I did not realize how awful classes were until liberated from them. - Edit 3
Before modification by Joel at 28/09/2012 12:54:32 AM
Well, the simple solution there is to just get rid of classes.... 
I wish. But 3rd Edition was built entirely around classes. It was the game's very core.
Once upon a time it seemed perfectly natural that mages should be forever doomed to a -6 penalty with anything but a staff, dagger, dart or sling, that thieves were physically incapable of drawing long bows, that priests would become catatonic if they tried to use anything with an edged, and that fighters alone could use ANY weapon. Because that is how life works: Anyone not formally trained to use weapons is incapable of using more than a handful; anyone WITH such training can use even the most uncommon weapons with only minor difficulty, if any. Only criminals know how to hide, find/disarm traps or even climb a wall without a rope.
Then I discovered there are systems with the revolutionary idea EVERYONE can learn how to do anything to which they devote time, study and practice. Now classes are almost as annoying as the HP thing and the level thing (and those are INCREDIBLY annoying.)
Fourth edition... honestly, it sounds like I would hate it, because all of the old AD&D munchkinizing tendencies are exacerbated by attempts to cater to console gamers looking for naught but XP and powerups.
Oh, I'm sure you'd hate it. So many people do. As Written, I do as well. I just love its core mechanics, but pretty much everything they build onto that is bland as all hell.
I did try it briefly playing rebelaessedais character when she was detained last time I visited her and her hubby. Like I say, I kept looking for the X and Y buttons and trying to figure out which combo attacks were most effective. As far as roleplaying, I do not even recall any in-character conversation, just out-of-character combat positioning and tactical planning.
For mechanics I will probably always like GURPS best because there IS a mechanic, and an eminently logical one, for virtually every imaginable situation. Obviously you have to balance verisimilitude against convenience, and sometimes it just fits the narrative better to say the armory is kept unlocked in case of sudden attack, or the king believes your one of his many soldiers checking his virgin daughters bedchamber because you heard a suspicious noise, without needing to check your Fast Talk against his IQ. Sometimes, however, you are leaping from your pterodactyl in flight and trying to land on then grapple your opponent on his, and something a little more complex than "roll a DX check at -4" is in order.
Oh, good; I was worried we were power-gaming. 
Heh. But like I said, stat progression is far more linear in Editions past 2nd, so the difference between the 31 strength Fire Giant and an 18 Strength fighter is the same as that same fighter would have compared to a Strength 6 character.
The way all stats work in 3rd and 4th Edition is that they give you a +1 bonus to all checks related to that attribute for every two points you put into it. 10 is +0, 18 is +4, 31 is +10.
Linear, fine, but it sounds like just a longer path to the same destination. There are more "grades of suck" (and awesome, and grades in between) but you still end up with a cross between Conan, Mat and Elminster if you accomplish the great challenge of surviving long enough (admittedly quite a challenge in SOME campaigns.
)So mid level characters cannot ignore thrashings by high levels ones for a full minute; I guess that is some improvement. The core problem remains though: The mid level character can still absorb far more damage than a low level one; the high level character just inflicts such an overwhelming amount of damage it does no matter. Against anyone less, like the low level character or even an equal level character, we still have a scenario where even if the attacker is consistently hitting an opponent doing nothing more than trying to avoid the blows it will take a while to kill him.
Yeah, but that's fine. If he's doing nothing but trying to avoid blows, then he should be fairly successful against an opponent of a similar level.
Oh, actually if he's doing nothing but avoiding attacks, he should use the total defence action for a +4 to AC.
Yeah, but remember: The attacker is still hitting him DESPITE attempts to avoid the blows. Yeah, OK, he is focused on dodging, parrying, whatever: But it is not working; he is still getting whacked several times per round—and still is not dropping until whacked a ridiculous number of times. How "experienced" do you think you or I would have to be to survive getting hit five times with a broadsword, however nimble we are? Iraq vets are not THAT experienced; no one is.
I am not saying it should never be an option, can never make sense within any gameworld, but it should not be the norm for ALL gameworlds where characters survive long enough. And even if someone like Lan took an Aes Sedais fireball to the face or got hit with balefire he would be as dead as quickly as Baerlon drover.
Pretty sure balefire would be a save-or-die effect anyway
.Heh, fair enough, but the fireball would not, and Lan probably would not even need a system check if he were an AD&D character. Not unless he got fireballed in the face by someone like Moridin, and maybe not then; I do not know if it remains true in 3rd and 4th Ed., but in 2nd Ed. fireball was capped at 10d6 damage (cone of cold, OTOH, did 1d4+1/level indefinitely....
) Average rolls, that is about 35 points, and Lan is probably at least 13th level, so he could shrug that off and keep right on coming. Of course, Moridin is probably the equivalent of an Arch Mage, so even Lan would probably need two or three rounds to slice him up even if he never missed.