A Modular Class System for D&D Next?

So far (and I know this is partly due to it being limited by being a playtest), it seems like D&D Next is lining up to have a Modular class system. 

By "Modular", I mean that by combining a few simple elements (base class, background and specialty) you can create something new and different.  I don't know if this was the original intention, but I like it.


For example, the recommended Fighter build is Fighter/Soldier/Survivor and you get what is essentially your generic fighter…



  • … but if you made a Fighter/Knight/Acolyte you’d have a Melee-Focused Paladin

  • … or maybe with Cleric/Knight/Defender you get more of Prayer-Focused Paly

  • … and if you use Fighter/Bounty Hunter/Archer you get a Bow-wielding Ranger.


With that idea in mind, I don’t necessarily think that we need more “Classes”.  I mean, do we really need to design specific classes with specific mechanics for the Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Warpriest, Runepriest, Shaman, Druid, Seeker, Psion, Ardent, Battlemind, Ranger, Paladin, Anti-Paladin, Assassin, Swordmage, Invoker,  Vampire, Hunter, Vampire Hunter, Knight, Slayer, Cavalier and our Aunt Linda?


What we DO need are one or two more “Base Classes”, and a variety of Backgrounds and Specialties that will give us the tools to mix & match to create the Character Classes that we want to play.

I would like to see more of an impact coming from the other sources beyond class.

Currently so much of the mechanics are based on class, and they are the only thing that has much growth over the game.

+1 to skills is not a cool enough growth for backgrounds
specialties don't really feel all that special to me- I could really see leaving them out entirely without losing much from teh game.  That said I would really like them to come into their own and really shape character creation- the problem is what does a specialty do?

Race and Background have a profound impact on how you interact and exploration 
Class is pretty much how you fight in combat
Specialty is- some odd bonus you get (usually in combat)

I think specialty was supposed to sort of deal with a 'role' in the 4e sense, but it doesn't feel like it really does that now.  Background does so much for the character that it feels like specialties are pretty weak. (with some exceptions)

In an example I feel like magic user is a weird choice for a wizard- like the first feat should be part of his class, yet the second feat familiar is a really interesting choice that anyone might want (but without having spells they can't use since they have a low intelligence) Having them tied together makes for what feels mandatory for a awizard but a really crappy choice for anyone with low INT.

I'd like to see each of the categories having a profound impact on what your character is.
That way each choice creates a really new combination and just picking those 4 things will be able to make wildly different characters.  Then yea we wouldn't need many classes, because there would be so much variety within them.

-on races- there should be different human cultures too, especially if the FR is the default for base dnd.  That would add a lot to customization.

But you really shouldn't mess with Aunt Linda.  
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext

The sense I get of DDN’s “Specialty” is that it’s similar to 4E’s “Class-Build Option” (for example:  Two-Weapon Ranger vs. Archer Ranger vs. Beast Master Ranger), except that all of the options are opened up to all of the classes.

How well they'll work with those classes my be another thing altogether...

I do like that, with DDN's system, you can make sub-optimal choices without sentencing your character to the certain doom of ineffectiveness... because the reward system is so frugal, you don’t seem to get punished for those choices. 



Agreed.  I'd like to see only 3 classes - Fighter, Mage, Rogue.  Then have backgrounds and specialties have more mechanical oomph (basically move some traits from the classes to there).  By doing that one little thing, you eliminate the need for any more than 3 classes (mage would be a generic spell-caster, you simply choose your power source - divine could be a choice - and your casting methods - vancian, AEDU, other).

By doing that one little thing, you also eliminate the ability of 5E to emulate old-school play though by simply dropping backgrounds and specialties.  Easily at least, you could still tell people to drop specific traits for old-school play, but that would be extremely frustrating for such people, I'd imagine.
I too would like to see some more examples released of some beefier Backgrounds and Specialties.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

But a what point does a beefy meaty backgrounds and specialties overshadow the "base class" and become the class?

If you make a bunch of heavy specialties each with a pair of two paragraph feat, does the d10 HD and all weapons and armor part of the fighter still matter?

It comes down to which aspect of the character do you want to be most important.

Then there is the part how backgrounds and specialties are optional.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The overall goal is to not create class/background/specialty as separate entities.  The idea is to eliminate the lines that separate them completely.  It is the notion that we are not building a class with some perks.  We are building an entire character concept from all the options.

I would start by working on the arbitrary designation of when feats are handed out.  A beefier specialty could slimply be in the form of feats given at 1,3,5,7,9, and so forth.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

But a what point does a beefy meaty backgrounds and specialties overshadow the "base class" and become the class? If you make a bunch of heavy specialties each with a pair of two paragraph feat, does the d10 HD and all weapons and armor part of the fighter still matter? It comes down to which aspect of the character do you want to be most important. Then there is the part how backgrounds and specialties are optional.


I think the best example of what I want to see is the necromancer specialty.  It really changes the perspective of the character.

Specialties should give you an entirely different style like that.  Necromancer is not an overpowered specialty, but it adds a lot of depth to the character. Much like your background does.

I also dislike the extra background to the rogue, it feels like its pulling in too many directions.

I'd like to see racial backgrounds so you can be "raised among elves" etc or "half elf" or "half dwarf" to layer onto your racial bonuses.

Humans need a choice of racials like the other races at least as an option beyond the borring +1/+2 thing. 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
My players and I would prefer the specialties to grant access to a list of feats rather than a linear progression. 
Also the ability to buy into additional specialties at higher tiers (if such things exist in Next) would be good. This would allow a broader selection of feats at higher tiers of play. 

Agreed.  I'd like to see only 3 classes - Fighter, Mage, Rogue.  Then have backgrounds and specialties have more mechanical oomph (basically move some traits from the classes to there).  By doing that one little thing, you eliminate the need for any more than 3 classes (mage would be a generic spell-caster, you simply choose your power source - divine could be a choice - and your casting methods - vancian, AEDU, other).

By doing that one little thing, you also eliminate the ability of 5E to emulate old-school play though by simply dropping backgrounds and specialties.  Easily at least, you could still tell people to drop specific traits for old-school play, but that would be extremely frustrating for such people, I'd imagine.


Well, I can’t say that I agree about the amount of base classes… I would guess that the majority of players wouldn’t settle for less than 6 base classes.  Personally, I’d keep the divine caster and I would like to see one other alternate caster.  


I was, however, thinking exactly the same thing that you were… that by simply dropping the background and specialty, you’d have something much closer to the old-school game.  It seems like it could be a simple way to please multiple different fan-bases.


But a what point does a beefy meaty backgrounds and specialties overshadow the "base class" and become the class? If you make a bunch of heavy specialties each with a pair of two paragraph feat, does the d10 HD and all weapons and armor part of the fighter still matter? It comes down to which aspect of the character do you want to be most important. Then there is the part how backgrounds and specialties are optional.


Well, yes… but, in character creation, it always come down to what YOU think is most important. 


The base class is your character’s foundation.  Is s/he a technical expert?  … a weapons-master?  … does s/he depend upon their magical talents?  … or on the power of their faith?


The backgrounds flesh out your character by showing what s/he did before becoming an adventurer, and give a justification for some special skills.  The specialty would add a splash of uniqueness to the character, by providing either a special talent they’ve picked up or a way of doing their job that’s different from other members of their class.  By using the background and specialty you’d make yourself a “Ranger” or a “Paladin” from the Fighter base class. 


Also, having the ability to use backgrounds and specialties to fine tune your class, doesn’t make them mandatory… everything in the rules is optional.  By making the class system modular, it should make it even easier to remove material without negatively effecting playability.


The overall goal is to not create class/background/specialty as separate entities.  The idea is to eliminate the lines that separate them completely.  It is the notion that we are not building a class with some perks.  We are building an entire character concept from all the options.

I would start by working on the arbitrary designation of when feats are handed out.  A beefier specialty could slimply be in the form of feats given at 1,3,5,7,9, and so forth.


My thoughts exactly, except that I’d like for WOTC to do away with “Feats” in DDN. 


I know that that’s all that the “Specialties” really are… but by making feat selection an aspect of character creation, then you’re making character optimization a key part of character creation… then the system has to be designed to compensate for that optimization in the general encounter mechanics… then, in order to be effective in any given encounter, you’ll have to have an optimized character. 


I am a 4E fan, but I absolutely HATE that character optimization has been built into the system’s mechanics… so if your character doesn’t have 18’s in the primary and secondary stats, your d20 may as well be a d10 (or even just marble) for all the good it’ll do you when you’re rolling to hit in combat.


… and I know that some players love to optimize their characters, but it would be simple enough for them to jettison the “Specialties”, and just select the feats that WOTC uses to create the specialties.


 
Specialties should give you an entirely different style like that.  Necromancer is not an overpowered specialty, but it adds a lot of depth to the character. Much like your background does.

I also dislike the extra background to the rogue, it feels like its pulling in too many directions.

I'd like to see racial backgrounds so you can be "raised among elves" etc or "half elf" or "half dwarf" to layer onto your racial bonuses. 


Indeed.  Speaking of the rogue… I think it will be important for WOTC to give them the same freedom of selection as the other base classes… maybe they should have the ability to choose one in addition to thief or thug(?).


My players and I would prefer the specialties to grant access to a list of feats rather than a linear progression. 
Also the ability to buy into additional specialties at higher tiers (if such things exist in Next) would be good. This would allow a broader selection of feats at higher tiers of play. 


As I’d said earlier, this is the sort of thing that would be simple enough for a group to “house rule”… but I’m afraid that if WOTC made an excellent feat progression the standard, then they’d have to scale everything else to keep up with the power creep… and then excellent feat selection would be required to be effective in an average encounter, and then players wouldn’t have the luxury to not use "feat rules" in their games.

Classes should be the most important mechanical facet of the game. Backgrounds are there as a skill delivery system as well as giving you a means to flesh out your character's back-story with minimal thought. Specialties are feat delivery systems with a flavorful mechanic to tie them together.

Lots of people don't like skills. The Devs have said yanking skills out is a-ok. That means backgrounds can be safely ignored by considering them tools for RP. Lots of people hate being tied to fluff when all they want is one particular feat. That means Specialties should be 100% ignorable as well.

 The only reason backgrounds and specialties are being shoved in our faces is because it is easier for the Devs to read feed back based on set criteria rather than letting everyone choose the feats and skills they want.

The core of D&D is the Class - it always has been, it always will be. D&D is not gurps, or even Exalted. It shoves you down a path and gives you a little bit of customization as you level up to feel different and unique.

If you want to run a game in "mix-and-match-ville" then feel free! I don't want that at all. I want clearly defined classes because being clearly defined means WotC can better balance them off against one another (even if balance is derived for being good in situation A and bad in situation B).  I don't want the rules to dictate my character's background to me. I want to freely choose the feats and skills that my character would use. No matter how many backgrounds and specialties WotC creates, they will never be as diverse or as wondrous as what comes out of our imaginations.
I am a 4E fan, but I absolutely HATE that character optimization has been built into the system’s mechanics… so if your character doesn’t have 18’s in the primary and secondary stats, your d20 may as well be a d10 (or even just marble) for all the good it’ll do you when you’re rolling to hit in combat.



My 4E character who was most effective at his job, started level 1 with 17s (including racial bonus) in both his primary stat and his secondary stat.

So did the next character I played after that, except that he got bumped up to level 7 before the first game session. If it weren't for the level-4 stat bump I might have put 18 in the primary stat on that one.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I am a 4E fan, but I absolutely HATE that character optimization has been built into the system’s mechanics… so if your character doesn’t have 18’s in the primary and secondary stats, your d20 may as well be a d10 (or even just marble) for all the good it’ll do you when you’re rolling to hit in combat.



This has always been apart of the game though. The difference was that the bar was lower back in the day because everyone was rolling for their stats. The game will always assume players have a minimum stat modifer, or else designing the game will be very wonky, difficult and the end product will be a real stinker.

As I’d said earlier, this is the sort of thing that would be simple enough for a group to “house rule”… but I’m afraid that if WOTC made an excellent feat progression the standard, then they’d have to scale everything else to keep up with the power creep… and then excellent feat selection would be required to be effective in an average encounter, and then players wouldn’t have the luxury to not use "feat rules" in their games.




There is that, of course if you did do away with feats (was that your suggestion?) you could replace the feats with character/class features a lá SWSE. That is one of my favourite features of that system.

Classes should be the most important mechanical facet of the game. Backgrounds are there as a skill delivery system as well as giving you a means to flesh out your character's back-story with minimal thought. Specialties are feat delivery systems with a flavorful mechanic to tie them together. 

Lots of people don't like skills. The Devs have said yanking skills out is a-ok. That means backgrounds can be safely ignored by considering them tools for RP. Lots of people hate being tied to fluff when all they want is one particular feat. That means Specialties should be 100% ignorable as well. 

 The only reason backgrounds and specialties are being shoved in our faces is because it is easier for the Devs to read feed back based on set criteria rather than letting everyone choose the feats and skills they want. 

The core of D&D is the Class - it always has been, it always will be. D&D is not gurps, or even Exalted. It shoves you down a path and gives you a little bit of customization as you level up to feel different and unique. 

If you want to run a game in "mix-and-match-ville" then feel free! I don't want that at all. I want clearly defined classes because being clearly defined means WotC can better balance them off against one another (even if balance is derived for being good in situation A and bad in situation B).  I don't want the rules to dictate my character's background to me. I want to freely choose the feats and skills that my character would use. No matter how many backgrounds and specialties WotC creates, they will never be as diverse or as wondrous as what comes out of our imaginations.


I’m not quite sure what you’re going for here… are you “for” or “against”?


Your first two paragraphs are a concise statement of how I have also interpreted the Class, Background and Specialty materials… but I don’t quite understand the leap from “backgrounds can be safely ignored… [and s]pecialties should be 100% ignorable as well” to “[t]he only reason backgrounds and specialties are being shoved in our faces”.  If they can both be ignored, then how are they being shoved in our faces?  … aren’t they just optional “skill delivery system[s]… giving you a means to flesh out your character's back-story with minimal thought… [and] feat delivery systems with a flavorful mechanic”?


Then in your closing paragraph, you talk about character customization with a derogatory tone while stating “I don't want that at all”… then state that you “want to freely choose the feats and skills that my character would use”.  So which is it?  … exactly what part of "mix-and-match-ville" do you take issue?  … or are you merely being contrary for the sake of being contrary?  If the latter is the case, then allow me to advise that the next time you want to just contradict someone for the sheer joy of it… try not to contradict yourself in the same breath.


My 4E character who was most effective at his job, started level 1 with 17s (including racial bonus) in both his primary stat and his secondary stat.

So did the next character I played after that, except that he got bumped up to level 7 before the first game session. If it weren't for the level-4 stat bump I might have put 18 in the primary stat on that one. 


 


I will confess that I am surprised, as that has not been my experience with multiple characters, made by several players in three different playgroups.  Even when one of my players made a Minotaur Wizard, he had to put an “18” into his Intelligence to be viable. 


 


Just curious, has anyone else had an effective non-optimized 4E character?


 


This has always been apart of the game though. The difference was that the bar was lower back in the day because everyone was rolling for their stats. The game will always assume players have a minimum stat modifer, or else designing the game will be very wonky, difficult and the end product will be a real stinker.


That was the case in earlier editions, but in 4E it was the opposite.  It wasn’t just assumed that the character starts out with an “18” in the primary stat, the game mechanics are BUILT around it…


… AND the assumption that you’ll get a steady supply of magic items…


… AND that you will take expertise feats.



There is that, of course if you did do away with feats (was that your suggestion?) you could replace the feats with character/class features a lá SWSE. That is one of my favourite features of that system.


 


It is my suggestion that we do away with feat selection as an official part of character creation.


 


Of course people will still use feats… and it will be easy enough to convert Specialties into Feats, because Specialties will just be an alternate (and optional) feat delivery system. 

Just curious, has anyone else had an effective non-optimized 4E character?


Oh, yes, several times.  Mostly when I was new to the system and trying to figure out how far I could bend it, or just in general trying things that never panned out to be optimized because I didn't have much system mastery yet.  Then once again when we tried to get some old school feel by rolling stats.  Even today, there are a few people I play with that optimize at a level well below our group norms.

It works out fine.  I mean, the less-optimized character isn't going to be as effective as the optimized one, that's a no-brainer, but at no point would I say they weren't viable or worthwhile members of the party.  The system is much more forgiving of characters on the weaker end of the spectrum than any other D&D I've played.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.

Just curious, has anyone else had an effective non-optimized 4E character?




Effective? Yes.
There is a huge difference between "effective" and "optimized", though. They can, indeed, be mutually exclusive (though they don't necessarily need to be). Effective simply means that the PC can handle their end of things; they can do their jobs without constantly failing and someone else needing to pick up their slack. 4E is, quite possibly, one of the easiest editions to make effective characters without the need for optimization. Certainly, optimizers will do what optimizers will do, and thus can squeeze more effectiveness out of any character, but it wasn't necessary to do so.
Huh? Pashalik_Mons and Hocus-Smokus, I am curious at pursuing this topic further... but since it's a little off-topic for the thread, I started a new thread to pursue it in the 4E Forums.

It can be found here:   
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Just to clarify, 4e's math was built around the assumption of a 16 in the primary attack stat. Not an 18. 16 was perfectly viable. I'd never do it, but it was perfectly viable. :P I usually started with a 20 (usually played a Rogue).

Classes should be the most important mechanical facet of the game. Backgrounds are there as a skill delivery system as well as giving you a means to flesh out your character's back-story with minimal thought. Specialties are feat delivery systems with a flavorful mechanic to tie them together. 

Lots of people don't like skills. The Devs have said yanking skills out is a-ok. That means backgrounds can be safely ignored by considering them tools for RP. Lots of people hate being tied to fluff when all they want is one particular feat. That means Specialties should be 100% ignorable as well. 

 The only reason backgrounds and specialties are being shoved in our faces is because it is easier for the Devs to read feed back based on set criteria rather than letting everyone choose the feats and skills they want. 

The core of D&D is the Class - it always has been, it always will be. D&D is not gurps, or even Exalted. It shoves you down a path and gives you a little bit of customization as you level up to feel different and unique. 

If you want to run a game in "mix-and-match-ville" then feel free! I don't want that at all. I want clearly defined classes because being clearly defined means WotC can better balance them off against one another (even if balance is derived for being good in situation A and bad in situation B).  I don't want the rules to dictate my character's background to me. I want to freely choose the feats and skills that my character would use. No matter how many backgrounds and specialties WotC creates, they will never be as diverse or as wondrous as what comes out of our imaginations.


I’m not quite sure what you’re going for here… are you “for” or “against”?


Your first two paragraphs are a concise statement of how I have also interpreted the Class, Background and Specialty materials… but I don’t quite understand the leap from “backgrounds can be safely ignored… [and s]pecialties should be 100% ignorable as well” to “[t]he only reason backgrounds and specialties are being shoved in our faces”.  If they can both be ignored, then how are they being shoved in our faces?  … aren’t they just optional “skill delivery system[s]… giving you a means to flesh out your character's back-story with minimal thought… [and] feat delivery systems with a flavorful mechanic”?


Then in your closing paragraph, you talk about character customization with a derogatory tone while stating “I don't want that at all”… then state that you “want to freely choose the feats and skills that my character would use”.  So which is it?  … exactly what part of "mix-and-match-ville" do you take issue?  … or are you merely being contrary for the sake of being contrary?  If the latter is the case, then allow me to advise that the next time you want to just contradict someone for the sheer joy of it… try not to contradict yourself in the same breath.



Your system dictates flavor to players (because the choices will never be fluff neutral) and it dilutes the importance of classes. I don't want that. I want the system where you have a set class with set features, that feel different and unique from other classes. I want the customization to come in by allowing players to freely select their skills (if they are in the system) and feats, which are minor mechanical alterations that give a character a sense of being different.





This has always been apart of the game though. The difference was that the bar was lower back in the day because everyone was rolling for their stats. The game will always assume players have a minimum stat modifer, or else designing the game will be very wonky, difficult and the end product will be a real stinker.


That was the case in earlier editions, but in 4E it was the opposite.  It wasn’t just assumed that the character starts out with an “18” in the primary stat, the game mechanics are BUILT around it…


… AND the assumption that you’ll get a steady supply of magic items…


… AND that you will take expertise feats.





The base game in 4E, when it was created, assumed you would have a 16. The math was screwed up as you leveled up and required you either have an 18 or a feat that gave you +1 to hit. This was corrected later on. I have played with lots of characters with a 16 starting stat and had 0 problems in game, even before the rules correction. Older editions still assumed a particular ability modifer. AD&D it was much lower than 3.x/4E because all stats were rolled. 4d6 dropping the lowest isn't going to get you a 16+ often. Having said that, it still assumed you would have minimum ability modifier to be successful. My point is that that assumption is not new or revolutionary. The only difference is that the number can be much higher when Point Buy is the assumed method of stat generation rather than rolling.




I am a 4E fan, but I absolutely HATE that character optimization has been built into the system’s mechanics… so if your character doesn’t have 18’s in the primary and secondary stats, your d20 may as well be a d10 (or even just marble) for all the good it’ll do you when you’re rolling to hit in combat


That is bordering on edition warring, you are making a claim that is not backed up by the math nor the manuals.  The mechanical difference compared to a 16(+3) is 5% for attack rolls.    Even if you dump on CON you can take the Toughness feat to make up for it.

The moderate skill checks is a 12 compared to easy at 8, which would mean either you have training +5 OR maxed ability of 18 for +4 without even maxing on race ability. The d20 randomness is going to overwhelm that +1, which is why many people will take the 16 and spend the point buy points elsewhere, this is also why two out of three standard arrays max at 16, the balanced and the dual specialist, with only the specialist array maxing at 18.  Even the hard DC of 19 can be achieved with training (+5) and focus(+3) and ability 16 (+3).  Only the worst OCD point buy min-maxer is going to obsess about 5% the rest will realize the build is better off not dumping the other stats since they are used by the fort, refl, will defenses.

For AC only the soldier role lvl1 is a 17, the middle roles are a 15 with brutes/artillery being a 13, and all other defenses are a 13.  I would not say that means you need a +5 to usually succeed, because you have to multiply the attack odds by the size of your party, it is very unlikely everyone will miss in a round, with the mage having it easiest because they attack the other defenses.

I randomly point buy all the time, no problems in not getting 18's.  For classes that are more balanced across ability even a 14 (+2) will do, especially if they are willing to have 10% more misses to have a more balanced char.
 



Just to clarify, 4e's math was built around the assumption of a 16 in the primary attack stat. Not an 18. 16 was perfectly viable. I'd never do it, but it was perfectly viable. :P I usually started with a 20 (usually played a Rogue).


I really am interested in discussing this line of thought further, but it’s a little off topic here.  So, I started a new thread for it in the 4E General Discussion Forum, here:


community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...


 


Your system dictates flavor to players (because the choices will never be fluff neutral) and it dilutes the importance of classes. I don't want that. I want the system where you have a set class with set features, that feel different and unique from other classes. I want the customization to come in by allowing players to freely select their skills (if they are in the system) and feats, which are minor mechanical alterations that give a character a sense of being different.




How is the foundation not important?  Without a solid foundation everything collapses. 


By not requiring anything beyond a streamlined base class, how are you dictating flavor?  The flavor would be COMPLETELY optional.


In MY system the only thing that you need is the base class.  You say that you want your fighter to be a ranger, but you don’t want to have to use WOTC’s background and specialties; great, just give him (or her) a bow & light armor (maybe even a woodland friend), assume that s/he has all of the appropriate skills and abilities and then write "Ranger" in the Class Block of his (or her) character sheet... you have just made a character without having your flavor dictated by the system.


Will YOUR system shoehorn the skills & feats right into the class?  Won’t that force everyone to use YOUR skills & feats, because they’ll be built into the game mechanics by virtue of being part of the basic design of YOUR classes?


The only thing that I’m arguing for is to leave the skill and feat systems out of the base classes.  If its built into the BASE then WE’RE ALL stuck with it, because it will be part of the foundation of character design.



The base game in 4E, when it was created, assumed you would have a 16. The math was screwed up as you leveled up and required you either have an 18 or a feat that gave you +1 to hit...  that the number can be much higher when Point Buy is the assumed method of stat generation rather than rolling.




I really am interested in discussing this line of thought further, but it’s a little off topic here.  So, I started a new thread for it in the 4E General Discussion Forum, here:


community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...


 


That is bordering on edition warring…



I do apologize.  I lost sight of the principle that prefacing an offensive statement with “No offense…” (… or, in my case, “I’m a fan of 4E” ) doesn’t make it any less offensive.


I am Sorry.


… you are making a claim that is not backed up by the math nor the manuals… 


I based my assumption off of my personal experiences as both a player and a DM in three separate (and distinctly different) gaming groups.  I did not base it on the “the math”.


I really am interested in discussing this line of thought further, but it’s a little off topic here.  So, I started a new thread for it in the 4E General Discussion Forum, here:


community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...


 

Sign In to post comments