The Nature of Options

[Username17]

Since the last Edition Warz thread we were having seems to have fallen into an abyss while I wasn't paying attention, I'll just pull up the last major bone of contention in a new thread. Namely: the nature of options.

When last we saw our insipid adventurers, someone had brought up my old diatribe about mixing and matching classes to achieve character concepts. Indeed, describing how a Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Samurai more accurately represented a standard "Armored Chivalrous Knight" character than did any particular single class.

Now, Crimson Lancer came back and said that he felt that making a character who was a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Peerless Archer/Deepwood Sniper just to realize a character was too much work (actually, I don't remember what example he used and it may not have been a real build, it's not important for the discussion). And that's a valid opinion to have. That character is indeed a fair amount of work in planning to create. Some people like that, some people don't. But the thing is, that's all I'll give his argument, because what he said next is in fact indefensible. See, he said that the supported 4e characters were workable right out of the box, and that therefore there were more options. That's objectively false.

An option that takes more player effort than you're willing to put in still exists as long as anyone is willing to put in that amount of effort. While from a subjective standpoint, any build that takes more effort to create than anyone at your table is willing to put in - that's a pretty meaningless statement. From a subjective statement, a 4 person party always generates only 4 options of characters. The only way a game can show more options in that reference frame is by making character creation fast and constantly killing off characters so that you keep making new ones. In the sense of how many options the game as a whole supports, that has to do with how many options that anyone anywhere is or could be using. And from that perspective, the options that you won't use because they are too complicated for you to understand or you won't play female characters or because they happen to not interest you actually do count.

But beyond that even, even in terms of the simple to build and explain characters that are workable in 3e, it's an objectively larger number than the workable builds in 4e. If you say that 4e has more options you are wrong. It isn't that you have different tastes or that you have a different perspective, you've just made a factual claim and you're factually wrong.

4e adds in addition to taking away. Yes. If you want to play a guy who runs around in heavy armor with two swords soloing it through the middle of battle - that's straight up not a supported archetype in 3e. At all. And after you buy some expansion books it is a supported archetype in 4e right from level 1. So if you want that character, then subjectively you're going to be happy with the 4e options. The thing is that for every option like that they threw in, they took four or five away. The light armor double dagger dirty fighter is a supported archetype in 3e. Very much so and right from level 1. He's gone in 4e. So is the mobile striker polearm warrior. Every kind of Necromancer, Summoner, and Illusionist is gone from 4e - and that was a lot of character concepts and class builds in 3e.

You are free to make a subjective argument. You're free to claim that Incantatrices were bad for the game because they were too powerful and confusing so their removal is good. You're free to argue that the added 4e options like the Heavy Armor Double Sword Blender and the Battle Taunter General are ones that resonate with you personally and thus mean more to you than the dozens of options that got the axe. But you're not free to claim that axing those options created more total options. Because it didn't.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

His opinion sounds incorrect, but the more relevant take-home is that it sounds like he wasn't using the degree of nuance you would appreciate. It seems that you surmised his intent clearly enough.

With no stakes, intent is a better yardstick than strict adherence to what was actually said.

Ultimately you're correct: v3.5 had a ton more options for characters than 4e. But there's something to be said about his intent, which is that for many players, 4e presents more accessible options than 3e had.

[Psychic Robot]

While I agree with Frank (and moreso disagree with Crimson Lancer), there has to be something said for the viability of options in 3e vs. 4e. In 3e, you could play a cleric 5/wizard 5/rogue 5/fighter 5. This was an option. It was not, however, a viable option. Similarly, you could play a fighter 20 or a monk 20 or a cleric 5/barbarian 3/bard 7/rogue 5--and all these were options. However, they were not viable options.

On the other hand, the multiclass feats in 4e present a variety of options, many of which are viable. The multiclassing feats themselves present a significant boon for insignificant investment--you get a new trained class skill (which is normally worth a feat in 4e), and you gain an additional benefit. Those feats allow you to double-dip, in a sense, gaining two (or, perhaps more accurately, one-and-a-half) feat benefits for the price of one feat.

For instance:

Initiate of the Faith: Training in Religion, can use healing word once per day. While it's absolutely retarded that you get an encounter power usable once per day--especially when the cleric can use that power three times per encounter--you becoming significantly better at a skill you will likely want to use (either for rituals or for role-playing), and you can increase the hit points that an ally recovers by quite a bit (in 4e terms).

Similarly, the rogue's multiclassing feat grants you sneak attack once per encounter. In 4e, where you are constantly fighting against the tide of ridiculous hit point bloat, an additional +5d6 damage is incredibly useful.

Of course, the issue with 4e multiclassing is that a) feats suck in general, and b) you have to blow feat after feat after feat to make yourself a pale imitation of a member of another class. And, worst of all, if you aren't using a class with powers that shares at least one of your two key stats, you will fall further and further behind on the RNG, making the additional powers you've selected completely worthless. (Not that most paragon paths themselves are of particular worth, mind you, but it's the principle of the thing.)

[Username17]

Oh, it's beyond that. If you're a Rogue, you can't multiclass Warlock. You need to use a fucking implement to use any Warlock powers, and you need to use a light blade or light crossbow to do any Roguing. The two don't work together.

Rogue "multiclassing" doesn't really work for anyone, because that once per encounter pile of damage (2 or 3 dice at any level you'd actually play) only triggers when you're using a damn light blade. And you know what? You aren't using a light blade because every other class has their own weapon restrictions.

The fact that every ability has requirements on what weapons you can be using makes even the minimal "multiclass" options of 4e even more miniscule.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

The fact that every ability has requirements on what weapons you can be using makes even the minimal "multiclass" options of 4e even more miniscule.

I forgot about that ridiculous caveat--there's no way you'd want to multiclass into rogue as a fighter, since you'd be shitting all over your weapon choices.

Yet again: more railroading, less options from 4e. You can't be an axe-wielding assassin 4e because fuck you for trying to think outside of the game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've already said that the assymmetric system of class balancing makes the multiclassing system almost entirely unworkable.

Easiest example: Wizards and Warlocks. Warlocks have no reason whatsoever NOT to pick up some wizard powers if they can. Wizards have no reason whatsoever to grab Warlock powers since they don't use either of the Warlock's secondary stats.

Not-so-easy example: Right now, fighter is a mandatory multiclass for every melee ranger. Rangers want to plunder 3 things from the fighter class: The encounter power Rain of Blows/Trip-Up, the utility power Pass Forward, and the daily power Quicksilver Stance. Also, Battle Awareness is the bee's knees as far as multiclassing feats go.

Now while ranger is a good multiclass for fighter, especially the tempest fighter, it's not optimal. The ranger doesn't really have any 'must have' dailies for the fighter. A minor-action encounter attack power is very nice--and most of the utility powers get a solid 'meh' from them. And whie every ranger loves Pit Fighter, Son of Mercy, Swordmaster, and Kensei there aren't really any good ranger PPs for the fighter to use. Stormwarden and Pathfinder would be great if they could manage it, but they can't. But there is clearly an unequal relationship here.

[Ice9]

Actually, Rogue and Warlock do work together, via Pact Blade. Of course, most other combinations like Rogue/Wizard don't. But that's mainly down to the gratuitously restrictive Rogue weapon rules. I'm still pissed that you can't be an unarmed-strike using Rogue. Because apparently sneaking up behind people and snapping their necks is such a bizarre concept that nobody would want to play it.

With just the PHB, there's not many good combinations, although the other books open it up a bit. Still, I think the ratio of viable multiclass combinations to classes is about the same as 3E - a large number, but not even close to every or even most combinations.

They do seem to have realized this though - there's a new "hybrid class" system coming out in PHBIII. Whether it will work or be made of fail remains to be seen though.

[Psychic Robot]

Hybrid class system...oh, Lord. Basically, a poorly thought-out mishmash of two classes vaguely resembling the gestalt system in 3e. Something that should have been in the Core books but wasn't because the 4e devs spent five years sitting on their asses and playtesting poorly.

[Starmaker]

But there's something to be said about his intent, which is that for many players, 4e presents more accessible options than 3e had.

While I expect 4etards to say every single combination of powers counts as a build and provide a ridiculous number upwards of 10^30, the fact is that playable builds only count.
Going subjective from there, 4e only adds options for the two kinds of players: those that couldn't optimize in 3e but suddenly learned to in 4e, and those that couldn't stat a 3e build found on a messageboard because the math is too hard but find it much easier in 4e. And the latter group is going to get badly burned on the amounts of 4e in-combat math.

[Thymos]

I think the fact that overpowered choices actually cut down on viable options has been overshadowed.

If you have 40 feats, and 1 is hands down better in every circumstances than all the others, you actually have fewer viable options than you would if that book had 39 feats without the overpowered choice.

[mean_liar]

The problem with all this analysis is that it assumes a dedicated, number-crunching and savvy player.

I think most everyone that posts here recognizes that 3e was stupid but at least you could pull off some cool stuff with the game and not only that, the basic framework was such that a custom PrC was probably all any character needed to really nail whatever concept they were going for.

To do the same in 4e you need to come up with 30 levels of powers, which is fucking shit. The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are so narrow that they don't really define the character so much as give you a tiny new bit of fuckery/exploitation to indulge in so its not like writing your own will add a ton to your character.

However, for those non-savvy players and GMs, being able to have 12 (I think?) base classes to choose from and only a few options for each class is enough to keep them busy, and they'll probably end up closer to their peers in power and effectiveness than the median 3e group.

And, from a game standpoint, I think that's okay.

Savvy gamers need savvy games. I think that 4eDnD is a decent game for people that want to pick up RPGs and fuck around and have a good time.

Like, when I introduce people to boardgames that aren't Monopoly I get Settlers of Catan. It's fun and easy and sure, it's not the best game but its a step above pablum and its a stepping stone and it has its place and overall, its a good game. I personally don't like it a ton but eh. I can enjoy it.

Other people, they need Paths of Glory or Junta or Republic of Rome to keep themselves entertained, and that's cool and I prefer that. But that doesn't mean that objectively those are better games, only that they display the nuance or flavor that some demographic enjoys more.

[cthulhu]

That said, if the take home from CLs post is supposed to be that realizing character concepts in 3.5ed was really fucking difficult due to a plethora of options many of which where traps smeared in shit, then yes, I'd agree and that isn't ideal.

Not making any claims about 4th ed as a solution.

[cthulhu]

Like, when I introduce people to boardgames that aren't Monopoly I get Settlers of Catan. It's fun and easy and sure, it's not the best game but its a step above pablum and its a stepping stone and it has its place and overall, its a good game. I personally don't like it a ton but eh. I can enjoy it.

Tried ticket to ride?

[PhoneLobster]

That said, if the take home from CLs post is supposed to be that realizing character concepts in 3.5ed was really fucking difficult due to a plethora of options many of which where traps smeared in shit, then yes, I'd agree and that isn't ideal.

Except that wasn't actually what he said or where he took his argument at all.

It was very specifically all about claiming that 4E provided more choice in realizing character concepts.

He also made the rather hilarious claim that by providing more details, information and relevant rules 3E provided less choice. Because by giving rules for more options it somehow "constrained" his options.

Effectively the take home was alternately. "Less options are more options!" or "Blank spaces give more options!"

You have to read a LOT of extra material on top of Crimson Lancer's own to get anywhere near a story moral where trap options or support for incompetent players were even mentioned.

And it is important you do not mistake his arguments about splat books for an argument in favor of supporting incompetent players. He very specifically accused 3E of having "300+ subsystems" and maybe I think abused it's general system bloat through splat books.

A rather insane claim in a lot of ways since many of his pro 4E claims and arguments relied on numerous if not most of the available splat books being used in multiple dumpster diving combos. And his most specific 3E criticism of "Shadow Casters" or whatever relied on any amount of splat being optionally added just to support his claim, AND doubled as a criticism of how damn long it took for that splat to turn up because he was jonesing for it until it did!

But anyway he apparently likes 4E splat books and hates 3E splat books but at no point actually made an argument where in he was critical of 3E splat books because they were hard to use. If anything his claim that they provided you with a larger range of "more constricting" options where everything in the option was "defined in a restrictive must do it this way way" is a claim that it was TOO easy to find a build matching a character concept and that that was a bad thing because you couldn't just use another build and pretend it supported the same character concept.

I know those claims are ALL insane, but that was his argument, god damn insane, there was no rational moment of "I couldn't figure out how to make the character build I wanted in 3E" it was all "I could and I HATED that!"

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Wow. That thread must have devolved into the flamewar from hell between last night and now.

Anyway, I agree with PL's summary of Crimson Lancer's arguments. It seems like his argument literally was that 3e's plethora of well-defined mechanical options restricted his freedom to pull things out of his ass. Seriously, I wonder if he's going to be making the same arguments about 4e once enough books have come out.

[Orion]

Eh, Rogue/Warlock is fine. DEX/CHA is a valid Rogue build, so you already have a 'lock attack stat. And sure you could use a Pact Blade but honestly you don't even have to. Tempests and Rangers buy two weapons. Many Battle Clerics and most paladins will buy a weapon and a holy symbol. Having to buy two items is not a big deal, especially since you get two properties. The chargen rules give you 4 level appropriate items, that's armor, amulet, and two attack items.

A Rogue can totally run around with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other, or a rapier and a wand, or whatever.

No, if rogue/warlock is an unexciting multiclass it's because their powers are pretty much all the same already.

[Psychic Robot]

He absolutely will--at least, once 5e rolls around.

Anyway, apparently, in 3e, you can't reflavor disintegrate to be a fire beam because that's bad, but in 4e, you have all this freeeeedooooooom to reflavor and refluff everything.

[Koumei]

On Lancer: Wow, we're dealing with a lunatic, I see.

On trap options and incompetent players: Screw 'em. Seriously. I don't give a fuck if a Halo player, footballer or 13 year old can't master the system and makes shit choices: that's their problem, not mine. They can either sit down and learn the damn thing, ask someone else to do the "hard" stuff for them, or piss off and do something else.

On items in 4E: actually, thanks to rust farming, you can have as many level-appropriate items as you like. Which is fortunate, because without it you can barely support a one-weapon character, let alone a dual-wielder or whatever.

[Fuchs]

In the days of the internet, no one needs to do the "dumpster diving" themselves. All the optimizing can be (and is) done for them online. MMOGs paved the way for that.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Trap options are terrible design for a cooperative role playing game. This isn't deck building, folks (or if it is, this complaint doesn't apply). Similarly, having to dumpster dive is really obnoxious regardless of one's ability to post in some forum begging other people to do the work for you.

Note that trap options and dumpster diving are still very much alive an well in 4e. This isn't an issue of edition wars.

[mean_liar]

Like, when I introduce people to boardgames that aren't Monopoly I get Settlers of Catan. It's fun and easy and sure, it's not the best game but its a step above pablum and its a stepping stone and it has its place and overall, its a good game. I personally don't like it a ton but eh. I can enjoy it.

Tried ticket to ride?

Yes. It is another game I tolerate until I can break out Tigris and Euphrates or whatever.

[Username17]

Trap options are terrible design for a cooperative role playing game. This isn't deck building, folks (or if it is, this complaint doesn't apply). Similarly, having to dumpster dive is really obnoxious regardless of one's ability to post in some forum begging other people to do the work for you.

Note that trap options and dumpster diving are still very much alive an well in 4e. This isn't an issue of edition wars.

Trap Options are very bad for the game. Hidden Options may as well not exist in many circumstances, so that's poor design. But hidden options don't subtract from the overall value of the game, which is my point. They don't add as much as obvious options, but there's still positive and real value there.

Nothing is stopping you from making an Intelligence focused Elven Rogue who fights with a longsword and a longbow in 4e. That was a good and standard character in 3e and you "can" make him in 4e. It's just that... he can't sneak attack or use any of his powers so he's just going to run around making basic attacks and none of his skills are Int based any more. So I'm willing to call that an option that was "removed" for all intents and purposes from 4e. No sane person is ever going to make that character, so that character is gone from 4e.

Options where you have the option of totally sucking aren't really options and should not be treated as such. 3e has a lot of options that are fake because they are obviously shitty. And it also has trap options that sound like they may be good but actually are teh suck (like the TWF Fighter). Of those, only the second one really bothers me. But 4e like you said is not without punishments. I mean, one of the sample characters is a Tiefling Inferlock despite the fact that that doesn't work at all.

And within the context of how many options there are which are neither traps nor hidden, 3e still comes out way ahead in total number. It's seriously not even close, and it's not reasonable to suggest otherwise.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Maybe trap options was bad wording on my behalf. I don't want a situation where it says "If you choose this, you're a great chef and archer", and you end up being worse at cooking and archery than if you did something else. But I don't think all options should be equal, and if you decide, as a wizard, to sink few points into your casting stat (if we're having casting stats) and to take no magic feats or skills, and to spend your spell slots on "Summon a ghost to carry shit for me" and "boost my AC a bit" then you get what's coming to you.

Essentially, I want to be rewarded for chaining feats together and searching through the books. If this means that Johnny Dual-Wielder decides to go low Strength and low Dexterity and not even take "Become Good At Dual-Wielding" and sucks, then good.

[Psychic Robot]

I think trap options generally refers to things like Toughness. It seems like a good deal at first level, since it can increase your hit points by a fair margin. But then third level rolls around and you don't care anymore.

[Thymos]

Actually I think there was a single occasion that 3.x developers had to plan for where toughness wasn't a bad choice.

The oneshot where the 1st level wizard needs those extra hit points.

As in toughness wasn't a bad thing to give 1st or second level wizards when running demos.