesying the shedding of the blood of warriors and champions. There was cast over him his protective dress of raiment from Tír Tairngire brought to him from Manannán mac Lir, from the King of Tír na Sorcha.

Then his first distortion came upon Cú Chulainn so that he became horrible, many-shaped, strange and unrecognisable. His haunches shook about him like a tree in a current or a bulrush against a stream, every limb and every joint, every end and every member of him from head to foot. He performed a wild feat of contortion with his body inside his skin. His feet and his shins and his knees came to the back; his heels and his calves and his hams came to the front. The sinews of his calves came on the front of his shins and each huge, round knot of them was as big as a warrior's fist. The sinews of his head were stretched to the nape of his neck and every huge, immeasurable, vast, incalculable round ball of them was as big as the head of a month-old child.

Then his face became a red hollow. He sucked one of his eyes into his head so that a wild crane could hardly have reached it to pluck it out from the back of his skull on to the middle of his cheek. The other eye sprang out on to his cheek. His mouth was twisted back fearsomely. He drew the cheek back from the jawbone until his inner gullet was seen. His lungs and his liver fluttered in his mouth and his throat. He struck a lion's blow with the upper palate on its fellow so that every stream of fiery flakes which came into his mouth from his throat was as large as the skin of a three-year-old sheep. The loud beating of his heart against his ribs was heard like the baying of a bloodhound or like a lion attacking bears. The torches of the war-goddess, the virulent rain-clouds, the sparks of blazing fire were seen in the clouds and in the air above his head with the seething of fierce rage that rose above him. His hair curled about his head like branches of red hawthorn used to re-fence the gap in a hedge. Though a noble apple-tree weighed down with fruit had been shaken about his hair, scarcely one apple would have reached the ground through it but an apple would have stayed impaled on each single hair because of the fierce bristling of his hair above him. The hero's light rose from his forehead so that it was as long and as thick as a hero's whetstone. As high, as thick, as strong, as powerful and as long as the mast of a great ship was the straight stream of dark blood which rose up from the very top of his head and became a dark magical mist like the smoke of a palace when a king comes to be attended to in the evening of a wintry day.

After Cú Chulainn had been thus distorted, the hero sprang into his scythed chariot with its iron points, its thin sharp edges, its hooks, its steel points, with its sharp spikes of a hero, its arrangement for opening, with its nails that were on the shafts and thongs and loops and fastenings in that chariot.

Then he performs the thunder-feat of a hundred and the thunder-feat of two hundred and the thunder-feat of three hundred and the thunder-feat of four hundred, and he stopped at the thunder-feat of five hundred for he thought that at least that number should fall by him in his first attack and in his first contest of battle against the four provinces of Ireland. And he came forth in this manner to attack his enemies, and took his chariot in a wide circuit outside the four great provinces of Ireland. And he drove the chariot heavily. The iron wheels of the chariot sank deep into the ground so that the manner in which they sank into the ground left furrows sufficient to provide fort and fortress, for there arose on the outside as high as the iron wheels dikes and boulders and rocks and flagstones and gravel from the ground.

The reason why he made this warlike encircling of the four great provinces of Ireland was that they might not flee from him and that they might not disperse around him until he took revenge on them by thus pressing them for the wrong done to the youths of Ulster. And he came across into the middle of the ranks and threw up great ramparts of his enemies' corpses outside around the host. And he made the attack of a foe upon foes among them so that they fell, sole of foot to sole of foot, and headless neck to headless neck, such was the density of their corpses. Thrice again he went around them in this way so that he left a layer of six around them, that is the soles of three men to the necks of three men, all around the encampment. So that the name of this tale in the Táin is Sesrech Breslige, and it is one of the three slaughters which cannot be numbered in the Foray, the three being Sesrech Breslige and Imslige Glennamnach and the battle at Gáirech and Irgáirech, except that on this occasion hound and horse and man suffered alike. Others say that Lug mac Eithlend fought along with Cú Chulainn at Sesrech Breslige.

Their number is not known nor is it possible to count how many fell there of the common soldiery, but their chiefs alone have been counted. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_spasm

"Warp spasm (Old Irish ríastrad, literally "the act of contorting, a distortion") is a mythological feat found in Celtic myth by which a warrior enters a frenzied state of contortion in battle that makes him invincible."

[JonSetanta]

This is how I think things should be broken up tactically:

3e Spell levels = Order. You rise an Order every two levels. You get one combat power per level (and one non-combat, but that is a different discussion), so 1 1st at level 1 and at level 6 you have two of each Order.

Attack=Strong attack and weak effect
Defense=No attack and very strong +defense
Counter= weak +defense and weak attack
Control= weak attack and strong effect

1st Order:
single target/Better than normal actions level/minor magic items.
Attack, Attack, Control, Defense

2nd:
Good circumstances level, AKA cover like a building or fog
Counter, Counter, Defense, Defense

3rd:
Area attacks level
Attack, Counter, Control, Control

4th:
Terrain changers level
Attack, Control, Defense, Counter

And so on with a general bias toward attacks...

Classes are typed for Single Target, Area, and Control where certain classes get flavor balanced according to that philosophy: this means that while all classes get an Area Attack at 3rd order, Mages get the one that is the largest area an most indiscriminate while a Fighter's 3rd Order area covers less area but is more discriminate.

As you might note, people can avoid Control if they like. However, they can't avoid having either Defenses or Counters, and they will have single target and area effects.

That works. I have a similar plan going for a 3-stat RPG with each stat directing a power list similar to the mage/rogue/warrior archetypes, yet I've plotted out the universal capabilities at each "tier" or "order" just as you did.

Warriors absolutely need AOEs but they should be more self-centered.
The advantage would be that they need not injure allies, or as you stated "more discriminate".
They should excel in defense as well as the defense of others nearby.
Also IMO warriors should also be able to both move and attack at the same time no matter what form of mobility is used, be it running, flight, teleportation, riding, etc. Other roles might not be as quick to do both.

For Counters don't forget that it could be possible to throw in a weak effect as well, but the exchange would be that it's entirely reactive in nature.

[Manxome]

Attack=Strong attack and weak effect
Defense=No attack and very strong +defense
Counter= weak +defense and weak attack
Control= weak attack and strong effect

This list is clearly shorter than the lists we've been tossing around previously. Are you imagining that:
A) We'll add more categories as development progresses; this is just a quick preview
B) There will be all sorts of wild and crazy powers, but they'll all get tagged with the "most appropriate" one of these categories; thus, combat teleport becomes a "defense" power, feinting becomes a "control" power, etc.
C) These are templates that every power must confrom to, and so stuff that doesn't clean fit one of these templates just doesn't exist.

1st Order:
single target/Better than normal actions level/minor magic items.
Attack, Attack, Control, Defense

2nd:
Good circumstances level, AKA cover like a building or fog
Counter, Counter, Defense, Defense
...

Is this supposed to be a rough indication of proportion, or are you saying that:

• you're actually supposed to learn fully half of the abilities on your entire class list
• every single class has precisely the same mix of types in each order
• some orders have no more than 2 categories to choose from

[K]

Attack=Strong attack and weak effect
Defense=No attack and very strong +defense
Counter= weak +defense and weak attack
Control= weak attack and strong effect

This list is clearly shorter than the lists we've been tossing around previously. Are you imagining that:
A) We'll add more categories as development progresses; this is just a quick preview
B) There will be all sorts of wild and crazy powers, but they'll all get tagged with the "most appropriate" one of these categories; thus, combat teleport becomes a "defense" power, feinting becomes a "control" power, etc.
C) These are templates that every power must confrom to, and so stuff that doesn't clean fit one of these templates just doesn't exist.

A. This looks good right now, so I think it's done.
B. Yes.
C. See above.

1st Order:
single target/Better than normal actions level/minor magic items.
Attack, Attack, Control, Defense

2nd:
Good circumstances level, AKA cover like a building or fog
Counter, Counter, Defense, Defense
...

Is this supposed to be a rough indication of proportion, or are you saying that:

• you're actually supposed to learn fully half of the abilities on your entire class list
• every single class has precisely the same mix of types in each order
• some orders have no more than 2 categories to choose from

Yes. Yes. Yes, quite intentionally so.

[Username17]

Yes. Yes. Yes, quite intentionally so.

Fuck that. Seriously. That's 4e levels of non-difference between characters, and I would put my foot down over it.

-Username17

[K]

Yes. Yes. Yes, quite intentionally so.

Fuck that. Seriously. That's 4e levels of non-difference between characters, and I would put my foot down over it.

You either let people make failed characters, or you give them the things they need in their class to be adventurers(with some choice about the specific powers they want). Making systems where only min-maxers have the things they need is both stupid and cruel.

Since each group like "attack" will range from sword charges to balefire to psychic blasts to sneak attacks, each with a unique mechanic customized to a specific class, there will be more than enough uniqueness to go around.

4e uses eight mechanics and varies the damage and damage type, and it tries to tell you that a new name makes a new power. Avoid those problems by allowing each power to be a unique mechanic with a unique tactical niche(more than mere damage modifiers), and things should be fine.

Also remember that there will be four feat-like things for additional customization, and each is equal to a free-standing power.

But if you have any ideas about how to ensure that PCs aren't ambushed by the system I'm all ears.

[Username17]

You either let people make failed characters...

No. There is no either. People will make failed characters. Rogues will insist on climbing up trees and plinking away with short bows from more than 30 feet away, clerics will insist on using cure light wounds on themselves in the middle of combat, and wizards will prepare magic missile. People will make bad choices that will leave their characters ineffective. Sometimes it's because they are unable or unwilling to reconcile how they think the rules should work versus how they actually do work, sometimes it's because they have a perverse desire to seek failure. But regardless, failure will happen.

And that's fine. If people never fail, then people never succeed either. The errataed version of the 4e skill challenge rules is no less terrible because the players always win than the pre-errata version whence the players always failed. Choices have to matter or they aren't real and success has no meaning.

Yes, there are some very basic things that every adventurer needs to be able to do to one degree or another:

• attack in melee
• attack at range
• move and sneak around
• manipulate and carry objects
• speak with others
• fit into buildings
• provide tactical options to the team

But there's no reason that people should have the same or even particularly similar numbers of abilities that play off of any of those categories. There's room for a character with only the very basic and minimal melee and ranged attacks who does a lot of tactical craziness like cursing enemies or summoning allies. There's room for a character whose tactical contribution is almost entirely limited to laying down huge swathes of cleansing fire and leeching darkness on enemies of the collective.

Also remember that there will be four feat-like things for additional customization, and each is equal to a free-standing power.

Don't use the feat nomenclature, because it implies that these abilities suck donkey balls. Yeah, people should get a number of selections off the Universal Powers list. But just as there's no need for characters to have to take X blast powers, X control powers, X mobility powers and so on, there is definitely no call for the universal power selections to be rationed in such a manner.

There is room for a character who has more of their powers geared to combat and less geared towards other things, just as there is room for a character who has more social abilities and less sneaking abilities. You have to be able to do something in every major part of the game, but what you do doesn't have to be as diverse in the number of powers you have that apply as another character.

In fact, things are better if one character or another has a disproportionate advantage in one segment or another of the game, because this gives the GM leverage by which he can throw bones of productivity to characters who have hitherto been underperforming. Just as you can make the fire ball chucking Wizard make up some time he lost against a comparatively better played curse cleric by throwing in some swarms of plague squirrels or something, you can make the mobility specced psychic warrior feel useful by throwing in the occasional jumping puzzle.

The minimums that adventurers need are pretty minimal. In fact, they could quite likely be thrown in out of a couple of selectable templates that characters start with before they even start grabbing their powers. The game is not enhanced by having every player have the same number of mobility powers, and it's not enhanced by having every player have the same number of attacks. A lot of players are going to want to spend most of their combat actions doing things other than attacking, and forcing them to give up healing, summoning, and wallmantic powers to get extra blastings that they have no intention of ever using is both cruel and pointless.

-Username17

[Manxome]

In addition to Frank's very reasonable points, I'm not remotely convinced that the measures you've taken will actually prevent PCs from being ambushed by the system, K. Your categories are too broad to cover all the things that you have previously declared as necessary--for example, you haven't listed anything that would stop someone from having all of his attacks be melee (or all ranged). You haven't guaranteed that everyone gets a mobility-related ability. You haven't made sure that everyone can unravel enemy effects. As I noted in a previous post, the list you've claimed so far includes at least 8 things (mostly by reference to Frank's list of things that people don't all need to do), plus there's several plausible candidates that you haven't explicitly ruled in or out.

Heck, based on what you've presented so far, a PC could have nothing but Defense and Counter powers. Does that reassure you that they have all the things they need to be an adventurer?

I doubt we're going to agree on a mechanic for forcing generally competent characters unless we can first agree on what all characters need to do, but I'm with Frank on this one: that looks like severe limitations, and they don't even accomplish the stated goal.

If you really need to make sure that everyone can do each of umpteen different things, here's some candidate mechanics that might actually work:

• Every PC gets a bunch of default abilities just for being a PC, which can't be refused or traded out for anything. These default abilities cover everything on the list. Actual class powers will probably be flat-out better, but everyone has some way to contribute in each of the requisite ways.
• Every class gets "free" powers at certain levels, which are designed to fulfill the basic requirements. Kind of like bonus feats. "At 3rd level, an Evoker gets fireball as a bonus ability. If she already has fireball, she may choose another ability for which she meets the prerequisites."
• Invent a descriptor for each thing that a PC must do, attach them to appropriate abilities, and tell the players they must choose abilities that cover all the descriptors. That's more work for the players, but it makes its purpose obvious and affords players the maximum flexibility.

Of course, those don't stop foolish or masochistic people from making characters that are made of fail. That's not possible by any reasonable means. But they would actually mean that all PCs have something to do in every situation on whatever arbitrary list you put together.

[JonSetanta]

People will make failed characters. Rogues will insist on climbing up trees and plinking away with short bows from more than 30 feet away, clerics will insist on using cure light wounds on themselves in the middle of combat, and wizards will prepare magic missile. People will make bad choices that will leave their characters ineffective. Sometimes it's because they are unable or unwilling to reconcile how they think the rules should work versus how they actually do work, sometimes it's because they have a perverse desire to seek failure. But regardless, failure will happen.

I have the incredible urge to sig that somehow, some way. Perhaps in abbreviate form but never paraphrase.

It's pretty much an eternal standard of playing games with customizable choices, especially ones with strong traditions such as these.
Certain tactics have a sense of tradition about them, much like dogma, and you know how that goes in the real world.

Also, as the saying goes (and pardon me for the moronicity of it all) many favor the Magic Missile purely "for the lulz".
You know, so they can make jokes about it.
... even though it's one of the worst spells ever made, and even if doing so gets one and one's party killed as a result.
Other traditions include Fireball, Lightning Bolt, the 10-foot pole, Bag of Holding, and using the good ol' Charge-And-Swing tactic every round of every battle.

Even if you attempt to keep these D&D tropes out of your non-D&D fantasy game, players will find a way.