Do we seperate by Powers? Class? Roles?
Do we use sub forums?
What are your thoughts?
I use them when organizing games (I don't care if I get a Warlord, Cleric, or Artificer - I just want a Leader, don't care if it's Arcane, Martial or Holy), and even the Game Table Online will be supporting filling seats by Role.
I'd also like to point out that, IMHO, classes share more in common with other classes inside their role than they do based on their power source. IE - A Warlord has more in common with Clerics and Artificers (Leaders) than he does with Rogues, Rangers, Fighters (Martial powered classes*). While there may be more of a roleplay connection between classes based on power, I think the forums typically see a lot more mechanical discussion than roleplay aspect discussion in general.
Furthermore, it's likely that the four roles currently established are the only roles we're going to see for quite some time - the possible extension being "Hybrid" classes that do a little of one role, and a little of another. Powers are already planned to be added in the PHB2 (Primal and I think one other? Rumor also puts Psychic in the Eberron Campaign Guide if something else doesn't introduce it first.). This, over time, will mean adding more forums as new books are launched, leading to more expansion, and more clutter.
Dividing by classes, I fear, would lead to forum bloat, with the constant addition of new classes in Dragon, and as new source books are released. Additionally, many separate class forums would see spikes in traffic when classes are new, and would slowly linger and "die on the vine" as once-new classes age and are replaced by other newer models.
Then again, I'm just one more yahoo with an opinion. Take of it what you will.
Yahoo!
*I reserve the right to change my opinion after the release of the Martial Power/Divine Power/Arcane Power, though I find it unlikely I'll do so.
Classes: Character Building(non-optimization)
Classes: Powers Discussion
Classes: Homebrew and House Rules
I like the idea of separating (if needed) the sub-forums (so they take up less space on the main page) by role. However, the role names seem to confuse people, so can we name the forums after the individual classes?
For example:
-Warlocks, Rangers and Rogues,
-Wizards
-Fighters and Paladins
-Warlords and Clerics
This only makes sense if it is pretty easy to add future classes to the name of a forum. This way there won't need to be any creation of new sub-forums, but it will still be very clear where people should go to look for specific information.
If it has to be split, however, I suggest that they be separated by role, in sub forums, with an enumeration of the classes in the descriptive text (this text being updated as new classes are published).
Like so:
- 4e Character Building: Classes & Powers
- 4e Character Building: Defenders
all about Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages... - 4e Character Building: Controllers
all about Wizards... - 4e Character Building: Leaders
all about Clerics, Warlords, Artificers... - 4e Character Building: Strikers
all about Ranger, Rogue, Warlock... - 4e Multiclassing
a place to yak about niffty combos and multiple-role characters.
- 4e Character Building: Defenders
For those interrested in debating the relevance of roles as a way to do the split:
Hidden because it's kinda long
First, I'll say that I am fine with a single CB:Classes forum, but since we're talking about how a split should be done if it's done at all, My reasons for supporting "by roles" are:
Some arguments (as well as non-arguments) have been made against a split by roles, or in favor of a split by power source. Here are my counter-arguments to the ones I have read about:
"Roles is only a game design aid."
"Grouping classes by power source makes more sense than by roles."
"Combat roles is metagame thinking."
"The commonalities between classes of the same role will become fewer as more classes are published"
First, I'll say that I am fine with a single CB:Classes forum, but since we're talking about how a split should be done if it's done at all, My reasons for supporting "by roles" are:
- When comparing classes, a very likely question is "How does this class compares to others with the same role?";
- The discussions on the CB boards is mostly about game mechanics, therefore it makes sense to separate the classes along a game mechanic axis: roles;
- The current split is not the cause for the discussions becoming about game mechanics: it was also like that in the 3.5e CB boards. Hoping that changing the way the split is done will change the nature of the discussions happening there is nothing more than wishful thinking;
- EDIT: I forgot: No forum creep. No new forums each time a new book/class/source is published;
Some arguments (as well as non-arguments) have been made against a split by roles, or in favor of a split by power source. Here are my counter-arguments to the ones I have read about:
"Roles is only a game design aid."
- Roles are more than a game design aid, they're a party building aid and also a game play aid. True, roles helped the designers guide the creation of a new class, but their usefulness does not stop there. And neither does their relevance as a way to split class forums.
- Roles tell players what combinations of classes makes a generalist party, and which ones make a specialized party. A player who choses a role to fill in the party will no doubt ask himself "What class should I chose within that role?". A forum grouping by role will be useful for answering that question.
- As a playing aid, roles also guide players in battle. For example, I play a swordmage. As a defenter, I know I am expected to protect the less melee adept party members, distract the main threats so that the ranger can get the drop on them, all the while making sure I'm not taking so much stupid risks doing that I use up my healing too fast and end up incapable of doing my job. Just how I do all that is partly dictated by my class, my character building choices and my prefered tactics. Discussion of these aspects of class fit naturally in the CB: Defenders forum.
"Grouping classes by power source makes more sense than by roles."
- In what regards? Mechanical commonalities? Flavour? Roleplay?
- All that the current arcane classes share is a couple of keywords that have no mechanical effect, and that are so irrelevant that they could be both changed for roleplay & flavour reasons. They use Arcane Powers and Cast Spells. That's it.
- What do Warlocks, Wizards, Artificers and Swordmages have in common? Arcane & Spell. We're not likely to see many threads comparing them, or even discussing them together. (To be fair, they also all use implements, but that is like saying that Rangers, Fighters, Clerics, Rogues, Paladins and Warlords all use weapons.)
- But what do Fighters, Paladins and Swordmages have in common? Marking, good AC, high hps, some ways to mitigate hp loss, the famous "stickiness", good melee weapon use, defensive powers, short range area attacks, moderately high damage melee attacks, etc. They're all frontline warriors with good to superior staying power. They have enough in common to make any comparisons between them relevant, and enough differences to make discussions interesting.
- A split by power source is a split along the flavour & roleplay axis. Discussions about the flavour and roleplay aspects of a character already have a place: in Character Development.
"Combat roles is metagame thinking."
- Always? Not so. It makes perfect sense that my character thinks about his job on the battlefield, even though he does not put a role label on it. So roles are not only metagaming thinking.
- Roles could be construed as metagame thinking if the game lingo was constantly used in character, but that argument could be made against everything in the books. For example, feat and power are game constructs, and PCs should not think of their abilities in such terms as it is metagaming. Yet, no one uses that argument against separate forums for powers and feats.
- Furthermore, metagame thinking is undesirable only during a game session. As a way to organize forums, there is no reason why it should be inapropriate. Heck, the whole idea of discussion forums about D&D is metagaming, which means: "about the game".
"The commonalities between classes of the same role will become fewer as more classes are published"
- The ways to perform a role might get more diverse, and it is a good thing, but the new mechanics will always serve the fulfilling of a certain role. It has to, otherwise, that new defender class is no defender at all.
- Besides, the commonalities between classes of the same power source are already so few that separating by source is even worse considering that argument.
As subforums, I have no problem. But let's eliminate the "Character Building" prefix on each forum/subforum. It's utterly unnecessary and cluttering.
Oh yes, I totally agree. I was suggesting a way to display the information, not a final form. Descriptive text could be better too.
4e Classes
- 4e Leaders (Clerics, Warlords, Artificers)
- 4e Defenders (Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages)
- 4e Strikers (Ranger, Rogue, Warlock)
- 4e Controllers (Wizards)
- 4e Hybrids, multiclassing, and cross-role class topics
I think it might also need to be made a bit more clear the fact that CO discussions should generally keep themselves relegated to the CO forum. As it stands, the "Character Building" forums verge on having too much CO emphasis.
This thread is to discuss the 4e classes and roles and how the forums should be structured to best support our community conversations.
Do we seperate by Powers? Class? Roles?
Do we use sub forums?
What are your thoughts?
I would probably do it this way.
Power Source,
subforum insert class here.
Another possiblity is
Roles
subforum insert class here.
Those are the two really that I'd go with.
Grouping classes by anything at all will help some of the time and frustrate at other times -- varying by what the intention of the forum-user is at the time.
Not grouping classes has no real drawbacks. Who cares if the number of forums grows as more classes are published? It's not like there are going to be thousands of them. Just keep them in alphabetical order so that users can jump straight to what they need at that time.
IMO, this approach best reflects the expectations of players (and happens to neatly follow the organization of the game books as well, fwiw).
If the classes are broken out by role, class or otherwise, is there really a need for a skills and feats forum?
Would those conversations naturally go in the appropriate class/role/race location?
A quick note/question:
If the classes are broken out by role, class or otherwise, is there really a need for a skills and feats forum?
Would those conversations naturally go in the appropriate class/role/race location?
I think the conversations would naturally come to them, but on my forum I kept them separate for conveinence factor. That way any new feat that gets invented can be discussed within it's own section and it's own thread.
A quick note/question:
If the classes are broken out by role, class or otherwise, is there really a need for a skills and feats forum?
Would those conversations naturally go in the appropriate class/role/race location?
I don't think we need a skills/feats forum. Stealth is the only skill that gets a lot of discussion. Feats are usually only discussed in a CharOp, House Rules, or Rules Q&A situation.
I think there is a need for the Abilities, Skills & Feats forums. Skills and feats cross all characters, classes and races. If someone has a question about Toughness, why are we shunting them into Rules Q&A?
Also, a huge new part of 4th edition is Skill Challenges and page 42 of the DMG. Crafting Skill Challenges is not easy for novice DMs and is also a place where creativity plays a large part. A forum designated for skill challenges is, to me, an important thing to have and Abilities, Skills and Feats would be the appropriate place for such discussions.
I think the goal is to minimize the use of catch-all forums like Rules Q&A. Char Op should only discuss using feats to optimize and House Rules should only discuss new feats.
I think there is a need for the Abilities, Skills & Feats forums. Skills and feats cross all characters, classes and races. If someone has a question about Toughness, why are we shunting them into Rules Q&A?
Also, a huge new part of 4th edition is Skill Challenges and page 42 of the DMG. Crafting Skill Challenges is not easy for novice DMs and is also a place where creativity plays a large part. A forum designated for skill challenges is, to me, an important thing to have and Abilities, Skills and Feats would be the appropriate place for such discussions.
I realize it's just one example, but Toughness illustrates my point well. 4e feats are pretty clear. A discussion about Toughness is likely to be very brief- there just isn't that much room for confusion.
I think Rules Q&A is great forum to use when you have a straightforward question about a simple rule. Threads about in-depth rules interactions (e.g. "How do I optimize an AD rogue for max hp/defenses and mobility?") should be neatly categorized for future reference. Specific questions about momentary confusions (e.g. "Can my character get Toughness twice?" "Nope." "Thx!") do pretty well in a catch-all forum.
Skill Challenges are interesting and you do raise a good point there, but I don't notice questions about them coming up very often. When they do, they tend to end up in General or What's a DM to Do? Sometimes they get ignored in General because the flame war is more interesting. Maybe we could just have a forum for making Skill Challenges. That would be a neat resource for DMs. People could post completed Skill Challenges or ones they needed help with.
Skill Challenges are interesting and you do raise a good point there, but I don't notice questions about them coming up very often. When they do, they tend to end up in General or What's a DM to Do? Sometimes they get ignored in General because the flame war is more interesting. Maybe we could just have a forum for making Skill Challenges. That would be a neat resource for DMs. People could post completed Skill Challenges or ones they needed help with.
I second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth this.
I agree Rules Q&A should be a great place to go for quick and dirty questions, but that only works if traffic is slow, otherwise the question is quickly lost. Not all feats questions will be quick and dirty. I don't see the problem in adding feats as a topic to an Ability and Skills forum.
Why make a forum just about skill challenges? Why not allow people to also discuss Abilities (which go hand in hand with Skills) as well as Feats?
Abilities: This sort of blurs with Powers to begin with. It's not hard to imagine some confusion there. If you are talking about an ability (e.g. Sneak Attack, Combat Challenge) all by itself, you're probably just asking a Rules Q&A question.
Feats: Honestly, 4e feats are so simple. 3e feats might need a lot of clarifications and questions about interactions, stacking, synergies, etc. But I just don't see 4e feats needing a lot of discussion- they're all 2 or 3 sentences. Having a forum for feats encourages people to put Homebrew stuff there, which overlaps with another forum.
I agree Rules Q&A should be a great place to go for quick and dirty questions, but that only works if traffic is slow, otherwise the question is quickly lost. Not all feats questions will be quick and dirty. I don't see the problem in adding feats as a topic to an Ability and Skills forum.
As said above, I don't see non-power non-feat non-ritual abilities in 4e as being that much of a topic. The only abilities left at that point are class features. Anything fancy should end up in the appropriate class forum, while anything simple can be a Rules Q&A topic.
I really like the idea that your post brought out though: a place where we can collect Skills Challenges. Why not have a forum for 4e's spiffy new mechanic?
Abilities: This sort of blurs with Powers to begin with.
Abilities is a game term distinct from Powers that refers to Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Since many Skill Challenges will include straight Ability Checks, Abilities and Skills should be discussed in the same forum.
Feats: Honestly, 4e feats are so simple.
Never underestimate the ability of games to overcomplicate something. I just don't see the reason why we shouldn't designate a forum for a topic if we can. Many feats grant Skill check bonuses. It's a natural fit and it doesn't significantly dilute the topic of the forum.
Having a forum for feats encourages people to put Homebrew stuff there
I disagree. If we make it clear that Homebrew goes in Homebrew, then it's not a problem and improperly placed threads can always be moved.
I really like the idea that your post brought out though: a place where we can collect Skills Challenges. Why not have a forum for 4e's spiffy new mechanic?
The Abilities, Skills and Feats forum seems like the perfect spot.
I'm all for the role-based split...
4e Classes
- 4e Leaders (Clerics, Warlords, Artificers)
- 4e Defenders (Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages)
- 4e Strikers (Ranger, Rogue, Warlock)
- 4e Controllers (Wizards)
- 4e Hybrids, multiclassing, and cross-role class topics
[INDENT]Minus the "4e" on every line, and down with the hybrids thing!
Can't stand that.[/INDENT]I actually like this. As mentioned on the other thread, there seem to be two really predominant ways of approaching the character building process:
- a sort of outward-in (what role do I want to fill, which classes are under that, and voila my character), and
- a sort of inward-out (this is my character concept, which class expresses that best, hmm...do I like that combat role).
Obviously they are two sides of the same coin. By presenting all of the information up front, the above layout allows people to use either approach.
Having said that, I don't think the idea of organizing by power source has been hashed out enough, pro or con. Maybe there's just no interest in that? That'd be fine with me then. My point in bringing it up is I would just want us to consider all options to get the best result.
Edit: Just peeked over at the other thread again. Question about another option...Why aren't we doing the idea of a forum just for classes, with each class having its own subforum?
I'm excited to see the new set up next week! Solice, are you planning a community party? ;)
At the most, it could be a subforum there.
We actually need 4e on every line because a few people have basically said they won't use the Previous Editions Forums without it.
Ah...thanks. ;)
Wouldn't homebrewed Skill Challenges fit neatly into House Rules?
At the most, it could be a subforum there.
Not House Rules. Skill Challenges are RAW. But it would be nice to have a place to ask about them as they can be tough.
"Abilities, Feats, Skills, & Skill Challenges" ??
Which is the current running breakdown? I'm getting confused. Is there a sticky or OP one somewhere?
Not House Rules. Skill Challenges are RAW. But it would be nice to have a place to ask about them as they can be tough.
True enough. But homebrewed Skill Challenges would still be the purview of the House Rules forum, no?
"Abilities, Feats, Skills, & Skill Challenges" ??
This could work. Would it be possible to use the nomenclature Ability Scores instead of Abilities, to remove any ambiguity? Abilities could easily be confused with Class Features.
Bel
Making up a skill challenge is just applying the rules to a scenario. That should go wherever questions abotu skills go.
I think my homebrew and house rules wires got crossed. Baked goods anyone?
A quick note/question:
If the classes are broken out by role, class or otherwise, is there really a need for a skills and feats forum?
Would those conversations naturally go in the appropriate class/role/race location?
I think yes they would.
- 4e Character Building: Classes & Powers
These forums are for discussing the various classes, their
features and their powers. The topics are grouped by class role.
Please use the appropriate sub-forum!- 4e: Defenders
About Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages, [class name], [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], their Powers and Paragon Paths. - 4e: Controllers
About Wizards, [class name], [class name], [class name], [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], their Powers and Paragon Paths. - 4e: Leaders
About Clerics, Warlords, Artificers, [class name], [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], their Powers and Paragon Paths. - 4e: Strikers
About Rangers, Rogues, Warlocks, [class name], [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], their Powers and Paragon Paths. - 4e: Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics
A place to discuss multiclassing, multiple-role characters, party composition,
Epic Destinies and other Classes & Powers topics that don't tie to a single role.
- 4e: Defenders
I put the [class name]s placeholders in the sub-forums descriptions just to show how crowded it would look a few years down the road. It's not that bad, I think newcomers can manage that.
Do you think the last sub-forum could be named only 4e: Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics? I think "hybrids" is a little redundant, and some find it fugly, so maybe it should go.
EDIT: I removed the "Hybrids", because plans for hybrid classes might be on ice. I added paragon paths to the role sub-forums and epic destinies to the 4e: Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics forum.
Do you think the last sub-forum could be named only 4e: Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics? I think "hybrids" is a little redundant, and some find it fugly, so maybe it should go.
I don't think so, simply because they've mentioned that they're thinking about releasing Hybrid classes with mixed Roles.
But other than that, sure, seems good to me.
I don't think so, simply because they're mentioned that they're thinking about releasing Hybrid classes with mixed Roles.
But other than that, sure, seems good to me.
Ha, 'wasn't aware of that.
Ha, 'wasn't aware of that.
You might want to get confirmation on that; I'm not sure if it was solid information for future planning, but it definitely was an official statement of some kind.
Quick question though: what about Races? Are they getting their own forum? I haven't seen anything on that. Right now they're part of Hybrid.
You might want to get confirmation on that; I'm not sure if it was solid information for future planning, but it definitely was an official statement of some kind.
While there was originally talk from designers about hybrid classes, it seems that pre-Gencon that train of thought was shelved. If I remember correctly the only way they could effectively do hybrids involved a toggle that basically said "Up your one role, down your another" and they didn't like that.
Quick question though: what about Races? Are they getting their own forum? I haven't seen anything on that. Right now they're part of Hybrid.
I think they current mentality has them being combined with Monsters into one board. I'm one of the posters against this idea and would prefer that Races would get their own board and Monsters should be combined with Traps and skill challenges into a Challenges/Threats board.
ETA: Or maybe "in addition to"?
I'll buck the trend... ;) I'm advocating a forum-per-class model, with all of the classes beneath a higher "4e classes" heading.
Grouping classes by anything at all will help some of the time and frustrate at other times -- varying by what the intention of the forum-user is at the time.
Not grouping classes has no real drawbacks. Who cares if the number of forums grows as more classes are published? It's not like there are going to be thousands of them. Just keep them in alphabetical order so that users can jump straight to what they need at that time.
IMO, this approach best reflects the expectations of players (and happens to neatly follow the organization of the game books as well, fwiw).
Hmm... no replies at all to this?
I feel snubbed.To summarize then, the 4e classes & powers forum could look like this:
- 4e Character Building: Classes & Powers
These forums are for discussing the various classes, their features
and their powers. The topics are grouped by class role.
Please use the appropriate sub-forum!
- 4e: Defenders
All about Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages, [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], [class name]...- 4e: Controllers
All about Wizards, [class name], [class name], [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], [class name]...- 4e: Leaders
All about Clerics, Warlords, Artificers, [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], [class name]...- 4e: Strikers
All about Rangers, Rogues, Warlocks, [class name],
[class name], [class name], [class name], [class name]...- 4e: Hybrids, Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics
A place to discuss multiclassing, multiple-role characters,
party composition and other Classes & Powers topics that
don't tie to a single role.
I put the [class name]s placeholders in the sub-forums descriptions just to show how crowded it would look a few years down the road. It's not that bad, I think newcomers can manage that.
Do you think the last sub-forum could be named only 4e: Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics? I think "hybrids" is a little redundant, and some find it fugly, so maybe it should go.
I like this.
I think having 1 forum/class will be too unweildy.
I've seen that thought in other posts, but I genuinely don't get why you (and others, of course) think that... It's just not that many classes, and could never grow to become enough classes to be unweildy, even over the entire lifespan of the game.
In fact, I see a forum/class approach as making it much more organized: You have an alphabetical list of classes, and you click on the one you want. What could possibly be simpler?
And organizing the classes by anything else (roles or power sources, for example) has an additional undesirable effect which has already caused us a lot of trouble: It strongly encourages users to talk about the classes in terms of that organization*...
- If organized by roles, users are encouraged to talk about the classes in terms of roles.
- If organized by power sources, users encouraged to talk about the classes in terms of power sources.
This has resulted in a good number of our ugly threads, as some users express their resentment to the "mindset" that they feel is "forced" on them, and then other users jump in to defend the status quo. A neutral approach is, IMO, really what a forum should have to encourage participation by all.
* = I realize that nothing forces the conversation to go this way (it's not like its a written rule), but it happens anyway. We've seen this effect many, many times with the current organization.
I've seen that thought in other posts, but I genuinely don't get why you (and others, of course) think that...
It's unwieldy on my computer screen. Having even 12 classes listed on the screen is unweildy.
It's unwieldy on my computer screen. Having even 12 classes listed on the screen is unweildy.
Having each class as it's own subforum in a role though is a much nicer approach. Game Information (6 sub-boards) for example (copy and pasted off my forum) is much cleaner than having each class as it's own forum.
It's unwieldy on my computer screen. Having even 12 classes listed on the screen is unweildy.
??? Is this just about not wanting to scroll down?
??? Is this just about not wanting to scroll down?
Pretty much.
It also makes it look cleaner.
http://naegunfael.proboards61.com/index.cgi#general
http://warseer.com/forums/index.php
compare that to what we have right now.
??? Is this just about not wanting to scroll down?
It's not about me personally. It's about observed behavior of the forum membership in general. People tend not to scroll down. When people see a wall of text, they stop. They post in the first forum that appears moderately relevant.
It's why we put General Discussion forums and Rules Q&A at the end of Fundamentals instead of the top.
If you open a page and have a list of 15 classes, that's an intimidating wall of text that will drive people away before it encourages them to contribute. It's too much minutia.
The whole reason we subdivide forums is to make it easy to use and understand and to make it inviting. In my opinion, a long list of classes is not inviting.
here is the current structure. (Forgive my poor format skills, I am working on a lap top in a cafe. You get the idea though!)D&D Headquarters
Community Business
WotC Staff Blogs
Future Releases
GSL
Related Topics (links to the section below)
VCL Open Discussion (link)
4e D&D Fundamentals
4e General Discussion
Description: Can’t find what you’re looking for in one of our forums below? Come on in and pull up a seat! Welcome to General Discussion!
4e Rules Q&A
FIND PLAYERS IN YOUR AREA HERE! Description: Looking for a gaming group in your area? Start here!
Controllers: Building Wizards
Description: Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at one time, favoring offense over defense and powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes.
Defenders: Building Fighters and Paladins
Description: Defenders are the party's front-line combatants, with the highest defense and close-up offense.
Leaders: Building Clerics and Warlords
Description: Leaders inspire, heal, and aid their group. They have good defenses, and focus on protecting their companions and targeting specific foes for the party to focus on.
Strikers: Building Rangers, Rogues, and Warlocks
Description: Strikers deal high amounts of damage on a single target at once. They rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out their targets.
4e Abilities, Skills and Feats
4e Character Optimization
4e Character Development
4e Multiclassing, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies
4e Races and Monsters
4e Rituals, Equipment and Magic Items
4e Combat: Traps, Terrain and Tactics
D&D Community
What's a DM to Do?
What's a Player to Do?
House Rules & Homebrew
Campaign & Adventure Workshop
Astrid's Parlor
Off-Topic Tavern
D&D Insider
D& D&Di General
DDi Announcements
Dragon/Dungeon General
Dragon/Dungeon Article Discussion
Technical Discussion
Digital D&D
D&D Worlds
Forgotten Realms: General
Forgotten Realms: Realmslore
Forgotten Realms: Running the Realms
Living Forgotten Realms
Eberron: Eberron Lore
Eberron: Running Eberron
Other Published Worlds
Birthright
Dark sun
Dragonlance
Greyhawk
Mystara
Oriental Adventures
Planescape
Ravenloft
Spelljammer
Other Worlds (including 3rd Party)
D&D Previous Editions
Previous Editions General
Monsters and Races
Classes and Class Features
Equipment, Skills, and Feats
Spells, Invocations, and Magic Items
Psionics
Adventures, Campaigns, and Encounters
Previous Editions Rules Q&A
RPGs
RPGs General Discussion
d20 Modern
d20 Character Optimization
d20 Character Development
Related Topics
RPGA
D&D Fiction
Play by Post Forums
RPG Gamer Classifieds
The Marketplace
Star Wars RPG
Gaming Culture
Creative Corner
The Rec Room
About the class sub-forums: if you put the class names in the forum names, you're going to end up with very long names in a few years
.Also, no more "Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics"? I think it's needed for threads that are not focused on a single class or a single role.
Splitting up the classes by a design tool is/was a bad idea, but it seems that having classes split it up by roles in the current build has had the effect of not wanting to change it.
I don't look at the roles when I play a character. It is a design tool and something for a DM to look at when making up the adventure.
Sigh.
Sighing like that does not make one cool, it only shows that one is not mature enough to discuss something instead of ridiculing it.
Splitting up the classes by a design tool is/was a bad idea, but it seems that having classes split it up by roles in the current build has had the effect of not wanting to change it.
I don't look at the roles when I play a character. It is a design tool and something for a DM to look at when making up the adventure.
If you'd like to refute my reasons for pushing this way of doing things, I invite you to read my earlier post, and answer it:
just follow the link in the quote box header.
Based on the feedback I am hearing and throwing in my own
Looks good, but three things:
1) I find the nomenclature "Abilities" In Abilities, Skills, and Feats to be too vague, and possibly confused with class features. Perhaps Attributes would be more precise.
2) Why exactly are you leaving the "Building" part of the name in the Roles forums? Character building is already covered by Character Optimzation and Character Development. Maybe you want a specific board just for posting character builds that's not split up by role, and leave the four role forums for general discussions of powers, class features, etc.
So my suggestion is that if you really need a place outside of CharOp or CharDev for people to post builds, drop the "Building" aspect of the four Role forums, and create a new forum called Character Builds.
3) The 3e Psionics folks are going to love you for re-creating the Psionics board, if they haven't mostly departed already. It should never have been merged in the first place.
1) I find the nomenclature "Abilities" In Abilities, Skills, and Feats to be too vague, and possibly confused with class features. Perhaps Attributes would be more precise.
The game term is "Abilities". "Attributes" is the Storyteller system's nomenclature. We should use the game term used by the game.
Bel
The game term is "Abilities". "Attributes" is the Storyteller system's nomenclature. We should use the game term used by the game.
No, the game term is "Ability Scores".
"Abilities" applies equally to both ability scores and racial/class/etc. features. Just look through the PHB for confirmation; in many places, it uses the word "abilities" to refer to something other than ability scores. Probably more often than it uses abilities to refer to actual ability scores.
Isn't the term attributes also used in other RPG systems, not just in Storyteller? Or am I confusing something here.
EDIT: I was right, attributes is a universal term.
Controllers: Building Wizards
Description: Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at one time, favoring offense over defense and powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes.
Defenders: Building Fighters and Paladins
Description: Defenders are the party's front-line combatants, with the highest defense and close-up offense.
Leaders: Building Clerics and Warlords
Description: Leaders inspire, heal, and aid their group. They have good defenses, and focus on protecting their companions and targeting specific foes for the party to focus on.
Strikers: Building Rangers, Rogues, and Warlocks
Description: Strikers deal high amounts of damage on a single target at once. They rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out their targets.
That seems good. Separation by role the best way to do it for sure.
No, the game term is "Ability Scores".
Then the forum name shoud be "Skills, Feats and Ability Scores".
But I note the "Ability Generator", which is a bonus tool in the DDI, refers to them as "abilities" and not "ability scores":
[indent]
- Select ability that will start at 8 (all other abilities will start at 10):
- Select Character Race:
- Spend points to improve abilities:
However, I have seen D&D use the term "ability scores"
The Third Edition glossary offers the following definitions for ability and ability scores:
[indent]One of the six basic character qualities: Strength (Str), Dexterity (Dex), Constitution (Con), Intelligence (Int), Wisdom (Wis), and Charisma (Cha).[/indent]
-Ability
[indent]The numeric rating of one of the six character abilities. Some creatures lack certain ability scores; others cannot be rated in particular abilities.[/indent]
-Ability Score
The glossary has no listing for "attribute".
Isn't the term attributes also used in other RPG systems, not just in Storyteller?
It's not used in D&D, which is all that mattes. Even the wiki article you use states "D&D uses six ability scores" (italics in original)
In my opinion, a long list of classes is not inviting.
and
Inlicere, while dividing the board by class may not be overwhelming now, when we have only 9 classes, it will quickly grow out of control...
Fair enough, but... why can't we come up with a way of subdividing the classes that doesn't cause other problems?
We have already seen that the current division-by-role approach has provoked many ugly threads. Division-by-power-source would have the same effect. IMO, we need to divide them in some neutral way if we're going to divide them... otherwise, we're going to continue to see ugly threads that waste our time.
For example, we could divide them by alphabetical order:
- Classes beginning with A-F
- Classes beginning with G-M
- Classes beginning with N-S
- Classes beginning with T-Z
and
Fair enough, but... why can't we come up with a way of subdividing the classes that doesn't cause other problems?
We have already seen that the current division-by-role approach has provoked many ugly threads. Division-by-power-source would have the same effect. IMO, we need to divide them in some neutral way if we're going to divide them... otherwise, we're going to continue to see ugly threads that waste our time.
For example, we could divide them by alphabetical order:
- Classes beginning with A-F
- Classes beginning with G-M
- Classes beginning with N-S
- Classes beginning with T-Z
The problem with your "neutral" division is that it makes talking about multiple classes in one thread difficult. Which class takes priority in a thread about Paladins and Clerics?
P.S. What are these "ugly" threads you speak of? I haven't seen any like that, unless you're talking about several threads in D&D General.
[size=4]I have NO inside information as to where forthcoming classes will end up or what they will be called. I just put stuff wherever and called it whatever.[/size]
Right off the bat,
[indent]1) I might suggest SINGULAR class names rather than the PLURALS, but just a thought, and
2) Hmmmm...I like power source even more than I thought I would.
This may be the organization you are looking for! 
[/indent]Heh...In all seriousness, please give all three a good look.
PLAN WEAPON SPEED
[INDENT]
- 4e D&D Fundamentals
- 4e General Discussion
Can’t find what you’re looking for in one of our forums below? Come on in and pull up a seat! Welcome to General Discussion! - 4e Rules Q&A
- FIND PLAYERS IN YOUR AREA HERE!
Looking for a gaming group in your area? Start here! - 4e Controllers: Building Druids, Sorcerers, Theurges, & Wizards
Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at one time, favoring offense over defense and powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes. - 4e Defenders: Building Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages, & Wardens
Defenders are the party's front-line combatants, with the highest defense and close-up offense. - 4e Leaders: Building Artificers, Bards, Clerics, Shamans, & Warlords
Leaders inspire, heal, and aid their group. They have good defenses, and focus on protecting their companions and targeting specific foes for the party to focus on. - 4e Strikers: Building Barbarians, Inquisitors, Rangers, Rogues, & Warlocks
Strikers deal high amounts of damage on a single target at once. They rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out their targets. - 4e Abilities, Skills and Feats
- 4e Character Optimization
- 4e Character Development
- 4e Multiclassing, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies
- 4e Races and Monsters
- 4e Rituals, Equipment and Magic Items
- 4e Combat: Traps, Terrain and Tactics
- 4e General Discussion
PLAN CASTING TIME
[indent]
- 4e D&D Fundamentals
- 4e General Discussion
Can’t find what you’re looking for in one of our forums below? Come on in and pull up a seat! Welcome to General Discussion! - 4e Rules Q&A
- FIND PLAYERS IN YOUR AREA HERE!
Looking for a gaming group in your area? Start here! - 4e Character Building: Classes & Powers
These forums are for discussing the various classes, their features and their powers. The topics are grouped by class role.
Please use the appropriate sub-forum!Subforums[LIST]- 4e Controllers
About Druids, Sorcerers, Theurges, Wizards, and their Powers & Paragon Paths.- 4e Defenders
About Fighters, Paladins, Swordmages, Wardens, and their Powers & Paragon Paths.- 4e Leaders
About Artificers, Bards, Clerics, Shamans, Warlords, and their Powers & Paragon Paths.- 4e Strikers
About Barbarians, Inquisitors, Rangers, Rogues, Warlocks, and their Powers & Paragon Paths.- 4e Multiclassing & Cross-Role Class Topics
A place to discuss multiclassing, multiple-role characters, party composition,
Epic Destinies and other Classes & Powers topics that don't tie to a single role. - 4e Controllers
- 4e General Discussion
I like the "plan names". That's très rétro.
Bel
Then the forum name shoud be "Skills, Feats and Ability Scores".
Oh, I agree, but I had already suggested that, and it was obviously rejected because it wasn't implemented on the list Solice just posted. I was giving an alternate suggestion.
There's not really need to section the class forums after the initial rush dies down and really all the sectioning does is encourage needless cross posting, especially now that the game is interaction and team oriented.
Also, plan Weapon Speed makes things way, way worse in clutter terms. as well as 'please god, take my sight that I may not see the ugly' terms.
The old class boards managed to handily hold all the classes in one place without any real trouble. The PrC subforum was glutted though, because WotC tossed those out like candy.
There's not really need to section the class forums after the initial rush dies down and really all the sectioning does is encourage needless cross posting, especially now that the game is interaction and team oriented.
Part of the issue is how general the "Character Building" forums are right now. They cover builds, questions about class features and abilities, and optimization, among other things.
So, I tend to agree, but there would need to be more changes than simply condensing the Classes section to a single forum.
Also, plan Weapon Speed makes things way, way worse in clutter terms. as well as 'please god, take my sight that I may not see the ugly' terms.
Er, what? Did I miss something?
The old class boards managed to handily hold all the classes in one place without any real trouble. The PrC subforum was glutted though, because WotC tossed those out like candy.
There's not really need to section the class forums after the initial rush dies down and really all the sectioning does is encourage needless cross posting, especially now that the game is interaction and team oriented.
Also, plan Weapon Speed makes things way, way worse in clutter terms. as well as 'please god, take my sight that I may not see the ugly' terms.
Vaalingrade, are you suggesting Plan PPD?
PLAN PPD (Save vs. Poison, Paralysis, or Death Magic)
[INDENT]
- 4e D&D Fundamentals
- 4e General Discussion
Can’t find what you’re looking for in one of our forums below? Come on in and pull up a seat! Welcome to General Discussion! - 4e Rules Q&A
- FIND PLAYERS IN YOUR AREA HERE!
Looking for a gaming group in your area? Start here! - 4e Classes & Powers
Discuss the various classes, their features, and their powers. - 4e Multiclassing, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies
- 4e Abilities, Skills and Feats
- 4e Character Optimization
- 4e Character Development
- 4e Races and Monsters
- 4e Rituals, Equipment and Magic Items
- 4e Combat: Traps, Terrain and Tactics
- 4e General Discussion
Char op belongs in char op, rules questions belong in Rules Questions, but where am I supposed to compare and contrast Warlords and Fighters? Talk about group tactics by class? By wasting server space and datastream crossposting, that's where.
Also, the multiclassing, et all one shoudl be right below classes and powers.
Char op belongs in char op, rules questions belong in Rules Questions, but where am I supposed to compare and contrast Warlords and Fighters? Talk about group tactics by class? By wasting server space and datastream crossposting, that's where.
I have to agree with this and stress its importance. Perhaps there needs to be a "Party Building" forum?
Sigh.
Splitting up the classes by a design tool is/was a bad idea, but it seems that having classes split it up by roles in the current build has had the effect of not wanting to change it.
I don't look at the roles when I play a character. It is a design tool and something for a DM to look at when making up the adventure.
Sure its a design tool, but its a useful design tool i dont think about being a defender when i play the character but i certainly do when I come to the forums....
Sure its a design tool, but its a useful design tool i dont think about being a defender when i play the character but i certainly do when I come to the forums....
There is a difference from playing the character and talking about it online?
I can't see it, really, I can't. The character is a Fighter, a Cleric, Warlord or Wizard, not a Controller, not a defender. Why would that change when I go to some forums online?
People just keep falling back on the roles, IMO, because they can't think of any other way to split them up and can't bear *not* to split them up. It's just so darn convenient for those that want the split.
I think you're right. The problem is that there's a negative consequence to splitting this way. IMO, that outweighs the benefits.
I can't see it, really, I can't. The character is a Fighter, a Cleric, Warlord or Wizard, not a Controller, not a defender. Why would that change when I go to some forums online?
Because the Fighter is a Defender, as well as being a Fighter, as well as being a Martial character.
It's not a mutually exclusive situation; entities can be more than one thing, without losing identification with either.
The sub titles are gonna be helpful, but they will grow as the edition grows, and eventually just be taken away eventually. One will assume that if you play the game, you pay attention to the design tool as it relates to your class.
While we are talking about the forums, is there any chance on improving the search engine?