Power levels and more - Andy Collins quotes

Don't think these have been posted yet. OTOH, maybe they have been...

Andy Collins - http://p198.ezboard.com/On-balance/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessage?topicID=1109.topic
It's true that there won't be *as* much difference in power between any two monster levels as there is now--we're aiming for a slightly shallower power curve overall, so that monsters and PC abilities stay relevant across more levels.

That's not the same as saying there won't be much difference between levels (which suggests that level 1 and level 20 monsters will be basically the same--completely untrue).

It's a lot more fun (and useful) if a given monster is interesting over a spread of, say, 6 or 8 levels than if it's only viable in a spread of 3-5 levels (a generous description of the 3E model).

The fact that any given monster is only 20-25% of an encounter also means that cranking up the power of one monster (by including a monster of, say, PC level +4) won't alter the encounter nearly as much as if that were a one-on-one fight. You'll definitely notice that monster's presence, but it doesn't suddenly become a party-killah.

Andy Collins: http://p198.ezboard.com/Podcast-Mai...chat19968frm10.showMessage?topicID=1094.topic
I agree with both Mike's and Dave's answers, but I'm nothing if not full of opinions, so here's something that really sticks in my craw:

Classes without a role.

I hate the fact that if I want to play a ranger, or a monk, or a binder, or yes, even a bard, that I have to make sure that all the "normal" bases are covered in the party first, because my class isn't good at the basic functions that every party needs.

Our group in Monte Cook's Ptolus game included a sorcerer, a monk, a rogue, and an archery-based fighter, and the monk player was constantly frustrated that the party needed him to do things (like tank) that he wasn't built for. The rogue ended up being pushed into multiclassing as a fighter, which meant the party was short on rogue talents, so my sorcerer dabbled in rogue and thus didn't have the spell power he really needed in the toughest fights. And our lack of a cleric caused no end of headaches.

The game doesn't have to work like that.

There shouldn't be "classes that fit in" and "classes that don't."

There shouldn't be only one class that really accomplishes a key role (cleric as healer--sorry druid/favored soul/whatever, you're strictly second-rate).

And, frankly, there shouldn't be classes that fulfill multiple roles simultaneously (cleric, I'm looking in your direction again). If the fighter rolls his eyes and wonders why he bothered showing up, that's just stupid...and it's flawed game design.


As far as getting profound answers goes, I'm glad Mike & Dave didn't disappoint you, but I'm also disappointed that the possibility of getting minor answers seemed so reasonable.

Truly professional game designers don't settle for finding small problems when larger, systemic issues also exist. It takes bravery to point out significant flaws possessed by your own well-loved game system, but if you can't be honest about your own work, you've no business calling yourself a professional.

It's easy to be forgiving toward your own game, turning a blind eye to its flaws. And I won't pretend that we haven't suffered from that malady. But I'm proud that we've been working hard to be more critical of, and more intellectually honest about, our own approaches and design philosophies over the past few years.

Some changes resulting from this mindset have been incremental improvements, others grand experiments, and still others complete failures. Some you haven't seen yet, and some you might never be able to perceive. We're constantly learning about this glorious game and what it can accomplish, and we expect to keep sharing those discoveries for many years to come.

I'm glad they're focused on making the niche classes more focused on a specific role rather than in between roles like they were in 3.x.

Andy Collins said:

I hate the fact that if I want to play a ranger, or a monk, or a binder, or yes, even a bard, that I have to make sure that all the "normal" bases are covered in the party first, because my class isn't good at the basic functions that every party needs.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU.

This sounds encouraging. We typically play in a group of six (usually 3 warriors (bbr/ftr/pal), cleric, wizard, rogue). Any mention of playing a bard/druid/monk/ranger is usually met with 'they make a great 7th character in a 6 character party'. So anything that provides viable alternatives for the fringe classes is a good thing.

Andy Collins said:

Classes without a role.

I hate the fact that if I want to play a ranger, or a monk, or a binder, or yes, even a bard, that I have to make sure that all the "normal" bases are covered in the party first, because my class isn't good at the basic functions that every party needs.

Our group in Monte Cook's Ptolus game included a sorcerer, a monk, a rogue, and an archery-based fighter, and the monk player was constantly frustrated that the party needed him to do things (like tank) that he wasn't built for. The rogue ended up being pushed into multiclassing as a fighter, which meant the party was short on rogue talents, so my sorcerer dabbled in rogue and thus didn't have the spell power he really needed in the toughest fights. And our lack of a cleric caused no end of headaches.

The game doesn't have to work like that.

There shouldn't be "classes that fit in" and "classes that don't."

There shouldn't be only one class that really accomplishes a key role (cleric as healer--sorry druid/favored soul/whatever, you're strictly second-rate).

Click to expand...

Something about this comment really bothers me. It's almost like I know what he's getting at, but I get the naggily feeling he's under the impression that WotC developers (you know, "the professionals") have invented some magical device that "solve all our problems." I mean, you will always have classes that do or do not fit in, depending on your gaming style (or simply a given night's encounters). It could also be as simple as the fact that their GM was constantly throwing "bog standard" D&D encounters at them, despite their non-standard group makeup. Did he even try to tailor the game to the group? Do the 4e designers think they've found a solution to "incompetent DM syndrome"?

Also, if said Monk player had been a Fighter all along, would he be frustrated at his low movement rate, or because he kept getting disarmed? Or what about those abysmal Tumble and Escape Artist checks?

It's almost as if competence was relative to the difficulties arrayed against you ...

If each PC has a "role," you're screwed when that PC goes down. I'd push for more class crossover, not less.

I'm just not seeing the problem. Maybe I've been lucky to have a great DM in MarauderX, but it seems to me that every class has been able to contribute.

The core of the party:
Drd20 -- the magical powerhouse, with summoning as kind of a pre-emptive healing (i.e. the summons take the hits for us) and Control Winds to destroy armies
Rog16/Clr3 -- the two-weapon cuisinart
Brb1/Brd14/Seeker of the Song4 -- the Leap Attacking tank who almost never fails a save AND has a slew of magical abilities at his disposal
Rogue7/Ranger2/Shadowdancer10 -- versatile, mobile, and sneaky
Sor6/Rog3/Arcane Trickster9 -- came in at level 11, replacing the Pal12 (who became a Death Knight)

So, with no cleric, no pure wizard (and no wizard at all for the first 12 levels), and no pure tank, this party has been astoundingly effective. It has been immense fun, the best game I've ever been involved in.

We've recently picked up a pair of clerics (one as a sixth PC, one as a cohort), so perhaps we're more typical now, but we were very effective for a long time with basically two rogues, a bard, a druid, and a paladin.

I've played in groups without one of the "role" characters... more to the point, I've DMed a lot of them... and it hurts badly. It really does.

There are two roles that are really crucial. I think they come under the heading of "Tank" and "Leader" in the new game, but really they're "Tank" and "Healer" in 3.5e

The Tank is there to protect the weaker members of the party. The Tank is the character all the monsters need to get past to get to the Wizard. Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins can handle this role pretty well in 3.5e: either high AC, lots of hit points, or both. Clerics do it as well. Tanks tend to deal a lot of damage back as well, but their primary purpose is to hold back the enemy and give everyone else a chance to act. Because sitting there and taking it is a passive role, there hasn't been a problem in giving them an active role as well: hitting things.

If you've ever seen a party with a rogue, ranger, wizard and druid, you'll have seen how badly the tank needs to be there. Perhaps the druid has done it with his animal companion, but when you have the rogue and ranger trying to make the best use of mobility, the wizard suddenly finds himself without protection. Nasty. This was happening for one reason or another in my Savage Tide campaign recently - all the PCs were poor AC save the cleric, and he wasn't enough to protect the entire group.

The Healer is there to get the PCs back up after the fight - or keep them going in the middle of it - and remove all those pesky conditions (ability damage, drain, energy drain, poison, etc.) that actually enrich D&D a lot by being there. The trouble is, the Healer's role is an active one - it takes actions to do the healing - and it's really, really dull in a combat. So, it's changing a bit (lot?) in 4e. It's being recast as the Leader, and able to perform healer duties without sacrificing all the PC's actions.

Apart from that, there tend to be non-combat roles (versatility spell-caster; trapfinder) that need sharing out a lot more. I think that's happening as well.

Cheers!

Brother MacLaren said:

So, with no cleric, no pure wizard (and no wizard at all for the first 12 levels), and no pure tank, this party has been astoundingly effective. It has been immense fun, the best game I've ever been involved in.

Click to expand...

You can be very, very effective with non-standard parties. However...

...what happened when you hit Energy Drain?
...what happened when you hit Ability Drain?

The latter managed to complete muck up a party I ran on the Island of Dread. They got Con drained, and had no access to restoration - the one spell of the cleric that other classes need, and only Very High Level Paladins have it. Watching a 12th level character wander around with 15 hp was amusing.

Cheers!

While some parties never suffer from lacking certain roles, most parties do. Ofc this all depends on style of play etc, I know that some DMs never really challenge their players, and in those games, it is fairly easy to do without a cleric/healer/whateveryawannacallhim.

Therefore, I think it sounds like the 4e designers are firmly on the right track. A clearer definition of a class role, along with all classes being able to fullfil a specific role, should make it easier for players to chose their characters and make their parties.

Also, removing classes that fullfil multiple roles very well is good as well, since it (hopefully) balances out the classes a bit more, thus letting all feel that they contribute to the party.