If two classes share the same combat niche (eg. Tempest Fighter/Ranger or Ranger/Seeker/Archer Warlord), why can't they all benefit from the same power choices?
The simple answer is; there is no good reason (outside of arbitary/redundant class design) to prevent characters from choosing powers from the same thematic groups (eg. archer powers). Unfortunately, due to such arbitary class design - it becomes increasingly more difficult to create thematically similar sub-classes/builds without stepping on a pre-existing class.
The following house rule(s) is intended to help correct such design oversights, by blurring the lines between classes with overlapping concepts, while still highlighting the differences between them.
At the most basic level, this is accomplished by the following:
1) Grouping powers based on their thematic qualities.
- EG: All "Archery" style powers (regardless of class) would become Archer Ranger Powers.
- All classes (and builds) which currently gain access to those powers (Archer Warlord, Seeker, & Hunter) would gain the ability to choose Ranged Archer powers as if they were powers from their respective classes.
- The Archer Warlord (for example) would treat all ranged Ranger powers as if they were Warlord powers.
This house-rule has the benefit of reducing redundancy by allowing a single power to serve multiple classes, builds and sub-classes, and eliminates artificial boundaries on power design.
2) Similar Classes would still retain flavour
2) Similar Classes would still retain flavour
- Despite the fact that a Tempest Fighter and a Two-Weapon Ranger would have access to the same powers, both classes would still feel different for a variety of reasons.
- Firstly: They will retain their parent classes features (Fighter and Ranger respectively) which would reflect their differing approach to the same concept;
- Secondly: Both classes (builds) would still retain access to all other powers of their parent class. The Tempest Fighter would only gain access to the rangers TWF-Power tree; All other powers would remain exclusive to the Ranger, allowing for some considerable variation despite their similarity. The same would apply in respect to class-specific feats, and paragon paths - although in some cases, a single feat/PP may be applicable to two (or more) classes which is encouraged.
3) Reflavouring Existing Powers
- Given the fact that some powers exist solely because some classes use different primary ability scores; all classes should be able to use their primary statistic when making attacks with any on-theme power.
- All Rangers for example, should be able to use Dexterity with any Seeker or Archer Warlord Power. Seekers and Warlords should be able to use Wisdom and Strength respectively when using any Ranger or Warlord/Seeker powers. The same applies in all similar cases (Brawler Fighter/Monk; etc).
This only applies in respect to pre-existing powers. Were the Dev's willing to embrace this design model, all new powers (regardless of class) should be represented using a variety of primary statistics.
- All new Archer Ranger powers, would therefore be written in a similar fashion to racial/paragon path powers - allowing for either Strength/Dexterity/Wisdom to be used with the power. This allows for all three kinds of "archer" theme to be represented (including potential future archers, such as a Ki Archer Monk) without requiring new powers in order to realize a niche concept.
If people like this House Rule; I will be more than happy to publish all changes to any affected class(es) or powers, starting with the most obvious (Archer/Brawler theme), and continuing from there as neccessary.
Archer Warlord
Treat all Ranged powers from the Ranger Class as Warlord Powers. You can use your Strength score (instead of your Dexterity) when making attack rolls and damaged rolls with these powers.
Archer Monk
Treat all Ranged powers from the Ranger, Seeker, or Warlord Class as Monk Powers. You can use your Wisdom score (instead of your Strength or Dexterity) when making attack rolls and damage rolls with these powers.
Ranger
Treat all ranged powers from the Warlord or Seeker as Ranger powers. You can use your Dexterity score (instead of your Strength or Wisdom) when making attack rolls and damage rolls with these powers.
Seeker
Treat all ranged powers from the Ranger and Warlord class as Seeker Powers. You can use your Wisdom score (instead of your Strength or Dexterity score) when making attack rolls and damage rolls with these powers.
Archery Powers
Treat all ranged Warlord and Seeker powers as being on the Ranger class list. Add Dexterity, Strength, and Wisdom as the attack/damage score for each of these powers.
Feats/Paragon Paths
Each of the above classes ignores class requirements (but not feature requirements) in respect to choosing archery-style Paragon Paths, Feats, and other options.
The simple answer is; there is no good reason (outside of arbitary/redundant class design) to prevent characters from choosing powers from the same thematic groups (eg. archer powers).
Actually I think the answer is that because these differing concepts have different combat Roles, and thus are balanced around different things. The Archer Warlord has very different powers from the Archer Ranger, because one is a Leader and the other is a Striker.
Letting them choose from each other's powers blurs the lines between the Roles. This is not neccesarily a bad thing, but your players need to be good enough at the game to know when to pick from their own Role and when to take an off-Role power, or they'll become a blend of two things and be good at neither. Or both, if they're doing it really well... which has problems of its own.
Anyway don't let it stop you from working this out, it looks interesting.
Despite the naysayers, I whole heartedly agree with this idea OP. Ever since Fouth Edition's release. I've asked myself just why Wizards of the Coast lied, and claimed the classes were going to "eat each other" when there is still over 9000 fricking classes.
There are two ways I'd go about this personally. Four classes based off roles. (Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader class) or the six classes based off power grouping. (Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic, and Shadow) Yes, they could "blend in" several combat roles if the latter, but who cares? As long as it's fun. And simple=more time for fun.
There may be potential for abuse, but I doubt sincerely it'll be significant enough to break your game. If everyone's broken, noone will be... Some might make bad power options, but if you begin to notice that, just allow them to switch out powers. Make a meme out of this by letting them switch out powers every once in a while, and giving everything a test drive. Might make for some interesting combinations and good times had by all.
I like your idea of somehow a "type". Such as an archer type, or a brawler type. But honestly, I think that would require much more effort. You'd have to read all the books back and fourth and remember which powers do what, and try to justify it as part of your build/class. It would definitelly make sense if you trying to aim for a class, rather then why I do it, which is trying to make D&D almost a classless system, but not completely, so that people have an abundance of choices, and classes only exist to make the proccess so much smoother and less complex.
But I like the direction you're taking things. Rogue and Assassin should be the same class, as Psion and Ardent, Battle Mind and Monk, I think the only flaw in your idea is as I said, it would take a lot of vigilance to see this through, and that some classes might get the short end of the stick. A fighter is defined by what? A melee tank? Makes sense, but does he merge with a barbarian who melees differently by rage template?
You could probably fool your players into accepting this big tent of power choices if you somehow justify it in roleplay. For example, in a campaign I was going to run, there was going to be a class struggle between sorcerers, (magic supremeacists who believed inborn magic made them special) vs wizards (rich people from rich backgrounds who monopolize the knowledge of magic and hold it over commoner's heads) vs warlocks (socially ostracized spellcasters who make pacts with extraplanar entities which is seen like making a deal with a dog to wizards and sorcerers who see them as a means to an ends and thus it's degrading and speaks volumes of the warlock's character...) and fighters. (People with no magic ability, no degree, and wasn't able to get lucky enough to get a magical being's attention.)
This clear struggle between the four would justify power sources being lumped in together, and there just being "four classes". If you focus on race wars such as elves vs dwarves vs orcs type thing, that could work too in justifying the lumping together. A monster campaign would work wonders too. Like my favorite monster is the bodak. He should be able to choose powers from any defender type class or primal power source. Bodak's Gaze from 3.5 just seemed primal too me... the 4th Edition Bodak is okay, but not nearly as intimidating...
So a lot of it depends on your campaign type, and the over all tolerance of your players to accept new things. Forums tend to not like change for some reason. I would hope your irl group is more willing to try it out. I feel way to constrained with the current system. It just doesn't feel like I have much choice in power selection. Especially when you need like five books just to get in double digits. That, and you get so few powers to begin with... Daily and at-will are fine, but if you ask me, encounter is a little clunky. Early encounter powers turn obsolete very quickly. So I think at-will and daily should remain the same. (Even earlier daily are still useful cause durp... you can only use each one once!) But encounter should run by a different mechanism entirely. Either by a mana system, or some kind of recharge system like Mass Effect's biotics. You roll a d100, with the encounter's power DC equal to the power's level x3. (So level 1=DC 3, level 30=DC 90) If you fail the roll, you cannot use another encounter power until the encounter is over. Thus, some sort of balance. Albeit this would essentially make lower level encounter powers "at-will". But there's always that chance that trying to play it cool by using weak powers still ends up costing you.
Some would complain that is broken, it probably is. Honestly though, it makes the whole proccess a lot easier for the DM, and the player. Less ways to exploit encounters too. Yes, encounters are worse then daily, so it's essentially "weak daily" powers. But people will live.
Any way, I hope you the best of luck Kalani. We need to see more creativity in this hobby.
Your problem powers are those that key off class features. For instance powers that mark or affect marked enemies are not generic Martial or Melee, they are specific to defenders. Druid Beast Form attacks are a more extreme example.
Unless you can figure out the intended split between what a class gets from its features, and its powers, you will find power level mismatches. For instance a Striker class where the additional damage that strikers should get is simply factored into the powers is going to provide a bunch or very good powers that everyone will want to take, whereas a class where the role is well covered by class feature mechanics is going to provide a very poor pool of sharable powers when you try to split them in your new thematic way.
Then there is the fact that an early design goal of 4E was to have classes eating each other, in order to prevent one (or more) new classes from overshadowing an existing class.
In 3.5 the poor Ranger got overshadowed by the Scout, while in 4E it has heavy competition from the Seeker and Tempest Fighter (both of which could easily cannibalize the Ranger entirely). It just irks me that such an iconic class such as the Ranger must be constantly overshadowed by other classes who hone in on its turf.
I mean, outside of Drizzt, Legolas, Aragorn, William Tell and Robin Hood, what does the Ranger have for inspiration, other than the ability to track, or a really cool pet - once other classes start honing in on their combat shtick.
Perhaps just adding a little of the flexibility you want, with an eye to keeping it balanced, then similarly ignoring the class names in favour of "what's your character concept" would work out as a reasonable compromise.
Despite the naysayers, I whole heartedly agree with this idea OP. Ever since Fouth Edition's release. I've asked myself just why Wizards of the Coast lied, and claimed the classes were going to "eat each other" when there is still over 9000 fricking classes.
WotC said they were going to eat each other? I must have missed that, but it's an interesting tidbit.
Despite the naysayers, I whole heartedly agree with this idea OP. Ever since Fouth Edition's release. I've asked myself just why Wizards of the Coast lied, and claimed the classes were going to "eat each other" when there is still over 9000 fricking classes.
WotC said they were going to eat each other? I must have missed that, but it's an interesting tidbit.
Various PLAYERS, at the beginning of 4E, often stated that "Class X killed Class Y and ate their stuff", meaning that the class had "cannabalized" some of the features of that class. Of the top of my head I can't really think of specific examples. Note, I think this was really a player thing, not something WotC said.
Various PLAYERS, at the beginning of 4E, often stated that "Class X killed Class Y and ate their stuff", meaning that the class had "cannabalized" some of the features of that class. Of the top of my head I can't really think of specific examples. Note, I think this was really a player thing, not something WotC said.
I feel like WoTC used the term "Killed it and took its stuff" or "cannabalized". No source ATM but I will look for some.
Here are my concerns with your idea:
First off, are you willing to indiscriminately combine abilities across power sources? Great Weapon Fighters and non-whirling Barbarians both have the apparent combat role of "beat things with an enormous weapon," but does it make sense if my fighter uses Winter Phoenix Rage, dealing cold damage with his weapon, gaining regeneration, and getting an automatic heal the first time he drops below 0? There are some barbarian powers that could totally be fighter powers, especially at low level, but others won't make sense. You'd have to do this on a case-by-case basis, checking every single power for every single class for both conformity to concept and power level. I certainly wouldn't go around giving out Twin Strike for free to crossbow artificers, prescient bards, tempest fighters, and any avenger who says he wants to hold two swords, because that power is essentially its own class feature. That's why the tempest fighter gets a nerfed version, and the whirling barbarian gets a similar but less accurate power to reflect its differing concept.
Second, as I started to get at there, some classes just shouldn't be able to grab every power that uses the same fighting style, because it gives them access to full secondary roles for almost no trade off, and some combinations are just over-the-top crazy when you put a good power with a class feature it was never meant to interact with. Twin Striking Avengers are a good example. People made Str-based Half-Elf Avengers before Half Elves had a Wis option, just to get Dilletante Twin Strike and make it an at-will at paragon, then crit fish by using it on their Oath target for 4 attack rolls at will. That's perfectly balanced with that kind of trade off (or requiring PMC Ranger, the other normal access point), but giving it out for free is flat-out broken.
Third, where do you draw fighting style lines? Can a brawler fighter with one empty hand start taking monk powers using the weapon in his other hand as an implement? Can a Wizard take Psion powers, because both of them use their minds to change the world around them If so, how will you balance power points and encounter powers? Are Shamans more like Clerics, or like Wardens, or like Druids? Do Paladins have access to powers from the Fighter, Avenger, Cleric, Runepriest, Barbarian, and Warden lists? Because I could argue for any of those, and even Invoker in some cases. Are Swordmages also wizards, fighters and artificers? Are they rogues and bards? What about Warlord, is Ardent too much of a stretch? How about Paladin or Ranger? Most of these questions aren't nearly as clear-cut as the ones you laid out.
Of course, the idea of pulling a gestalt out of any powers that seem to make sense for your character concept is pretty cool, especially if you have a concept that doesn't fit any existing class perfectly, but it's very hard to balance...
Which leads me to my fourth and (probably) final point. We already have a hybrid character system for this exact reason. If I want my archer ranger to also have some more primal-themed archery powers, I make a ranger|seeker. If I want my Thaneborn Barbarian to be especially good at inspiring leadership, I make a barbarian|warlord. If my Cleric is less about shininess and helping and feels the need to mix in some good old wrath of the gods, cleric|invoker can do that. If he's more of a stalwart frontliner, maybe he's a cleric|paladin or cleric|fighter. My extra-dark rogue might very well be a rogue|assassin. And that psionically-powered melee fighter teleporting and leaping around the battlefield to crush things with his club? He's a monk|battlemind. Every combination I just laid out follows two classes with some similar themes, and it happens to work out to be a perfectly good hybrid. Roots in both specific classes can help explain wonky power source shenanigans, too (why did my fighter just light on fire and start screaming at everything? well you see, he's also a barbarian, and he's just been infused with primal fire spirits). And the best thing about the hybrid system? Not only is it pre-balanced by Actual Game Developers, it gives you a great chance to mix and match class features to create a new class that makes some sense. If you need a 3rd class to really flesh it out, there's always multiclassing. As a DM, I would even be happy to allow an extra MC feat one of my players felt was necessary to flesh the character out as long as it didn't break anything, and possibly hand out free or 2-for-1 power swap feats.
I just can't see enough benefit coming out of this huge project compared to creative use of exiting hybrid and multiclass rules to justify all the pitfalls involved. It looks like this is really working toward a classless system, and no edition of D&D has ever been equipped to do that. If you'd like to start from the ground up with a set of abilities you'd like your character to have and buy them yourself, try GURPS, it's equally perfect for anything from "I'm an expert archer who can do anything with a bow" to "I'm a humanoid hallucinogenic mushroom who hugs people until they go insane from contact with my skin oils." That last one might even be my favorite character I've played in any system...
I'm sure there's a counterexample that might really benefit from this that I'm not thinking of, though. Can anyone give me one? That would be:
A) A relatively standard role/fighting style concept, that
B) Can't get access to conceptually important powers through normal hybrid/multiclass means, and
C) Would fall into the middle 90% of existing PC ability balance if you gave it free access to those powers.
I'm skeptical that such a thing exists, just because of how elegantly the hybrid system deals with those balance issues, but I'd love it someone found me one.
3.5 Ranger killed the 3.5 scout and ate its stuff. The scout doesn't exist in 4e, but the ranger does.
Was the use of this phrase, not "Ranger is made obsolete by the seeker" or anything like that.
At the time the PH1 was released, the Dev's had barely scratched the surface of what 4E was capable of achieving, nor had they fully flexed their creative muscles (they were too concerned with making certain the system was elegant and balanced, and rightly so).
It truly wasn't until the release of the PH2 that the dev's had even started experimenting with the limitations/flexibility of the system, and so books such as the PH1 and MP1 seem lackluster and unimaginative by comparison.
IMHO, the eHunter is an attempt to blend the seeker with the ranger, but until such times as the dev's publish the essentials MC/Hybrid rules, the Ranger gains little benefit.