Playtest: RP assumptions, trap choices, & mechanical oddities

RP Assumptions translated into forced mechanics



Despite some articles in the D&D Next forum on flexibility is seems we are still stuck in the mud of forced RP concepts.  While there are several examples of forced RP concepts for characters, I will touch on the hightlights of just one.



There are many concepts of wizards these days ...




  • "Thou shall not pass!" old men with beards

  • "Forzare!" stubborn casters that are slow on the uptake

  • "I am a wizard?" scar bearing boys with wands



However we can see from the playtest that only wizards adhering to RP from fantasy literature written before 1970 will be allowed.  Forced mechanics that should have been part of a "theme" were allowed to remain in the base class.




  • Gandalf didnt wear armor so neither should you

  • Gandalf didnt use fancy weapons so why should you?

  • Gandalf was smart, so all your class mechanics should require you to stack INT



None of these really are about describing the core of a wizard which is the use of arcane magic.  They are artifical mechnanics designed to force players into creating "yet another gandalf clone".  Players wanting to try a more modern fantasy with wizards from "Harry Potter" are mechnically told they can play Hermione but not Harry, Ron, Hagrid, etc ... as all those charcters would emphasize other stats over INT.



Weapon / armor restictions are outdated mechanically as a game design concept.  The difference between "all simple weapons" and "Gandalf carried a staff" or a "choice of mage armor or real armor" versus "Gandalf wore robes" is nothing.  The damage output is the same and the defenses are the same, but one uses rules to say "NO" to players to enforce RP choices.



As for stats you could always not play INT based right ... well that leads us too



Trap Choices



Each class has a single stat. Using the wizard again as an example, it ...




  • controlls your ability to hit

  • controlls your abilty to damage

  • sets the DC for all your spells



Any player not maximizing that one stat has made a trap choice.  We know from 4E that any feature with +hit was so strong that it was considered a near mandatory game tax for each player to purchase and 5E uses similar math.  While its possible that advanced class creation could decouple the mandatory stat to class relationship to allow for more diverse charcters (such as allowing each character to designate a single stat at creation to drive all the +hit / + damage/ + effect mechanics) it looks unlikely based on all the past editions.



Mechanical Oddities

Maybe this is just "alpha" stuff maybe it is design ... who knows?

Armor & Tanking




  • With a removal of 4E defender mechanics to "force" attacks on to certain players we return to prior editions tank mechnics of "stick a guy up front with high AC and hope the GM attacks them instead of the squishies".

  • AC is determined by a mixture of armor choice and DEX mod which by current mechanics makes the best "tank" a light armor DEX player and the worst tank is a heavy armor plate STR classic fighter character (use a +4 DEX mod for easy math and compare across table on page 17 of "how to play")



Prone




  • Uses a 4E mechanic of standard -2 penalty for a bad situation instead of newer 5E "disadvantage" concept (pg 14 of "How to Play")

  • ranged attackers have "disadvantage" unless adjacent ... except per ranged attack rules ranged attackers have "disadvantage" when adjacent



Monsters are Different ~ Abilities




  • 5E carries over the 4E concept that monsters do not need to follow player rules.  They were not going to last past two or three rounds so why have dozens of effects?  With one exception ... Dark Priest.  Monsters that carry abilities that are referenced elsewhere are simply a tax on GM game time.   Mechnically this was a real problem with editions prior to 4E with monsters that had their own spell lists that could mimic the dozens of complicated player choices.



Monsters are Different ~ Saving Throws




  • 4E taught us that players and monsters do not have to be the same.  Allowing players to roll a saving throw when their character is effected provides a postive gameplay experince to get people involved.

  • However the expression of a monster rolling a "saving throw" based on a stat and a player rolling an attack against a monster stat is just a matter of who rolls the D20, and GMs making more rolls not only is a tax on their time but lowers player interaction by depriving them of a D20 roll on their turn.



Magic Weapons




  • With lower AC scaling across levels the return of +X weapons that impact hit make them another "trap choice" of mandatory use.  Keeping the +X to damage only would allow players to retain older signature weapons longer and not force strange assumptions into the monsters of increased defenses based on expectations of when GMs will give players those weapons.



Equipment




  • Two items return to a 4E mechanic of standard +2 bonus for a good situation instead of newer 5E "advantage" concept (page 20 of the "how to play")




  • 10' poles that still make no mechnical sense on how players carry or use them and tiny flames in lamps that cast out light stronger than the strongest modern flashlights.  Outside of nostalgi not only do these make no practical sense they are irrelevant in gameplay.  Traps still require class feature and thief tools to interact with and for slightly more money than a lamp you can buy a "continual light coin" that works underwater, lasts forever, and wont get turned off by a gust of wind or burn you if dropped. I would hope we do not return to the "dual world" where all NPCs live a strange existance of being grounded in a "mundane medival world" unable to take advantage of magic effects available to PCs in early levels that live in a "fantasy world"

I feel that the problem many of your points on Wizards address are in place not to enforce a certain type of roleplaying but to ensure an equal level of balance between all the classes. Put a Wizard in Full Plate* and the only thing the Fighter still has over him is a couple of hit points (*I understand that Full Plate is not the best decision in terms of defense, I'm just using it as an example).
I feel that the problem many of your points on Wizards address are in place not to enforce a certain type of roleplaying but to ensure an equal level of balance between all the classes. Put a Wizard in Full Plate* and the only thing the Fighter still has over him is a couple of hit points (*I understand that Full Plate is not the best decision in terms of defense, I'm just using it as an example).

So what if everyone in the party wants to play Wizards in full plate?

These players will quickly get bored of being unable to differentiate one another, and in any case, it's the story that matters. Not the mechanics.
Table RPG is not a computer game that you have to "beat" (what an awful terminology anyway!), it's a story-telling game.

If my players were to do that because a Wizard in Full Plate would be so much more "awesome" than a Fighter, they'll soon find themselves confronted to a society where magic is illegal under penalty of death, and all of a sudden the abilities of their group will suffer greatly because of their single dimension
I agree with everything.

Especially the "don't use Stat to hit" .  Doubly so without point buy.  Stat to-damage would be a good comprimise.


Magic Weapons


With lower AC scaling across levels the return of +X weapons that impact hit make them another "trap choice" of mandatory use.  Keeping the +X to damage only would allow players to retain older signature weapons longer and not force strange assumptions into the monsters of increased defenses based on expectations of when GMs will give players those weapons.

But i only see 1 instance of "magic weapon".  And it's under "damage rolls"...  Even masterwork only provide +1 damage.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I don't mind a class having a primary stat, but I strongly mind hard armor restrictions like in the Wizard class.  In 4e there were no armor restrictions, you just didn't have proficiency - and buying proficiency with feats on a Wizard was prohibitively expensive.  But nobody went around telling you that your entire class ceased to function the moment you put on scale, and if you built something like a Wizard|Paladin (which, hey, actually sounds like the sort of wizard that would wear armor!) you could wear Plate with no penalty.

edit: that said, I would be thrilled to see stat-to-hit disappear. 



  • Gandalf didnt use fancy weapons so why should you?






Actually, Gandalf was quite the swordsman in "The Hobbit". It would be nice to actually be able to create a sword-wielding Wizard in the veins of Elric of Melniboné.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - [i]Hávamál[/i] D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. )
So what if everyone in the party wants to play Wizards in full plate?

These players will quickly get bored of being unable to differentiate one another, and in any case, it's the story that matters. Not the mechanics.
Table RPG is not a computer game that you have to "beat" (what an awful terminology anyway!), it's a story-telling game.

If my players were to do that because a Wizard in Full Plate would be so much more "awesome" than a Fighter, they'll soon find themselves confronted to a society where magic is illegal under penalty of death, and all of a sudden the abilities of their group will suffer greatly because of their single dimension



That's a great attitude. Mechanics don't matter, but if you use them wrong then I'll punish the crap out of you with the story!

Mechanics matter. That's why they're there. Otherwise we'd just go whack sticks together in the backyard and roleplay. Which was quite fun when I was a kid but just doesn't do it for me anymore.

Edit: I'll also say that I support the removal of stat-to-hit.
I feel that the problem many of your points on Wizards address are in place not to enforce a certain type of roleplaying but to ensure an equal level of balance between all the classes. Put a Wizard in Full Plate* and the only thing the Fighter still has over him is a couple of hit points (*I understand that Full Plate is not the best decision in terms of defense, I'm just using it as an example).

So what if everyone in the party wants to play Wizards in full plate?

These players will quickly get bored of being unable to differentiate one another, and in any case, it's the story that matters. Not the mechanics.
Table RPG is not a computer game that you have to "beat" (what an awful terminology anyway!), it's a story-telling game.

If my players were to do that because a Wizard in Full Plate would be so much more "awesome" than a Fighter, they'll soon find themselves confronted to a society where magic is illegal under penalty of death, and all of a sudden the abilities of their group will suffer greatly because of their single dimension


 
I think the problem of wizards being so strong in early editions that they had to be balanced with reduced HP, basic attacks and defenses are long gone.  4E and now in 5E it is clear from the AC math that everyone is going to be close on defenses it's just a matter of how they get there.  So a wizard in plate isn't overpowered it's just different. Looking at simple weapons they all do 1D6, and martial do 1D8.  So if the balance is "smaller die cow damage" why bother using it further?  Those are all hold over legacy elements from a tactical mini version of D&D where you had the concept of ultra simple weapons a sheep farmer might use ... Like a sling.  Cause clearly their are a lot of sling mages in fantasy?   

 
I don't mind a class having a primary stat, but I strongly mind hard armor restrictions like in the Wizard class.  In 4e there were no armor restrictions, you just didn't have proficiency - and buying proficiency with feats on a Wizard was prohibitively expensive.  But nobody went around telling you that your entire class ceased to function the moment you put on scale, and if you built something like a Wizard|Paladin (which, hey, actually sounds like the sort of wizard that would wear armor!) you could wear Plate with no penalty.

edit: that said, I would be thrilled to see stat-to-hit disappear. 



What bothers me about primary stats is that it forces one dimensional gameplay that bleeds over into other parts of the game.   Consider skills for example, already we have returned to a model of the party needs to interact with a skill check ... So send in the right mandatory stat/class.  All STR by fighter, DEX by rogues, WIS by clerics, and INT by wizards.  When that happens the design team paints themself into a corner ... As there are no checks made by players who are not masters which makes the whole skill concept math fail and become mechanically worthless like in 4E.

With a decoupled stat system every stat should have some benefit.  currently the physical ones do.  you can imagine a situation where initiative,nor more HP, or swinging a weapon might all happen for all characters.   The mental ones though Lackma reason for anyone to touch them outside on the mandated stat class combo ...



  • INT ... No bonus languages or skills ?

  • WIS ... something like GM hints per play session to show intuition?

  • CHR ... what about followers or henchmen controlled by this 


If a player wasn't forced by mechanics to stack one statonly do to +hit issues and such you would end up with a much more diverse group of players.  They would be less like to do dump stats and stack singlstarts making more interestings characters.  A player would find a INT skill tough because of the stat choices they made not because a designer told them "all fighters are stupid and only roll STR"



  • Gandalf didnt use fancy weapons so why should you?






Actually, Gandalf was quite the swordsman in "The Hobbit". It would be nice to actually be able to create a sword-wielding Wizard in the veins of Elric of Melniboné.

Seconded! I need Gish action!
Actually, unless a Fighter wants to focus on Finesse weapons instead of heavy melee weapons, then the Fighter should be investing in Strength primarily, and the Fighter's Dex won't be so incredibly high to warrant using light armor. 

It seems from ability scores that don't advance in abilities scores as you get stronger (unless you do by tier if tiers are in the bigger, less basic game), and that 20 is the maximum score you can have as a mortal.  Looking at the pregens, they all start with a standard array of [8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15] and get bonuses based on race and class – Fighters get a +1 to Con, not Str.  Dwarves get a +1 Str.  Humans get a +1 to everything, save a favored ability, which they get a +2 (balanced currently with getting no other racial features).  This means the human cleric is starting with an 18 in Wisdom, from the +1 Wisdom from Cleric and +2 to Wisdom from Human.  If we extrapolate from the standard array a point-buy system similar to 4e and late 3.5e, and use [8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10] as the basic array before applying point-buy:..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
08 – 0pt (costs 1pt to raise to 9; 2pt to raise to 10)
10 – 0pt
11 – 1pt
12 – 2pt
13 – 4pt
14 – 7pt
15 – 10pt
16 – 14pt
17 – 19pt
18 – 25pt
19 – 31pt
20 – 37pt

And so on; and you would have 23 points to do so.  Of course, this is only one way of running the Point-Buy to meet the costs of the Standard Arrays used, but this would allow for any character to have a 19 in an ability (by having a 17 and getting the racial and class ability bonuses) and for a human to have a 20.  There are other ways of writing the array, and I bet mine isn't on the money, but what I mean to put forth here is an example. 

In any case, if this is the case, the Fighter who pours everything into Strength won't have a good enough Dex to wear light armor and have as good AC as the fighter wearing heavy armor.  But the finesse Fighter would be just fine, since he or she would ignore Strength and focus on Dex for both armor and attacks.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Actually, unless a Fighter wants to focus on Finesse weapons instead of heavy melee weapons, then the Fighter should be investing in Strength primarily, and the Fighter's Dex won't be so incredibly high to warrant using light armor. 



I would argue that works if you want to recreate a classic "dumb brute Conan" fighter but if you wanted to go wacky like ...


DEX ~ For a swashbucker fighter hunting down 6 fingered men

WIS ~ For a blind swordsman

CON ~ A brute brick of a fighters who just wants to hold the line and take hits ...


The concept of "all class abilites key off of one stat" create a trap choice still.  As such the design should eitehr remove it with something like "you picked a figher, you STR is maxed ... now you have free choices on how to spec the other 5 non relevant stats"  or simply decouple STR from the mechanics which would make it mandatory        

Actually, unless a Fighter wants to focus on Finesse weapons instead of heavy melee weapons, then the Fighter should be investing in Strength primarily, and the Fighter's Dex won't be so incredibly high to warrant using light armor. 



I would argue that works if you want to recreate a classic "dumb brute Conan" fighter but if you wanted to go wacky like ...


DEX ~ For a swashbucker fighter hunting down 6 fingered men

WIS ~ For a blind swordsman

CON ~ A brute brick of a fighters who just wants to hold the line and take hits ...


The concept of "all class abilites key off of one stat" create a trap choice still.  As such the design should eitehr remove it with something like "you picked a figher, you STR is maxed ... now you have free choices on how to spec the other 5 non relevant stats"  or simply decouple STR from the mechanics which would make it mandatory        



I've been saying this for a while now. Let them pick whether they want to be:

strong fighter
quick fighter
enduring fighter
strategic fighter
intuitive and lucky fighter
a fighter that uses insults and inuendo to gain an advantage

a wizard that gains magic through physical mastery (think Dragon Ball Z)
a wizard that uses their endurance to power spells (think wizards that get tired after casting)
a wizard that uses their esoteric knowledge of the mystical nature of the universe.
a wizard that uses their intuitive knowledge of the elements to form energy spells.
a wizard that uses exacting ritualistic movements and timing to coax the universe to generate spells.
a wizard that through sheer force of will creates spells.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

RP Assumptions translated into forced mechanics



Despite some articles in the D&D Next forum on flexibility is seems we are still stuck in the mud of forced RP concepts.  While there are several examples of forced RP concepts for characters, I will touch on the hightlights of just one.



There are many concepts of wizards these days ...




  • "Thou shall not pass!" old men with beards

  • "Forzare!" stubborn casters that are slow on the uptake

  • "I am a wizard?" scar bearing boys with wands



However we can see from the playtest that only wizards adhering to RP from fantasy literature written before 1970 will be allowed.  Forced mechanics that should have been part of a "theme" were allowed to remain in the base class.



erdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're entirely right, those are the only wizards that are allowed in this playtesterdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">.  I wouldn't get too excited about it.... there's entirely no reason to expect that will be the case in the full version.  I mean, it's not like there haven't been 'fighter/caster's since the redboxerdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> elf; to not expect anything similar in the full version of the game seems ridiculously pessimistic (not to mention erdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">unprecedented).
Taking away the stat hit? Well then let's take away stat to defense as well. Heck following this logic let's take away stat to skill and stat to save.

Now we have all characters of the same race class combo being equal. Perfect balance.

Bland perfection is far from an improvement.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Taking away the stat hit? Well then let's take away stat to defense as well. Heck following this logic let's take away stat to skill and stat to save. Now we have all characters of the same race class combo being equal. Perfect balance. Bland perfection is far from an improvement.



There is a difference between something universal like DEX boosts AC for all classe which is fine ... and "If class X then 100% STAT Y or else fail"

Gameplay is about making meaningful choices.


Having a system where all stats are interestign choices and at a game table yo can have multiple players as one class but able to approach taht class from differnet stats based angles isnt bland as you suggest its actually better for player choices.


All I am arguing for btw is even if the design is always INT = wizard then be honest about it and dont allow a trap choice for new players who dont understand mechanically how bad it would be for example to play a character with balanced stats instead of stat stacking.
Well, when they give us character creation rules, they'll likely spell out that INT is the primary stat for wizards. Like they have in EVERY EDITION. Honestly, if I'm missing this, point out to me which edition did NOT spell out your "Primary stat" in the class description, cuz I've played everything from 1e AD&D-4E,and Pathfinder, and I'm pretty sure it's always blatantly stated.

On the note of the "wizard theme trap", Harry's not a wizard, in D&D, he's a sorcerer- he's born into it, learns completely a few spells, and casts them as needed by exerting his force of will.

As for... well just about every single thing the OP talked about... Class mechanics and creation aren't part of this phase of the playtest. Cool your jets, wait for the options to come, we're only testing with pregened core 4 currently, and no options, even our 1-3 progression is spelled out for us. No, we don't have options currently, because that's not the point.

Yes, stat-to-hit was probably realevant. I disagree with you, because I like the choice of how to build my character to have some "no brainers" like 'High-stat goes in key score' and some others to be actual choice- do I want a high Dex and armor for my fighter, or do I want a high Wis for perception and not being surprised?
Y'know I'm kinda concerned that we're never going to get the core rules hammered out because everyone focuses so much on class.

The classes that we were allowed to playtest with were pre-generated. I know that's a mind-blowing concept to some people, but that's because, like it said in the playtest, what we're testing here, in the test that we're testing, is the CORE of the game. 

If I'm taking a math test, let's say, it's not prudent or relevant to complain that someone was gramatically incorrect in their phrasing of a word problem; they used a comma in the wrong place or mispelled a word. It's math I'm testing, not english or grammar, or social studies. It's the math. Two plus two does not equal antidisestablishmentarianism or the war of 1812.

It's four, for those following along at home.

How do you feel about the BASIC RULES of the game? Notice anything about attacks of opportunity? How are the stats as skills working? Does combat flow? What about actions? That is relevant. Not my fighter's armor class, or my wizard's spell progression. Or, for that matter, my theme/background/archetype/whatever.

Basics.

NOTHING else can get fixed until the basics work. So it's goung around and around and around and around in circles.
kaine makes a great point. We need the basics first. That being said, keep this.on the back burner because it is essential after basic rules are in place. This should go somewhere. Maybe a class/crossclass point system for generating PC's. I can buy armor proficiency but its 2 pts rather than the 1pt class skill. Something that let's us have a unique character. Look at Salvatore stories. His most memorable characters are a blind crippled robin hood, a cleric with mechanical gadgets, a dwarven dodad (druid) and a dark elf living in the light. There is no better way for a unique and memorable campaign to be told than with memorable PC's.
Y'know I'm kinda concerned that we're never going to get the core rules hammered out because everyone focuses so much on class.

...

How do you feel about the BASIC RULES of the game? Notice anything about attacks of opportunity? How are the stats as skills working? Does combat flow? What about actions? That is relevant. Not my fighter's armor class, or my wizard's spell progression. Or, for that matter, my theme/background/archetype/whatever.





What you miss is that in the current playtest the "BASICS" of the game are about as difficult to master as flipping a coin.


In your items listed ...


Opportunity attacks?  ~ Removed fromt he game atm because it would be hard for gridless play

Stats as skills? ~ Near impossible to test outside theory as the "empower the DM at cost of remove player control of story" mechanics make for a wildly different experince based on each groups DM.  At its core RAW its the 4E system math.  If you are a CLASS with that stat then you pretty much autowin at that skill.  If not you return to all prior editions skill concepts where you sit on the sidelines until the DM asks for a STAT check that matches your CLASS.


Combat does flow quickly.  So quickly that its a return to 15 minute workday and boring "combat is over after first round except meaningless cleanup rounds".  Any player from 1E and 2E knows that whoever wins initiative gains a massive mechnics advantage.  Much of the combat is simply a warmed over rehash of items we moved away fom in later editions for "fun of gameplay"


====


We have a had a LOT of designer talk about modular mechnics and the ability to merge all editions together.  By going into the various oddites / RP assumptions / trap choices I am talking about how these editions are NOT mixing well which IS part of the "does this feellike D&D" test called for.


Right now it FEELS like D&D with bellbottoms, and bad 70's music int he backroud.   Its a 1E / 2E combat game (i.e. all the boring parts we moved away from) with a tiny nod to 3E / 4E on character creation




Opportunity attacks?  ~ Removed fromt he game atm because it would be hard for gridless play

More than likely, Mearls and the gang hadn't figured out how to implement them by the packet deadline.


Right now it FEELS like D&D with bellbottoms, and bad 70's music int he backroud.   Its a 1E / 2E combat game (i.e. all the boring parts we moved away from) with a tiny nod to 3E / 4E on character creation





I'm sorry. I don't have much to add this discussion, but that line just gave me the ridiculous mental image of a Disco Wizard (I'm sorry, Magic-user).


Right now it FEELS like D&D with bellbottoms, and bad 70's music int he backroud.   Its a 1E / 2E combat game (i.e. all the boring parts we moved away from) with a tiny nod to 3E / 4E on character creation





I'm sorry. I don't have much to add this discussion, but that line just gave me the ridiculous mental image of a Disco Wizard (I'm sorry, Magic-user).



Well if you consider all wizards are intoxicated now (as the condition grants them a significant defense boost and wizards dont roll attack rolls so the penalty is meaningless) I can totally see that as a new D&D meme.

1970's "drunken style" kung fu cheesy flicks meets "yet another gandalf clone" and the result is a 5E wizard?   I can see adding a disco ball to that with some bellbottoms ...  :P

Well if you consider all wizards are intoxicated now (as the condition grants them a significant defense boost and wizards dont roll attack rolls so the penalty is meaningless) I can totally see that as a new D&D meme.

1970's "drunken style" kung fu cheesy flicks meets "yet another gandalf clone" and the result is a 5E wizard?   I can see adding a disco ball to that with some bellbottoms ...  :P



Spell attack is still an attack roll, IMO.  I would also include saves as being at a disadvantage.  The only one being intoxicated really "helps" is the fighter who does damage even when he misses, but I would rule that he could never actually get drunk, so it doesn't matter (he's a Dwarf and immune to poison, how the heck is he going to get drunk?)

Well if you consider all wizards are intoxicated now (as the condition grants them a significant defense boost and wizards dont roll attack rolls so the penalty is meaningless) I can totally see that as a new D&D meme.

1970's "drunken style" kung fu cheesy flicks meets "yet another gandalf clone" and the result is a 5E wizard?   I can see adding a disco ball to that with some bellbottoms ...  :P



Spell attack is still an attack roll, IMO.  I would also include saves as being at a disadvantage.  The only one being intoxicated really "helps" is the fighter who does damage even when he misses, but I would rule that he could never actually get drunk, so it doesn't matter (he's a Dwarf and immune to poison, how the heck is he going to get drunk?)



Most spells (wizard spells anyway) don't attack, and the bread and butter attack spell for a wizard is going to be the cantrip Magic-Missile which not only can't be interrupted (because it's a cantrip) but also doesn't actually use an attack roll.

-Polaris
We've only seen one wizard, the playtest character. We have no idea what other arcane classes will be in the game and if those classes will address some of the concerns in the original post. In fact it's very likely that there will be a Charisma based arcane casting class (ie Bard or Warlock).  Wizard training might benefit from high Int but that doesn't preclude other types of arcane spell casting from existing, they simply would be called something other than "wizards" and be a different class.  Likewise we haven't seen anything on character creation or themes at higher than 3rd level, so it's quite possible that there will be a theme or feat or whatever that you can take to avoid the penalties of spell casting in heavier armor much like a wizard in 4e can learn to use heavy armor if they spend the feats to do it.
I feel that the problem many of your points on Wizards address are in place not to enforce a certain type of roleplaying but to ensure an equal level of balance between all the classes. Put a Wizard in Full Plate* and the only thing the Fighter still has over him is a couple of hit points (*I understand that Full Plate is not the best decision in terms of defense, I'm just using it as an example).

So what if everyone in the party wants to play Wizards in full plate?

These players will quickly get bored of being unable to differentiate one another, and in any case, it's the story that matters. Not the mechanics.
Table RPG is not a computer game that you have to "beat" (what an awful terminology anyway!), it's a story-telling game.

If my players were to do that because a Wizard in Full Plate would be so much more "awesome" than a Fighter, they'll soon find themselves confronted to a society where magic is illegal under penalty of death, and all of a sudden the abilities of their group will suffer greatly because of their single dimension



The verbage is sort of screwed on that.  In How To Play, it says if you put on armor that you cannot use, you're at Disadvantage for your attacks.

A Wizard in full plate would be hearty, able to cast lots of useful cantrips and such, but would have to roll 2d20 and take the lowest when attacking with spells, or Improvising with magic.

Most players usually try to use situations, story knowledge, and the environment to get Advantage, this player would have to do that just so it cancells out the disadvantage.

I'm not sure if it's balanced yet, but it definitely isn't overpowered.  The better way to be a Wizard in plate is to take the Fighter Class with the Magic-User Theme.
Taking away the stat hit? Well then let's take away stat to defense as well. Heck following this logic let's take away stat to skill and stat to save. Now we have all characters of the same race class combo being equal. Perfect balance. Bland perfection is far from an improvement.



Nice slippery slope fallacy.

What I would be wanting would be to drop the ability mod to hit or damage, then have specific weapons that get a to-hit bonus or damage bonus based on a particular stat.

Great Axe=Con(attack),Str(damage)
Great Sword=Str(attack),Con(damage)
Rapier=Dex(attack),Wis(Damage)
Crossbox=Dex(attack)Int(reload speed or damage)
Bow=Dex(attack),Str(Damage)
Mace=Wis(Attack because you can kill a person in full plate by just hitting them in the head with a mace, scrambled brains anyone?), Int (damage, you know to hit them in the head).
etc...etc...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I feel that the problem many of your points on Wizards address are in place not to enforce a certain type of roleplaying but to ensure an equal level of balance between all the classes. Put a Wizard in Full Plate* and the only thing the Fighter still has over him is a couple of hit points (*I understand that Full Plate is not the best decision in terms of defense, I'm just using it as an example).

So what if everyone in the party wants to play Wizards in full plate?

These players will quickly get bored of being unable to differentiate one another, and in any case, it's the story that matters. Not the mechanics.
Table RPG is not a computer game that you have to "beat" (what an awful terminology anyway!), it's a story-telling game.

If my players were to do that because a Wizard in Full Plate would be so much more "awesome" than a Fighter, they'll soon find themselves confronted to a society where magic is illegal under penalty of death, and all of a sudden the abilities of their group will suffer greatly because of their single dimension



The verbage is sort of screwed on that.  In How To Play, it says if you put on armor that you cannot use, you're at Disadvantage for your attacks.

A Wizard in full plate would be hearty, able to cast lots of useful cantrips and such, but would have to roll 2d20 and take the lowest when attacking with spells, or Improvising with magic.

Most players usually try to use situations, story knowledge, and the environment to get Advantage, this player would have to do that just so it cancells out the disadvantage.

I'm not sure if it's balanced yet, but it definitely isn't overpowered.  The better way to be a Wizard in plate is to take the Fighter Class with the Magic-User Theme.



Actually it clearly says that magic can't be cast in armor...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Forgive me if this is not 100% on topic, doing my best here to respond to at least part of the OP's concern about cookie cutter characters being the only supported options, with few alternatives or choices that don't simply hose the character.

From what I am reading and hearing, this game at some point will be offering modular levels of complexity. Perhaps one of those modules will separate the game mechanics from the special effects of the mechanic. Example: I could throw a dagger and unerringly strike a target for X damage (the magic missile game mechanic, but with the special effect of throwing knives).  This could be based on Dex, Int or even Wis...what ever makes the most sense for the special effect.

This would certainly provide for an atmosphere of creativity, where the player comes up with the concept, image etc, and selects particular game mechanics to support the concept.  You want to be a battlemage from the Ironspire?  That's cool, bolt on that armor.  The player selects the game mechanic with the best fit for his concept.

2nd edition began to explore this idea with the Players Option series of books.  Abilities were assigned points values, and characters had a certain number of points to spend.  Sure, it wasn't exactly what I am speaking of (and seemed poorly balanced), but it began to pull back the curtain to allow characters to select the things they wanted.  The HERO system is an example of this (but taken to absolute and overly complex extremes that can turn folks off)...perhaps some level of flexibility would be a nice compromise to support character concepts that diverge from the stereotypes.  It is certainly part of the DnD legacy of different editions that tried different things.  I'd like to see it return, and with much better balance of course.

However, this will probably never be supported.  As soon as you pull back the curtain and show people how to build what they can imagine, it is very difficult to sell them the add-on books that support the different preconceived mechanics and special effects (which are not alterable).  One of the reasons I buy those add-on books is because I've already done that "stuff" in the core rules.  I'm looking for something new that is perhaps a better match to what I am cooking up in my head.

Actually it clearly says that magic can't be cast in armor...




I see rules for stat and attack disadvantages and perhaps CON checks but nothing that outright cancels it.  What page was that?   I did a search on the PDFs and drew a blank here.


Actually it clearly says that magic can't be cast in armor...




I see rules for stat and attack disadvantages and perhaps CON checks but nothing that outright cancels it.  What page was that?   I did a search on the PDFs and drew a blank here.



On the Wizard character sheet, last line under Casting a Spell

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Taking away the stat hit? Well then let's take away stat to defense as well. Heck following this logic let's take away stat to skill and stat to save. Now we have all characters of the same race class combo being equal. Perfect balance. Bland perfection is far from an improvement.



There is a difference between something universal like DEX boosts AC for all classe which is fine ... and "If class X then 100% STAT Y or else fail"

Gameplay is about making meaningful choices.


Having a system where all stats are interestign choices and at a game table yo can have multiple players as one class but able to approach taht class from differnet stats based angles isnt bland as you suggest its actually better for player choices.


All I am arguing for btw is even if the design is always INT = wizard then be honest about it and dont allow a trap choice for new players who dont understand mechanically how bad it would be for example to play a character with balanced stats instead of stat stacking.



OK I give you that the Dex to AC is universal across all classes but that by it's nature favors classes that use Dex based weapons and skills.  So you are rewarding those players who's class choice follows the thief or rogue path and penalizing wizards.

I am not actually in favor of removing Dex to AC just showing how it is indeed a stat choice that you have to be informed on when making the character. 



Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Nice slippery slope fallacy.


It would be if I were not using your idea of changing the class to basically use each and every stat.

You invalidate the choice of wether to work on AC or be able to cast better.
Do I make my fighter strong or do I take those extra hits better.

What you have done is turn the idea of playing these varied types of fighers, which I have played nearly every one with the exception of the Wisdom fighter, and turning it into a combat optimized class.

What I loved about my INT fighter is that he had more skills than any other fighter.  He wasn't as strong, his dex wasn't very good but he knew how to get at his enemies because he had studied them.  He was a merc past his prime who was trying to find out how to keep going after his best years had passed him by.  He was sub par, he was frequently wounded, he was extreemely fun to play.

I have likewise played what ammounts to the absolute definition of an old school wizard.  We played a game of 3d6 play em' where they lay stats.  I rolled a 1 for strength.   I could carry my robes and my dagger unencumbered.  My spellbook put me under a medium load.  I was frail as frail could be but damn could I cast with that 18 Int.  My DM almost didn't let me play him until I explained that I was fully ready and willing to play another character when this one died.  He actually had me roll up the second character "just in case".  I didn't need it.  The party defended me.  I stayed on my mule when not approaching a battle and I left all the heavy lifting (pun intended) to those better suited.

The stats are only the end all be all if everyone in your group lets them be.  If you treat your character as a set of numbers then you will find that no matter how much you optimize there is always someone out there who can do it better.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Taking away the stat hit? Well then let's take away stat to defense as well. Heck following this logic let's take away stat to skill and stat to save. Now we have all characters of the same race class combo being equal. Perfect balance. Bland perfection is far from an improvement.



There is a difference between something universal like DEX boosts AC for all classe which is fine ... and "If class X then 100% STAT Y or else fail"

Gameplay is about making meaningful choices.


Having a system where all stats are interestign choices and at a game table yo can have multiple players as one class but able to approach taht class from differnet stats based angles isnt bland as you suggest its actually better for player choices.


All I am arguing for btw is even if the design is always INT = wizard then be honest about it and dont allow a trap choice for new players who dont understand mechanically how bad it would be for example to play a character with balanced stats instead of stat stacking.



OK I give you that the Dex to AC is universal across all classes but that by it's nature favors classes that use Dex based weapons and skills.  So you are rewarding those players who's class choice follows the thief or rogue path and penalizing wizards.

I am not actually in favor of removing Dex to AC just showing how it is indeed a stat choice that you have to be informed on when making the character. 






While I agree that DEX is the new Char Op Super Cheese Stat (again ... apprently the design team forgot that lesson from early editions in the rush to retro flavor stuff) it is not a matter of nerfing it.

The physical stats in D&D have always been pretty clear and had a range of mechancis attached to them.  The mental ones however instead of generailly applying to all players with interesting choices are placeholders that read "if class X then spec this stat".

Thats bad design.

Maybe INT add bonus skills , languages.  Maybe WIS allows extra backgrounds from wise life experiences, and CHR add followers.

Something needs to be added to those to make them INTERESTING to take for all classes and then you decouple the mandatory CLASS = STAT and let players freely describe the fantasy hero they want to play.
While I disagree with your conclusion on Dex I agree with all of the options for the other stats to make them more interesting.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.









Something needs to be added to those to make them INTERESTING to take for all classes and then you decouple the mandatory CLASS = STAT and let players freely describe the fantasy hero they want to play.






My reaction to this is why have the classes at all then? Fighter uses weapons, wizards use spells. Isn't this CLASS = MECHANIC restriction too?

While I enjoy class-less systems too (e.g. HERO, GURPS), I don't think they are D&D in the same way that allowing backward moves in Monopoly isn't Monopoly.
 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Nice slippery slope fallacy.


It would be if I were not using your idea of changing the class to basically use each and every stat.

You invalidate the choice of wether to work on AC or be able to cast better.
Do I make my fighter strong or do I take those extra hits better.

What you have done is turn the idea of playing these varied types of fighers, which I have played nearly every one with the exception of the Wisdom fighter, and turning it into a combat optimized class.

What I loved about my INT fighter is that he had more skills than any other fighter.  He wasn't as strong, his dex wasn't very good but he knew how to get at his enemies because he had studied them.  He was a merc past his prime who was trying to find out how to keep going after his best years had passed him by.  He was sub par, he was frequently wounded, he was extreemely fun to play.

I have likewise played what ammounts to the absolute definition of an old school wizard.  We played a game of 3d6 play em' where they lay stats.  I rolled a 1 for strength.   I could carry my robes and my dagger unencumbered.  My spellbook put me under a medium load.  I was frail as frail could be but damn could I cast with that 18 Int.  My DM almost didn't let me play him until I explained that I was fully ready and willing to play another character when this one died.  He actually had me roll up the second character "just in case".  I didn't need it.  The party defended me.  I stayed on my mule when not approaching a battle and I left all the heavy lifting (pun intended) to those better suited.

The stats are only the end all be all if everyone in your group lets them be.  If you treat your character as a set of numbers then you will find that no matter how much you optimize there is always someone out there who can do it better.



In 5E though your trading out saving throws as well as other things when you pick another stat as your main. For instance a Con fighter that simply outlasts everyone and uses their full strength on every attack because unlike others they will never get tired. This character would get the advantage of higher hit points on start and at higher levels, as well as con checks and saves.

The Cha fighter that always has a snide remark ready with every swing or can intimidate enemies into making mistakes or getting angry. They get an advantage on social interactions, and charisma saves.

The Int fighter that carefully studies special techniques and is able to determine the next move of their enemies based on observation of body movements. They get an advantage on knowledge skills as well as int based saves.

Your right that the Dex based character gets a slight advantage in that they pay less for armor, but that's really it. I mean its the difference between 100gp on armor, something that's not going to last more than a level or two (the included adventure gives over 800gp split evenly that's well over 100gp per character)...

Really if its that much of a problem, tie something in the game to each stat. Con already has hit points, and dex has AC. Why not allow an extra trained skill for each point of bonus int? maybe tie starting gold and prices to CHa? basically subtract the bonus of your Cha mod from the prices of items.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Zgrose,
You raise a valid point.

Although I wouldn't mind interesting non class options for stats I haven't really had an issue with them mostly being class dependent.

A note on effectiveness, perception is an instance where wisdom becomes important regardless of class.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

I agree with lokiare in this one(and we rarely agree on anything)

Dex is not an obvious choice for fighters.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Dexterity does play into your initiative which may be more critical in 5e than 4e since you can realistically kill your opponents before they have a chance to act in this edition.

I have a sneaky suspicion (pun intended) that Dex saving throws for half damage are going to be very common too.

"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387