What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]

[Jogi]

So, I've been playing D&D for some time and, although I never actually reached high levels (party problems+people problems) I've used many rules. And so, as many player, I've had to open the books way too many times during a game. Thus, my point is: what is wrong with D&D?

Some gerenal stuff I've noticed:
- Too many numbers. It's like having 10000 yens that translate into 10$.
- Too many complicated rules. We're always trying to remeber wierd rules which could, most of the times be reduced to the standard +2/-2 modifier.
- Limited magic system, sometimes it feels like it isn't really magic.

As for 4e, specifically:
- No actual magic exists, which translates in a bad thing for homebrewers.
- It's INSANE to homebrew a class for this system.
- Remembering all the powers of your character is hard.

I'd really like a simple yet effective system, but I think I'll have to create my own. Here are some ideas for it:

- Reduced number of abilities. Probably: Strenght, Dextery, Inteligence and Vigor.
-A magic system base on GURPS+White Wolf magic systems. To make the long story short: endless possibilities with magic, you got points in something like "magic schools" which allow you to do different kinds of magic. You don't have daily slots, but instead you get fatigued by doing magic.
- Not sure If I'd use classes.
- Skills based on D&D 4e, although their scores are White Wolf based.
- Many class powers from D&d would be turned into something similar to feats, and you'd get them as you gain experience.
- No level system. You spend experience to gain new powers.

Just some ideas. What do you guys think?

[Glimbur]

It sounds like your solution is to play White Wolf instead. Reduce the number of attributes. Add in a new Fatigue stat that applies to Mages (or everyone, why not?) and specify schools of magic. You don't want classes, you want a point buy/experience system. If you feel the need, present classes as pre-made characters/templates with their bonus points unspent.

That's a lot easier than making a new system out of whole cloth.

[Deathdarken]

mmm I get what you mean by 3.5 I could just not learn everything as a DM. 4.0 is much simpler but I don't know if you have read about it they have in one of the books about creating new classes by combining classes and stuff like that have you taken a look at that?

[Zeta Kai]

4.0 is much simpler but I don't know if you have read about it they have in one of the books about creating new classes by combining classes and stuff like that have you taken a look at that?

Yay, yet another way for WotC to suck the creativity out the game.

"Hey, you don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new class to suit your tastes. Just mix & match our wide selection of bland, interchangeable powers, & you can call your class whatever you want! It's so much better than the old clunky way of making up your own features & abilities. Why be creative when we've been creative for you!"

[gooddragon1]

"Hey, you don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new class to suit your tastes. Just mix & match our wide selection of bland, interchangeable powers, & you can call your class whatever you want! It's so much better than the old clunky way of making up your own features & abilities. Why be creative when we've been creative for you!"

Bless you zeta kai, bless you.

[Love your elemental plane of flesh thing too btw]]

[jmbrown]

Yay, yet another way for WotC to suck the creativity out the game.

"Hey, you don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new class to suit your tastes. Just mix & match our wide selection of bland, interchangeable powers, & you can call your class whatever you want! It's so much better than the old clunky way of making up your own features & abilities. Why be creative when we've been creative for you!"

4E's combat is based solely around the defender, striker, controller, leader setup. The recommendation for creating new classes is to base their powers on previous classes IE defenders should have a way of drawing fire, controllers should have a way of pushing units, etc. If you deviate from the d/s/c/l setup then you'll make an ineffective character.

You can create new powers without copying other powers but a defender that doesn't have a way of getting enemies to fight them without penalty or a controller that has zero area at-will powers is worthless.

- Limited magic system, sometimes it feels like it isn't really magic.

3.5? Are you kidding? A level 3 wizard can create his own pocket dimension with a piece of rope and some paper scraps. The magic system is only limited as far as spells per day.

3.5's major problems are a challenge rating system that doesn't take into account caster level, a broken diplomacy/intimidate system, characters with an over reliance on magical equipment, clunky combat mechanics that are overshadowed early in the game, and a save-or-die mechanic which can screw you completely from a single unlucky roll.

4E's problem revolves around removing flavor in exchange for balance, removing the fear of the environment (starving/dehydrating is near impossible, healing is automatic after 6 hours of rest, etc.), easily broken stealth rules and neutering feats so that characters can min/max more so than in 3.5.

- No actual magic exists, which translates in a bad thing for homebrewers.

4E has magic it's just that magic is universal and doesn't directly affect combat. Magic is used to make your life easier unlike 3.5 where it's over reliance instantly overshadows non-magic classes mid-game.

-A magic system base on GURPS+White Wolf magic systems. To make the long story short: endless possibilities with magic, you got points in something like "magic schools" which allow you to do different kinds of magic. You don't have daily slots, but instead you get fatigued by doing magic.

4E uses powers for this very reason. Magic still exists but in the form of powers; the difference is that arcane magic breaks reality while at-will powers only have a single purpose.

Anyways, the rest of your proposed "changes" change the core of D&D to the point where it's not even D&D. You're better off playing another system entirely or even a simpler system like Savage Worlds. Dungeons and Dragons is, historically, a combat centric, class focused, progressive level based game. Changing those three mechanics; it's focus on combat, being class oriented and having progressive levels would change the game completely IMO.

[Chrono22]

NO! Don't do that!
I thought of it first!

Well, except mine uses 12 attribute scores...

[Chrono22]

Anyways, the rest of your proposed "changes"...

Just wondering, why did you put that in quotation marks? Makes no sense.

... change the core of D&D to the point where it's not even D&D. You're better off playing another system entirely or even a simpler system like Savage Worlds. Dungeons and Dragons is, historically, a combat centric, class focused, progressive level based game. Changing those three mechanics; it's focus on combat, being class oriented and having progressive levels would change the game completely IMO.

At the heart of it, DnD is about explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy. As long as the heart remains the same, it's DnD to me.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.

To OP: Do you intend to publish this? If not, I can throw you some advice via PM. There are several.. how should I say.. hurdles that have to be overcome to make such a system work.

[Ichneumon]

mmm I get what you mean by 3.5 I could just not learn everything as a DM. 4.0 is much simpler but I don't know if you have read about it they have in one of the books about creating new classes by combining classes and stuff like that have you taken a look at that?

Yay, yet another way for WotC to suck the creativity out the game.

"Hey, you don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new class to suit your tastes. Just mix & match our wide selection of bland, interchangeable powers, & you can call your class whatever you want! It's so much better than the old clunky way of making up your own features & abilities. Why be creative when we've been creative for you!"

Can someone tell me what book this is? I'm suspecting DMGII, but want to be sure. I might take a look at it if that's it.

[Jogi]

It sounds like your solution is to play White Wolf instead. Reduce the number of attributes. Add in a new Fatigue stat that applies to Mages (or everyone, why not?) and specify schools of magic. You don't want classes, you want a point buy/experience system. If you feel the need, present classes as pre-made characters/templates with their bonus points unspent.

That's a lot easier than making a new system out of whole cloth.

Well, I've played White Wolf before, and I see how you thought I'd be better playing it, but the thing is: I just want to play a simple fantasy game with simple rules. Thanks for the words tho :)

[Kanosint]

I fear that you're trying a square block into a round hole. Doing away with classes and levels already turns it into something that isn't D&D, you're better off modifying WoD instead, or even another system, there's plenty of simpler games which would fit what you'd like perfectly...

[Jogi]

3.5? Are you kidding? A level 3 wizard can create his own pocket dimension with a piece of rope and some paper scraps. The magic system is only limited as far as spells per day.

What I meant is that, although your creativity can allow you to create new spells, most players are limited to the existing "spell-list". And as good as it may seem, it is nothing compared to White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension magic system.

3.5's major problems are a challenge rating system that doesn't take into account caster level, a broken diplomacy/intimidate system, characters with an over reliance on magical equipment, clunky combat mechanics that are overshadowed early in the game, and a save-or-die mechanic which can screw you completely from a single unlucky roll.

Agreed.

4E's problem revolves around removing flavor in exchange for balance, removing the fear of the environment (starving/dehydrating is near impossible, healing is automatic after 6 hours of rest, etc.), easily broken stealth rules and neutering feats so that characters can min/max more so than in 3.5.

I don't like the no-enviroment-fear stuff. Hate the automatic healing. Sounds like they were making a computer game where you don't want to read boring texts and just press space non-stop until you get to action. Hate the 4e feats.

4E has magic it's just that magic is universal and doesn't directly affect combat. Magic is used to make your life easier unlike 3.5 where it's over reliance instantly overshadows non-magic classes mid-game.

4E uses powers for this very reason. Magic still exists but in the form of powers; the difference is that arcane magic breaks reality while at-will powers
only have a single purpose.

You're right about mecanics, but i belive that deep inside magic is no mere thing for "stick-wielders". In some scenarios it's feared by those who can't do it, and for a good reason: magic can be very powerfull. Additionally, I think that magic not being defined in the system gives brewers a hard time.

Anyways, the rest of your proposed "changes" change the core of D&D to the point where it's not even D&D. You're better off playing another system entirely or even a simpler system like Savage Worlds. Dungeons and Dragons is, historically, a combat centric, class focused, progressive level based game. Changing those three mechanics; it's focus on combat, being class oriented and having progressive levels would change the game completely IMO.

Hmm, I don't know. I do agree that combat has become a main figure in D&d but above all I belive it is about teamwork and roleplaying in a fantasy genre. Although Im not yet decided about no class-system.

I want something that makes you free in character creation, magic wielding and yet is simple enough to be played by normal humans. Thanks for your thoughts tho, they've been usefull.

[Jogi]

At the heart of it, DnD is about explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy. As long as the heart remains the same, it's DnD to me.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.

Im with this man.

To OP: Do you intend to publish this? If not, I can throw you some advice via PM. There are several.. how should I say.. hurdles that have to be overcome to make such a system work.

Well, I only intended it for personal use, althought I'd submit it in the playground for balancing. Your help would be most aprecitated.

This is not intended to create a new scenario. It's just a new system for the already existing common sense D&d-scenario.

[Zeta Kai]

4E's combat is based solely around the defender, striker, controller, leader setup. The recommendation for creating new classes is to base their powers on previous classes IE defenders should have a way of drawing fire, controllers should have a way of pushing units, etc. If you deviate from the d/s/c/l setup then you'll make an ineffective character.

You can create new powers without copying other powers but a defender that doesn't have a way of getting enemies to fight them without penalty or a controller that has zero area at-will powers is worthless.

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

[Jogi]

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

I sense much anger in you, padawan.

Lol, joking :D

You sound right. Up to now I had only played 4e whithout any big attempts to homebrew. Saddly, some stuff are simple insane to brew in it.

[Ashtagon]

The D&D vancian magic is a sacred cow that needs slaying.

At 1at level, your mage gets 1 (or 2, with a high Int) spell. He casts this with 1005 efficiency, then he pulls out his crossbow for the rest of the day. This doesn't feel particularly wizardly, and doesn't fit any established trope.

At 20th level, he has a minimum of 54 spells per day. This is "balanced" to be spread over 4 encounters. Assuming that half are utterly irrelevant to any encounter at that level, that leaves 6.5 spells per encounter on average. That is a bit longer than most encounters actually last. How many spells were you planning to cast each fight again?

Basically, this sacred cow needs slaying.

[Violet Octopus]

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

Yes. There's a huge difference between defining certain archetypes to lower the learning curve for new players, and making a ruleset/creating a culture that excludes character concepts which don't fit those archetypes.

[Nero24200]

It sounds like you might be interested in something like the generic classes. It basically boils down to - 3 classes, one with decent BAB, one with lots of skills, and one with spell access. Abilities such as Rage and Smite are convereted to feats and the only class features these classes gain (other than the spells) are feats.

Admittidly, I think a system like that would need alot of tweeks (I think nerfing a fair portion of the spells avaliable and making the feats more balanced would surfice for me though).

Edit: Some Typoes

[Jogi]

It sounds like you might be interested in something like the generic classes. It basically boils down to - 3 classes, one with decent BAB, one with lots of skills, and one with spell access. Abilities such as Rage and Smite are convereted to feats and the only class features these classes gain (other than the spells) are feats.

Admittidly, I think a system like that would need alot of tweeks (I think nerfing a fair portion of the spells avaliable and making the feats more balanced would surfice for me though).

Edit: Some Typoes

I think that's a pretty good idea. I don't see a problem with converting lots of things into feat-like stuff. About the spells, I intend to use the White Wolf system (9 spheres of power; Forces, Time, Life & etc) mixed with GURPS (magic causes fatigue). This way, I won't need a huge list of spells (like the one in [3.5]PHB I) - every effect you can imagine becomes possible (not saying that it is not in 3.5, but it will need brewing).

So, instead of no classes, we can say that the players would pick up roles. The guy with high BAB, the guy with skills, they guy with magic. Later on some of these can be divided in subsections.

[Chrono22]

Well, I only intended it for personal use, although I'd submit it in the playground for balancing. Your help would be most appreciated.
This is not intended to create a new scenario. It's just a new system for the already existing common sense D&d-scenario.

What do you mean by, 'new scenario' exactly? Aren't those good things?
I'll PM you some info.

[Reverent-One]

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

And what are you basing this on? Where does WoTC say any other focus for a class is "ineffective"? On top of that, as the roles are very open, I would like to see what sort of classes you can build that don't fall somewhere in the control/defend/lead/strike classifications. As the examples you give below sure don't qualify, as I am about to cover.

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

And this is just flat out wrong, especially the bolded section. EVERY one of those types of mechanics are used in at least some of the classes in 4e so far, and EVERY one fits into the control/defend/lead/strike methodolgy. What matters in not what specific mechanical method you use to control/lead/strike/defend, but which one of the more abstract ideas of the roles you fit best. Does your summons/illusions/objects do a lot of damage? Then you fit just fine as a striker. Do they buff/heal/assist allies? Then you're a leader, like the shaman. Ect and so on.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

Here you exaggerate the restrictions of 4e. 4e, in general, is a framework, it gives a skeleton to use for whatever it is you want to do, and thanks to it being rather modular, there's quite a bit of freedom for you to do so. Are there some restrictions, like it's pretty much impossible to make a character that just sucks totally in combat? Of course, it's not a "universal" (or whatever the term is) RPG like GURPs, but 3.5's in the same boat.

[jmbrown]

Just wondering, why did you put that in quotation marks? Makes no sense.

Because Jogi suggests improvements for the system but his suggestions change the system beyond recognition. It's easier to play a completely different system because D&D's rules are based around combat, classes, and level based progression.

At the heart of it, DnD is about explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy. As long as the heart remains the same, it's DnD to me.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.

"explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy" may be the results of playing, but D&D's rules are about combat and encounters. The mechanics are based around combat, the classes are designed to overcome encounters, magic is designed to defeat or protect, and skills allow you to overcome challenges. Yes, there are utility abilities that don't directly affect combat, but such spells still serve a primary function for the party's survivability.

You're right about mecanics, but i belive that deep inside magic is no mere thing for "stick-wielders". In some scenarios it's feared by those who can't do it, and for a good reason: magic can be very powerfull. Additionally, I think that magic not being defined in the system gives brewers a hard time.

4E defines magic quite clearly. To cast a spell, you need to spend money and make a skill check based on the spell. It's easy to create a spell: set the level, set the cost, set the skill check, write the description. Done.

Keep in mind that magic no longer has a direct combat effect so it's easier to create utility spells that do things like move the earth, teleport the party or rip holes in the fabric of reality.

Hmm, I don't know. I do agree that combat has become a main figure in D&d but above all I belive it is about teamwork and roleplaying in a fantasy genre. Although Im not yet decided about no class-system.

I want something that makes you free in character creation, magic wielding and yet is simple enough to be played by normal humans. Thanks for your thoughts tho, they've been usefull.

A little history lesson, D&D originally began life as a table top war game. It required players to actually know the war game in order to play. Later, Gygax and Arneson wrote their own game specific rules but the combat mechanics still carry on.

Everything that you want exists in better form than D&D. As a suggestion, Savage Worlds has point based character creation, magic that's inherent to a caster instead of learned, and it's designed around fast combat with multiple characters that doesn't take 30 minutes to finish a single round.

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

Key words: in combat. Characters that deviate from controller, defender, leader and striker are ineffective in combat.

Outside of combat, all characters are assumed to be average at every skill and useful at trained skills. This is a direct opposite of 3E's skill system which assumes all characters are terrible at everything and trained only in what they have skill points in. Because of the progressive system, only characters that specialize in a skill can hope to overcome a skill of their level. In other words, characters in 4E are more useful outside of combat than 3E characters.

Now tell me, which game is more restrictive?

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles?

Yes, it's an RPG, and like every single RPG in existence the rules are established to define the game. When you customize the rules, you're building within the rules. There's no difference between this and every other RPG rule set. In 3E your class' balance is determined by his BAB, saves, skill points and abilities. In 4E your class' balance is determined by his role and how his powers directly serve his role.

What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

Your attempts at what? Building a character that doesn't conform to the mechanics? As I said, 4E's classes are designed to perform in battle. Here are some suggestions:

Summoner Striker: Summons monsters like dinosaurs that move quickly and deal high damage.

Summoner Defender: Summons monsters like bears that have high defenses and grant bonuses to allies that fight next to it.

Summoner Controller: Summons monsters like demons that charm enemies and have area attacks which debilitates them.

Summoner Leader: Summons monsters like angels that heal the party and grant bonuses for the party.

Illusionist Striker: Uses illusions to trick enemies into attacking themselves or each other.

Illusionist Defender: Creates illusory walls that protect allies or magical decoys that keep enemies from targeting the PCs.

Illusionist Controller: Creates illusory terrain that damages enemies as they walk through it.

Illusionist Leader: Creates illusory beacons that help PCs target enemies or inspire them with courage.

Animated Striker: Uses natural terrain or random objects to deal damage to enemies like causing roots to stab enemies or forcing an enemies' weapon to strike back at them.

Animated Defender: Morphs walls and terrain to cover allies or remove cover from enemies; animates ally shields to protect them (allowing them to use 2 hands or providing an AC bonus).

Animated Controller: Causes enemy equipment like weapons and armor to jump around or dislodge themselves (animate enemy's boots causing them to trip, etc.)

Animated Leader: Enhances ally equipment to deal more damage, increase reach, or fight by themselves.

Each of those class suggestions conforms to the rules while still using ideas unique to their design. With proper construction, the character will be unique while still doing their job in combat.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you speaking within the game world? If so, those aren't written in stone. They've never been. D&D has always supplied a built in ecology and multiverse but in 4E there are no inherent rules that restrict a character by class, race, or alignment.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

Like all RPGs, your input is equal to your output. If you think in restrictive terms you're going to end up restricting yourself. 4E is just as customizable as 3E but you still have to adhere to the rules. A 3E character that doesn't follow the poor/average/good progression of BAB or the poor/good progression of saving throws is just as useless as a 4E character that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller.

[Reverent-One]

Like all RPGs, your input is equal to your output. If you think in restrictive terms you're going to end up restricting yourself. 4E is just as customizable as 3E but you still have to adhere to the rules. A 3E character that doesn't follow the poor/average/good progression of BAB or the poor/good progression of saving throws is just as useless as a 4E character that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller.

And to add to this, any hypothetical 4e class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller isn't useless in combat because WoTC doesn't like anything different and stacked the deck against said hypothetical class, but because the roles pretty much cover anything any given class could do in combat. A class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller can't deal much damage, can't protect friends, can't heal or buff allies, and can't meaningfully affect the battlefield/debuff enemies. So what else is there to do in combat for such a class?

[Zeta Kai]

I based my arguments on the quote from jmbrown that is in my post. You apparently didn't read it, so I'll quote the most relevant passage for you again, so you can see from where I based my post.

If you deviate from the d/s/c/l setup then you'll make an ineffective character.

This essentially boils down to "YOU CAN'T DO THAT". To whit I responded, succinctly, "SCREW IT, SURE I CAN".

I state that it is entirely possible that a class could be created that could function effectively in 4E without falling neatly into any of the four pre-made categories. A class based on creating illusions need not control the battlefield, defend allies, lead the party, or strike at enemies. Neither does a class focused on summoning creatures, or one focused on animating the dead/objects. Those classes could fit those molds, if you wanted them to hard enough, but they don't have to. And those are just some ideas rattled off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more possibilities, but WotC refuses to see them as valid (or forces them into their molds, whether they fit or not).

My basic supposition is that it is possible to do things in the game outside of what WotC says you can do. It's as simple as that. If you disagree, then there's little point in arguing.

[Amphetryon]

If you disagree, then there's little point in arguing.

:) Why would someone argue if they already agreed?

[Reverent-One]

This essentially boils down to "YOU CAN'T DO THAT". To whit I responded, succinctly, "SCREW IT, SURE I CAN".

You have yet to show that you can.

I state that it is entirely possible that a class could be created that could function effectively in 4E without falling neatly into any of the four pre-made categories. A class based on creating illusions need not control the battlefield, defend allies, lead the party, or strike at enemies. Neither does a class focused on summoning creatures, or one focused on animating the dead/objects. Those classes could fit those molds, if you wanted them to hard enough, but they don't have to. And those are just some ideas rattled off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more possibilities, but WotC refuses to see them as valid (or forces them into their molds, whether they fit or not).

The question is, how? I have yet to see any evidence or examples for this claim.

My basic supposition is that it is possible to do things in the game outside of what WotC says you can do. It's as simple as that. If you disagree, then there's little point in arguing.

I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on this, provided I see some actual evidence beyond "because I say so".

[Zeta Kai]

Key words: in combat. Characters that deviate from controller, defender, leader and striker are ineffective in combat.

Outside of combat, all characters are assumed to be average at every skill and useful at trained skills. This is a direct opposite of 3E's skill system which assumes all characters are terrible at everything and trained only in what they have skill points in. Because of the progressive system, only characters that specialize in a skill can hope to overcome a skill of their level. In other words, characters in 4E are more useful outside of combat than 3E characters.

Now tell me, which game is more restrictive?

Your arguments veered way off topic here, so I'm going to ignore them. We weren't talking about the skill systems, & if you wanna throw down about the skill systems of both editions in some other place, we can throw down there. This tangent is irrelevant to our discussion of party roles.

And just because a class isn't strictly a controller, a defender, a leader or a striker doesn't mean it's invalid. I fail to see why this is such a hard pill to swallow.

Yes, it's an RPG, and like every single RPG in existence the rules are established to define the game. When you customize the rules, you're building within the rules. There's no difference between this and every other RPG rule set. In 3E your class' balance is determined by his BAB, saves, skill points and abilities. In 4E your class' balance is determined by his role and how his powers directly serve his role.

And the whole point of homebrew is to expand beyond those narrow boundaries, to find something new & different that appeals to your gaming sensibilities. If you don't appreciate that, or can't accept that, then homebrew might just not be for you. There's nothing wrong with playing the game strictly by the book, if you want to. But to say that doing things differently, or even trying to, is "ineffective" is not something that I can abide.

Like all RPGs, your input is equal to your output. If you think in restrictive terms you're going to end up restricting yourself. 4E is just as customizable as 3E but you still have to adhere to the rules. A 3E character that doesn't follow the poor/average/good progression of BAB or the poor/good progression of saving throws is just as useless as a 4E character that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller.

Those are not useless options, they just aren't commonly used variants. One could make a class with an "average" saving progression, something like 0.4HD+1, which is right in the middle between good & bad progressions. Doing so would not be unbalanced or "useless" in the slightest. I've also seen low/no-magic campaigns that use BAB progressions far beyond the mere good BAB=1HD. In such campaigns, Great (1¼HD), Amazing (1½HD), Perfect (1¾HD), & Sublime (2HD) attack bonuses were possible options, & they worked because there were few spells or items to boost the numbers otherwise. A similar thing was devised to saving throws.

Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done. That's all I'm trying to say here, & I'm surprised that I find opposition to such a simple concept on the homebrew forum of all places.

[Reverent-One]

And just because a class isn't strictly a controller, a defender, a leader or a striker doesn't mean it's invalid. I fail to see why this is such a hard pill to swallow.

Yes, it does (at least in combat terms). And you're running into disagreement because, as I said before:

any hypothetical 4e class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller isn't useless in combat because WoTC doesn't like anything different and stacked the deck against said hypothetical class, but because the roles pretty much cover anything any given class could do in combat. A class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller can't deal much damage, can't protect friends, can't heal or buff allies, and can't meaningfully affect the battlefield/debuff enemies. So what else is there to do in combat for such a class?

[DracoDei]

What about a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" combination of the above roles?
Hard to balance? Perhaps.
Pointless to try? Nope.

[jmbrown]

And just because a class isn't strictly a controller, a defender, a leader or a striker doesn't mean it's invalid. I fail to see why this is such a hard pill to swallow.

Invalid in combat in 4E? Yes, it does. Create a class without one of the roles in mind and I guarantee you it'll either deviate towards one of the roles or it won't be a fun class to play. 4E's combat is built entirely around those roles.

PHBII introduces classes that double as two roles and every 4E splat book offers additional options but every single option falls back on 4E's combat being comprised of characters who can defend, characters who attack well, characters who control the battlefield, and characters who heal.

Those are the fundamental building blocks. If you change those you ruin the foundation of the game.

And the whole point of homebrew is to expand beyond those narrow boundaries, to find something new & different that appeals to your gaming sensibilities. If you don't appreciate that, or can't accept that, then homebrew might just not be for you. There's nothing wrong with playing the game strictly by the book, if you want to. But to say that doing things differently, or even trying to, is "ineffective" is not something that I can abide.

But you can't expand beyond the basic structure of the game otherwise you're creating an entirely new game. The difference between good homebrew and bad homebrew is that the bad stuff alters the core rules to the point where they're no longer recognizable.

If I made a homebrew wizard in 3.5 that could cast spells at-will with no drawbacks, are you going to tell me that's good homebrew? Likewise if you made a 4E character with no at-will powers and none of his powers were effective in combat, he would entirely useless.

Those are not useless options, they just aren't commonly used variants. One could make a class with an "average" saving progression, something like 0.4HD+1, which is right in the middle between good & bad progressions. Doing so would not be unbalanced or "useless" in the slightest. I've also seen low/no-magic campaigns that use BAB progressions far beyond the mere good BAB=1HD. In such campaigns, Great (1¼HD), Amazing (1½HD), Perfect (1¾HD), & Sublime (2HD) attack bonuses were possible options, & they worked because there were few spells or items to boost the numbers otherwise. A similar thing was devised to saving throws.

In these examples your case prerequisites would be screwed up. This kind of homebrew goes beyond what the rules were designed for and as a result it's bad. If you were to mess with BAB progression, saves, or skill points you'd also have to take into account all the prerequisites for future feats, spells and prestige classes. A character could take a prestige class usually available at level 6 at level 3 instead assuming the prerequisites include a +6 BAB. The resulting powers from the class, and they don't have to be magical, would throw the game off balance.

This is why it's important to establish primary rules that you shouldn't deviate from. The 2 core books (not including Monster Manual) are the basic building blocks that everything is based on. You can add stuff, but changing something internally means you're doing away with everything that comes after. Unearthed Arcana 3E for example provides tons of variant rules but every single rule is built upon assumptions made in the 3 core rulebooks.

Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done. That's all I'm trying to say here, & I'm surprised that I find opposition to such a simple concept on the homebrew forum of all places.

I never said I believed it can't be done, I said it will be useless if it's not built on the established foundation of the rule set. If you change one rule then you have to change every rule based on the original rule so they all fit together.

What about a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" combination of the above roles?
Hard to balance? Perhaps.
Pointless to try? Nope.

Pointless? Nothing's pointless if you really feel like trying. But if anything D&D's class based/skill systems should have taught you is that jack-of-all trades truly are master of none. The monk should be a shining example of what happens when you try to combine the versatility of a skill monkey, the combat prowess of a warrior, and the special abilities of a wizard while trying to balance it.

The result? A messy, weak character that can do everything but does everything poorly compared to the specialists.