Re: More thoughts on 4E and "D&D"

On 2009-12-05, Keith Davies <keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Standardization is a move to definitive language, where things have
standard meanings. Consider how the different bonuses have specific
meaning and application, or how monster subtypes imply certain things
about the creature. This is largely a descriptive exercise (though
things may be changed to fit the standard).

Normalization, OTOH, has to do with causing things to fit into a regular
shape. Things are created, destroyed, and/or moved so that 'all
patterns' can be met. This can be a significant change to the system if
it was not already close to that. For instance, in 4e you have four...
somethings (I forget the name, but it consists of controller, leader,
striker, and defender, IIRC), and a bunch of power sources (martial,
arcane, primal, etc.). They went to a great deal of effort to coerce
the existing classes into these categories and add new ones to fill
holes.

I don't think a great deal of effort really had to go into it. We already
had arcane, divine, and martial. Calling druids "divine" never fit very
well, because their magic was pretty different in feel from cleric magic.

It didn't seem like a bad thing at all to me; all the classes seem to me to
fit their new roles very well.

One is a documentation exercise, with changes to make things consistent
with the standard language (or explicitly excuse them), the other moves
things around to fit arbitrary patterns and structures.

Okay, I see the distinction. I don't think, though, that 4E's normalization
is particularly excessive; I think they did a little bit in order to make it
simpler and clearer how the standardization worked, and the net results are,
overall, pretty good. I'd call 3E's shifts to things like hit dice every
level, con bonus every level, and so on a better example of normalization
for its own sake -- although in both cases, I thought they were good changes.

Fighters have always been there to keep you off someone else by
getting in your way and being hard to kill. That they also did damage
was, I think, not really the intended primary role, but rather, a
secondary aspect -- necessary for them to be able to do their primary
role effectively.

That was one of his roles, yes. However, he can sometimes get better
results by *killing them over there* instead of waiting here and being a
meatshield.

If they're pretty killable, sure. And fighters can still do that. They
just don't do it *as well* as a specialist.

I don't think so. I think it's just that, sometimes, people end up
with their internal archetype not fitting the game. Same as if you
want to play a wizard, play a sorcerer, because a wizard is a guy who
can throw a ton of fireballs, and that's a sorcerer.

In going to 4e? In 3e there are some distinct differences in how the
classes are played overall, though in a fight there is some severe
overlap.

Also largely true in 3E, if your conception of a wizard is more like
"throw a ton of fireballs" than "know a ton of stuff and use only a small
fraction of it".

This is IMC, and thus a house rule, but in addition to the differences
in play I mention above, I long ago broke the sorcerer spell list away
from the wizard (they suck for breadth of spell knowledge, but their
bloodlines conceivably allow them to draw spells from *any* spell list).

Interesting.

I like tussock's suggestion of using Con rather than Cha, too. Another
house rule, of course.

My guess is the big reason not to do that would have been the game balance;
3E already had Con way too powerful.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More thoughts on 4E and "D&D"
    ... 4e went a long way toward normalizing the game. ... things may be changed to fit the standard). ... with their internal archetype not fitting the game. ... I long ago broke the sorcerer spell list away ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: Epia Mini-ITX ce installation
    ... I still didn't get what "wizard" you are talking about. ... Epia BSP to the catalog. ... But with standard i mean trough the wizzard. ... the audio driver to work with you current image (if you have the ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.embedded)
  • Re: Official vs actual carry-on luggage dimensions (USA)
    ... the rule *was* enforced becuse the bag wasn't ... Rollaboard) would have easily fit in the overhead bin. ...  That said, the "standard" should ... airline cannot standardize the rules within their own system, ...
    (rec.travel.air)
  • Re: T2-AE1 barebone - replacing PSU
    ... a normal ATX PSU will not fit inside. ... Standard size ATX is 15cm x 14cm x 8.6 cm. ... Are there even PSUs that size? ... insufficient for a graphics card that requires external power. ...
    (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
  • To be fair, it was over spelling.
    ... spell check, typos & yes actually a poor speller (the public educational ... lazy/procrastinating to look it up on online dictionaries. ... the less the standard of spelling anyway. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)