Rule of Three - June 26th

Rule of Three
6/26/12
by Rodney Thompson

You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever questions you're asking. We'll pick three of them for R&D to answer.

Talk about this article here.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




If you can find a post from me that says that I applaud your ability to hack my account and create it.

Also, re-flavoring in 4e is as simple as a change to the flavor text and the way you describe it. Flavor has almost zero effect on mechanics in 4e. Which in my opinion is truly the strength of the system. Next has shown through it's reliance on natural language and use of flavor as mechanics that this will not continue to be the case.



Really because I don't think I've seen the writeup for the sorc or the warlock yet.  Your making conclusions based upon an assumption of failure.  Without first seeing the other classes and how they are represented and written you can't actually make any of the conclusions you are making.  I can just as easily conclude that there is no problem because I assume success on their part to make the classes entirely interchangeable.



No, but we've seen the write ups for the shared spells list and they all embed the flavor in the mechanics where if you put new flavor in there you get new mechanics... "What my icy hands (burning hands) started the curtain on fire?"

It's so cold it burns!

But really, how is that any diffrent from various 4e skills doing fire damage, or radiant damage? 



they generally don't light things on fire unless the DM lets them affect non-living targets...



And why in hell should burning hands not set things on fire? That's another thing that makes people cry "4th edition is a videogame!"
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



You mean the warlock that casts curses on enemies then punishes them for taking actions you don't like (like targeting you or certain allies)?

Sorry, I want a wizard that can cast encounter versions of burning hands, jump, shield, and color spray. not witchfire, diabolic grasp, vampiric embrace, and eldritch rain...
"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.


seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



Is the warlock an intelligence based caster who has a spellbook and earns/learns spells like a wizard? Cool, sounds great.

Or are the warlock's non-spellcasting class mechanics melded so closely with its associated flavor as to be a Herculean task to unravel and rebuild into a wizard substitue? Screw it, I'll play a different game.
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




If you can find a post from me that says that I applaud your ability to hack my account and create it.

Also, re-flavoring in 4e is as simple as a change to the flavor text and the way you describe it. Flavor has almost zero effect on mechanics in 4e. Which in my opinion is truly the strength of the system. Next has shown through it's reliance on natural language and use of flavor as mechanics that this will not continue to be the case.



Really because I don't think I've seen the writeup for the sorc or the warlock yet.  Your making conclusions based upon an assumption of failure.  Without first seeing the other classes and how they are represented and written you can't actually make any of the conclusions you are making.  I can just as easily conclude that there is no problem because I assume success on their part to make the classes entirely interchangeable.



No, but we've seen the write ups for the shared spells list and they all embed the flavor in the mechanics where if you put new flavor in there you get new mechanics... "What my icy hands (burning hands) started the curtain on fire?"

It's so cold it burns!

But really, how is that any diffrent from various 4e skills doing fire damage, or radiant damage? 



they generally don't light things on fire unless the DM lets them affect non-living targets...



And why in hell should burning hands not set things on fire? That's another thing that makes people cry "4th edition is a videogame!"



I'll take one from the 3.xErs book "Because its magic."
"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.



Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



Or I just remove Vancian all together and those spell slots are just that, slots to be filled in as I see fit from a big pool of spells in the book. Much more flexible and no need for precognition for what we might be facing in the future (like taking burning hands and going up against monsters with Fire resistance :facepalm.

As for your example, not having any idea what'll be a class feature, what'll be a Theme, what'll be a module to tack on later make it questionable at best. But since we haven't seen any real features of the Wizard and have no idea what other spellcasting classes will look like, my optimism is still high.
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




If you can find a post from me that says that I applaud your ability to hack my account and create it.

Also, re-flavoring in 4e is as simple as a change to the flavor text and the way you describe it. Flavor has almost zero effect on mechanics in 4e. Which in my opinion is truly the strength of the system. Next has shown through it's reliance on natural language and use of flavor as mechanics that this will not continue to be the case.



Really because I don't think I've seen the writeup for the sorc or the warlock yet.  Your making conclusions based upon an assumption of failure.  Without first seeing the other classes and how they are represented and written you can't actually make any of the conclusions you are making.  I can just as easily conclude that there is no problem because I assume success on their part to make the classes entirely interchangeable.



No, but we've seen the write ups for the shared spells list and they all embed the flavor in the mechanics where if you put new flavor in there you get new mechanics... "What my icy hands (burning hands) started the curtain on fire?"

It's so cold it burns!

But really, how is that any diffrent from various 4e skills doing fire damage, or radiant damage? 



they generally don't light things on fire unless the DM lets them affect non-living targets...

I remember a spell which specifically lights things on fire and allows the caster to move the fire around the room to other things which burn.
If they flew in on giant eagles, then the whole point of Frodo sneaking into Morador would have been lost.  Frodo and the ring would have been spotted and shot out of the sky before they could even get past the ents.



By what? Sauron had no form and orcs couldn't shoot that high.  Send a bunch of eagles with them with powerful elves and gandalf on them, and the 9 would have been outmatched as well.
Look - lets stop the edition warring.

There's literally NO reason all parties can't be satisfied.

There are a multitude of excellent suggestions on this thread that would be great.

The only failure here would if we were stuck with classes we didn't like playing. If all classes were AEDU, a lot of people would rightly complain. If your favorite class was boring, you'd rightly complain.

But all that means is that we ought to have the option to play the class we want, how we want.

But if the goal is something else - if it's not the great unifier edition anymore - then let me know. No hard feelings, I just won't play it because I don't like it. Because for me, this isn't fun.
Look - lets stop the edition warring.

There's literally NO reason all parties can't be satisfied.

There are a multitude of excellent suggestions on this thread that would be great.

The only failure here would if we were stuck with classes we didn't like playing. If all classes were AEDU, a lot of people would rightly complain. If your favorite class was boring, you'd rightly complain.

But all that means is that we ought to have the option to play the class we want, how we want.

But if the goal is something else - if it's not the great unifier edition anymore - then let me know. No hard feelings, I just won't play it because I don't like it. Because for me, this isn't fun.

I want it to be fun. For me & you. So we can maybe play together without godawful edition sniping.
If they flew in on giant eagles, then the whole point of Frodo sneaking into Morador would have been lost.  Frodo and the ring would have been spotted and shot out of the sky before they could even get past the ents.



By what? Sauron had no form and orcs couldn't shoot that high.  Send a bunch of eagles with them with powerful elves and gandalf on them, and the 9 would have been outmatched as well.

Flying Narghuls or whatever.   I vaguely remember there was an air battle when they did take to the eagles for the brief stint.
They couldn't kill sauron because his essence was in the ring. Remember they killed the necromancer in the woods and it turned out to be sauron in disguise. All that would happen is that his spirit would slink away and corrupt someone else. The ring wraiths also couldn't be killed because they turn to ghosts and return to sauron and then get brought back. The orc hordes would prevent any but the largest armies from getting in to the area...
"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.
If they flew in on giant eagles, then the whole point of Frodo sneaking into Morador would have been lost.  Frodo and the ring would have been spotted and shot out of the sky before they could even get past the ents.



By what? Sauron had no form and orcs couldn't shoot that high.  Send a bunch of eagles with them with powerful elves and gandalf on them, and the 9 would have been outmatched as well.


Sauron may not have a "body", it doesn't mean he has no power. Especially if you go into his territory with the artefact he seeks everywhere, mounted on very stealthy giant birds. Surely he won't see you coming, surely he has no power he can use on them. Surely Gandalf can fight him alone. What a good plan, sir. I hope you have a kind DM.
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".



Actually it really is.  You just in fact did it within your post.  You don't need rules to tell you that losing your spellbook is a problem.
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".



Actually it really is.  You just in fact did it within your post.  You don't need rules to tell you that losing your spellbook is a problem.



To me, it's not so much just the warlock mechanics that fit better with my idea of spellcasting, it's that I have a pretty good feeling that Warlocks would get wholly different spells and abilities in addition to the style of spellcasting I want. So I like Spellbooks, I like wizard-specific spells, I like the feeling of a sagely know-it-all that doesn't have a whit of charismatic ability. Unlike the Warlock who probably has a slew of different spells along with different mechanics along with different attributes. Wouldn't it just be easier to have two different, yet balanced style of casting spells? That way a player can do whatever he wants and not have to pilfer another class just for 1 specific mechanic.
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".



Actually it really is.  You just in fact did it within your post.  You don't need rules to tell you that losing your spellbook is a problem.



To me, it's not so much just the warlock mechanics that fit better with my idea of spellcasting, it's that I have a pretty good feeling that Warlocks would get wholly different spells and abilities in addition to the style of spellcasting I want. So I like Spellbooks, I like wizard-specific spells, I like the feeling of a sagely know-it-all that doesn't have a whit of charismatic ability. Unlike the Warlock who probably has a slew of different spells along with different mechanics along with different attributes. Wouldn't it just be easier to have two different, yet balanced style of casting spells? That way a player can do whatever he wants and not have to pilfer another class just for 1 specific mechanic.



You are assuming things about how they are going to build it.
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".



My 2 cp in this exchange :
Right. OK. Let's say you like Vancian magic, and want to use it. Now let's say you want to play a Bard, that cast spells according to "vancian" rules : spell slots, etc.
BUT the Bard class uses another subsystem. They have spell points, unforgettable spells, stockable pre cast spells. You don't like it. No problem, let's refluff the wizard ! But, wait... what about Bard performing ? Bardic knowledge ? Bard talents with communication and persuasion ? Chainmail armor ? Ha. Too bad. Well. You're a Bard anyway, with a robe and a staff, but a bard nonetheless. And when you sing, rain falls.
I am sure "pro-vancian" would be very happy to have to limit their character choices because the designers forgot that a given concept should not be linked to a specific "magic rules module".
I certainly hope the designers won't make this mistake - or they will make everyone unhappy, even those they wanted to satisfy with the wizard...

And about "hypochrisis"... well, the guys who said "I can't make a swashbuckler, there is no class for it in 4E" or "I don't want my Barbarian to be spirit possesed, but I can't"  were not saying "I don't want to play a game where there are defenses rather than saving throws" or "magic is not vancian!" - they were saying "I don't find where my character concept fits in 4E".
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !


To me, it's not so much just the warlock mechanics that fit better with my idea of spellcasting, it's that I have a pretty good feeling that Warlocks would get wholly different spells and abilities in addition to the style of spellcasting I want. So I like Spellbooks, I like wizard-specific spells, I like the feeling of a sagely know-it-all that doesn't have a whit of charismatic ability. Unlike the Warlock who probably has a slew of different spells along with different mechanics along with different attributes. Wouldn't it just be easier to have two different, yet balanced style of casting spells? That way a player can do whatever he wants and not have to pilfer another class just for 1 specific mechanic.



You are assuming things about how they are going to build it.



Everything we're talking about here is 100% assumption until the game is actually printed and on the shelves. So yea, I'm assuming that the Warlock is going to be designed differently with different spellcasting and different abilities and different focus of Ability Scores and different stuff because it would a Classless system if it weren't.

Additionally, my presumption from the Wizard only being Vancian comes directly from this Ro3 article where they say they have every intention of expanding the spellcasting differences and exploring alternative system for other classes. As to differentiate them from the wizard. The question is, will we be required to play a Vancian-only Wizard class (being the actual wizard in name) or are we going to get alternative spellcasting to plug-in to any/every spellcasting class they're creating? If it' the former, well I think that's a shame personally. If it's the latter, then I don't think we have anything to worry about.

  1. I hope the ability to pick and choose tactical combat rules is functional in the sense that no particular combination will cause totally nonsensical results. Clearly some will work better in certain combinations. This is where guidance and advice come in. It is very important that the core books give a solid understanding of what different module or variant choices will mean.

  2. The key here is the line between what is a basic combat option (to be resolved through checks) and what is a maneuver that only someone with training (be it from class, theme, or some other source) can attempt. Charge highlights the importance of this issue. Charge was a defined action in 3x and 4e and anyone could try it. If charge can now only be attempted by someone with the appropriate training then what do we call “running up and attacking the enemy” or “throwing myself into combat with reckless abandon?” Are these two things the same, and can anyone try either? With this approach the former can be tried by anyone and is basically another way of saying “I engage the enemy in melee.” The later is only available to those who know how to turn their forward momentum into a practical advantage as they strike.

  3. I am not sold on this approach to spell-casting systems.  First off, the feat thing makes no sense, as feats are now packaged in themes that anyone can take. If you have an optional mana system for wizards or sorcerers as mana casters, the feats should interact the same way, unless they are returning to class specific themes and feats (which they seemed to indicate they wanted to get away from). I can’t get away from the idea that most media depicts wizards differently than classic D&D. When someone says to me “I want to play a wizard!” I have to ask what that means to them and then direct them to the right class that fits their idea. With D&D as an entry product to RPGs, the potential for unguided new players to go awry is legitimate concern. How many players first exposure to D&D came straight out of the book (or box) without an “old hat” to show you the ropes? If they stick to this, it may require significant sidebars in the PHB to direct players to the archetype they are looking for.  

My 2 cp in this exchange :
Right. OK. Let's say you like Vancian magic, and want to use it. Now let's say you want to play a Bard, that cast spells according to "vancian" rules : spell slots, etc.
BUT the Bard class uses another subsystem. They have spell points, unforgettable spells, stockable pre cast spells. You don't like it. No problem, let's refluff the wizard ! But, wait... what about Bard performing ? Bardic knowledge ? Bard talents with communication and persuasion ? Chainmail armor ? Ha. Too bad. Well. You're a Bard anyway, with a robe and a staff, but a bard nonetheless. And when you sing, rain falls.
I am sure "pro-vancian" would be very happy to have to limit their character choices because the designers forgot that a given concept should not be linked to a specific "magic rules module".
I certainly hope the designers won't make this mistake - or they will make everyone unhappy, even those they wanted to satisfy with the wizard...

This is the reason I DON'T want to see the casting mechanic tied to a class. If all things are "balanced", then it really shouldn't matter which flavor I pick for spell casting. If a DM wants to run a Dying Earth campaign, where every caster uses Vancian rules, then that shouldn't require everyone reflavoring a wizard. If a DM wants to ban Vancian mechanics from their group, then let the wizard class still be playable.

It really makes NO sense to tie the mechanics to a class, unless that is all that defines that class. Let's hope WotC can be a bit more creative than that!

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
They couldn't kill sauron because his essence was in the ring. Remember they killed the necromancer in the woods and it turned out to be sauron in disguise. All that would happen is that his spirit would slink away and corrupt someone else. The ring wraiths also couldn't be killed because they turn to ghosts and return to sauron and then get brought back. The orc hordes would prevent any but the largest armies from getting in to the area...



None of which stops the greatest elves and Gandalf from riding eagles beside Frodo to drop the ring into the volcano with the OPEN TOP.  Some of the living elves could take on all 9 Ring Wraiths at once.


To me, it's not so much just the warlock mechanics that fit better with my idea of spellcasting, it's that I have a pretty good feeling that Warlocks would get wholly different spells and abilities in addition to the style of spellcasting I want. So I like Spellbooks, I like wizard-specific spells, I like the feeling of a sagely know-it-all that doesn't have a whit of charismatic ability. Unlike the Warlock who probably has a slew of different spells along with different mechanics along with different attributes. Wouldn't it just be easier to have two different, yet balanced style of casting spells? That way a player can do whatever he wants and not have to pilfer another class just for 1 specific mechanic.



You are assuming things about how they are going to build it.



Everything we're talking about here is 100% assumption until the game is actually printed and on the shelves. So yea, I'm assuming that the Warlock is going to be designed differently with different spellcasting and different abilities and different focus of Ability Scores and different stuff because it would a Classless system if it weren't.

Additionally, my presumption from the Wizard only being Vancian comes directly from this Ro3 article where they say they have every intention of expanding the spellcasting differences and exploring alternative system for other classes. As to differentiate them from the wizard. The question is, will we be required to play a Vancian-only Wizard class (being the actual wizard in name) or are we going to get alternative spellcasting to plug-in to any/every spellcasting class they're creating? If it' the former, well I think that's a shame personally. If it's the latter, then I don't think we have anything to worry about.




You do realize you can make the wizard a Cha based caster with no effort right.  You can easily make a 3.5 style sorc by taking how the casting on a 5e cleric works and retuning it to be a Cha based casting.  Also you assume the powers available to the warlock will be different from the things available to the wizard.  As of right now it looks like all spells are open to all casters.  At this point I figure it is reasonable to assume that any AEDU classes they create will have access to the spell list and will just fill their "power cards" with spells from the spell list.  No need to create 5 differently named options that all accomplish the same exact thing.  At worst it will be choose this named power it functions exactly as this spell.
If they flew in on giant eagles, then the whole point of Frodo sneaking into Morador would have been lost.  Frodo and the ring would have been spotted and shot out of the sky before they could even get past the ents.



By what? Sauron had no form and orcs couldn't shoot that high.  Send a bunch of eagles with them with powerful elves and gandalf on them, and the 9 would have been outmatched as well.


Sauron may not have a "body", it doesn't mean he has no power. Especially if you go into his territory with the artefact he seeks everywhere, mounted on very stealthy giant birds. Surely he won't see you coming, surely he has no power he can use on them. Surely Gandalf can fight him alone. What a good plan, sir. I hope you have a kind DM.



Gandalf and the elves drove him out of Mirkwood and back to Mordor.  They are perfectly capable of handling him for the brief time it would take to drop the ring into the lava.  As a shade he was FAR weaker than he was while he wore the ring and the Dunedain and elves beat him while he wore it.
Fellas, please take the LotR discussion to another thread, because it has fully devolved into nothing relating to the OP.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.


To me, it's not so much just the warlock mechanics that fit better with my idea of spellcasting, it's that I have a pretty good feeling that Warlocks would get wholly different spells and abilities in addition to the style of spellcasting I want. So I like Spellbooks, I like wizard-specific spells, I like the feeling of a sagely know-it-all that doesn't have a whit of charismatic ability. Unlike the Warlock who probably has a slew of different spells along with different mechanics along with different attributes. Wouldn't it just be easier to have two different, yet balanced style of casting spells? That way a player can do whatever he wants and not have to pilfer another class just for 1 specific mechanic.



You are assuming things about how they are going to build it.



Everything we're talking about here is 100% assumption until the game is actually printed and on the shelves. So yea, I'm assuming that the Warlock is going to be designed differently with different spellcasting and different abilities and different focus of Ability Scores and different stuff because it would a Classless system if it weren't.

Additionally, my presumption from the Wizard only being Vancian comes directly from this Ro3 article where they say they have every intention of expanding the spellcasting differences and exploring alternative system for other classes. As to differentiate them from the wizard. The question is, will we be required to play a Vancian-only Wizard class (being the actual wizard in name) or are we going to get alternative spellcasting to plug-in to any/every spellcasting class they're creating? If it' the former, well I think that's a shame personally. If it's the latter, then I don't think we have anything to worry about.




You do realize you can make the wizard a Cha based caster with no effort right.  You can easily make a 3.5 style sorc by taking how the casting on a 5e cleric works and retuning it to be a Cha based casting.  Also you assume the powers available to the warlock will be different from the things available to the wizard.  As of right now it looks like all spells are open to all casters.  At this point I figure it is reasonable to assume that any AEDU classes they create will have access to the spell list and will just fill their "power cards" with spells from the spell list.  No need to create 5 differently named options that all accomplish the same exact thing.  At worst it will be choose this named power it functions exactly as this spell.



But then doing so definitly breaks away from class-based systems. This sort of break down leads to two types: Magicians and Warriors with everything inbetween being a variable, feat, and/or custom fitted. It's a nice idea but not something D&D has been or ever should be. I like point-based, classless systems and think they're a lot of fun but it's definitly not a direction D&D needs to go. So the question is, what makes a Class and does Spellcasting have to be a unique apart of that?
So let me get this straight.  I on a semi regular basis, before the playtest really got rolling, watched people complain that they couldn't build the character they wanted in 4e because of specific classes being unable to fufill the roles they wanted them to fulfill.  All of the 4vengers would then say, "you can totally play that concept in 4e just with this class reflavor this, retexture that and you have exactly what you want".  Now that that is the exact answer for how to make the caster you want it is no longer a valid answer.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the hipocrisy correctly.




Except it's really not. They're saying here that the Wizad will be vancian and other spellcasting ideas will be used with other classes. So if I want a character who doesn't have to prepare spells and can just select spells from a list and go on as I please, it probably won't be from a Wizad and probably more like a Sorcerer or Warlock or Summoner or whatever. In 4E, with the hundreds of class/hybrid/multilclass options available AND the ability to easily and freely change the fluff as you see fit, I don't think there is an archtype you cannot create.




seriously how the f is it any different.  You want to play a wizard.  You want the fluff to be wizard.  However you hate vancian casting, but love the mechanics of the AEDU warlock.  Take the warlock class refluff it to say it all comes from studying books. HOLY HECK you get the character you want. 



And what happens when I lose my spellbook? Nothing, because I'm a Warlock with Warlock mechanics. If I had Wizardly mechanics, I would lose my very access to some of my powers. That's not truly "refluffable".



Actually it really is.  You just in fact did it within your post.  You don't need rules to tell you that losing your spellbook is a problem.


And when I do, is it because I've sucessfully refluffed the warlock class, or because I went out of my way to represent a disadvantage that doesn't truly exist? I think we won't agree on what refluffing means, my friend.

Taking bets now.

They'll prolly have a list of 'classes', and then a set of guidelines for making your own class that is DM-reliant much like there was one in 2nd Edition.  Everyone will have what they want at that point without them having to create 7,634 different classes.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."


Gandalf and the elves drove him out of Mirkwood and back to Mordor.  They are perfectly capable of handling him for the brief time it would take to drop the ring into the lava.  As a shade he was FAR weaker than he was while he wore the ring and the Dunedain and elves beat him while he wore it.


He is still far more powerful that all the wizards put together and the power of the three.
The whole book is about how they can manage to be stealthy enough that he doesn't know where or on who to use his powers. Powers strong enough to enforce its will on armies and nations even in its current form.
Alas, the hobbits succeded : they were so sealthy and enduring that Sauron never had the chance to show the whole measure of its power. And you think he was weak because the fellowship did not give him the opportunity had failed. to show he was able to crush them in less than a round if they had failed.
It's like , in your player team, the rogue managed to throat the big ogre in the cave by being stealthy and taking him by surprise, with the help of some poison, and you then said "we should have taken him in a front attack, he was weak!".
The elves and the wizards did not use the "eagle" plan because they jknew Sauron was able to make it fail easily. Even if you don't believe it.
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
Also, re-flavoring in 4e is as simple as a change to the flavor text and the way you describe it. Flavor has almost zero effect on mechanics in 4e.


I don't think that is true. The mechanics of any given class have grown out of the flavour behind the class. The 4e bard, for example, has a number of mechanics that support its "flavour" as a charismatic, jack-of-all trades, adventurer that bolsters its friends. Now, there is certainly places where you can reflavour some or most of the mechanics to suit your interests. For example, if you liked the Infernal pact of the warlock but didn't want to be died to infernal powers, it would be easy to relavour it as a bond with fire elementals or some such and then you could rename the powers to match that when needed.

But when it became clear that every class concept like the necromancer, battle-cleric etc, required it's own class I didn't buy that excuse anymore.


The Necromancer isn't its own class in 4e.

For the larger issue, I think this is more than simply reflavour some aspects of a class you don't like the flavour of (such as infernal pact from the Warlock class), because if the Wizard has class-specific mechanics that represent its interests from previous editions, such as free crafting / metamagic feats, familiars, implement focuses, etc., it is likely that those same mechanics won't be in any other class.

Another thing to note about assumptions is that we do have some guidelines to work with. We have seen some of the class-features that wizards have had in previous traditions (which would include 4e). We have even seen two editions worth of Warlocks and we can see the similarities between those two classes and we can infer similar mechanics for a 5e Warlock (which would have to include some kind of at-will Eldritch Blast). Its just like some of the assumptions people make about Rogues or Paladins or Clerics or Druids. Wizards have a bookish-masters of magic flavour and have mechanics that support that.

I simply cannot see them giving us another class that has the same non-casting mechanics of a wizard combined with an alternate spell system. It would be easier to use the Wizard class itself and provide mechanics to remove the Vancian spell casting and allow people to swap in additional spell casting types, but that type of thing would be kind of difficult to add after the fact especially if all of your PHB spells are written based on the assumption of being placed in a daily Vancian-style spell slot.

They'll prolly have a list of 'classes', and then a set of guidelines for making your own class that is DM-reliant much like there was one in 2nd Edition.  Everyone will have what they want at that point without them having to create 7,634 different classes.


Yeah, but having 7634 different classes fills books and selling books is something that they want to do.
But the solution is so simple Polaris.

WotC: "The wizard is vancian. Deal with it."

Me: "Ok, the wizard is banned."

If there are non-vancian casters and backgrounds/themes cover the 'bookish' part, is there any reason not to just throw out the wizard and be done with it?


The cleric is also Vancian.  The pre-4E Sorcerer was basically "Vancian, with less fuss", and Clerics are using the exact same mechanic, with "trying to make the cleric not suck for those who aren't the rare breed of healbot players" as the excuse.

So what would make Sorcerers different from Clerics?  Gains more at-wills as he levels up?  Can use Vancian spells at-will?

Vancian exists, and the entire system, like it or not, is designed around it.  4E had a vestige of Vancian, but it was severely toned down by introducing a means to allow everyone to contribute in every encounter, so no one had a problem with it.

As seen in the initial playtest rules, everything is now either at-wills or X/day, with nothing in-between.  So now everyone is in the Vancian paradigm, which effectively is "I'm cool X/day then I suck until the next long rest".

The Fighter's daily coolness is extremely toned down relative to other classes because he's supposed to be this big at-will juggernaut that dishes out so much damage... but that's just it, he is Mr. At-Will, Mr. Feat Man, Mr. I Hit With My Sword.  He's so "cool" all day, he becomes boring without significant props to keep him interesting... most of which, at the moment, don't exist [save for improvisation]... and most of which require the use of feats/themes that the DM can ban much more easily.

[ I think there's a reason why video games in general feature fighters with flashy moves and special effects, even if it is JUST to portray him doing a LOT of damage.  Except... seriously... how much work does the DM have to put into the core system JUST to make "I attack" more interesting? ]

In the meantime, the Wizard's basic attacks suck.  Big time.  His at-wills generally don't even deal damage, save for Magic Missile.  But then again we're talking about a guy who can send armies to bed in a jiffy, destroy solo melee fights with a single cantrip, burn entire villages without touching a single torch, and classically has destroyed not only entire encounters, but entire WORLDS by himself, in the long run.  Magic, even in limited form, is power.  Power is awesome cool.  Wizard is Mr. Daily, Mr. Big Show, Mr. Universe-At-My-Fingertips.  He's so "cool" at a limited budget, he has to stay behind the Fighter and the Cleric.  Sure, it's not much, it'll take awhile, but when moments arrive where he is needed the most, that's when he steps up to the plate, goes "watch this" and then neuters an entire encounter single-handedly.

Gets really screwed up at higher levels, specifically when you consider the fact that even in the initial playtest, his 1st level spell slots increases alongside his 2nd level spell slots.  So all those awesome level 1 maneuvers that help weaken or neuter encounters?  Still works, and works more often, which means the DM should either expect his encounters to be neutered more often, or he has to take measurements to  deal with shenanigans, leading to the arms race that 4E almost forgot.

If Vancian is to return and I even consider running D&D Next, I would certainly limit it in this manner: You cannot get more than 3 spell slots of any kind, at any level, although I will allow that you can cast "Utility __", a spell that lets you cast any utility spell from a given level group.  That way, Vancian is snipped at the bud, none of that "I'm special [weak, frail, unable to hold my own ground in a fist-fight] so I deserve better".  You already get to be awesome 3 times a day, and your class is designed on the notion that you rarely do stuff most of the time, but when you do it's often encounter-shattering.  AND I assume that magic is so hard to master, you're lucky to get 3 spell slots at all.

It's either that or I'm forced to give Mr. Fighter a bunch of magic items even when I'm running a low magic campaign.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
In the other direction, we think "alternate spellcasting method" is a strong enough hook to give a class a large portion of its mechanical identity, and again we can really make sure that the class is behaving in a unique, balanced way if we focus all of our efforts on that class's core mechanics.



Way to drop the ball on modularity, the entire design basis for the new edition.  If you can't swap out casting subsystems, you're resticting the appeal of classes.  What about the 4e player who comes to 5e and thinks the wizard is cool but doesn't like vancian?  What about the AD&D 2e player who really feels the warlock but doesn't want to have to deal with AEDU?  We gain nothing from this, and we lose by having cool classes with mechanics that players feel are too unwieldly, or that require significant modification on the part of players and DMs.

And why?  Because "it's hard."
. . . it makes it a bit tougher to predict how other game elements (like feats, for example) interact with a class when that class's fundamental mechanics change.



@quote: That's what we're going to be paying you for.  If modularity really is the goal of DDN, then don't pretend it doesn't apply to subsystems.  And especially don't apply this as a magic/martial double standard.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

SO now the fighter can attack and bullrush/trip/disarm at the same time? I certianly hope EXPLOITing these options doesn't make him to POWERfull.

(For those of you who missed my subtlety, yeah this is pretty much what a fighters powers were in 4E, except the ones that were just hitting the monster super hard. Does this make the fighter "just like the wizard"? No, and it didn't back then.



Yah, but now we don't have to wait till level 11 to try to bull rush an enemy a square and step up because...uhh...because level 11 is when we learn to push, or something.



Bull rushing in 4E is at level 1.  Or level 0 if you want to be really specific, because Bull Rush has no power level and is basically a Strength vs. Fortitude [or in D&D Next terms, a Strength vs. Constitution or Strength] check.  Sarcasm ignored.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
all that means is that we ought to have the option to play the class we want, how we want.


   But we do not have that option.
    The baseball pitcher can only pitch from one spot, and must pitch in a certain manner.  The football line man must start on the line, not behind it or in front of it.  The basketball player does not get to use a football.  ... 
    You want to do certain things in the game, you select the class that does those things.  Trying to change the class just makes the class meaningless.
If you can't swap out casting subsystems, you're resticting the appeal of classes. 


I don't agree with this statement.

If you can swap out casting subsystems, then you can't have any class features that reference specific systems in any way.  That's severely limiting on the types of class features you can implement. 

I don't necessarily agree with the "wizard is vancian only" approach, but "wizard is any caster system you can think of" does have its drawbacks.

For something as iconic as the Wizard, I think it's entirely reasonable to have different variants of an Int-based spellbook-caster.  The real question is whether you can ensure even support among all of the variant-classes, and that's a real risk at this point. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
all that means is that we ought to have the option to play the class we want, how we want.


   But we do not have that option.
    The baseball pitcher can only pitch from one spot, and must pitch in a certain manner.  The football line man must start on the line, not behind it or in front of it.  The basketball player does not get to use a football.  ... 
    You want to do certain things in the game, you select the class that does those things.  Trying to change the class just makes the class meaningless.


I think there's an error in that analogy.  The more accurate analogy would be:

I have a bakeshop (game system, game campaign).
I want to be able to bake a cake (a character).
Different cakes might follow different ways of making (class), and each cake may have different styles and flavors (options).
If we want ice cream cake (Wizard), are we supposed to ALWAYS take Guava Ice Cream (Vancian), or can we choose a different-flavored ice cream for the cake?


Or maybe... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

[ Sorry, just HAD to do that
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
If you can't swap out casting subsystems, you're resticting the appeal of classes. 


I don't agree with this statement.

If you can swap out casting subsystems, then you can't have any class features that reference specific systems in any way.  That's severely limiting on the types of class features you can implement. 

I don't necessarily agree with the "wizard is vancian only" approach, but "wizard is any caster system you can think of" does have its drawbacks.

For something as iconic as the Wizard, I think it's entirely reasonable to have different variants of an Int-based spellbook-caster.  The real question is whether you can ensure even support among all of the variant-classes, and that's a real risk at this point. 


Or you can have a single class, with a variety of selectable class features, with Vancian spellcasting as a selectable class feature.  You know, like how a certain 13th AgeTRPG is handling the issue.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
If you can't swap out casting subsystems, you're resticting the appeal of classes.

I disagree with this. Say, you have a Warlock, whose deal is that he casts encounter and at-will spells. Someone from 4e might say "I want to play the Wizard, but I don't like Vancian Casting." I as the DM will point them to the Background Sage, and maybe the Theme Magic User, and say "Ta da, you are a wizard. Your character sheet may say Warlock, but you are a Wizard. Here's your pointy hat."

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

@Chaosfang
It would seem you have a lot of contention in your groups over these issues.   It appears to me that this drives a lot of people whether they admit it or not.  I will admit I don't have this issue so I have a hard time being empathetic.   The fear that something will be made available that some DM they don't trust will force them to use.

I am sympathetic but I don't believe a game can be designed so that the exact same rules can suit every table regardless of who is sitting around it.  I'll be happy if the game can suit each table given that table will shape the rules through modules to their liking.  That would be success to me.

I don't want Salla at my rpg table and he doesn't want me.  I'd be rolling my eyes at his ignoring what I considered the important stuff and he'd be whining about stuff I cared about being enforced.   The problem with roleplaying is that it is not a single thing.  And that is the trap in our thinking.  We have to realize that roleplaying is many different things to many different people.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

If you can't swap out casting subsystems, you're resticting the appeal of classes. 


I don't agree with this statement.

If you can swap out casting subsystems, then you can't have any class features that reference specific systems in any way.  That's severely limiting on the types of class features you can implement.


I don't agree with that.  You just need a method of modifying it.  If you have a wizard class that lets you be a specialist, and that gives you extra spell slots specifically for only your specialty school, that translates very easily into a second MP pool if you're converting spell slots to magic points.  One could also say that 3rd level spells could shift from daily to encounter powers once you have access to 5th level spells (just an example, the real numbers would have to be determined through testing).  Under this second modified system, you could easily say extra spell slots granted for specialty school spells equate to more quickly converting spells from daily to encounter status.

While I do enjoy some classless RPGs, D&D has never been one of those.  Any attempt to make it such would likely be a bridge too far, at least for the next 2 or 3 editions.  However, there are ways to accommodate all playstyles while still giving each class a set of default mechanics.  Whether they do this or not will show if they truly are committed to the design concepts they have cited as their driving principles.

I don't necessarily agree with the "wizard is vancian only" approach, but "wizard is any caster system you can think of" does have its drawbacks.

For something as iconic as the Wizard, I think it's entirely reasonable to have different variants of an Int-based spellbook-caster.  The real question is whether you can ensure even support among all of the variant-classes, and that's a real risk at this point. 


That's why variant subsystems is better, IMO.  A set of guidelines for converting one casting subsystem to others will provide a great resource for converting feats that assume a default casting subsystem.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Sign In to post comments