Why does 4th Edition have classes anyway?

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'll pick Rokugan as the example: it seems like it actually makes a point of every dojo being its own class; but, OTOH, there seems to be always the odd character who goes to more than one - what to do then?

Frank's argument seems to be 'That's the main character of a novel, not a character in a cooperative roleplaying game.' I mostly agree in the case of a classed system. I'm still all for limited multiclassing, and representing each 'school' as a combination of two or more ability sets. Then, if you really want to have studied iaido with the Cranes and kiai with the Lions, you can. Some would claim that the possibility of overlap makes that unforgivable, but they're ignoring the possibility of two characters with the same class.

A Rokugan-style thing is also interesting because you want the option of single-clan parties. That's an argument for not having parties clan-based at all, or at the very least having enough options within a clan to fill out an entire party.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'll pick Rokugan as the example: it seems like it actually makes a point of every dojo being its own class; but, OTOH, there seems to be always the odd character who goes to more than one - what to do then?

Frank's argument seems to be 'That's the main character of a novel, not a character in a cooperative roleplaying game.'

I have to say I find that a bit aggravating. It's pretty much the philosophy that PC characters can't be special. You can't be the guy that trained at two dojos or did anything else that might be considered special. Nope, you've got to fit inside your box and stay there.

The whole point of an RPG is that the PCs are special.

[Koumei]

I sort of agree there - you want the PCs to be special, but by the same token, you want them all to be equally special. Furthermore, something that makes them special is if they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else. And that's where you get the problem.

Characters in books are just flat-out going to be special by dint of having abilities the game wouldn't let them have. To then turn this into PCs being special, you'd almost want to say "These are the rules... now, the PCs get to ignore the rules regarding X and Y."

That way, no-one in the world has both Pink Pony Magic AND Purple Dragon Magic. Except for one of the PCs. Also, Pyrophonomancy is long dead and no-one in the world knows it. Except for another PC. And so on.

With a special note that Rule Zero does not apply to this, so NPCs are disqualified from using that stuff to be special - the DM has enough "DM Only" toys as is, let the players have something to themselves.

I'm not sure if that'd work in the end, or turn into a mess, or even lead to multiple games escalating the crazy-town (due to the special theoretically becoming mundane with overexposure - it happened with Planetouched, after all).

But it might just work.

[Draco_Argentum]

Just a question for the pro-multiclassing camp. Are you sure you aren't thinking of higher level characters? You can't be a master of two things while the rest of the party is the master of one. In a novel that might happen, but the character would be more powerful than the others.

If you're going to have abilities in packages then they should be exclusive packages. If you want PCs to be able to get combinations of stuff an open system is just more flexible.

[RandomCasualty2]

Characters in books are just flat-out going to be special by dint of having abilities the game wouldn't let them have. To then turn this into PCs being special, you'd almost want to say "These are the rules... now, the PCs get to ignore the rules regarding X and Y."

That way, no-one in the world has both Pink Pony Magic AND Purple Dragon Magic. Except for one of the PCs. Also, Pyrophonomancy is long dead and no-one in the world knows it. Except for another PC. And so on.

With a special note that Rule Zero does not apply to this, so NPCs are disqualified from using that stuff to be special - the DM has enough "DM Only" toys as is, let the players have something to themselves.

Ironically, aside from the multiclassing stuff, this is the 4E mentality.

I still think it's a pretty good idea from a design standpoint.

[JonSetanta]

I sort of agree there - you want the PCs to be special, but by the same token, you want them all to be equally special.

Special... together!

Sailor Moon Power!


Months ago in an Eberron session the DM's girlfriend (playing Changeling Rogue) mocked me when I was working out a custom race with the DM and requesting that the Sorcerer's highest spell level be improved by 1 level, saying "I wanna be speeeecial" in a sarcastic tone.

Still trying to figure out exactly what she meant, but my best guess is that there will always be a certain percentage of gamers hunting vigorously for signs of the dreaded Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue), however inappropriate such accusations can be to most given situations.

For instance, the /tg/ summer of 2008 witchhunt for Mary Sues.
Everything was a Mary Sue beyond playing a flaw-ridden unarmed drunken dwarf peasant.

Also see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ingFunGuys

If those gamers don't want to be The Hero, they will do anything possible NOT to become the hero.
Specialness really can't be forced on some people. Maybe it's identity crisis, maybe it's fear of success, I don't know.

I love being the hero and killing everything... uh, I mean saving the day.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Just a question for the pro-multiclassing camp. Are you sure you aren't thinking of higher level characters? You can't be a master of two things while the rest of the party is the master of one. In a novel that might happen, but the character would be more powerful than the others.

No. A level two necromancer is not equivalent to a level one necromancer/warlord. Either everyone is multiclassed, or multiclassing precludes the 'mastery' level that single-classed character have.

If you're going to have abilities in packages then they should be exclusive packages. If you want PCs to be able to get combinations of stuff an open system is just more flexible.

If the flexibility of an "open" system is undesirable, there's no reason to use one. A game with multiple exclusive ability packages is going to be retarded: 'Do you want to be able to talk? OK, you're stuck with package 1.'

[Username17]

A game with multiple exclusive ability packages is going to be retarded

I don't even understand this sentiment. Is Diablo II "retarded" because Barbarians don't have the ability to spend skill points on Necromancy Trees? Is Chronotrigger "retarded" because Princess Nadia will never learn Napalm?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't even understand this sentiment. Is Diablo II "retarded" because Barbarians don't have the ability to spend skill points on Necromancy Trees? Is Chronotrigger "retarded" because Princess Nadia will never learn Napalm?

Well, I was never a fan of Diablo II because it was a game of limited build options. It actually would be a better game if they allowed you to dip multiple abilities. As is, it's a boring RPG where you just pump up one or two skills.

The Chrono Trigger analogy is flawed, because in CT, the ability packages that you choose are actually your characters. You're not thinking on the character level, because you control an entire party. So Robo is just as much your character as Chrono is. You get 3 "character slots" and choosing Robo instead of Marle is really no different from choosing power attack instead of spring attack.

[Username17]

The Chrono Trigger analogy is flawed, because in CT, the ability packages that you choose are actually your characters. You're not thinking on the character level, because you control an entire party. So Robo is just as much your character as Chrono is. You get 3 "character slots" and choosing Robo instead of Marle is really no different from choosing power attack instead of spring attack.

Actually, that's exactly the point of the analogy. A cooperative storytelling game is cooperative. Each person puts in just a part of the story, meaning that their characters are by definition at the level of Chrono Trigger characters and not at the level of main characters from single author fiction.

The story as a whole gets 3 to 5 "character slots" and absolutely none of them get to be Cloud. People have to accept the fact that the other people at the table are equal in weight. And that as such each character gets to be as deep as a Star Trek character or anyone else from an ensemble cast.

Well, I was never a fan of Diablo II because it was a game of limited build options. It actually would be a better game if they allowed you to dip multiple abilities.

That would be broken as hell. Necromancer summoning and Paladin auras synergize together too well to be allowed in a single character. Coming from two characters together it's OK though.

Which is the point of course. You can actually have abilities in Diablo that would break other specific abilities simply by dint of not putting those two abilities onto the same class.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

A game with multiple exclusive ability packages is going to be retarded

I don't even understand this sentiment. Is Diablo II "retarded" because Barbarians don't have the ability to spend skill points on Necromancy Trees? Is Chronotrigger "retarded" because Princess Nadia will never learn Napalm?

-Username17

By exclusive, I mean strictly exclusive. Diablo doesn't follow that pattern: everyone gets unsummon, melee attack, missile attack, throw as skills. More importantly, everyone gets healing potions, mana potions, and special items abilities which violate the exclusivity of packages.

[RandomCasualty2]

That would be broken as hell. Necromancer summoning and Paladin auras synergize together too well to be allowed in a single character. Coming from two characters together it's OK though.

Which is the point of course. You can actually have abilities in Diablo that would break other specific abilities simply by dint of not putting those two abilities onto the same class.

honestly, I'm not even sure that most of the stuff in Diablo would be that bad if you mixed it. Mainly because you've got to constantly keep investing points in shit to make it good, and you just aren't going to be able to use more than one active ability at a time. So nobody really cares that you can use zeal and fireball. It doesn't even matter. About the only thing that may get abusive is the passive abilities, but I'm not even 100% convinced of that.

Diablo is a game of specialization. The ability for a barbarian to take charged bolt or Amazon jab doesn't even matter. In fact, it will in all likelihood make the barb suck.

[virgil]

Don't many of the ensemble casts have ultimately unique characters in their respective setting? Star Trek has Data, Firefly has that crazy little girl, it feels like Buffy had one (hard to tell, haven't seen the show much at all), etc.

[Ice9]

There is a difference though, in how much strategy/tactics you personally get to do. For instance, if Chrono Trigger was multiplayer, and each person controlled one character, I think it'd they'd get borely quickly. Likewise, Chess is interesting - controlling one pawn in Chess is a lot less interesting. Also, CT combat is a hell of a lot faster than D&D - when something takes 10x longer, you need more choices for the same level of engagement.

Which is the point of course. You can actually have abilities in Diablo that would break other specific abilities simply by dint of not putting those two abilities onto the same class.

Does this really work? If two abilties are broken together, all that putting them in different classes does is either:
A) The party won't have the right class combination to use them, which is the same as a single player not taking both of them.
B) The party won't coordinate well enough to use them together, which is the same as a single player choosing not to use them together.
C) The party will use them, and will do so in half the time that a single character could, making the combination even stronger.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Don't many of the ensemble casts have ultimately unique characters in their respective setting? Star Trek has Data, Firefly has that crazy little girl, it feels like Buffy had one (hard to tell, haven't seen the show much at all), etc.

First of all, those are scripted shows.
Star Trek is the quintessential 'new alien/world each week' show. Buffy is to a lesser extent (the unique character being Buffy, until a new player joins and says 'I want to be a Slayer too). Buffy also has two evil-turned-good vampires with souls (unique beings), and tends to make fun of the 'unique' factor.

Firefly actually has a really consistent world. The crazy little girl is just a person who took the 'badass ninja' class, and is the only person in the party with it.

[Username17]

It's also important to note that even in Buffy there isn't anyone who becomes a Slayer and a werewolf or a Slayer and a watcher. People keep to their power sources pretty exactly most of the time. The fact that those power levels aren't remotely equal doesn't cause the inter-team dynamic to collapse in zero time because it is a scripted show. If you were playing it as an RPG, you'd have to have witches, named-character vampires, werewolves, watchers, and PC demons all be roughly equal to Slayers, a concession that the show never makes.

I mean when everyone in Angel got Prestige Classes in the last (and best) season, Gunn got ranks in Lawyer while Fred got grafted to a demon goddess with the power of a Dragon Ball Z character. That worked in the show because the story did not need for characters to be remotely equivalent in power or interestingness.

Does this really work? If two abilties are broken together,

Then that means that those powers are substantially more powerful when used together than other powers used together. But if a team has good synergy and a lot of power that's not a problem - it just means that they can fight monsters harder or whatever. If a player has sufficiently good synergy internally then they are going to overshadow the other players and that's going to cause tension.

Synergy has to happen, and it has to be accounted for and controlled. But synergy amongst the party members is a good thing in virtually all cases. If player A + player B together are much better than either individually, then power differences between player A and player B become hard to see. After all, when both characters do their best work together with the other, it becomes largely immaterial which of them is nominally bringing more to the table.

Thorns Aura and Skeleton Armies together is crazy awesome. And while that's going on it isn't even super important which of them is nominally "better." Both players feel that they are contributing and are grateful for the contribution of the other.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Does this really work? If two abilties are broken together, all that putting them in different classes does is either:

Its fine for PC1 + PC2 to equal totally sweet as long as PC1 + PC3 also equals totally sweet. It would be a problem if only one combination was any good.

That said synergy does have pitfalls. First there needs to be a bunch of good combos or the game devolves into a single party build being the right choice.

Secondly we need players to be able to pick abilities without too much input from the rest of the group. If you give a player four choices but only one synergises with the group they really only have two choices: suck or not.

Thirdly group size tends to influence which synergies there are and how good they are. Root and nuke works with one root and one fireball. It kicks ass with one root and five fireballs. Likewise a three move combo is much better with three PCs to perform it.

---

Group building is like min/maxing a single character with one massive difference. There are a lot of people doing the min/maxing. People won't like being told they can take hyper beam because it doesn't synergise with what the rest of the group has. The available synergies need to be pretty broad so they don't restric the player's freedom to make their own character.

[erik]

I just played my first 4th edition games last weekend. I got invited to a little Living Forgotten Realms action, and in preparation I sniffed around various forums to learn something about 4e. I had already decided to play a halfling, and from everything I read, it seemed like I was pretty well railroaded into being a rogue if I wanted to be effective. Kind of sad since the only roles I couldn't make a halfling awesome at in 3e/3.5e was a grappler or tripper/combat manuever specialist (I could make them "okay", but not awesome).

Anywho, apologies for quoting from the first page...

none of the class lists actually constitute a power set that has any kind of distinctiveness that is worth saving. I can't tell the difference between a Paladin technique and a Cleric technique. I can't tell the difference between a Rogue technique and a Fighter technique.

... but that was entirely my impression after having played 3 adventures with about 10 low level battles. I never once really felt like I was playing a "rogue" or anything of the sort. I just happened to be the guy who could deal more damage than anyone else.

I liked how combat resolved for the most part, but the characters themselves were so bland and limited that I really have a hard time wanting to make another character. Usually I'm insane about creating dozens upon dozens of character sheets whenever I get interested in a game. In 4e, I've still only made the one that I played.

I've tried psyching myself up to make other good characters to help visualize what a good party might consist of, but I just don't like any of the classes, and I certainly don't like how stats are more important than ever due to their more proportional representation in power/attack rolls, since it then follows that non-optimal races really fail to compete in non-standard roles. I'd be happier with races if none of them gave any attribute bumps and they simply had more associated/neat abilities.