PDA

View Full Version : People complaining about character similarity [4E LFR]



Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 04:57 AM
I've run into the following problem in the local 4E Living Forgotten Realms campaign. Of course, this would not be a problem in a regular group's campaign. For people who haven't heard of LFR, please check the WOTC site, it's kind of hard to explain in one line.

The problem is that any two characters of the same class tend to be highly similar, to the point of being (nearly) mechanically identical. Essentially, in our group of 40-ish people, there is some kind of understanding which powers are best, so that's what everybody takes. It has gotten to the point where some people think they're nerfing themselves just to be different. Mind, it's not that other builds or powers necessarily are worse, but that people perceive them as worse.

For instance, (nearly) every rogue player will take Deft Strike, and Torturous Strike, and Blinding Barrage; and will pick as their race either an elf or a drow. Only some classes will have two different builds (i.e. archer ranger vs. melee ranger, and feylock vs. infernalock). The LFR hasn't reached paragon levels so far, so that divergence is not an option yet.

Overall, while of course everybody roleplays differently, certain people are complaining that "other people have the same character as they do". To cite a stereotype, it has a certain "but she's wearing my dress!" feel to it.

This is probably the result of groupthink; groups of friends tend to think alike at least to some extent. Also, certain handbooks on the web are quick to point out which of the powers you Really Must Take for each level. Is anyone else seeing this issue?

(mind you, I'm not dissing 4E; I'm talking about players who complain about a certain aspect of 4E. The system isn't a problem, but the nagging behavior of those players is becoming one)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-19, 05:06 AM
Some of them probably have a legitimate complaint, at least to a degree. If you're both 5th level Elf Rangers with the same encounter and mostly the same at-wills, then you really won't feel like you have anything to make yourself seem different. As more material is printed, this will probably stop, but as-is the standardization of 4.0 is causing it, and there's not much you can do to stop it. As-is, I'd encourage people to refluff things a lot more, and to use the multiclass feats. Until there are more options for powers, races, weapons, and similar, low levels are going to be very homogeneous.

KKL
2008-12-19, 05:17 AM
Man, why Deft Strike? Piercing Strike and Riposte/Flourish are strictly better :V Only reason to take DS would be if you're Human and unwilling to take the MP Rattling At-Will.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 05:21 AM
Some of them probably have a legitimate complaint, at least to a degree. If you're both 5th level Elf Rangers with the same encounter and mostly the same at-wills, then you really won't feel like you have anything to make yourself seem different.
Yes, but worse, if you're both 5th level rangers, you're likely to have picked the same race (elf) and mostly the same powers.


I'd encourage people to refluff things a lot more, and to use the multiclass feats.
MC feats are part of it. Most rangers take the rogue MC for sneak attack, most warlocks take the wizard MC to get scorching burst, most fighters and rogues else takes the ranger MC for quarry.


Man, why Deft Strike? Piercing Strike and Riposte/Flourish are strictly better :V
I'm glad to hear that other groups of players feel differently. For the record, Flourish isn't being done because people pick brutal rogue.

Starsinger
2008-12-19, 05:22 AM
Smack them in the face with your PHB and ask them why they're optimizing so hard.

potatocubed
2008-12-19, 05:23 AM
I think a contribution to the problem might be the lack of opportunity for (non-mechanical) character development in LFR. The static gameworld and linear nature of the adventures kind of force you to express your character's uniqueness through mechanical choices - of which there aren't very many, optimal or non-optimal.

KIDS
2008-12-19, 05:24 AM
I think it's a problem common to RPGA/"Living" campaign settings, whereas sources are so closely watched and there is little variety. Such standardization is imo a bad thing, but also necessary for the quick startup important to those games.

Maybe it can be solved with taking different feats, many of which are useful to all classes while making them different. Unlike an old example which I found frequently frustrating (all archer rangers would always have PBS/Precise/Rapid/WF/Manyshot rotation), there really are different useful routes to take with your feats. For example, a Rogue with Toughness or Weapon Focus is different but not weaker than the one with Nimble blade and Backstabber.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-19, 06:12 AM
Doesn't anyone multiclass? :smallconfused:

I'm going with the groupthink here.

I, personally, have made at least a half-dozen Paladins that were all mechanically different despite being either STR or CHA Paladins. Heck, all of the Build Guides over at CharOp list at least 3 different builds for every class - why is everyone doing the same ones?

But, having not played LFR, I can't speak with authority. I hear you can re-play adventures you've completed though. If true, that's extremely lame. :smallannoyed:

Hal
2008-12-19, 06:25 AM
Each class has at least two, and sometimes three, ability scores that determine character effectiveness. For example, a cleric with 18 Wis / 16 Cha is going to play differently from one with 18 Str / 16 Cha.

I only point it out to note that these people only have the same abilities because they both chose to focus on the same aspect of the class. I don't know whether or not a trickster rogue is going to be useful in these campaigns, but clearly something has gone wrong if you have two people show up for the game and both want to play the same character class and focus. Your group should always plot that stuff out in advance.

Irreverent Fool
2008-12-19, 06:42 AM
This was a common problem in older editions, even more so than in 4e. This is a contributing factor to the overabundance of options available in 3.5e. Unfortunately, it means there's also the opportunity for 'broken combinations' that we are all too familiar with.

You've mentioned that they do roleplay differently, but this article may help seperate them a bit more:

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/date/2008/10/

We managed to play the same classes in the olden days and make our characters feel different, but we didn't have as many mechanics to fall back on. The only real option you have is to help these players develop their individual stories and personalities. In a game that's mostly about combat this can be difficult.

obnoxious
sig

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-19, 06:50 AM
Instead of bashing 4th edition as I almost always do (:smallredface:), I think that the problem is not of the edition itself (or at least, not at all).

You can see things like these in every edition, because, IMHO, several people has similar gamestyle and for the general gamestyle few options outshine others. For an RPG, anyway, his should not such a big issue. You can have 41 Raven Queen clerics with the same powers, but each one with different personal goals, a different way to accomplish their deity goals, different aptitude toward races, places, weather and whatelse.

Feats and power are part of your charachter, not your charachter, IMO.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 06:56 AM
Smack them in the face with your PHB and ask them why they're optimizing so hard.
I don't think they're really optimizing per se, but just copying what they see is working. For instance, the PHB tells you at several points that you should "play race X if you want to be [a member of a race that favors playing] class X". If, say, warlocks are said to require con and cha, it should come as no surprise that players who want a warlock pick a race that boosts con and cha, of which there is exactly one in the PHB.


I think it's a problem common to RPGA/"Living" campaign settings, whereas sources are so closely watched and there is little variety. Such standardization is imo a bad thing, but also necessary for the quick startup important to those games.
Agreed. Also agree with Potatocubed.


Maybe it can be solved with taking different feats, many of which are useful to all classes while making them different.
To some extent. THe problem is that most feats aren't really noticeable to a second party, because what you do each turn is mostly visible from your [i]powers[i]. For instance, it is hard to tell the difference between a player with Imp Init (a very useful feat) and one who simply rolled high - whereas it is easy to tell the difference between a wizard using Cloud of Daggers and a wizard using Thunderwave.


Doesn't anyone multiclass? :smallconfused:
Pretty much everyone multiclasses, because the MC feats are (or are perceived as) the best heroic feats out there.



I, personally, have made at least a half-dozen Paladins that were all mechanically different despite being either STR or CHA Paladins. Heck, all of the Build Guides over at CharOp list at least 3 different builds for every class - why is everyone doing the same ones?
I wonder what level you're at; I do know that most of those guides span the entire length of level 1 thru 30, whereas RPGA hasn't gotten further than level 6 so far.
While it is true that each class has two or three different "builds", the problem with most classes is either that those builds appear pretty much the same in play (e.g. staff/wand/orbizard uses the same powers, and the implement effects aren't very visible most of the time), OR that one of the builds is clearly inferior (or seen as inferior; e.g. compared to feylock teleportation and infernalock ton-of-temp-HP, starlock's +1 bonus doesn't sound all that impressive, and hence nobody plays a starlock).


I hear you can re-play adventures you've completed though. If true, that's extremely lame. :smallannoyed:
As a player, yes, but not with the same character. It is, in my experience, generally not fun to play something you've played before.



I only point it out to note that these people only have the same abilities because they both chose to focus on the same aspect of the class.
Yes. As above.


Your group should always plot that stuff out in advance.
The point of LFR is that it doesn't have a group, per se. It has a huge bunch of people, any randomly-chosen six of which can show up for any given session.
But yes, some people argue that having two characters with the same build should be forbidden for a session. To me, that feels like arbitrarily turning players away, though.

Saph
2008-12-19, 07:13 AM
I do think that for a lot of the 4e classes, there really is a 'better' and a 'worse' choice among all of the powers at each level. If you're using the core books, every shield fighter will have Cleave and Tide of Iron; every archery ranger will have Nimble Strike and Twin Strike. There just aren't that many powers to choose from, and much of the time one power is clearly better than another (not massively better, but enough to make it the obvious pick).

Same with the races. Much of the time one race is clearly better at a certain class than another, so it's not really a surprise that you get an 'Attack of the Clones' feeling when you're looking at your party roster.

Feats are more individual, but you don't get a huge number of them and most class/race combos have at least a couple of 'must-have' feats that eat up your early choices. Which, again, tends to lead to character similarity.

Basically I think we're just going to have to deal with it. Splatbook creep will probably lessen the problem, but it'll take a long time for the books to diffuse through the population.

- Saph

potatocubed
2008-12-19, 08:41 AM
Same with the races. Much of the time one race is clearly better at a certain class than another, so it's not really a surprise that you get an 'Attack of the Clones' feeling when you're looking at your party roster.

You've just given me a fantastic idea for a game. :smalltongue:

Well, maybe a one-shot, since having everyone play identically built warforged fighters will probably get old, fast.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 12:17 PM
Essentially, in our group of 40-ish people, there is some kind of understanding which powers are best, so that's what everybody takes.
Jesus, 40 people? Yeah, that'll do it. With only 8 complete classes out there, with that size group you're going to have some doubling up even if each class has 4 different, mutually exclusive builds :smalleek:

Duke of URL
2008-12-19, 12:23 PM
Far be it from be to be a 4e defender, but I think a lot of it stems from the fact that there's only a limited number of 4e sources available at this point -- there seems to be only a couple of "ways" to play each class, and the value of individual feats are much less than in 4e, so I imagine the characters can appear a bit "cookie cutter". (To which I will refrain from snide commentary this time.)

I'll bet as the sources expand -- more classes and more options for each class -- you'll start to see more variety.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-19, 12:24 PM
Jesus, 40 people? Yeah, that'll do it. With only 8 complete classes out there, with that size group you're going to have some doubling up even if each class has 4 different, mutually exclusive builds :smalleek:It's a Living campaign. What did you expect? It's not like they're all in one party or anything.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 12:31 PM
I'll bet as the sources expand -- more classes and more options for each class -- you'll start to see more variety.

That is certainly a possibility.

I must admit that MP hasn't helped much (other than making new fighters use the temp-HP variant), but I suspect the PHB2 will.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 12:45 PM
It's a Living campaign. What did you expect? It's not like they're all in one party or anything.
I really know hardly anything about living campaigns. I just saw the numbers, and you don't need to know much about living campaigns to know that 40 people with 8 classes to use is going to wind up with a lot of mechanically similar characters. And since it sounded like that's what the OP's group is complaining about...

Tyger
2008-12-19, 12:55 PM
I can't help but wonder if this is related to 4e or just to gaming in general though, specifically D&D. At low level, there were very few options really for most classes. And there were still the "best" choices for people to take.

If you made ten level three fighters, core only, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would (if they were looking for the best choices, aka optimizing) go the Power Attack, 2-handed weapon wielding route. Those that didn't likely went the Spiked Chain, tripping route. Rogues would be even more normalized, having so many fewer feats. Wizards would have access to a lot more spells, but the famous batman spells do shine for a reason, etc.

And when your turn came around, you didn't call out the power's name, you just said, "I swing my sword". Ten fighters, ten attacks, you'd get six saying "I swing my sword" and the other four yelling out "I swing my chain and trip him" calls.

Probably coming across as a 4e defender (and I am, I really enjoy the new mechanics) but I have a lot of trouble seeing the lack of versatility that people talk about being a new phenomenon. I think its partly limited to people taking the "best" powers rather than the most RP appropriate, but also to the lack of sourcebooks, which won't be a problem soon... Have you seen WotC's pending publications list???? :smallsmile:

Yakk
2008-12-19, 01:05 PM
In many cases, it is because doing a copy of the consensus is easier than realizing "attacking reflex kicks ass, why do I care about moving (!) 2 spaces before I attack?"

But yes, there are some sub-optimal powers.

With 4 at wills, there are 6 combinations. If 1 sucks or isn't good for the build, that drops it down to 3. If one is a "must have", then it goes down to 3 combinations. If there is both a bad one, and a must have, there are only 2 combinations.

Add in more at wills, and this problem goes away.

In a normal campaign if this turned out to be a problem, I'd just houserule the power level of powers to make more variety optimal.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 01:17 PM
Probably coming across as a 4e defender (and I am, I really enjoy the new mechanics) but I have a lot of trouble seeing the lack of versatility that people talk about being a new phenomenon. I think its partly limited to people taking the "best" powers rather than the most RP appropriate, but also to the lack of sourcebooks, which won't be a problem soon... Have you seen WotC's pending publications list???? :smallsmile:

I've also noticed that some - not all, but at least a few - of the people who complain about lack of versatility do so in comparison to the 3e Wizard, not 3e itself.


Edit: Added quote

Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 01:25 PM
I've also noticed that some - not all, but at least a few - of the people who complain about lack of versatility do so in comparison to the 3e Wizard, not 3e itself.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. This isn't (yet another) thread about comparing 3E and 4E.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 01:43 PM
My apologies, I was trying to reply to the last part of Tyger's post. I'll go back and put in a quote to make it more clear, and afterwards avoid the subject :smallredface:

Lappy9000
2008-12-19, 01:59 PM
I've run into the following problem in the local 4E Living Forgotten Realms campaign. Of course, this would not be a problem in a regular group's campaign. For people who haven't heard of LFR, please check the WOTC site, it's kind of hard to explain in one line.

The problem is that any two characters of the same class tend to be highly similar, to the point of being (nearly) mechanically identical. Essentially, in our group of 40-ish people, there is some kind of understanding which powers are best, so that's what everybody takes. It has gotten to the point where some people think they're nerfing themselves just to be different. Mind, it's not that other builds or powers necessarily are worse, but that people perceive them as worse.

For instance, (nearly) every rogue player will take Deft Strike, and Torturous Strike, and Blinding Barrage; and will pick as their race either an elf or a drow. Only some classes will have two different builds (i.e. archer ranger vs. melee ranger, and feylock vs. infernalock). The LFR hasn't reached paragon levels so far, so that divergence is not an option yet.

Overall, while of course everybody roleplays differently, certain people are complaining that "other people have the same character as they do". To cite a stereotype, it has a certain "but she's wearing my dress!" feel to it.

This is probably the result of groupthink; groups of friends tend to think alike at least to some extent. Also, certain handbooks on the web are quick to point out which of the powers you Really Must Take for each level. Is anyone else seeing this issue?

(mind you, I'm not dissing 4E; I'm talking about players who complain about a certain aspect of 4E. The system isn't a problem, but the nagging behavior of those players is becoming one)

Does everyone make a cool backstory and stuff? Even if characters are mechanically similiar (or the same), if they're played as completely different people, it shouldn't be a huge problem.

I'm playing a low level dwarven wizard right now, and since 4e wizards seem kinda blasty, I decided to make him 'specialize' in force magic (he's a dwarf and values raw power; makes adequate sense). I know some classes don't seem quite as varied, but the use of cantrips alone can make a character interesting (especially with Mage Hand being a minor action, allowing my dwarf to use it to stroke his moustache before attacking).

Kurald Galain
2008-12-19, 02:18 PM
Does everyone make a cool backstory and stuff?
I'm afraid that in LFR, most characters pick the background region that Gives The Most Pluses.

Keld Denar
2008-12-19, 02:35 PM
Yeah, because of the heavy time investment in LFR, and its predecessor LG, optimizing is stressed. Dying sets you back many IRL hours. Normally, in a home game, if you die and get rezed, its not too bad because your DM adjusts encounter difficulty a bit, and you get a bit more xp, until you catch up. This is different in LFR. LFR is a lot more like an MMORPG than a home game campaign. If you die too much in LFR, you fall behind your friends, and are more likely to die more and more often unless you can somehow catch up.

Because of that, Living Campaigns have a long history of highly optimized characters. Since there aren't a lot of options out right now, there are only 2-3 most optimized builds for any given class atm, or maybe less. Thats just the way it is. Hopefully it'll get better as time goes on and more source material gets released and is opened up to the campaign.

Lappy9000
2008-12-19, 02:52 PM
Wow, just read the brief synopsis on the WoTC site, and I have no idea how this works. So I'm guessing it's not possible to head to the Request a Homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72870)thread and ask for some more optimizing abilities, right?

Keld Denar
2008-12-19, 03:04 PM
Wow, just read the brief synopsis on the WoTC site, and I have no idea how this works. So I'm guessing it's not possible to head to the Request a Homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72870)thread and ask for some more optimizing abilities, right?

Nope, no homebrew at all in Living games. Thats the point. Everyone is on an even playing field. Everyone has access to the same material. That way no one comes in with some overpowered ability and says "well, this other DM let me do it". Keeps things more easily adjudicated. Its the sacrifice you make to play on the international level. I think its worth it. Some of the best RPers I've ever met I met through LG and LFR.