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.


Oh please.  Take your edition warring somewhere else.  We get that you're a part of the vancian faith, but a lot of us aren't, and we want the option of switching it out for something that's actually fun for us.  In a system whose battle cry is modularity, and "don't get in the way," it's a very reasonable request.



Alternate magic systems will appear.  The question is whether they will appear in the core rule book and I have my doubts on that, though there might be one alternative system put in for people like you who don't like the vancian caster.  I think it more likely, though, that they will appear in the mage/arcane splat book.



At which point many DMs will just ban the splat book like they do now with splat books, or like they did in 3.xE when the splat books just piled insult on to injury...
"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.
So familiars, spellbooks, scrolls, intellect based and point hats are all SO cannon that anything that doesn't mirror all of these traits CAN'T be a wizard?

....but Vancian casting isn't and just needs to go?

The difference is that all the things you mentioned are quite common in Fantasy tropes and stories that aren't D&D based. Vancian casting is (largely) a D&D thing. That's why Vancian casting is usually more supported by older players, while newer players usually support axing it, or at least providing options that move away from it. Older players (again, usually; I don't speak for everyone) want D&D to simulate D&D tropes, while newer players want D&D to simulate Fantasy, not just the Sacred cow tropes of D&D. Why not provide options for both, that make everybody happy?



...but they are doing this.  However, it seems that if it doesn't have all of: pointy hat, familiar, int based, spellbooks AND is called a wizard than it's not good enough?

Hell, can I go out for the vancian crowd here and volunteer that the Vancian caster be called a sorcerer or a magician so the balance nazis can have 'Wizard'?  Wouls anyone disaprove?




I've answered this like 10 times now. You can't do it. Sorcerers and warlocks have their own style, feel, and even mechanics that will bring to the table, if you stuff the non-vancian wizard into the sorcerer role, then your screwing over sorcerer fans, same for warlocks. As it is they are ticking off 4E and other system wizard fans...
"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.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I've answered this like 10 times now. You can't do it. Sorcerers and warlocks have their own style, feel, and even mechanics that will bring to the table, if you stuff the non-vancian wizard into the sorcerer role, then your screwing over sorcerer fans, same for warlocks. As it is they are ticking off 4E and other system wizard fans...



You just post to be obtuse, don't you?

If I take a (for sake of example) sorceror and say 'yannow...Imma give him the casting slots of a wizard, and scrap these bloodlines and replace them with a spellbook, and scrap the CHA casting and make it INT', what do I have?  That's right.  A wizard called 'sorceror'.  Quit acting so damn fatalistic about how you 'cant' do this and 'cant' do that.  You can.  You've been able to since day 1.  If any class has AEDU or whatever (and it will), then just scratch and replace like you could have done in every edition EVER.







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

So, "suck it, 4vengers?" Unity is no longer a goal? Ok, then I'm probably done.


Uh, sure.  Yes.  That's exactly what I said.

You're reminding me of the people who go, "But you're not being tolerant of my intolerance!!!11!!11".  Unity with those who refuse to accept the possibility of working for the other side unless it is one -explicit- way is not Unity at all.  It's capitulation.

So people wanted different methods.  They said 'Okay, we want to tie them to classes to make balancing -- YOUR SACRED COW, not Anj's! -- easier'.  We said 'Okay'.  You said 'Oh hell no, not acceptable, under the bus, spit in our faces, suck it 4vengers!'...and then said 'but what about Unity?'.




They are not going to print out two separate classes that are functionally identical except for the way they memorize their spells, I'm sorry, but that would be a waste of pages. They might create a separate class that uses a different system like AEDU, but that class will have to have enough differences to justify it being a separate class like a few spells that are unique to it and some mechanics it gets that others don't. In other words its not going to be a Wizard which means we won't want to play it. Its not hard to understand and I don't think it would even be hard to implement my idea of a similar system to thief schemes, but instead call them 'arcane traditions' where you pick how you get your spell slots. AEDU would be Half power, extra save if you memorize them in an encounter slot. Get a new utility slot at 2nd and every 3rd level, encounter slot at 3rd and every third level, get a daily at 4th and every third level. max out at 4-5 of each then just allow them to pick which ones they memorize with lower slots upgrading to higher levels, but still having the ability to memorize lower level 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.
3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...

I'm still not sold that a huge percentage of people won't be able to accept the loss of encounter powers considering apparently (judging from the sample wizard) they:
1) Still get a good number of at wills.
2) Get something like twice as many daily spell slots.
3) Can choose to configure each daily power with any matching or lower power spell (and could just choose to always set the same ones all the time and keep the ratios of utility and combat spells at 4e figures if they don't want to deal with swapping).

4) And also we don't know for sure that some class or theme feature won't allow you to declare a few signature daily powers you have outleveled a bit as the equivalent of encounter powers.
Take away the last 4 years of technological and medical advancements and see if you like the real world. Didn't think so...



If you'd asked that in 1958 you probably would have heard 'No, thatd be terrible!'

If you'd asked it in 1960, I'd wager you get a whole ton of 'YES!'.  Modern is not equal to good.  Ask Thalidomide.

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


At which point many DMs will just ban the splat book like they do now with splat books, or like they did in 3.xE when the splat books just piled insult on to injury...



Well I will assure you that some non-vancian is going to be in players handbook one.  And since classes by definition are not modules but are in fact always optional and thus modular, they won't stand out as things to include or exclude.

I'm starting to figure you out Lokaire.  Are you playing with a bunch of guys that disagree with you?  Is your DM, a person who prefers 3e?  

If so why not DM your own campaign? 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

YES, the 4vengers are hypocrits & worse.



Troll much?
"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.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.

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.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I've answered this like 10 times now. You can't do it. Sorcerers and warlocks have their own style, feel, and even mechanics that will bring to the table, if you stuff the non-vancian wizard into the sorcerer role, then your screwing over sorcerer fans, same for warlocks. As it is they are ticking off 4E and other system wizard fans...



You just post to be obtuse, don't you?

If I take a (for sake of example) sorceror and say 'yannow...Imma give him the casting slots of a wizard, and scrap these bloodlines and replace them with a spellbook, and scrap the CHA casting and make it INT', what do I have?  That's right.  A wizard called 'sorceror'.  Quit acting so damn fatalistic about how you 'cant' do this and 'cant' do that.  You can.  You've been able to since day 1.  If any class has AEDU or whatever (and it will), then just scratch and replace like you could have done in every edition EVER.



No actually you still have to swap out the class features that give extra damage or whatever (4E let you add your secondary modifier to damage, and had a bunch of cool sorcerer mechanics like adding your secondary mod to your AC), and there will be sorcerer specific spells and wizard specific spells, and if you swap them out, then your basically at that point changing 50% of the class and doing the developers job for them. At that point I'd just play 13th age...
"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.
3. Vancian casting is in core. WotC say bye to a huge chunk of your player base...

I'm still not sold that a huge percentage of people won't be able to accept the loss of encounter powers considering apparently (judging from the sample wizard) they: 1) Still get a good number of at wills. 2) Get something like twice as many daily spell slots. 3) Can choose to configure each daily power with any matching or lower power spell (and could just choose to always set the same ones all the time and keep the ratios of utility and combat spells at 4e figures if they don't want to deal with swapping). 4) And also we don't know for sure that some class or theme feature won't allow you to declare a few signature daily powers you have outleveled a bit as the equivalent of encounter powers.



Yeah, you like WotC don't see what made the 4E wizard so special. they had a total of 4-5 encounter, 4-5 utility, and 4-5 daily spells total at max level (30). You would have to trade out half your spells to match that and in order to do that you'd have to change up the power level of the spells or the AEDU wizard is going to be much much better than the vancian one. Also we basically want all of the features of the 5E wizard in the playtest, we just want a different system to grant our spell slots, why is this so hard to grasp?
"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.

At which point many DMs will just ban the splat book like they do now with splat books, or like they did in 3.xE when the splat books just piled insult on to injury...



Well I will assure you that some non-vancian is going to be in players handbook one.  And since classes by definition are not modules but are in fact always optional and thus modular, they won't stand out as things to include or exclude.

I'm starting to figure you out Lokaire.  Are you playing with a bunch of guys that disagree with you?  Is your DM, a person who prefers 3e?  

If so why not DM your own campaign? 



I am usually the DM and my choice of games is a 30+ mile drive that I can't afford or play online. I don't want WotC to make my prefered play style a fringe choice, because that will just make it that much harder to find a game...
"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.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I've answered this like 10 times now. You can't do it. Sorcerers and warlocks have their own style, feel, and even mechanics that will bring to the table, if you stuff the non-vancian wizard into the sorcerer role, then your screwing over sorcerer fans, same for warlocks. As it is they are ticking off 4E and other system wizard fans...



You just post to be obtuse, don't you?

If I take a (for sake of example) sorceror and say 'yannow...Imma give him the casting slots of a wizard, and scrap these bloodlines and replace them with a spellbook, and scrap the CHA casting and make it INT', what do I have?  That's right.  A wizard called 'sorceror'.  Quit acting so damn fatalistic about how you 'cant' do this and 'cant' do that.  You can.  You've been able to since day 1.  If any class has AEDU or whatever (and it will), then just scratch and replace like you could have done in every edition EVER.


To be fair, just taking another class and changing the name only works if the class has no mechanics, other than the casting subsystem, that creates the class' flavor (and even that breaks down, as I will mention below).  If the ability to learn new spells from scrolls and enemy spellbooks is a wizard class feature and not part of their casting subsystem, then the name change just doesn't work at fulfilling the concept.  That's why modular subsystems are so important.  If you don't have them, then all you can ever have is a vancian caster who learns spells from scrolls and enemy spellbooks.

Also, as mentioned before, if the ability to learn spells from scrolls and enemy spellbooks is tied to the casting system and not the class, you're still stuck with vancian even if they have modular subsystems.

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.

No actually you still have to swap out the class features that give extra damage or whatever (4E let you add your secondary modifier to damage, and had a bunch of cool sorcerer mechanics like adding your secondary mod to your AC), and there will be sorcerer specific spells and wizard specific spells, and if you swap them out, then your basically at that point changing 50% of the class and doing the developers job for them. At that point I'd just play 13th age...



So NOW the excuse isn't that it CAN'T be done, but that you're 'doing the developers job for them'.

For 3 minutes of work that you'd have to do ONE TIME.

Yah, okay.  Whatever.  I do hope the developers look at the kind of people they have that they're trying to work with.

Well, you know their design goals, you know their intent with Vancian, and you know you'll have to do 3 minutes of work.  So...take care?  I hope you find what you're looking for?

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


I am usually the DM and my choice of games is a 30+ mile drive that I can't afford or play online. I don't want WotC to make my prefered play style a fringe choice, because that will just make it that much harder to find a game...



So giving the playerbase the ability to choose their playstyle will make yours a fringe one?  Doesn't that say something about the popularity of your playstyle?  

I feel for you group wise.  And I say that honestly.  Find some local players who will drive to you.  If you run a good game as DM you should be able to get that.  Don't limit yourself to your current group.  Make some new friends if necessary.  

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

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.



Sadly all we have to go on there is what JRRT provided us.  And none of his characters seems to have thought of this.

Thankfully someone came up with this game called D&D - where our hobbits, with the right feat or high enough CHA check, can recruit squadrons of giant eagles, the elves to ride them, & other crazy stuff.
Oh yeah, and we can kill the goblin DMPC before it bites off our finger & throttle any singing dwarves we might meet. 

No actually you still have to swap out the class features that give extra damage or whatever (4E let you add your secondary modifier to damage, and had a bunch of cool sorcerer mechanics like adding your secondary mod to your AC), and there will be sorcerer specific spells and wizard specific spells, and if you swap them out, then your basically at that point changing 50% of the class and doing the developers job for them. At that point I'd just play 13th age...



So NOW the excuse isn't that it CAN'T be done, but that you're 'doing the developers job for them'.

For 3 minutes of work that you'd have to do ONE TIME.

Yah, okay.  Whatever.  I do hope the developers look at the kind of people they have that they're trying to work with.

Well, you know their design goals, you know their intent with Vancian, and you know you'll have to do 3 minutes of work.  So...take care?  I hope you find what you're looking for?



It can't be done without alienating half your fanbase (and don't underestimate the size of the 4E fanbase). Also its way more than 3 minutes work to do it right. You have to change each spell for encounters and then do the math and balancing and testing, then you have to come up with a different house rule for each feat the wizard can get and how it applies to encounter spells as well as removing all the subsystems from the warlock or sorcerer as well as the spells that don't fit, then cramming the spells from the wizard that do fit in. At that point I'm basically making a new class from scratch almost that uses some of the wizards themes and class features and backgrounds. When I get to that point I'm just better off going with 4E or 13th age...

I also hope they take a look at the kind of people they are having to work with, you know the currently paying 4E customers that want more 4E style stuff, you know the ones they are making $250,000+ a month on from DDi and the ones that pushed some of their D&D books to the top of best seller lists. You know the ones currently paying the bills.

I mean don't get me wrong, uniting the editions is a noble goal, but don't alienate your current customers to do that as all your doing is biting off your nose to spite your face...
"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 am usually the DM and my choice of games is a 30+ mile drive that I can't afford or play online. I don't want WotC to make my prefered play style a fringe choice, because that will just make it that much harder to find a game...



So giving the playerbase the ability to choose their playstyle will make yours a fringe one?  Doesn't that say something about the popularity of your playstyle?  

I feel for you group wise.  And I say that honestly.  Find some local players who will drive to you.  If you run a good game as DM you should be able to get that.  Don't limit yourself to your current group.  Make some new friends if necessary.  

 



Shoving my play style into the 3rd or 4th splat book would make it a fringe choice yes, just like anything that has been put out in the 3rd or 4th splat book in nearly any edition.

The popularity of my play style is as legitimate or more so than the others as we had a very successful 4E up until mearls took over and slowed the production schedule and moved to essentials.

There are no local players and no local hobby shops. I guess I could get a bull horn and stand on the street corner and advertise a game or something,  but the police generally look down on that...
"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.

It can't be done without alienating half your fanbase (and don't underestimate the size of the 4E fanbase). Also its way more than 3 minutes work to do it right. You have to change each spell for encounters and then do the math and balancing and testing, then you have to come up with a different house rule for each feat the wizard can get and how it applies to encounter spells as well as removing all the subsystems from the warlock or sorcerer as well as the spells that don't fit, then cramming the spells from the wizard that do fit in. At that point I'm basically making a new class from scratch almost that uses some of the wizards themes and class features and backgrounds. When I get to that point I'm just better off going with 4E or 13th age...



But there are no 'wizard themes'.  There are 'themes' (or at least that's how it looks) so you wouldn't need to adjust -any- feats.  The only case in which your complaint has any substance is in spells: assuming that the AEDU class does not use the wizard spells at all, then yes you'd have to change them.  However that is a MASSIVE assumption.  Since feats are universal, they will by default apply to the AEDU class.  Just swap and go.  Now, on the off chance that no class with AEDU uses wizard spells, then you've got a problem and you're at that 13th Age point.  But giving ultimatum after ultimatum will not only NOT help you, it will actively hinder you -- ESPECIALLY when the ultimatums are based on massive assumptions.

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


It can't be done without alienating half your fanbase (and don't underestimate the size of the 4E fanbase). Also its way more than 3 minutes work to do it right. You have to change each spell for encounters and then do the math and balancing and testing, then you have to come up with a different house rule for each feat the wizard can get and how it applies to encounter spells as well as removing all the subsystems from the warlock or sorcerer as well as the spells that don't fit, then cramming the spells from the wizard that do fit in. At that point I'm basically making a new class from scratch almost that uses some of the wizards themes and class features and backgrounds. When I get to that point I'm just better off going with 4E or 13th age...



But there are no 'wizard themes'.  There are 'themes' (or at least that's how it looks) so you wouldn't need to adjust -any- feats.  The only case in which your complaint has any substance is in spells: assuming that the AEDU class does not use the wizard spells at all, then yes you'd have to change them.  However that is a MASSIVE assumption.  Since feats are universal, they will by default apply to the AEDU class.  Just swap and go.  Now, on the off chance that no class with AEDU uses wizard spells, then you've got a problem and you're at that 13th Age point.  But giving ultimatum after ultimatum will not only NOT help you, it will actively hinder you -- ESPECIALLY when the ultimatums are based on massive assumptions.



Its not just the spells, its the learning from a scroll, swapping spells out, using int as primary, having high knowledge skills, bookish type of feel that the Wizard has. I mean if they can get all that into a second class that is nearly identical to the Wizard I'd be all for it, unfortunately they are not going to waste space in a book to do this as a class that is 80% the same as a Wizard would just bump up the page count, better to put it in as an alternative to the vancian style of aquiring spell slots in a Thief Scheme style mechanic in the Wizard class call it Wizard Traditions...
"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.
Honestly, my biggest issue with the "simple fighter" and vancian wizard is that they bore me.

They're really just not fun or interesting to play. The playtest was a bit of a chore really. For. Me.

I want the fun back. The AEDU fighter and wizard were always fun. For. Me.

I'm just not likely to play a game that isnt fun.

I'm not alone here. Emerikol played 4e and quit because it wasn't fun for him/his group. Cool - I get that.

But if we've got a game where half the basic/core/essential/iconic classes are boring, then there's a problem. Fun is my sacred cow. I'd much rather have essentials knight/slayer over this awful playtest fighter.

The solution is really easy though- just write up An AEDU mechanic for classes. It can even be all "samey" or whatever in structure. Martial powers and arcane powers, etc.


That way everyone can play what they want, how they want. Nobody's finger in anyone else's soup. Just pick your style and Go.

If my friend wants a vancian wizard - great. I'll be over here doing AEDU. We both get the fun.

It can happen. It should happen. WotC should make it happen.

Shoving my play style into the 3rd or 4th splat book would make it a fringe choice yes, just like anything that has been put out in the 3rd or 4th splat book in nearly any edition.


First let me emphasize that most of these modules we are discussing are in the players handbook one of 5e.  We aren't talking a splatbook that comes out after the original three books.   The first players handbook is going to have the core (probably about 20% of the book and then the other 80% is going to be modules).  


The popularity of my play style is as legitimate or more so than the others as we had a very successful 4E up until mearls took over and slowed the production schedule and moved to essentials.


You should have stopped at legitimate.  All playstyles where the group is having fun are valid.



There are no local players and no local hobby shops. I guess I could get a bull horn and stand on the street corner and advertise a game or something,  but the police generally look down on that...



If you live in a really remote area then I can see you'll have issues.  Perhaps online is your best bet.  If you live in a non-remote area then I'd argue you aren't trying hard enough.  Seek out other geek activities and you might find those people also play D&D.  And I say that as a proud card carrying geek myself so no offense intended.



My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Its not just the spells, its the learning from a scroll, swapping spells out, using int as primary, having high knowledge skills, bookish type of feel that the Wizard has. I mean if they can get all that into a second class that is nearly identical to the Wizard I'd be all for it, unfortunately they are not going to waste space in a book to do this as a class that is 80% the same as a Wizard would just bump up the page count, better to put it in as an alternative to the vancian style of aquiring spell slots in a Thief Scheme style mechanic in the Wizard class call it Wizard Traditions...

Here's what I don't get: Let's assume there's a class who is built, mechanically, exactly as you want it. Hell, let's even say there's a slight difference, maybe it uses Cha to cast? What's to prevent you from going up to the DM and saying "Listen, I really want to play this class, mechanically, but I'd want the flavor of a Wizard. So can I take the Sage background, and House-rule it that I use Int to cast, and carry a Spellbook?" Maybe I'm just a more permissive DM than most, but if my player went up to me, and asked me that, I'd look to see if there were any obviously problematic things that would arise, if I said yes, and if I didn't see any, I'd say he could. Simple as that.

I agree with you, that there should be options for AEDU spellcasting (though personally, I don't much care for the D), but I think that they're giving them to us. I think it's a far better solution to the problem than some of the things that they could have done, and I think these "Wizard Traditions" are just not nessisary. 

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.



Its not just the spells, its the learning from a scroll, swapping spells out, using int as primary, having high knowledge skills, bookish type of feel that the Wizard has. I mean if they can get all that into a second class that is nearly identical to the Wizard I'd be all for it, unfortunately they are not going to waste space in a book to do this as a class that is 80% the same as a Wizard would just bump up the page count, better to put it in as an alternative to the vancian style of aquiring spell slots in a Thief Scheme style mechanic in the Wizard class call it Wizard Traditions...



Learning from a scroll = copy the wizard's chance if there's a roll.  If there's no roll, then flat-out copy it.
Using Int as a primary = Erase 'CHA' on the character sheet, write in 'INT'
'Feel' = Refluff.  THAT should be second nature, yes?

Spells are the one and only sticking point.  But at this point there's nothing I'm going to say that will change your mind (imagine that), and you can't give an example of anything that can't be merely swapped out that doesn't involve spell lists.  So I'm done.

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


Shoving my play style into the 3rd or 4th splat book would make it a fringe choice yes, just like anything that has been put out in the 3rd or 4th splat book in nearly any edition.


First let me emphasize that most of these modules we are discussing are in the players handbook one of 5e.  We aren't talking a splatbook that comes out after the original three books.   The first players handbook is going to have the core (probably about 20% of the book and then the other 80% is going to be modules).



Someone up-thread mentioned putting AEDU in a splat book...


The popularity of my play style is as legitimate or more so than the others as we had a very successful 4E up until mearls took over and slowed the production schedule and moved to essentials.


You should have stopped at legitimate.  All play styles where the group is having fun are valid.



I was talking from a business perspective 4E and 3.xE were the most successful so they should be the focus...


There are no local players and no local hobby shops. I guess I could get a bull horn and stand on the street corner and advertise a game or something,  but the police generally look down on that...



If you live in a really remote area then I can see you'll have issues.  Perhaps online is your best bet.  If you live in a non-remote area then I'd argue you aren't trying hard enough.  Seek out other geek activities and you might find those people also play D&D.  And I say that as a proud card carrying geek myself so no offense intended.



I've been looking for over 2 years here. There just aren't any players within 30+ miles of me. I'm trying online, see my signature, but its hit or miss unless you find a good group...
"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.
@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.


It's not so much a DM (mis)trust issue, as the presence of dysfunctional mechanics as core options.  Save or die?  We get it, you want it, have it as an optional rule, not a core concept.  Vancian wizard? Sure, have it around, just allow us to run a wizard without having to not only to reflavor but to mechanically tinker with stuff [because I want a wizard who casts magic while reading his spellbook, not someone whose mind expands exponentially to the point where he can memorize an entire spellbook then forget each spell he casts], in the same line of reasoning as to why no matter how reasonable a refluffing it is I can never get myself to accept refluffing a khopesh-wielding dwarf monk into having less accurate but deadlier fists, even when I write "power punch" or whatever other name is on there because I always know that a lot of the system is affected by the mechanics in spite of the fluff AND I'm not interested in messing around so much with the rules (a tweak here and there is fine, but overall changes is not normally my style, especially considering how, when I play a game, I expect to play by the rules, even when the rules explicitly allow and encourage me to do stuff outside of them).

Give players and DMs options.  Predetermining that a class is always complex unless you actively make it simple within the confines of that complexity (for example, loading yourself with nothing but burning hands or sleep JUST to keep it simple), or predetermining that a class is always simple unless you actively make it complex using options that can easily be removed by the DM (maneuvers come into mind), is what we consider "bad".  Because if you don't want fighters with daily powers (which are, by default, as seen in the playtests, available to them), I don't want casters with an ever-so-expansive set of spell slots that turn their awesomeness from "rare, but significant" to "common and significant AND BETTER".

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.


Computer games work on that precept, and a lot of the successful computer games work within their design space.

4E almost did that, except the ideas and suggestions on how to expand and alter the system were never really pronounced, and effectively left to just ONE page in the DMG (p.189 if memory serves me correctly).  Well that, and most of the optional portions were found in Unearthed Arcana articles (including duels, fortifications, henchmen, gambling, honor [which in some ways could be viewed as alignment-as-mechanics], etc.).

I'd rather give the choice of complexity or simplicity to the players, to the DM, to the group.
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.

 


And again that's fine.  But I'd rather that
1. the fluff is preserved
2. the mechanics support the fluff

than have the designers establish the fluff and supporting mechanics for me.  If a wizard for me is a sage locked up in his lonely tower, with all sorts of potions, spellbooks and magical devices, should it matter if I use mana points, spell slots, check-based or round-based, all of that would be a wizard?

Or is anything that isn't a D&D Vancian spellcasting Wizard not a Wizard at all?

EDIT: It's far easier to unbalance an inherently balanced game, than to balance an inherently unbalanced game.  Is it too hard to give groups the option to not have Vancian spellcasting and still have a Wizard, without having to mechanically alter anything?
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
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...
"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.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...
"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.
Heh, AEDU can stand for: Atwill, Encounter, Dramatic, Utility.
I liked this rule of three.

Danny

Heh, AEDU can stand for: Atwill, Encounter, Dramatic, Utility.



I'd be ok if they dropped the daily off it too...
"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.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...




You assume that the wizards will learn spells from scrolls(I haven't seen this indicated anywhere as of yet).  You assume that metamagic will be a thing, and that it if it is a thing it won't be able to apply to aedu powers.  You assume that the AEDU powers will be their own specific powers and won't instead just be slots where you can put the exact same spells you could get as a wizard (In pure speculation I would guess that there is going to be one grand unified spell list for casters to choose from as this cuts down on the possibility of trap options).
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...




You assume that the wizards will learn spells from scrolls(I haven't seen this indicated anywhere as of yet).  You assume that metamagic will be a thing, and that it if it is a thing it won't be able to apply to aedu powers.  You assume that the AEDU powers will be their own specific powers and won't instead just be slots where you can put the exact same spells you could get as a wizard (In pure speculation I would guess that there is going to be one grand unified spell list for casters to choose from as this cuts down on the possibility of trap options).



No, I'm basing most of my information off of the chats, articles, and blogs that they have been putting out constantly... go back and re-read them to see what I'm talking about...
"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.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...




You assume that the wizards will learn spells from scrolls(I haven't seen this indicated anywhere as of yet).  You assume that metamagic will be a thing, and that it if it is a thing it won't be able to apply to aedu powers.  You assume that the AEDU powers will be their own specific powers and won't instead just be slots where you can put the exact same spells you could get as a wizard (In pure speculation I would guess that there is going to be one grand unified spell list for casters to choose from as this cuts down on the possibility of trap options).



No, I'm basing most of my information off of the chats, articles, and blogs that they have been putting out constantly... go back and re-read them to see what I'm talking about...




yeah I read them too, and nowhere have I seen them confirm or even give credence to your assumptions (or even my wild speculation I just made, that ones more of a gut feeling).  If you could cite where your assumptions come from I'll check it out.  I mean this in the fact that I have read all the articles and chats and blogs the devs put out, and haven't heared or read anything that would give me the impression that any of your assumptions are anything besides wild speculation.  So yeah breakdown where your assumptions are coming from so that I can adequately see where you are coming from.  If you don't illustrate it for me I'm gunna assume you can't, and that you are making wild speculative statements based on nothing but your own fears.  Not only that but you are also using the speculation to fuel your argument as to why this will never work.  Don't give me any of that you don't have to defend your statements tripe either.  You totally have to or you admit that they are nothing but wild speculation youv'e made to try and further your argument.  I'm fully waiting to eat crow on this one if you can show me where these assumptions are coming from.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...




You assume that the wizards will learn spells from scrolls(I haven't seen this indicated anywhere as of yet).  You assume that metamagic will be a thing, and that it if it is a thing it won't be able to apply to aedu powers.  You assume that the AEDU powers will be their own specific powers and won't instead just be slots where you can put the exact same spells you could get as a wizard (In pure speculation I would guess that there is going to be one grand unified spell list for casters to choose from as this cuts down on the possibility of trap options).



No, I'm basing most of my information off of the chats, articles, and blogs that they have been putting out constantly... go back and re-read them to see what I'm talking about...




yeah I read them too, and nowhere have I seen them confirm or even give credence to your assumptions (or even my wild speculation I just made, that ones more of a gut feeling).  If you could cite where your assumptions come from I'll check it out.  I mean this in the fact that I have read all the articles and chats and blogs the devs put out, and haven't heared or read anything that would give me the impression that any of your assumptions are anything besides wild speculation.  So yeah breakdown where your assumptions are coming from so that I can adequately see where you are coming from.  If you don't illustrate it for me I'm gunna assume you can't, and that you are making wild speculative statements based on nothing but your own fears.  Not only that but you are also using the speculation to fuel your argument as to why this will never work.  Don't give me any of that you don't have to defend your statements tripe either.  You totally have to or you admit that they are nothing but wild speculation youv'e made to try and further your argument.  I'm fully waiting to eat crow on this one if you can show me where these assumptions are coming from.


I just want to point out, the suggestion it is possible to reflavor other classes to make them feel like a Wizard, is itself wild baseless speculation.
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.


That's not strictly accurate.  Most of the discussions that you mention that I saw related not to creating a character in 4e but to re-creating a 3e character in 4e, whereas the currect discussion is about wanting non-vancian options in a game that hasn't been completed yet.

4e certainly wasn't perfect.  And it's defenders, like the defenders of all other editions, run the gamut from reasonable to downright irrational.  However, at this point I feel obligated to point out your track record for railing against options, which can be easily seen by your posts in the discussion on paladins and alignment.  Ironically, also present in that argument is your vehement assertion that the name paladin implies certain flavors, which are intimately tied to mechanics, that completely defines that class.  Given your expressed opinions there, and the fact that you never accepted reflavoring as a valid way to create character concepts when it was suggested to you, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy in you expecting the ardent defenders of 4e to accept an answer that you personally rejected.




It's not that I rally against options.  What I rally against is people screwing with the definition of a word that has a valid meaning within the real world.  I especially rally when I offer out a compromise option that gives everyone what they want and someone vehemently holds to the fact that if it isn't the exact thing they want with the exact same name that they want it to have that it is in no way a compromise.  Essentially the same problem people are having here.  People hear that they are making the wizard the vancian caster and go crazy saying that it is a deal breaker.  I am sitting here and literally watching people creating imaginary and as of yet undefined classes such as the warlock just to say that it will be impossible to re-skin that as a wizard.  

It isn't an argument against options it's just an acknowledgement that the options may be chosen in a different place than some would like it to be made.  Yeah your casting is determined by your class.  The wizard is vancian the sorc may be spontaneous or power points and the warlock will likely be the AEDU caster.  There is no way to say it will be impossible to switch the names on them since WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW THE WIZARD IS BUILT YET.  As of yet the wizard we have seen has 0 class features specific to it outside of casting spells and how it recalls those spells known (A.K.A. Vancian casting).  There was literally nothing else wizard specific to that character in the already seen playtest.  

The currently seen Wizard got cantrips (at will Spell casting), Arcane magic (Vancian Spell casting), Weapon Proficiencies (all classes get this and it seems like an easily ignorable and transposable portion of any class), and the spell book(List of spells known).  So the other class needs to have EDU spell casting (The A is already covered by cantrips) weapon proficiencies and a spells known list.  Really that's not hard to make happen.  Everything else can be seated on the caster themes.

I've never had a problem with options.  I have a problem with people throwing tantrums because the game is being designed differently than they want it to be.  I have a problem with people denying that an option exists based solely on the fact that the option doesn't look exactly like they want it to.  

Even more I have a problem with people saying something validates an entire system's lack of specific wants/needs then complain that that answer isn't a valid way to deal with certain options.

More specifically on the Paladin thread (thanks for bringing this back up) I actually started up trying to find common ground and trying to reach compromises.  Then people started making faulty arguments saying things that were completely unfounded and completely untrue (I have no intention of going back to this argument so this paragraph is the last of it).  In fact many of the arguments people had on those fronts were based upon nothing ever written anywhere by anyone.  More precisely it was never written anywhere for anything that has to do with D&D.  Or if it was something written for D&D they misrepresented the content they were quoting to try and validate their case.  I dealt with the arguments presented to me within a debate.  Even more precisely after a while I even left off portions of my argument and simply fell back to certain key facts about what being a paladin means especially what it means within the context of D&D (check the paladin design goals my main point towards the end of that thread is in fact the opening line of the #1 design goal) (Well that and lay on hands the only mechanic to be on every paladin from 1st to 4th).  More distinctly in that thread I wasn't so much trying to say that things shouldn't happen I was more speculating on what was going to happen, and providing reasons as to why my speculation was more than likely correct.  Remember at the time of that thread these were D&D Next speculation forums.  I was speculating on what the design goals of the class would be like (looks to me like I was right on that bit of speculation by the by).  Sure I lost my cool a bit at some points in that debate but that happens to all of us.

It's never been about not liking options, or not wanting those options to exist, and it's not even about telling people they can't have their options.  I wouldn't do that because I want those options to exist as well.  It's more trying to tell people that their assumptions about the design are probably incorrect and that their assumptions about why things will never work are incorrect.  It's more about trying to suppose about how those options will be presented and how they can be presented in the fashion being hinted at.  It is more about exposing people to the idea that just because it doesn't follow how you  think it should be designed doesn't mean it is impossible or that it is being done incorrectly.  They are doing it in a manner differently than you would do it, and that is in fact fine.  It doesn't mean you and I won't have the options we want.  It just means those options might not be selected exactly like you think they should be.  The designers are there for a reason.  They spend even more of their day than we do trying to solve these problems in a multitude of ways.



The problem is your not understanding that your compromise is akin to wanting a truck and getting a jeep instead, its like a truck right? Especially when you can have your ford truck and I can have my Chevy truck without too much effort...




Except it isn't at all like that.  It's you getting exactly what you want (in this case alternate casting styles such as AEDU) in a manner different to the way you think it should be given.  You in fact go the one step further to completely invent reasons as to why it is entirely impossible citing things that don't even exist yet.



Yeah, no...

I already said if they can give me a spellbook wizard that swaps spells out and learns from scrolls, gets metamagic feats and appears identical to the wizard with the only difference being how they get their spell slots, then I would be perfectly ok with it, what you keep suggesting is taking someone elses favorite concept away and making it use AEDU and look exactly like a wizard, not something I or anyone wants to do...




You assume that the wizards will learn spells from scrolls(I haven't seen this indicated anywhere as of yet).  You assume that metamagic will be a thing, and that it if it is a thing it won't be able to apply to aedu powers.  You assume that the AEDU powers will be their own specific powers and won't instead just be slots where you can put the exact same spells you could get as a wizard (In pure speculation I would guess that there is going to be one grand unified spell list for casters to choose from as this cuts down on the possibility of trap options).



No, I'm basing most of my information off of the chats, articles, and blogs that they have been putting out constantly... go back and re-read them to see what I'm talking about...




yeah I read them too, and nowhere have I seen them confirm or even give credence to your assumptions (or even my wild speculation I just made, that ones more of a gut feeling).  If you could cite where your assumptions come from I'll check it out.  I mean this in the fact that I have read all the articles and chats and blogs the devs put out, and haven't heared or read anything that would give me the impression that any of your assumptions are anything besides wild speculation.  So yeah breakdown where your assumptions are coming from so that I can adequately see where you are coming from.  If you don't illustrate it for me I'm gunna assume you can't, and that you are making wild speculative statements based on nothing but your own fears.  Not only that but you are also using the speculation to fuel your argument as to why this will never work.  Don't give me any of that you don't have to defend your statements tripe either.  You totally have to or you admit that they are nothing but wild speculation youv'e made to try and further your argument.  I'm fully waiting to eat crow on this one if you can show me where these assumptions are coming from.


I just want to point out, the suggestion it is possible to reflavor other classes to make them feel like a Wizard, is itself wild baseless speculation.




"For the moment, we're looking at big structural changes (like, for instance, how a character casts spells) likely requires a different character class. While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended. Plus, 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. 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."

okay so I need to get some sleep so I'm gunna be brief in my synopsis. 

we think "alternate spellcasting method" is a strong enough hook to give a class a large portion of its mechanical identity

that right there means the spellcasting methods will basically be the entire core mechanics of the spellcasting classes.    Meaning that having powers issolated to a specific class (which would represent an expansive yet core mechanic) is off the table.  Spell casting method does not mean different spells or powers.  It means different method of casting the same spells.  This to me says it will be easy as heck to call them whatever I want to call them.

Bassed upon this I assume that it will be incredibly easy to say hey this thing is a wizard for my purposes.  Not wild baseless speculation.  I have a basis for the speculation, and I am fully willing to provide what I am basing it on.  If I wanted to I could find and cite the other articles for more expanses on my reasoning but it is late and I am tired.  If this hasn't fallen too many pages back by tomorrow I may try to find a few other places where I am basing my speculation on (I'm fairly sure they have at least once stated that this is exactly what they are aiming to do but before I confirm that I will try to find the quote).
So basically. they are saying that they want to appease the angry lot while also appeasing the grumpy old people lot.
Vancian wizard & AEDU Sorcerer basically confirmed as I'm taking it.

ALSO.... are mages in this? Illusionits? probably themes eh? 

I'm fine with this. I would expect a few other classes to be AEDU as well. Warlock probably. Maybe Assasin? I'm fine with this. It's a boring argument.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.

I just want to point out, the suggestion it is possible to reflavor other classes to make them feel like a Wizard, is itself wild baseless speculation.




"For the moment, we're looking at big structural changes (like, for instance, how a character casts spells) likely requires a different character class. While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended. Plus, 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. 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."

okay so I need to get some sleep so I'm gunna be brief in my synopsis. 

we think "alternate spellcasting method" is a strong enough hook to give a class a large portion of its mechanical identity

that right there means the spellcasting methods will basically be the entire core mechanics of the spellcasting classes.    Meaning that having powers issolated to a specific class (which would represent an expansive yet core mechanic) is off the table.  Spell casting method does not mean different spells or powers.  It means different method of casting the same spells.  This to me says it will be easy as heck to call them whatever I want to call them.

Bassed upon this I assume that it will be incredibly easy to say hey this thing is a wizard for my purposes.  Not wild baseless speculation.  I have a basis for the speculation, and I am fully willing to provide what I am basing it on.  If I wanted to I could find and cite the other articles for more expanses on my reasoning but it is late and I am tired.  If this hasn't fallen too many pages back by tomorrow I may try to find a few other places where I am basing my speculation on (I'm fairly sure they have at least once stated that this is exactly what they are aiming to do but before I confirm that I will try to find the quote).



To the contrary, I read the same quote to mean, each class will be completely “different” from, and “unique” compared to, the other classes.

The reason the spellcasting styles will correspond to unrelated classes is because the designers feel gaming elements, like “feats” - and even more so spells! - are incompatable with other spellcasting styles.

Thus with unrelated classes, using unrelated mechanics, and accessing unrelated feats and spells - it will be impossible to reflavor a non-Wizard as a Wizard.
Sign In to post comments